Churches of Asia for differing from him about Easter day And yet I beleiue you will confesse that God had not then declared himselfe about Easter nor hath now about Christmasse Anciently some good Catholique Bishops excommunicated and damned others for holding there were Antipodes and in this question I would faine know on which side was the sufficient proposall The contra-Remonstrants differ from the Remonstrants about the point of predetermination as a matter of faith I would knowe in this thing also which way God hath declar'd himselfe whether for Predetermination or against it Stephen Bishop of Rome held it as a matter of faith Apostolique tradition That Heretiques gaue true Baptisme Others there were and they as good Catholiques as hee that held that this was neither matter of Faith nor matter of Truth Iustin Martyr and Irenaeus held the doctrine of the Millenaries as a matter of faith and though Iustin Martyr deny it yet you I hope will affirme that some good Christians held the contrary St Augustine I am sure held the communicating of Infants as much Apostolique 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 Iudges of Appeales from all parts of the Church Catholique no not in Major causes and Major Persons whether the Bishop or Church of Rome did then hold the contrary doe you resolve me but now I am resolv'd they doe so In all these differences the point in question is esteem'd and propos'd 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 meanes to shew that we doe 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 mee briefly to this Dilemma Eyther in these oppositions one of the opposite Parts err'd damnably and denyed Gods truth sufficiently propounded or they did not If they did then they which doe deny Gods truth sufficiently propounded may goe 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 prov'd false Yet though they were as true as Gospell and as evident as Mathematicall 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 inferre either as the immediat production of the former premises or as a Corollary from this conclusion Therefore one only can be saved I doe not understand unlesse 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 sinnes upon repentance and consequently to ruine the Gospell of Christ I leave it to the Pope and the Cardinalls to determine For if against this it be alleadged that no man can repent of the sinne wherein he dies This muche I have already stopped by shewing that if it be a sinne of Ignorance this is no way incongruous 11 To the fourth You proceed in sleighting and disgracing your Adversary Pretending his objections are mean and vulgar and such as have been answered a thousand times But if your cause were good these Arts would be needlesse For though some of his objections have been often shifted by men that make a profession of devising shifts and evasions to save themselves and their Religion from the pressure of truth by men that are resolv'd they will say something though they can say nothing to purpose yet I doubt not to make it appear that neither by others have they beene truly and really satisfied and that the best Answere you give them is to call them Mean and vulgar objections 12 To the Fift But this paines might have been spared For the substance of his discourse is in a Sermon of D. Vshers and confuted four yeares agoe by Paulus Veridicus It seemes then the substance of your Reply is in Paulus Veridicus and so your paines also might well have been spared But had there been no necessity to help and peece out your confuting his Arguments with disgracing his person which yet you cannot doe you would have considered that to them who compare D. Potters Book the Arch-Bishops Sermon this aspersion will presently appear a poore detraction not to be answered but scorn'd To say nothing that in D. Potter being to answere a book by expresse Command from Royall Authority to leave any thing materiall unsaid because it had been said before especially being spoken at large and without any relation to the Discourse which he was to Answere had been a ridiculous vanity and foule prevarication 13 To the sixt In your sixt parag I let all passe saving only this That a perswasion that men of different Religions you must mean or else you speak not to the point Christians of divers Opinions and Communions may be saved is a most pernitious heresy and even a ground of Atheisme What strange extractions Chymistry can make I know not but sure I am he that by reason would inferre this conclusion That there is no God from this ground That God will save men in different Religions must have a higher strain in Logick then 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 whether contradictions will flow from the same fountaine let the Learned judge Perhaps you will say you intended not to deliver here a positive and measur'd truth and which you expected to be call'd to account for but only a high and tragicall expression of your just detestation of the wicked doctrine against which you write If you mean so I shall let it passe only I am to advertize the lesse-wary Reader that passionate expressions and vehement asseverations are no arguments unlesse it be of the weaknesse of the cause that is defended by them or the man that defends it And to remember you of what Boethius saies of some such things as these Nubila mens est haec ubi regnant For my part I am not now in Passion neither will I speak one word which I think I cannot justify to the full and I say and will maintaine that to say That Christians of different Opinions
but seldom qualifies them or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation Yet not so seldome but that out of it I could giue you an abstract of the Essentiall part of Christianity if it were necessary but I haue shewed it not so by confuting your reason pretended for the necessity of it at this time I haue no leasure to doe you curtesies that are so troublesome to my selfe Yet thus much I will promise that when you deliver a particular Catalogue of your Church Proposals with one hand you shall receiue a particular Catalogue of what I conceiue Fundamentall with the other For as yet I see no such faire proceeding as you talke of nor any performance on your own part of that which so clamorously you require on ours For as for the Catalogue which heâ—e you haue given us in saying You are obliged under pain of damnation to belieue whatsoever the Catholique 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 compos'd of one ship or an Army of one man The Author of Charity mistaken demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamentall 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 mouthes with be a Catalogue yet at least such a Catalogue it is not and therefore as yet you haue not perform'd what you require For if to set down such a PropositioÌ„ wherein are compriz'd all points taught by us to be necessary to salvation will serue you insteed of a Catalogue you shall haue Catalogues enough As we are oblig'd to belieue all under pain of damnation which God commands us to belieue There 's one Catalogue We are oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue all whereof we may be sufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church There 's another We are oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue Gods word 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 doe us reason and giue us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church Proposalls without leaving out or adding any such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to if you receiue not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals I for my part will giue you leaue to proclaim us Banckrupts 54 Besides this deceitfull generality of your Catalogue as you call it another main fault we finde with it that it is extreamly ambiguous and therefore to draw you out of the clouds giue me leaue 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 other point or points besides this be under the same penalty to be believed explicitely or no And if any what they bee I would know what you esteem the Proposalls of the Catholike 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 proposall 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 Councell without the Popes confirmation be such an obliging proposall or no Whether it be so in case there be no Pope or in case it be doubtfull who is Pope Whether the Decree of a generall Councell confirm'd by the Pope be such a Proposall and whether he be an Heretique that thinks otherwise Whether the Decree of a particular Councell confirm'd by the Pope be such a proposall Whether the Generall uncondemn'd practise 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 practise to be Tradition or to bee the Doctrine or practise of the Church be a sufficient assurance that it is so Whether we be bound under pain of damnation to belieue every Text of the vulgar Bible now authoriz'd by the Roman Church to bee the true translation of the Originalls of the Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles without any the least alteration Whether they that lived wheÌ„ 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 Catholique visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome Whether every Christian that hath ability and oportunity be not bound to endeavour to know explicitely the Proposalls of the Church Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity will not saue him that Actually and Explicitely disbelieves some doctrine of the Church not knowing it to be so and Actually belieues 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 erre in telling him so and whether any man can be oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue an Errour 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 haue that they neither erre nor deceive him in this matter Why Implicite Faith in Christ or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans salvation as well as implicit faith in the Church Whether when you say Whatsoever the Church proposeth you meane all that ever she propos'd or that only which she now proposeth and whether shee now proposeth all that ever she did propose Whether all the Books of Canonicall Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so and propos'd 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 paine of damnation to believe the Epistle of S. Iames and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonicall at least not to disbelieve it believe the contrary Lastly why it is not sufficient for any mans salvation to use the best meanes he can to inform his conscience and to follow the direction of it To all these demands when you haue given faire and ingenuous answers you shall heare further from me 55 Ad
the foundation is strong enough to support all such unnecâ—ssary additions as you terme them And if they once weighed so heavy as to overthrow the foundation they should grow to fundamentall errors into which your selfe teach the Church cannot fall Hay and stubble say you and such unprofitable stâ—ff laid on the roofe destroies not the house whilest the main pillars are standing on the foundatioâ— And tell us I pray you the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated I know you cannot doe it and therefore being uncertain whether or no you have cause to leave the Church you are certainly obliged not to forsake her Our blessed Saviour hath declared his will that we forgive a private offender seaventy seaven times that is without limitation of quantity of time or quality of trespasses and why then dare you alleadge his command that you must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not fundamentall What excuse can you faine to your selves who for points not necessary to salvation have been occasions causes and authors of so many mischiefes as could not but unavoidably accompany so huge a breach in kingdomes in commonwealths in private persons in publique Magistrates in body in soul in goods in life in Church in the state by Schismes by rebellions by war by famine by plague by bloudshed by all sorts of imaginable calamities upon the whole face of the earth wherein as in a map of Desolation the heavinesse of your crime appeares under which the world doth pant 24 To say for your excuse that you left not the Church but her errors doth not extenuate but aggravate your sinne For by this devise you sow seeds of endles Schismes and put into the mouth of all Separatists a ready answere how to avoid the note of Schisme from your Protestant Church of England or from any other Church whatsoever They will I say answer as you doe prompt that your Church may be forsaken if she fall into errors though they be not fundamentall and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errors which two grounds being once laid it will not be hard to infer the consequence that she may be forsaken 25 From some other words of D. Potter I likewise prove that for Errors not fundamentall the Church ought not to be forsaken There neither was saith he nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe To depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation Marke his doctrine that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ and yet he teacheth that the Church of Christ may erre in points not fundamentall Therefore say I we cannot forsake the Roman Church for points not fundamentall for then we might also forsake the Church of Christ which your selfe deny and I pray you consider whether you doe not plainly contradict your selfe while in the words aboue recited you say there can be no iust cause to forsake the Catholique Church and yet that there may be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome since you grant that the Church of Christ may erre in points not fundamentall and that the Roman Church hath erred only in such points as by and by we shall see more in particular And thus much be said to disprove their chiefest Answer that they left not the Church but her corruptions 26 Another evasion D. Potter bringeth to avoid the imputation of Schisme and it is because they still acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Member of the body of Christ and not cut off from the hope of salvation And this saith he cleeres us from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates 27 This is an Answere which perhaps you may get some one to approve if first you can put him out of his wits For what prodigious doctrines are these Those Protestants who believe that the Church erred in points necessary to salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schisme But others who believed that she had no damnable errors did very well yea were obliged to forsake her and which is more miraculous or rather monstrous they did well to forsake her formally and precisely because they iudged that she retained all meanes necessary to salvation I say because they so iudged For the very reason for which he acquitteth himselfe and condemneth those others as Schismatiques is because he holdeth that the Church which both of them forsooke is not cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvations whereas those other Zelots deny her to be a member of Christs body or capable of salvation wherein alone they disagree from D. Potter for in the effect of separation they agree only they doe it upon a different motive or reason were it not a strange excuse if a man would think to cloak his rebellion by alledging that he held the person against whom he rebelled to be his lawfull Soveraign And yet D. Potter thinks himselfe free from Schisme because he forsook the Church of Rome but yet so as that still he held her to be the true Church and to have all necessary meanes to Salvation But I will no further urge this most solemne foppery and doe much more willingly put all Catholiques in mind what an unspeakeable comfort it is that our Adversaries are forced to confesse that they cannot cleere themselves from Schisme otherwise then by acknowledging that they doe not nor cannot cut off from the hope of Salvation our Church Which is as much as if they should in plain termes say They must be damned unlesse we may be saved Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemne your zealous brethren of Heresy for denying the Churches perpetuity but doth not cleere your selfe from Schisme which consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith as you must professe your selfe to agree with the Church of Rome in all fundamentall Articles For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation and so condemne your selfe of Schisme And lastly even according to this your own definition of Schisme you cannot cleere your selfe from that crime unlesse you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own Assertions For if you doe not cut us off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation how come you to say in another place that you judge a reconciliation with us to be damnable That to depart from the Church of Rome there might be iust and necessary canse That they that have the understanding and meanes to discover their error and neglect to use them we dare
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 unlawfull certainly there lies upon us an unavoidable necessity of dividing unity either with you or with God and whether of these is rather to be done be ye judges 11 Irenaeus also saies not simply which only would doe you service there cannot possibly be any so important Reformation as to justify a separation from them who will not reforme But only they cannot make any corruption so great as is the pernitiousnesse of a Schisme Now They here is a relative and hath an antecedent expressed in Irenaeus which if you had been pleased to take notice of you would easily have seene that what Irenaeus saies 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 warre such as straine at gnatts swallow Camels And these faith he can make no reformation of any such importance as to countervaile 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 cruell Tyranny both upon the bodies and soules 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 dogmâ—te sed de Ritu vel Ritus potiùs tempore not about any Catholique doctrine but only a Ceremony or rather about the time of observing it so Petavius values it which was just all one as if the Church of France should excommunicate those of their own Religion in England for not keeping Christmas upon the same day with them And seeing he was reprehended sharpely and bitterly for it by most of the Bishops of the world as Eusebius testifies and as Cardinall Perron though mincing the matter yet confesseth by this very Ierenaeus himselfe 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 Ecclesiasticall story of those times mentions no other notable example of any such Schismaticall presumption but this of Victor certainly we have great inducement to imagine that Irenaeus in this place by you quoted had a speciall aime 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 cleerely that he conceived there 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 saies indeed and very well that all things should be rather indured then we should consent to the division of the Church I would adde Rather then consent to the continuation of the division if it might be remedied But then I am to tell you that he saies not All things should rather be done but only All things should rather be indured or suffered wherein he speaks not of the evill of sinne but of Pain and Misery Not of tolerating either Error or Sinne in others though that may be lawfull much lesse of joyning with others for quietnesse sake which only were to your purpose in the profession of Errour and practise of sinne but of suffering any affliction nay even martyrdome in our own persons rather then 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 the next Paragraph you affirme two things but prove neither unlesse a vehement Asseveration may passe for a weake proofe You tell us first that the Doctrine of the totall deficiency of the visible Church which is maintained by divers chiefe Protestants implies in it vast absurdity or rather sacrilegious Blasphemy But neither doe the Protestants alleaged by you maintain the deficiency of the Visible Church but only of the Churches visibility or of the Church as it is Visible which so acute a man as you now that you are minded of it I hope will easily distinguish Neither doe they hold that the visible Church hath failed totally and from its essence but only from its purity and that it fell into many corruptions but yet not to nothing And yet if they had held that there was not only no pure visible Church but none at all surely they had said more then they could justify but yet you doe not shew neither can I discover any such Vast absurdity or Sacrilegious Blasphemy in this Assertion 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 aboue all the Roman had degenerated from the purity of the Gospell 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 Curtesy you intitle in your 10. § more moderate Protestants For these affirming the Perpetuall 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 affirme that they conceive very good hope of the Salvation of many of their ignorant
answerable but already answered The memorandums I would commend to him are these 30 That not every separation but only a causelesse separation from the externall Communion of any Church is the Sinne of Schisme 31 That imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known errours and practising known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation and that this is the cause which Protestants alleage to justifie their separation from the Church of Rome 32 That to leave the Church and to leave the externall Communion of a Church at least as D. Potter understands the words is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to haue those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as faith and obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publike worship of God This little Armour if it be rightly placed I am perswaded will repell all those Batteries which you threaten shall be so furious 33 Ad § 13. 14. 15. The first is a sentence of S. Austine against Donatus applied to Luther thus If the Church perished what Church brought forth Donatus you say Luther If she could not perish what madnesse moved the sect of Donatus to separate upon pretence to avoid the Communion of bad men Whereunto one faire answer to let passe many others is obvious out of the second observation That this sentence though it were Gospell as it is not is impertinently applied to Luther and Lutherans Whose pretence of separation be it true or be it false was not as that of the Donatists only to avoid the Communion of bad men but to free themselves from a necessity which but by separating was unavoidable of joyning with bad men in their impieties And your not substituting Luther in stead of Donatus in the latter part of the Dilemma as well as in the former would make a suspicious man conjecture that you your selfe took notice of this exception of disparitie between Donatus and Luther 34 Ad § 16. Your second onset drives only at those Protestants who hold the true Church was invisible for many ages Which Doctrine if by the true Church be understood the pure Church as you doe understand it is a certain truth and it is easier for you to declaime as you doe then to dispute against it But these men you say must bee Heretiques because they separated from the Communion of the visible Church and therefore also from the Communion of that which they say was invisible In as much as the invisible Church communicated with the visible 35 Ans. I might very justly desire some proofe of that which so confidently you take for granted That there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the Truth in the daies of our Fore-fathers but only such as dissembled their opinions lived in your Communion And truly if I should say there were many of this condition I suppose I could make my Affirmative much more probable then you can make your Negatiue We read in Scripture that Elias conceived There was none left besides himselfe in the whole kingdome of Israell who had not revolted from God and yet God himselfe assures us that he was deceived And if such a man a Prophet and one of the greatest erred in his judgement touching his own time and his own countrey why may not you who are certainly but a man and subject to the same passions as Elias was mistake in thinking that in former ages in some countrey or other there were not alwaies some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal But this answer I am content you shall take no notice of and thinke it sufficient to tell you that if it bee true that this supposed invisible Church did hypocritically communicate with the visible Church in her corruptions then Protestants had cause nay necessity to forsake their Communion also for otherwise they must haue joyn'd with thē in the practise of impieties and seeing they had such cause to separate they presume their separation cannot be schismaticall 36 Yes you reply to forsake the externall Communion of them with whom they agree in faith is the most formall proper sin of Schisme Ans. Very true but I would fain know wherein I would gladly be informed whether I bee bound for feare of Schisme to communicate with those that believe as I doe only in lawfull things or absolutely in every thing whether I am to joyn with them in superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common profession of the faith wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it This is that which you would haue them do or else forsooth they must be Schismatiques But hereafter I pray remember that there is no necessity of communicating even with true Beleevers in wicked actions Nay that there is a necessity herein to separate from them And then I dare say even you being their judge the reasonablenesse of their cause to separate shall according to my first observation justifie their separation from being schismaticall 37 Arg But the property of Schisme according to D. Potter is to cut off from the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates And these Protestants haue this property Therefore they are Schismatiques 38 Ans. I deny the Syllogisme it is no better then this One Symptome of the Plague is a Feaver But such a man hath a Feaver Therefore he hath the Plague The true conclusiō which issues out of these Premisses should be this Therefore he hath one Symptome of the plague And so likewise in the former therefore they haue one property or one quality of Schismatiques And as in the former instance The man that hath one signe of the plague may by reason of the absence of other requisites not haue the plague So these Protestants may haue something of Schismatiques and yet not be Schismatiques A Tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure and a just judge that condemnes a malefactor doe both sentence a man to death and so for the matter doe both the same thing yet the one does wickedly the other justly What 's the reason because the one hath cause the other hath not In like manner Schismatiques either alwaies or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate The same doe these Protestants yet are not Schismatiques The Reason because Schismatiques doe it and doe it without cause and Protestants haue cause for what they doe The impieties of your Church being generally speaking damnable unlesse where they are excus'd by ignorance and expiated at least by a generall repentance In fine though perhaps it may be true that all Schismatiques doe so yet universall affirmatiues are not converted and therefore it followes not by any good Logick that all that doe so when there is just cause for it must be Schismatiques The cause in this matter of separation is
For it is to require that they which believe some part of your Doctrine false should withall believe it all true Seeing therefore for any man to believe your Church in error and professe the contrary is damnable Hypocrisie to believe it and not believe it a manifest repugnancy and thirdly to professe it and to continue in your Communion as matters now stand a plain impossibility what remaines but that whosoever is supposed to have just reason to disbelieve any doctrine of your Church must of necessity forsake her Communion Vnlesse you would remit so farre from your present rigour as to allow them your Churches communion who publiquely professe that they doe not believe every article of her established Doctrine Indeed if you would doe so you might with some coherence suppose your Church in error and yet finde fault with men for abandoning her communion because they might continue in it and suppose her in error But to suppose your Church in error and to excommunicate all those that believe your own supposition and then to complain that they continue not in your communion is the most ridiculous incongruity that can be imagined And therefore though your corruptions in doctrine in themselves which yet is false did not yet your obliging us to professe your doctrine uncorrupted against knowledge and conscience may induce an obligation to depart from your communion As if there were any society of Christians that held there were no Antipodes notwithstanding this error I might communicate with them But if I could not doe so without professing my selfe of their beleefe in this matter then I suppose I should be excus'd from Schisme if I should forsake their communion rather then professe my selfe to believe that which I doe not believe Neither is there any contradiction or shadow of contradiction that it may be necessary for my Salvation to depart from this Churches communion And that this Church though erring in this matter wants nothing necessary to Salvation And yet this is that manifest contradiction which D. Potter you say will never be able to salve viz. That there might be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and practices though she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation 60 And your Reason wherewith you prove that there is in these words such a plain contradiction is very notable For say you if she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation how could it be necessary to Salvation to forsake her Truly Sir if this be a good manner of proving it is a very ready way to prove any thing for what is there that may not be proved if it be proofe enough to aske how it can be otherwise Me thinkes if you would convince D. Potter's words of manifest contradiction you should shew that he affirmes and denies the same of the same From which fault me thinkes he should be very innocent who saies only that that may be damnable to one which is not so to another and that may be necessary for one which is not necessary for another And this is all that D. Potter saies here viz. That the profession of a falsehood to him that believes it may be not damnable and yet damnable to him that believes the contrary Or that not to professe a falsehood in him that knowes it to be so is necessary to Salvation and yet not so in him that by error conceives it to be a truth The words by you cited and charged with unsalvable contradiction are in the 75. pag. But in the progresse of the same particular discourse in the next page but one he gives such evident reason of them which can hardly be done to prove implicancy true that whereas you say he will never be able to salve them from contradiction I believe any indifferent reader having considered the place will be very apt to think that you whatsoever you pretend were very able to have done this curtesy for him if your will had been answerable to your ability I will set down the words and leave the Reader to condemne or absolve them To forsake the errors of that Church and not to joyne with her in those practices which we account erroneous wee are enforced by necessity For though in the issue they are not damnable to them which belieue as they professe yet for us to professe avow by oath as the Church of Rome enioynes what we belieue not were without question damnable And they with their errours by the grace of God might goe to Heaven when we for our hypocrisie and dissimulation he might haue added and Perjury should certainly be condemned to Hell 61 Ad § 20. But a Church not erring in Fundamentalls though erring in other matters doth what our Saviour exacts at her hands doth as much as lies in her power to doe Therefore the Communion of such a Church is not upon pretence of Errour to be forsaken The consequence is manifest The Antecedent is proved because God by D. Potters confession hath promised his assistance no further nor is it in her power to doe more then God doth assist her to doe Ans. The promise of Divine Assistance is two fold Absolute or Conditionall That there shall be by Divine providence preseru'd in the world to the worlds end such a company of Christians who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation and nothing inevitably destructive of it This and no more the Doctor affirmes that God hath promised absolutely Yet he neither doubts nor denies but that a farther assistance is conditionally promised us even such an assistance as shall lead us if we be not wanting to it and our selves into all not only necessary but very profitable truth and guard us from all not only destructive but also hurtfull Errours This I say he neither denies nor questions And should he haue done so hee might haue been confuted by evident and expresse Text of Scripture When therefore you say That a Church not erring in Fundamentalls doth as much as by Gods assistance lies in her power to doe This is manifestly untrue For Gods assistance is alwaies ready to promote her farther It is ready I say but on condition the Church does implore it on condition that when it is offered in the divine directions of Scripture and reason the Church be not negligent to follow it If therefore there be any Church which retaining the foundation builds hay and stubble upon it which believing what is precisely necessary erres shamefully and dangerously in other things very profitable This by no meanes argues defect of divine assistance in God but neglect of this assistance in the Church Neither is there any reason why such a Church should please her selfe too much for retaining Fundamentall truths while shee remaines so regardlesse of others For though the simple defect of some truths profitable onely and not simply necessary may consist with salvation Yet who is there that can giue her sufficient assurance that the neglect
generally used as if it may be justly used in any place by those that haue power and think they haue truth certainly they cannot with reason deny but that it may bee used in every place by those that haue power as well as they and think they haue truth as wel as they what could follow but the maintenance perhaps of truth but perhaps onely of the profession of it in one place the oppression of it in a hundred What will follow from it but the preservation peradventure of unity but peradventure only of uniformity in particular States Churches but the immortalizing the greater and more lamentable divisions of Christendome and the world And therefore what can follow from it but perhaps in the judgement of carnall policie the temporall benefit and tranquillity of temporall States and Kingdomes but the infinit prejudice if not the desolation of the kingdome of Christ And therefore it well becomes thē who haue their portions in this life who serve no higher State then that of England or Spain or France nor this neither any further then they may serue themselves by it who thinke of no other happinesse but the preservation of their own fortunes and tranquillity in this world who think of no other meanes to preserve States but humane power and Machiavillian policie and belieue no other Creed but this Regi aut Civitati imperium habenti nihil iniustum quod utile Such men as these it may become to maintaine by worldly power and violence their State instrument Religion For if all be vain and false as in their judgement it is the present whatsoever is better then any because it is already setled and alteration of it may draw with it change of States and the change of State the subversion of their fortune But they that are indeed servants and lovers of Christ of truth of the Church and of man-kinde ought with all courage to oppose themselves against it as a common enemy of all these They that know there is a King of Kings and Lord of Lords by whose will and pleasure Kings and Kingdomes stand and fall they know that to no King or state any thing can be profitable which is unjust and that nothing can be more evidently unjust then to force weak men by the profession of a religion which they believe not to loose their owne eternall happinesse out of a vain and needlesse feare least they may possibly disturb their temporall quietnesse There is no danger to any state from any mans opinion unlesse it be such an opinion by which disobedience to authority or impiety is taught or licenc'd which sort I confesse may justly be punished as well as other faults or unlesse this sanguinary doctrine bee joyn'd with it that it is lawfull for him by humane violence to enforce others to it Therefore if Protestants did offer violence to other mens consciences and compell them to embrace their Reformation I excuse them not much lesse if they did so to the sacred Persons of Kings and those that were in authority over them who ought to be so secur'd from violence that even their unjust and tyrannous violence though it may be avoided according to that of our Saviour When they persecute you in one Citty fly into another yet may it not be resisted by opposing violence against it Protestants therefore that were guilty of this crime are not to be excused and blessed had they been had they chosen rather to be Martyrs then murderers and to dye for their religion rather then to fight for it But of all the men in the world you are the most unfit to accuse them hereof against whō the soules of the Martyrs from under the Altar cry much lowder then against all their other Persecutors together Who for these many ages together haue daily sacrificed Hecatombes of innocent Christians under the name of Heretiques to your blind zeal and furious superstition Who teach plainly that you may propagate your Religion whensoever you haue power by deposing of Kings and invasion of Kingdomes think when you kill the adversaries of it you doe God good service But for their departing corporally from them whom mentally they had forsaken For their forsaking the externall Cōmunion company of that part of the unreformed part of the Church in their superstitions impieties thus much of your accusation we embrace glory in it And say though some Protestants might offend in the manner or the degree of their separation yet certainly their separation it selfe was not Schismaticall but innocent and not only so but just and necessary And as for your obtruding upon D. Potter that he should say There neither was nor could be iust cause to doe so no more then to depart from Christ himselfe I haue shewed divers times already that you sdeal very injuriously with him confounding together Departing from the Church and Departing from some generall opinions and practises which did not constitute but vitiate not make the Church but marre it For though he saies that which is most true that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church that is to cease being a member of the Church no more then to depart from Christ himself in as much as these are not divers but the same thing yet he no where denies but there might be iust and necessary cause to depart from some opinions and practises of your Church nay of the Catholique Church And therefore you doe vainly to infer that Luther and his followers for so doing were Schismatiques 97 Ad § 35. I answer in a word that neither are Optatus his sayings rules of Faith and therefore not fit to determine Controversies of Faith And then that Majorinus might well be a Schismatique for departing from Ca cilianus and the Chayre of Cyprian Peter without cause and yet Luther and his followers who departed from the Communion of the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of their own Diocesse be none because they had just and necessary cause of their departure For otherwise they must haue continued in the profession of known Errours and the practise of manifest corruptions 98 Ad § 36. In the next Section you tell us that Christ our Lord gaue S. Peter his successors authority over his whole Militant Church And for proof hereof you first referre us to Brerely citing exactly the places of such cheefe Protestants as haue confessed the antiquity of this point Where first you fall into the Fallacy which is called Ignoratio elenchi or mistaking the Question for being to proue this point true you onely prove it ancient Which to what purpose is it when both the parties litigant are agreed that many errors were held by many of the ancient Doctors much more ancient then any of those who are pretended to be confessed by Protestants to haue held with you in this matter and when those whom you haue to doe with and whom it is vain to dispute against but
out of Principles received by them are all peremptory that though novelty be a certain note of falshood yet no antiquity lesse then Apostolicall is a certain note of truth Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend that Protestants did confesse the Fathers against them in this point For the point here issuable is not whether S. Peter were head of the Church Nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church Nor whether he had authority over it given him by the Church But whether by Divine right and by Christs appointment he were Head of the Catholique Church Now having perused Brerely I cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with you in this point And the Reader hath reason to suspect that you also out of all the Fathers could not finde any one authority pertinent to this purpose for otherwise you were much to blame citing so few to make choice of such as are impertinent For let the understanding Reader peruse the 55. Epist. of S. Cyprian with any ordinary attention out of which you take your first place and I am confident hee shall finde that he meanes nothing else by the words quoted by you But that in one particular Church at one time there ought to bee but one Bishop and that he should be obeyed in all things lawfull The non-performance whereof was one of the most ordinary causes of heresies against the Faith and Schisme from the Communion of the Church Vniversall He shall finde secondly and that by many convincing Arguments that though he write to Cornelius Bishop of Rome yet hee speaks not of him but of himselfe then Bishop of Carthage against whom a faction of Schismatiques had then set up another And therefore here your ingenuitie is to bee commended aboue many of your side For whereas they ordinarily abuse this place to prove that in the whole Church there ought to be but one Priest and one Iudge you seem somewhat diffident hereof and thereupon say that these words plainly condemne Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Vniversall or of every particular Church But whether they condemne Luther is another Question The question here is whether they plainly proue the Popes Supremacy over al other Bishops which certainly they are as far from proving as from proving the supremacy of any other Bishop seeing it is evident they were intended not of one Bishop over the whole Catholique Church but of one Bishop in one particular Church 99 And no lesse impertinent is your saying out of Optatus if it be well lookt into though at the first sight it may seem otherwise because Optatus his scene happened to be Rome whereas S. Cyprians was Carthage The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular Now Optatus going upon S. Cyprians aboue mentioned ground of one Bishop in one Church proves them Schismatiques for so doing and he proves it by this Argument S. Peter was first Bishop of Rome neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chaire understand in that Citty for in other places others I hope had Chaires besides S. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatique who against that one single Chaire erects another understand as before in that place making another Bishop of that Diocesse besides him who was lawfully elected to it 100 But yet by the way he stiles S. Peter head of the Apostles and saies that from thence he was called Cephas Ans. Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a head whereas it is a Syriack word and signifies a stone Besides S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not have supreme Authority over them And indeed that S. Peter should have authority overall the Apostles and yet exercise no one act of Authority over any one of them and that they should shew to him no signe of subjection me thinkes is as strange as that a King of England for twenty five yeares should doe no Act of Regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it As strange me thinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to doe and that the Apostles after that those words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof S. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them S. Peter was the man but rather confirme it by saying the Kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them but it should not be so among them No lesse a wonder was it that S. Paul should so farre forget S. Peter and himselfe as that first mentioning him often he should doe it without any title of Honour Secondly speaking of the severall degrees of men in the Church he should not give S. Peter the highest but place him in equipage with the rest of the Apostles and say God hath appointed not first Peter then the rest of the Apostles but first Apostles secondly Prophets Certainly if the Apostles were all first to me it is very probable that no one of them was before the rest For by First all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sense the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must have been before every one of the rest And therefore they must be First in the other sense And therefore No man and therefore not S. Peter must be before any of them Thirdly and Lastly that speaking of himselfe in particular and perhaps comparing himselfe with S. Peter in particular rather then any other he should say in plain termes I am in nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles But besides all this Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but in your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farre from shewing that in the judgement of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much lesse by divine right successor to S. Peter in this his Headship Authority For what incōgruity is there if we say that he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church Vniversall Especially seeing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundations of the
not afraid of Giants His words are these The first instance then that Calvin alleageth against the Popes censures is taken from Eusebius a an Arrian author and from Ruffinus b enemie to the Roman Church his translator who writ c that S. IRENEVS reprehended Pope Victor for having excommunicated the Churches of Asia for the question of the day of Pasche which they observed according to a particular tradition that S. IOHN had introduced d for a time in their Provinces because of the neighbourhood of the Iewes and to bury the Synagogue with honour and not according to the universall tradition of the Apostles Irenaeus saith Calvin reprehended Pope Victor bitterly because for a light cause he had moved a great and perillous contention in the Church There is this in the text that Calvin produceth He reprehended him that he had not done well to cut off from the body of unity so many and so great Churches But against whom maketh this but e against those that obiect it for who sees not that S. IRENEVS doth not there reprehend the Pope for the f want of power but for the ill use of his power and doth not reproach to the Pope that he could not excommunicate the Asians but admonisheth him that for g so small a cause he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church Iraeneus saith Eusebius did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he should not cut off all the Churches of God which held this ancient tradition And Ruffinus translating and envenoming Eusebius saith He questioned Victor that he had not done well in cutting off from the body of unity so many and so great Churches of God And in truth how could S. IRENEUS have reprehended the Pope for want of power he that cries To the Roman Church because of a more powerfull principality that is to say as aboue appeareth h because of a principality more powerfull then the temporall or as wee have expounded other where because of a more powerful Original i it is necessary that every Church should agree And k therefore also S. IRENEVS alleageth not to Pope Victor the example of him and of the other Bishops of the Gaules assembled in a councell holden expressely for this effect who had not excommunicated the Asians nor the example of Narcissus Bishop of Ierusalem and of the Bishops of Palestina assembled in an other Councell holden expressely for the same effect who had not excommunicated them nor the example of Palmas and of the other Bishops of Pontus assembled in the same manner and for the same cause in the Region of Pontus who had not excommunicated them but only alleadges to him the example of the Popes his predecessors The Prelates saith he who have presided before Soter in the Church where thou presidest Anisius Pius Hyginus Telesphorus and Sixtus have not observed this custome c. and neverthelesse none of those that observed it have been excommunicated And yet O admirable providence of God the l successe of the after ages shewed that even in the use of his power the Popes proceeding was iust For after the death of Victor the Councels of Nicea of Constantinople and of Ephesus excommunicated again those that held the same custome with the provinces that the Pope had excommunicated and placed them in the Catalogue of heretiques under the titles of heretiques Quarto decumans But to this instance Calvins Sect doe annex two new observations the first that the Pope having threatned the Bishops of Asia to excommunicate them Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of Asia despised the Popes threats as it appeares by the answer of the same Polycrates to Pope Victor which is inserted in the writings of Eusebius and of S. IEROM and which S. IEROM seemeth to approve when he saith he reports it to shew the spirit and authority of the man And the second that when the Pope pronounced anciently his excommunications he did no other thing but separate himself from the communion of those that he excommunicated and did not thereby separate them from the universall communion of the Church To the first then we say that so farre is this Epistle of Polycrates from abating and deminishing the Popes authority that contrary wise it greatly magnifies and exalts it For although Polycrates blinded with the love of the custome of his nation which he beleeved to be grounded upon the word of God who had assigned the fourteenth of the Moneth of March for the observation of the Pasche and upon the example of S. IOHNS tradition maintaines it obstinately Neverthelesse this that he answeres speaking in his own name and in the name of the Councell of the Bishops of Asia to whom he presided I feare not those that threaten us for my elders have said it is better to obey God then man Doth it not shew that had it not been that he beleeved the Popes threat was against the expresse word of God there had been cause to feare it and he had been obliged to obey him for m who knowes not that this answer it is better to obey God then men is not to be made but to those whom we were obliged to obey if their commandements were not contrary to the commandements of God And that he adds that he had called the Bishops of Asia to a Nationall Councell being n summoned to it by the Pope doth it not insinuate that the other Councels whereof Eusebius speaks that were holden about this matter through all the provinces of the Earth and particularly that of Palestina which if you beleeve the act that Beda said came to his hands Theophilus Archbishop of Cesarea had called by the auctority of Victor were holden at the instance of the Pope and consequently that the Pope was the first mover of the universall Church And that the Councels of Nicea of Constantinople of Ephesus embraced the censure of Victor and excommunicated those that observed the custome of Polycrates doth it not prove that it was not the Pope but o Polycrates that was deceived in beleeving that the Popes cōmandement was against Gods commandement And that S. IEROM himselfe celebrates the Paschall Homelies of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria which followed the order of Nicea concerning the Pasche Doth it not iustifie that when S. IEROM saith that he reports the Epistle of Polycrates to shew the spirit and authority of the man he intends by authority not authority of right but of fact that is to say the credit that Polycrates had amongst the Asians and other Quarto decimans These are the Cardinall words The most materiall and considerable passages whereof to save the trouble of repetition I have noted with letters of reference whereunto my answers noted respectively with the same letters follow now in order a If Eusebius were an Arrian author It is nothing to the purpose what he writes there is no Arrianisme
THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS A SAFE VVAY TO SALVATION OR AN ANSVVER TO A BOOKE ENTITLED MERCY AND TRVTH Or Charity maintain'd by Catholiques Which pretends to prove the Contrary By WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH Master of Arts of the Vniversity of OXFORD Isaac Casaubon in Epist. ad Card. Perron Regis IACOBI nomine scriptâ Rex arbitratur rerum absolutè necessariarum ad salutem non magnum esse numerum Quare existimat ejus Majestâ—s nullam ad ineundam concordiam breviorem viam fore quà m si diligentèr sepatentur necessaria à non necessariis ut de necessariis conveniat omnis opera insumatur in non necessariis libertati Christianae locus detur Simpliciâ—er necessaria Rex appellat quae vel expresse verbum Dei praecipit credenda faciendave vel ex verbo Dei necessariâ consequentiâ vetus Ecclesia elicuit Si ad decidendas hodiernas Controversias haec distinctio adhiberetur jus divinum à positivo sen Ecclesiastico candidè separaretur non videtur de iius quae sunt absolutè necessaria inter pios moderatos viros longa aut acris contentio futura Nam paucailla sunt ut modò dicebamus fere ex aequo omnibus probantur qui se Christianos dici postulant Atque istam distinctionem Sereniss Rex tanti putat esse momenti ad minuendas Controversias quae hodie Ecclesiam Dei tantopere exercent ut omnium pacis studiosorum judicet officium esse diligentissimè hanc explicare docere urgere OXFORD Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD and are to be sold by Iohn Clarke under St Peters Church in Corn-hill Anno Salutis M.DC.XXXVIII TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE CHARLES By the Grace of God KING of great Britaine France Ireland Defendor of the Faith c. May it please your most excellent Majesty I Present with all humility to Your most sacred hands a Defence of that Cause which is ought to be infinitely dearer to you then all the world Not doubting but upon this Dedication I shall be censur'd for a double boldnesse both for undertaking so great a Work so far beyond my weak abilities and againe for presenting it to such a Parton whose judgement I ought to fear more then any Adversary But for the first it is a satisfaction to my selfe and may be to others that I was not drawn to it out of any vain opinion of my selfe whose personall defects are the only thing which I presume to know but undertook it in obedience to Him who said Tu conversus confirma fratres not to S. Peter only but to all men being encouraged also to it by the goodnesse of the Cause which is able to make a weak man strong To the belief hereof I was not led partially or by chance as many are by the preiudice and prepossession of their Country Education and such like inducements which if they lead to truth in one place perhaps lead to error in a hundred but having with the greatest equality and indifferency made enquiry and search into the grounds on both Sides I was willing to impart to others that satisfaction which was given to my selfe For my inscribing to it your Maiesties sacred Name I should labour much in my excuse of it from high presumption had it not some appearance of Title to your Maiesties Patronage protection as being a Defence of that Book which by special order from your Maty was written some years since chiefly for the generall good but peradventure not without some aime at the recovery of One of your meanest Subiects from a dangerous deviation so due unto your Maty as the fruit of your own High humility and most Royall Charity Besides it is in a manner nothing else but a pursuance of and a superstruction upon that blessed Doctrine where With I have adorn'd arm'd the Frontispice of my Book which was so earnestly recommended by your Royall Father of happy memory to all the lovers of Truth Peace that is to all that were like himselfe as the only hopefull meanes of healing the breaches of Christendome whereof the Enemy of soules makes such pestilent advantage The lustre of this blessed Doctrine I have here endeavoured to uncloud and unveile and to free it from those mists and fumes which have been rais'd to obscure it by that Order which envenomes even poison it selfe and makes the Roman Religion much more malignant and trubulent then otherwise it would be whose very Rule and Doctrine obliges them to make all men as much as lies in them subjects unto Kings and servants unto Christ no farther then it shall please the Pope So that whether Your Maiesty be considered either as a Pious Sonne towards your Royall Father K. IAMES or as a tender hearted compassionate Sonne towards your distressed Mother the Catholique Church or as a King of your Subiects or as a Servant unto Christ this worke to which I can give no other commendation but that it was intended to doe 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 professe it could not be so proper to any Patron as to the great Defendor of it which stile your Maiesty 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 foule as persions both of Domestick Forraine enemies of which they can have no ground but their own malice and want of Charity But it is an argument of a despairing lost cause to support it selfe with these impetuous out-cries and clamors the faint refuges of those that want better arguments like that Stoick in Lucian that cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O damn'd villaine 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 goodnesse should damne to eternall 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 daÌ„ning us our not being so peremptory in damning them because we hope unaffected Ignorance may excuse theÌ„ would be lost therefore they are engag'd to act on this Tragicall part only to fright the simple and ignorant as we doe litle children by telling them that bites which we would not have them meddle with And truely that herein they doe but act a part and know themselves to doe so and deale with us here as they doe with the King of Spain at Rome whom they accurse and Excommunicate for fashion sake on Maundy-Thursday for detaining part of S. Peters Patrimony and absolve him without satisfaction on Good-Friday methinkes their faltring and inconstancy herein makes it very apparent For though for the most part they speak nothing but thunder and lightning to us damne us all without
and for disturbing the Churches peace and dividing Vnity for such matters is in a high degree presumptuous and Schismaticall 35 Grant this sixtly and it will follow unavoidably that Protestants cannot possibly be Heretiques seeing they believe all things evidently contain'd in Scripture which are suppos'd to be all that is necessary to be believed and so your Sixt Chapter is cleerly confuted 36 Grant this lastly and it will be undoubtedly consequent in contradiction of your seaventh Chapter that no man can shew more charity to himself then by continuing a Protestant seeing Protestants are suppos ' to believe and therefore may accordingly practise at least by their Religion are not hindred 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 firme and unmoveable cannot but bee the supporter of my Book and the certain ruine of yours is so farre from being according to your pretence detested by all Protestants that all Protestants whatsoever as you may see in their Harmony of confessions unanimously professe and maintain it And you your selfe C. 6. § 30. plainly confesse as much in saying The whole Edifice of the faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonicall Scripture And the sense and meaning of them is plain and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation 38 And thus your venome against me is in a manner spent saving only that there remain two litle impertinencies 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 induc'd mee to forsake Protestantisme and hitherto have not answered them 39 By the former of which objections it should seeme 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 grosse mistakes And yet why hee who makes scruple of subscribing the truth of one or two Propositions may not yet bee fit enough to maintain that those who doe subscribe them are in a saveable condition I doe not understand Now though I hold not the Doctrine of all Protestants absoluetly true which with reason cannot bee requir'd of mee 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 Protestancie destroies not Salvation For the Church of England I am perswaded that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodoxe 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 disturbe the peace or renounce the Communion of it This in my opinion is all intended by Subscription and thus much if you conceive mee not ready to subscribe your Charity I assure you is much mistaken 40 Your other objection against me is yet more impertinent and frivolous then the former Vnlesse perhaps it be a just exception against a Physitian that himself was sometimes in and recover'd himself from that disease which he undertakes to cure or against a guide in a way that at first before hee had experience himself mistook it and after wards found his error and amended it That noble writer Michael de Montai'gne was surely of a farre different mind for hee will hardly allow any Physitian competent but only for such diseases as himself had pass'd through And a farre greater then Montai'gne even he that said Tu conversus confirma fratres gives us sufficiently to understand that they which have themselves beene in such a state as to need conversion are not thereby made incapable of but rather engag'd and oblig'd unto and qualified for this charitable function 41 Neither am I guilty of that strange and preposterous zeale as you esteeme it which you impute to me for having been so long carelesse in removing this scandall against Protestants and answering my own Motives and yet now shewing such fervor in writing against others For neither are they other Motives but the very same for the most part with those which abused me against which this Book which I now publish is in a manner wholly imployed And besides though you Iesuits take upon you to have such large and universall intelligence of all state affaires and matters of importance yet I hope such a contemptible matter as an answer of mine to a litle peece of paper may very probably have been written and escaped your observation The truth is I made an answer to them three yeares since and better which perhaps might have been published but for two reasons one because the Motives were never publique untill you made them so the other because I was loath to proclaime to all the world so much weaknesse as I shewed in suffering my selfe to be abus'd by such silly Sophismes All which proceed upon mistakes and false suppositions which unadvisedly I took for granted as when I have set down the Motives in order by subsequent Answers to them I shall quickly demonstrate and so make an end The Motives then were these 1 Because perpetuall visible profession which could never be wanting to the Religion of Christ nor any part of it is apparently wanting to Protestant Religion so farre as concernes the points in contestation 2 Because Luther and his followers separating from the Church of Rome separated also from all Churches pure or impure true or false then being in the world upon which ground I conclude that either Gods promises did faile of performance if there were then no Church in the world which held all things necessary and nothing repugnant to Salvation or else that Luther and his Sectaries separating from all Churches then in the world and so from the true if there were any true were damnable Schismaticks 3 Because if any credit may be given to as creditable records as any are extant the Doctrine of Catholicks hath been frequently confirmed and the opposite doctrine of Protestants confounded with supernaturall and divine Miracles 4 Because many points of Protestant doctrine are the damned opinions of Hereticks condemned by the Primitive Church 5 Because the Prophecies of the old Testament touching the conversion of Kings and Nations to the true Religion of Christ
for Salvation if they deny it to us 17 Seaventhly whether any one Errour maintained against any one Truth though never so small in it selfe yet sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by almighty God doe not destroy the Nature and Vnity of Faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding Salvation 18 Eightly if this be so how can Lutherans Calvinists Zuinglions and all the rest of disagreeing Protestants hope for salvation since it is manifest that some of them must needs erre against some such truth as is testified by almighty God either fundamentall or at least not fundamentall 19 Ninthly we constantly urge and require to haue a particular Catalogue of such points as he calls fundamentall A Catalogue I say in particular and not only some generall definition or description wherein Protestants may perhaps agree though wee see that they differ when they come to assigne what points in particular be fundamentall and yet upon such a particular Catalogue much depends as for example in particular Whether or no a man doe not erre in some point fundamentall or necessary to salvation and whether or no Lutherans Calvinists and the rest doe disagree in fundamentalls which if they doe the same Heaven cannot receiue them all 20 Tenthly and lastly I desire that in answering to these points â—he would let us knowe distinctly what is the doctrine of the Protestant English Church concerning them and what he utters only as his owne private opinion 21 These are the Questions which for the present I finde it fit and necessary for me to aske of D. Potter or any other who will defend his cause or impugne ours And it will be in vaine to speake vainely and to tell me that a Foole may aske mere questions in an houre then a wise man can answer in a yeare with such idle Proverbs as that For I aske but such questions as for which he giues occasion in his Book and where he declares not himselfe but after so ambiguous and confused a manner as that Truth it selfe can scarce tell how to convince him so but that with ignorant and ill-judging men he will seeme to haue somewhat left to say for himselfe though Papists as he calls them and Puritans should presse him contrary waies at the same time and these questions concerne things also of high importance as whereupon the knowledge of Gods Church and true Religion and consequently Saâ—â—ation of the soule depends And now because hee shall not taxe me with being like those men in the Gospell whom our blessed Lord and Saviour charged with laying heavy burdens upon other mens shoulders who yet would not touch them with their finger I oblige my selfe to answer upon any demand of his both to all these Questions if he finde that I haue not done it already and to any other concerning matter of faith that he shall aske And I will tell him very plainely what is Catholique doctrine and what is not that is what is defined or what is not defined and rests but in discussion among Divines 22 And it will be here expected that he performe these things as a man who professeth learning should doe not flying from questions which concerne things as they are considered in their owne nature to accidentall or rare circumstances of ignorance incapacity want of meanes to be instructed erroneous conscience and the like which being very various and different cannot bee well comprehended under any generall Rule But in delivering generall doctrines we must consider things as they be ex natura rei or per. se loquendo as Divines speak that is according to their natures if all circumstances concuâ—re proportionable thereunto As for example some may for a time haue invincible ignorance even of some fundamentall article of faith through want of capacity instruction or the like and so not offend either in such ignorance or errour and yet we must absolutely say that errour in any one fundamentall point is damnable because so it is if we consider things in themselues abstracting from accidentall circumstances in particular persons as contrarily if some man judge some act of vertue or some indifferent action to be a sinne in him it is a sinne indeed by reason of his erroneous conscience and yet we ought not to say absolutely that vertuous or indifferent actions are sinnes and in all sciences we must distinguish the generall Rules from their particular Exceptions And therefore when for example he answers to our demand whether he hold that Catholiques may be saved or whether their pretended errours be fundamentall and damnable he is not to change the state of the question and haue recourse to Ignorance and the like but to answer concerning the errours being considered what they are apt to be in themselues and as they are neither increased nor diminished by accidental circumstances 23 And the like I say of all the other points to which I once againe desire an answere without any of these or the like ambiguous termes in some sort in some sense in some degree which may be explicated afterward as strictly or largely as may best serue his turne but let him tell vs roundly and particularly in what sort in what sense in what degree he understands those the like obscure mincing phrases If he proceed solidly after this manner and not by way of meere words more like a Preacher to a vulgar Auditor then like a learned man with a pen in his hand thy patience shall be the lesse abused and truth will also receiue more right And since we haue already laid the grounds of the question much may be said hereafter in few words if as I said he keep close to the reall point of every difficulty without wandring into impertinent disputes multiplying vulgar and threed-bare objections and arguments or labouring to prove what no man denies or making a vaine oftentation by citing a number of Schoolemen which every â—uny brought up in Schooles is able to doe and if he cite his Authors with such sincerity as no time need be spent in opening his corruptions and finally if he set himselfe a worke with this consideration that we are to giue a most strict accompt to a most just and unpartiall Iudge of every period line and word that passeth under our pen. For if at the latter day we shall be arraigned for every idle word which is spoken so much more will that be done for every idle word which is written as the deliberation wherewith it passeth makes a man guilty of more malice and as the importance of the matter which is treated of in bookes concerning true faith and religion without which no Soule can be saved makes a mans Errours more materiall then they would be if question were but of toyes The Answere to the PREFACE TO the First and Second If beginings 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 vz. 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 first the point in question was not that which you pretend Whether both Papists and Protestants can be saved in their severall Professions But Whether you may without uncharitablenesse affirme that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation And that this is the very question is most apparent and unquestionable both from the title of Charity Mistaken and from the Arguments of the three first Chapters of it and from the title of your own Reply And therefore if D. Potter had joyned issue with his Adversary only thus farre and not medling at all with Papists but leaving them to stand or fall to their own master had prou'd Protestants living and dying so capable of Salvation I cannot see how it could justly be charged upon him that he had not once truly and really fallen upon the point in Question Neither may it be said that your Question here and mine are in effect the same seeing it is very possible that the true Answere to the one might have been Affirmative and to the other Negative For there is no incongruity but it may be true That You and We cannot both be saved And yet as true That without uncharitablenesse you cannot pronounce us damned For all ungrounded and unwarrantable sentencing mento damnation is either in a propriety of speech uncharitable or else which for my purpose is all one it is that which Protestants mean when they say Papists for damning them are uncharitable And therefore though the Author of C. M. had prov'd 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 therefore uncharitably concluded that Protestants were the part that was to be excluded As though Iewes and Christians cannot both be saved yet a Iew cannot justly and therefore not charitably pronounce a Christian damned 3 But then secondly to shew your dealing with him very injurious I say he doth speak to this very Question very largely and very effectually as by confronting his worke and Charity Mist. together will presently appear Charity M. proves you say in generall That there is but one Church D. Potter tels him His labour is lost in proving the unity of the Catholique Church whereof there is no doubt or controversy herein I hope you will grant he answeres right to the purpose C. M. proves you say secondly That all Christians are obliged to harken to the Church D. Potter answeres It is true yet not absolutely in all things but only when she commands those things which God doth not countermand And this also I hope is to his purpose though not to yours C. M. proves you say thirdly That the Church must be ever visible and infallible For her Visibility D. Potter denyes it not and as for her Infallibility he grants it in Fundamentalls but not in Superstructures C. M. proves you say fourthly That to separate ones selfe from the Churches Communion is schisme D. Potter grants it with this exception unlesse there be necessary cause to doe so unlesse the conditions of her Communion be apparently unlawfull C. M. proves you say lastly That to dissent from her doctrine is heresy though it be in points never so few and never so small and therefore that the distinction of points fundamentall and unfundamentall as it is applyed by Protestants is wholy vaine This D. Potter denyes shewes the Reasons brought for it weak and unconcluding proves the contrary by reasons unanswerable and therefore that The distinction of points into fundamentall and not fundamentall as it is applied by Protestants is very good Vpon these grounds you say C. M. cleerely evinces That any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation and therefore seeing Catholiques and Protestants disagree in very many points of faith they both cannot hope to be saved without Repentance you must mean without an explicit and particular repentance and dereliction of their errors for so C. M. hath declared himselfe p. 14. where he hath these words We may safely say that a man who lives in Protestancy and who is so farre from Repenting it as that he will not so much as acknowledge it to be a sinne though he be sufficiently enform'd thereof c. From whence it is evident that in his judgement there can be no repentance of an errour without acknowledging it to be a sinne And to this D. Potter justly opposes That both sides by the confession of both sides agree in more points then are simply and indispensably necessary to Salvation and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary That it is very possible a man may dye in errour and yet dye with Repentance as for all his sinnes of ignorance so in that number for the errours in which he dies with a repentance though not explicite and particular which is not simply required yet implicite and generall which is sufficient so that he cannot but hope considering the goodnesse of God that the truth 's retained on both sides especially those of the necessity of repentance from dead workes and faith in Iesus Christ if they be put in practise may be an antidote against the errors held on either side to such he meanes saies as being diligent in seeking truth and desirous to find it yet misse of it through humane frailty and dye in errour If you will but attentively consider compare the undertaking of C. M. and D. Potters performance in all these points I hope you will be so ingenuous as to acknowledge that you have injurd him much in imputing tergiversation to him and pretending that through his whole book he hath not once truly and really fallen upon the point in Question Neither may you or C. M. conclude him from hence as covertly you doe An enemy to soules by deceiving them with ungrounded false hopes of Salvation seeing the hope of salvation cannot be ungrounded which requires and supposes beliefe and practise of all things absolutely necessary unto salvation and repentance of those sinnes and errours 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 impartiall search of truth and very farre from teaching them that it is indifferent what Religion they are of and without all controversy very honourable to the goodnesse of God with which how it can consist not to be satisfied with his servants true endeavours to know his will and doe it without full and exact performance I leave it to you and all good men to judge 4 As little Iustice me thinkes
servants and instruments alwaies prest and in readinesse to advance your designes and disabled wholly with mindes so qualified to prejudice or impeach them it is safe for you to put a crown on their head and a reed in their hands and to bow before them cry Haile King of the Iewes to pretend a great deale of esteem and respect reverence to them as here you doe But to little purpose is verball reverence without entire submission and syncere obedience and as our Saviour said of some so the Scripture could it speak I believe would say to you Why call ye mee Lord Lord and doe not that which I command you Cast away the vaine and arrogant pretence of Infallibility which makes your errors incurable Leave picturing God and worshipping him by pictures Teach not for Doctrine the Commandments of men Debarre not the Laity of the Testament of Christs blood Let your publique Prayers and Psalmes and Hymmes be in such language as is for the edification of the Assistants Take not from the Clergy that liberty of Marriage which Christ hath left them Doe not impose upon men that Humility of worshipping Angels which S. Paul condemnes Teach no more proper sacrifices of Christ but one Acknowledge them that dye in Christ to be blessed and to rest from their labours Acknowledge the Sacrament after consecration to be Bread and Wine as well as Christs body and blood Acknowledge the gift of continency without Marriage not to be given to all Let not the weapons of your warfare be carnall such as are Massacres Treasons Persecutions and in a word all meanes either violent or fraudulent These and other things which the Scripture commands you doe and then we shall willingly give you such Testimony as you deserve but till you doe so to talk of estimation respect and reverence to the Scripture is nothing else but talk 2 For neither is that true which you pretend That we possesse the Scripture from you or take it upon the integrity of your Custody but upon Vniversall Tradition of which you are but a little part Neither if it were true that Protestants acknowledged The integrity of it to have been guarded by your alone Custody were this any argument of your reverence towards them For first you might preserve them entire not for want of Will but of Power to corrupt them as it is a hard thing to poyson the Sea And then having prevailed so farre with men as either not to look at all into them or but only through such spectacles as you should please to make for them and to see nothing in them though as cleere as the sunne if it any way made against you you might keep them entire without any thought or care to conforme your doctrine to them or reforme it by them which were indeed to reverence the Scriptures but out of a perswasion that you could qualify them well enough with your glosses and interpretations and make them sufficiently conformable to your present Doctrine at least in their judgement who were preposses'd with this perswasion that your Church was to judge of the sense of Scripture not to be judged by it 3. For whereas you say No cause imaginable could avert your will from giving the function of supreme and sole Iudge to holy writ but that the thing is impossible and that by this meanes controversies are encreased and not ended you mean perhaps That you can or will imagine no other cause but these But sure there is little Reason you should measure other mens imaginations by your own who perhaps may be so clouded and vail'd with prejudice that you cannot or will not see that which is most manifest For what indifferent and unprejudicate man may not easily conceive another cause which I doe not say does but certainly may pervert your wills and avert your understandings from submitting your religion and Church to a tryall by Scripture I mean the great and apparent and unavoidable danger which by this meanes you would fall into of loosing the Opinion which men have of your Infallibility and consequently your power and authority over mens consciences and all that depends upon it so that though Diana of the Ephesians be cryed up yet it may be feared that with a great many among you though I censure or judge no man the other cause which wrought upon Demetrius and the Craftsmen may have with you also the more effectuall though more secret influence and that is that by this craft we have our living by this craft I mean of keeping your Proselytes from an indifferent tryall of your Religion by Scripture and making them yeeld up and captivate their judgement unto yours Yet had you only said de facto that no other cause did avert your own will from this but only these which you pretend out of Charity I should have believed you But seeing you speak not of your selfe but of all of your side whose hearts you cannot know and professe not only That there is no other cause but that No other is imaginable I could not let this passe without a censure As for the impossibility of Scriptures being the sole judge of Controversies that is the sole rule for man to Iudge them by for we mean nothing else you only affirme it without proofe as if the thing were evident of it selfe And therefore I conceiving the contrary to be more evident might well-content my selfe to deny it without refutation Yet I cannot but desire you to tell me If Scripture cannot be the Iudge of any Controversy how shall that touching the Church and the notes of it be determined And if it be the sole judge of this one why may it not of others Why not of All Those only excepted wherein the Scripture it selfe is the subject of the Question which cannot be determined but by naturall reason the only principle beside Scripture which is common to Christians 4 Then for the Imputation of increasing contentions and not ending them Scripture is innocent of it as also this opinion That controversies are to be decided by Scripture For if men did really and sincerely submit their judgements to Scripture and that only and would require no more of any man but to doe so it were impossible but that all controversies touching things necessary and very profitable should be ended and if others were continued or increased it were no matter 5 In the next wordes we have direct Boyes-play a thing given with one hand and taken away with the other an acknowledgement made in one line and retracted in the next We acknowledge say you Scripture to be a perfect rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule only wee deny that it excludes unwritten tradition A siâ— you should have said we acknowledge it to be as perfect a rule as a writing can be only we deny it to be as perfect a rule as a writing may be Either therefore you must revoke your acknowledgement or retract your
that these controversies about Scripture are not decidable by Scripture and have shewed that your deduction from it that therefore they are to be determin'd by the authority of some present Church is irrationall and inconsequent I might well forbeare to tire my selfe with an exact and punctuall examination of your premises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wether they be true or false is to the Question disputed wholly impertinent Yet because you shall not complaine of tergiverâ—ation I will runne over them and let nothing that is materiall and considerable passe without some stricture or animadversion 30 You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is Gods word is the Church and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. Sect. 8. Let the Reader consult the place and he shall finde that he and M. Hooker have been much abused both by you here and by M. Breerly and others before you and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose but very much directly to the contrary There he tells us indeed that ordinarily the first introduction and probable motive to the belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded that in the same place he plainly denies His words are Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it selfe is divine and sacred The Question then being by what meanes we are taught this some answere that to learne it we have no other way then tradition As namely that so we believe because we from our Predecessors and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied and by experience we all know that the first outward motive leading men to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary minde without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevaile when the very thing hath ministred farther reason If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture and our own perswasion which Scripture it selfe hath setled may be proved a truth infallible In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to rely upon the Scriptures endeavoured still to maintaine the Authority of the bookes of God by arguments such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable if they judge thereof as they should Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard even by such kinde of proofes so to manifest and cleare that point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent principle such as all men acknowledge to be true By this time I hope the reader sees sufficient proofe of what I said in my Reply to your Preface that M. Breerelies great ostentation of exactnesse is no very certain argument of his fidelity 31 But seeing the beliefe of the Scripture is a necessary thing and cannot be prov'd by Scripture how can the Church of England teach as she doth Art 6. That all things necessary are contain'd in Scripture 32 I have answered this already And here again I say That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be That all the Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in Scripture That is all the materiall objects of our faith whereof the Scripture is none but only the meanes of conveying them unto us which we believe not finally and for it selfe but for the matter contained in it So that if men did believe the doctrine contained in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aimes at is the beliefe of the Gospell the covenant between God and man the Scripture he hath provided as a meanes for this end and this also we are to believe but not as the last object of our faith but as the instrument of it When therefore we subscribe to the 6. Art you must understand that by Articles of Faith they mean the finall and ultimate objects of it and not the meanes and instrumentall objects and then there will be no repugnance between what they say and that which Hooker and D. Covell and D. Whitaker and Luther here say 33 But Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. Iames. Kemnitius and other Luth. the second of Peter the second and third of Iohn The Epist. to the Heb. the Epist. of Iames of Iude and the Apocalyps Therefore without the Authority of the Church no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall 34 So also the Ancient Fathers and not only Fathers but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the authority of the very same bookes and by their difference shewed they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church For had they done so they must have agreed all with that Church and consequently among themselves Now I pray tell me plainly Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonicall or had they not If they had not it seemes there is no such great harme or danger in not having such a certainty whether some books be Canonicall or no as you require If they had why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs 35 You proceed And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art have these words In the name of the Holy Scripture we doe vnderstand those Bookes of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church you demaund what they meane by them Whether that by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall I Answer for them Yes they are so And whereas you inferre from hence This is to make the Church Iudge I haue told you already That of this Controversie we make the Church the Iudge but not the present Church much lesse the present Roman Church but the consent and testimony of the
not Iudge that is the Rule to judge by But as no Scripture affirmes that by the entring of it Infallibility went out of the Church so neither doe we neither have we any need to doe so But we say that it continued in the Church even together with the Scriptures so long as Christ his Apostles were living and then departed God in his providence having provided a plain and infallible Rule to supply the defect of liuing and infallible Guides Certainly if your cause were good so great a wit as yours is would devise better Arguments to maintain it We can shew no Scripture affirming Infallibility to haue gone out of the Church therefore it is Infallible Somewhat like his discourse that said It could not bee prov'd out of Scripture that the King of Sweden was dead therefore hee is still living Me thinks in all reason you that challenge privileges and exemption from the condition of Men which is to be subject to errour You that by vertue of this privilege usurp authority over mens consciences should produce your Letters-patents from the King of Heaven shew some expresse warrant for this Authority you take upon you otherwise you know the rule is Vbicontrarium non manifestè probatur praesumitur pro libertate 139 But D. Potter may remember what himselfe teacheth That the Church is still endued with Infallibility in points Fundamentall and consequently that Infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the Truth the Sanctitie yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to salvation Still your discourse is so far from hitting the white that it roves quite besides the But. You conclude that the infallibility of the Church may well agree with the Truth the Sanctity the Sufficiency of Scripture But what is this but to abuse your Reader with the proofe of that which no man denies The Question is not whether an infallible Church might agree with Scripture but whether there be an Infallible Church Iam dic Posthume de tribus Capellis Besides you must know there is a wide difference between being infallible in Fundamentals and being an infallible Guide even in Fundamentals D. Potter saies that the Church is the former that is There shall be some men in the world while the world lasts which erre not in Fundamentals for otherwise there should be no Church For to say the Church while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls implies contradiction and is all one as to say The Church while it is the Church may not be the Church So that to say that the Church is infallible in Fundamentalls signifies no more but this There shall be a Church in the world for ever But wee utterly deny the Church to be the latter for to say so were to oblige our selves to finde some certain Society of men of whom we might be certain that they neither doe nor can erre in Fundamentals nor in declaring what is Fundamentall what is not Fundamentall and consequently to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed This therefore we deny both to your and all other Churches of any one denomination as the Greek the Roman the Abyssine that is indeed we deny it simply to any Church For no Church can possibly be fit to be a Guide but only a Church of some certain denominatiō For otherwise no man can possibly know which is the true Church but by a pre-examination of the doctrine controverted and that were not to be guided by the Church to the true doctrine but by the true doctrine to the Church Hereafter therefore when you heare Protestants say The Church is Infallible in Fundamentalls you must not conceiue them as if they meant as you doe that some Society of Christians which may be known by adhering to some one Head for example the Pope or the Bishop of Constantinople is infallible in these things but only thus That true Religion shall never be so farre driven out of the world but that it shall alwaies haue some where or other some that believe and professe it in all things necessary to salvation 140 But you would therefore gladly know out of what Text he imagines that the Church by the comming of Scripture was deprived of infallibility in some points and not in others And I also would gladly know why you doe thus frame to your self vaine imaginations thē father them upon others We yeeld unto you That there shall be a Church which never erreth in some points because as wee conceive God hath promised so much but not there shall be such a Church which doth or can erre in no points because we finde not that God hath promised such a Church and therefore wee may not promise such a one to our selves But for the Churches being deprived by the Scripture of Infallibility in some points and not in others that is a wild notion of your own which we haue nothing to doe with 141 But he affirmeth that the Iewish Church retained Infallibility in her selfe and therefore it is unjustly and unworthily done of him to depriue the Church of Christ of it That the Iewes had sometimes an infallible miraculous direction from God in some cases of moment hee doth affirme and had good warrant but that the Synagogue was absolutely Infallible he no where affirmes and therefore it is unjustly unworthily done of you to obtrude it upon him And indeed how can the Infallibility of the Synagogue be conceived but only by setling it in the High Priest and the company adhering and subordinate unto him And whether the high Priest was Infallible when he believed not Christ to be the Messias but condemn'd and excommunicated thē that so professed and caused him to be crucified for saying so I leaue it to Christians to judge But then suppose God had been so pleased to doe as he did not to appoint the Synagogue an infallible guide Could you by your rules of Logick constrain him to appoint such a one to Christians also or say unto him that in wisdome he could not doe otherwise Vaine man that will be thus alwaies tying God to your imaginations It is well for us that he leaves us not without directions to him but if he will doe this sometime by living Guides sometime by written rules what is that to you may not he doe what he will with his own 142 And whereas you say for the further enforcing of this Argugument that there is greater reason to think the Church should be infallible then the Synagogue because to the Synagogue all Laws and Ceremonies c. were more particularly and minutely delivered then in the new Testament is done our Saviour leaving particulars to the determination of the Church But I pray walk not thus in generality but tell us what particulars If you mean particular rites ceremonies and orders for goverment we grant it and you
truth 164 To the Argument wherewith you conclude I Answere That though the visible Church shall alwaies without faile propose so much of Gods revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes adde to this revelation things superfluous nay hurtfull nay in themselves damnable though not unpardonable and sometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable and therefore it is possible without siâ—ne to resist in some things the Visible Church of Christ. But you presse us farther and demand what visible Church was extant when Luther began whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church As if it must of necessity either be Protestant or Roman or Roman of necessity if it were not Protestant yet this is the most usuall fallacy of all your disputers by some specious Arguments to perswade weak men that the Church of Protestants cannot be the true Church and thence to inferre that without doubt it must be the Roman But why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greek Church as well as the Roman there being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your own unlesse it be that she is poor and oppressed by the Turk and you are in glory and splendor 165 Neither is it so easy to be determined as you pretend That Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole visible Church in matters of Faith neither is it so evident that the Visible Church may not fall into such a state wherein she may be justly opposed And lastly for calling the distinction of points into Fundamentall and not Fundamentall an evasion I believe you will find it easier to call it so then to prove it so But that shall be the issue of the Controversy in the next Chapter CHAP. III. That the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall is neither pertinent nor true in our present Controversie And that the Catholike Visible Church cannot erre in either kinde of the said points THIS distinction is abused by Protestants to many purposes of theirs and therefore if it be either untrue or impertinent as they understand and apply it the whole edifice built thereon must be ruinous and false For if you object their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith without any means of agreement they instantly tell you as Charity mistaken plainly shewes that they differ only in pâ—ints not fundamentall If you convince them even by their own Confessions that the ancient Fathers taught divers points held by the Roman Church against Protestants they reply that those Fathers may neverthelesse be saved because those errours were not fundamentall If you will them to remember that Christ must alwaies haue a visible Church on earth with administration of Sacraments and succession of Paâ—stors and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman whose Communion and doctrine Luther then forâ—ook and for that cause must be guilty of Schisme and Herosie they haue an Answer such as it is that the Catholike Church cannot perish yet may erre in points not fundamentall and therefore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors under paine of Damnation as if forsooth it were Damnable to hold an error not Fundamentall nor Damnable If you wonder how they can teach that both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved in their severall professions they salve this contradiction by saying that we both agree in all fundamentall points of faith which is enough for salvation And yet which is prodigiously strange they could never be induced to give a Catalogue what points in particular be fundamentall but only by some generall description or by referring us to the Apostles Creed without determining what points therein be fundamentall or not fundamentall for the matter and in what sense they be or be not such and yet concerning the meaning of divers points contained or reduced to the Creed they differ both from us and among themselves And indeed it being impossible for them to exhibit any such Catalogue the said distinction of points although it were pertinent and true cannot serve them to any purpose but still they must remaine uncertaine whether or not they disagree from one another from the ancient Fathers and from the Catholique Church in points fundamentall which is to say they have no certainty whether they enjoy the substance of Christian Faith without which they cannot hope to be saved But of this more heerafter 2 And to the end that what shall be said concerning this distinction may be better understood wee are to observe that there be two precepts which concerne the vertue of faith or our obligation to believe divine truths The one is by Divines called Affirmative whereby we are obliged to have a positive explicite belief of some chief Articles of Christian faith The other is â—ermed Negative which strictly binds us not not to disbelieve that is not to believe the contrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our understanding as revealed or spoken by Almighty God The said Affirmative Precept according to the nature of such commands injoynes some act to be performed but not at all times nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons in respect of all objects to be believed For objects we grant that some are more necessary to be explicitely and severall believed then other either because they are in themselves more great and weighty or els in regard they instruct us in some necessary Christian duty towards God our selves or our Neighbour For persons no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more then others by reason of their office vocation capacity or the like For times we are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of faith but according as severall occasions permit or require The second kind of precept called Negative doth according to the nature of all such commands oblige universally all persons in respect of all objects and at all times seâ—per pro semper as Divines speak This generall doctrine will be more cleere by examples I am not obliged to be alwaies helping my Neighbour because the Affirmative precept of Charity bindeth only in some particular cases But I am alwaies bound by a Negative precept never to doe him any hurt or wrong I am not alwaies bound to utter what I know to be true yet I am obliged never to speak any one least untruth against my knowledge And to come to our present purpose there is no Affirmative precept commanding us to be at all times actually believing any one or all Articles of faith But we are obliged never to exercise any act against any one truth known to be revealed All sorts of persons are not bound explicitely and distinctly to know all things testified by God either in Scripture or otherwise but
Church upon pretence of her errors haue failed even in fundamentall points and suffered shipwrack of their Salvation ought to deter all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practises as to omit other both ancient and modern heresies we see that divers chiefe Protestants pretending to reform the corruptions of the Church are come to affirm that for many Ages she erred to death and wholy perished which D. Potter cannot deny to be a fundamentall Errour against that Article of our Creed I believe the Catholique Church as he aâ—â—irmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the universall Church within Africa or some other smal tract of soile Least therefore I may fall into some fundamentall errour it is most safe for me to belieue all the Decrees of that Church which cannot errâ— fundamentally especially if we adde That according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines one errour in faith whether it be for the matter it selfe great or small dâ—stroies faith as is shewed in Charity Mistaken and consequently to accuse the Church of any one Errour is to affirm that she lost all faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaues Christ no visible Church on earth 21 To all these arguments I adde this demonstration D. Potter teacheth that there neither â—as nor can be any iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe But if the Church of Christ can erre in some points of faith men not only may but must forsake her in those unlesse D. Potter will haue them to believe one thing and professe another and if such errours and corruptions should fall out to be about the Churches Liturgy publique Service administration of Sacraments and the like they who perceive such errours must of necessity leaue her externall Communion And therefore if once we grant the Church may erre iâ— followeth that men may and ought to forsake her which is against D. Potters own words or else they are inexcusable who left the Communion of the Roman Church under pretence of Errours which they grant not to be fundumentall And if D. Potter think good to answer this argument he must remember his own doctrine to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in points not fundamentall 22 Another argument for the universall Infallibility of the Church I take out of D. Potters own words If saith he we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true unlesse he presuppose that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmeth to erre only in points not fundamentall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundamentall Therefore either he must acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words or else must grant that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall which is what we intended to proue 23 If Words cannot perswade you that in all Controversies you must rely upon the infallibility of the Church at least yeeld your assent to Deeds Hitherto I haue produced Arguments drawn as it were ex naturâ rei from the Wisdome and Goodnesse of God who cannot faile to haue left some infallible meanes to determine Controversies which as we haue proved can be no other except a Visible Church infallible in all her Definitions But because both Catholiques and Protestants receive holy Scripture we may thence also proue the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concern Faith and Religion Our Saviour speaketh clearly The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her And I will aske my Father and he will giue you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever the Spirit of truth And But when he the Spirit of truth commeth he shall teach you all truth The Apostle saith that the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth And He gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the Ministery unto the edifying of the body of Christ untill we meet all into the unity of faith and knowleâ—ge of the Sonne of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the â—ulnesse of Christ that now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every winde of doctrine in the wickednesse of men in craftinesse to the circumvention of Errour All which words seem cleerly enough to proue that the Church is universally infallible without which unity of faith could not be conserved against every winde of Doctrine And yet Doctor Potter limits these promises and priviledges to fundamentall points in which he grants the Church cannot erre I urge the words of Scripture which are universall and doe not mention any such restraint I alleadge that most reasonable and receaved Rule that Scripture is to be understood literally as it soundeth unlesse some manifest absurdity force us to the contrary But all will not serue to accord our different interpretations In the mean time divers of Doctor Potters Brethren step in and reject his limitation as over large and somewhat tasting of Papistry And therefore they restrain the mentioned Texts either to the Infallibility which the Apostles and other sacred Writers had in penning of Scripture or else to the invisible Church of the Elect and to them not absolutely but with a double restriction that they shall not fall damnably and finally and other men haue as much right as these to interpose their opinion and interpretation Behold we are three at debate about the selfe same words of Scripture We conferre divers places and Text We consult the Originalls We examine Translations We endeavour to pray heartily We professe to speak sincerely To seek nothing but truth and salvation of our own soules and that of our Neighbours and finally we use all those meanes which by Protestants themselues are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture Neverthelesse we neither doe or haue any possible meanes to agree as long as we are left to our selues and when we should chance to be agreed the doubt would still remain whether the thing it selfe be a fundamentall point or no And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God the Lover of soules hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion Our remedy therefore in these contentions must be to consult and heare God's Visible Church with submissiue acknowledgment of her Power and Infallibility in whatsoever she proposeth as a revealed truth according to that divine advice of S. Augustine in these words If at length thou seem to be sufficiently tossed and hast a desire to put an end to
the deniall of this Fundamentall truth that all which God saies is true Notwithstanding in themselues there is a main difference between them Points fundamentall being those onely which are revealed by God and commanded to bee preacht to all and believed by all Points circumstantiall being such as though God hath revealed them yet the Pastors of the Church are not bound under paine of damnation particularly to teach them unto all men every where and the people may be securely ignorant of them 21 You say Not erring in points Fundamentall is not sufficient for the preservation of the Church because any Errour maintained by it against Gods revelation is destructive I answer If you mean against Gods Revelation known by the Church to be so it is true but impossible that the Church should doe so for ipso Facto in doing it it were a Church no longer But if you mean against some Revelation which the Church by errour thinks to bee no Revelation it is false The Church may ignorantly disbelieue such a Revelation and yet continue a Church which thus I proue That the Gospell was to be preached to all Nations was a Truth revealed before our Saviours Ascention in these words Goe and teach all Nations Mat. 29. 19. Yet through prejudice or inadvertence or some other cause the Church disbelieved it as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chap. of the Acts untill the conversion of Cornelius and yet was still a Church Therefore to disbelieue some divine Revelation not knowing it to be so is not destructive of salvation or of the being of the Church Again It is a plaine Revelation of God that the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be administred in both kindes and that the publique Hymnes and Prayers of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification yet these Revelations the Church of Rome not seeing by reason of the veile before their eyes their Churches supposed infallibility I hope the deniall of them shall not be laid to their charge no otherwise then as building hay and stubble on the Foundations not overthrowing the Foundation it selfe 22 Ad § 2. In the beginning of this Paragraph wee haue this Argument against this Distinction It is enough by D. Potters confession to belieue some things negatiuely i. e. not to deny them Therefore all deniall of any divine truth excludes Salvation As if you should say One Horse is enough for a man to goe a journey Therefore without a horse no man can goe a journey As if some Divine Truthes viâ— Those which are plainly revealed might not be such as of necessity were not to be denied and others for want of sufficient declaration deniable without danger Indeed if D. Potter had said there had been no divine Truth declared sufficiently or not declared but must upon pain of damnation be believed or at least not denied then might you justly haue concluded as you doe but now that some may not be denied and that some may be denied without damnation why they may not both stand together I doe not yet understand 23 In the Remainder you in ferre out of D. Potters words That all errours are alike damnable if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different which for ought I know all Protestants and all that haue sense must grant Yet I deny your illation from hence That the distinction of points into fundamentall and unfundamentall is vaine and uneffectuall for the purpose of Protestants For though being alike propos'd as divine truths they are by accident alike necessary yet the reall difference still remaines between them that they are not alike necessary to be proposed 24 Ad § 5. The next Paragraph if it be brought out of the clouds will I belieue haue in it these Propositions 1. Things are distinguished by their different natures 2. The Nature of Faith is taken not from the matter believed for then they that believed different matters should haue different Faiths but from the Motive to it 3. This Motiue is Gods Revelation 4. This Revelation is alike for all obiects 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God Therefore they forsake the formall motiue of faith and therefore haue no faith nor unity therein Which is truly a very proper and convenient argument to close up â— weak discourse wherein both the Propositions are false for matter confused and disordered for the forme and the conclusion utterly inconsequent First for the second Proposition who knowes not that the Essence of all Habits therefore of Faith among the rest is taken from their Act and their Object If the Habit be generall from the Act and Object in generall if the Habit be speciall from the Act and Object in speciall Then for the motiue to a thing that it cannot be of the Essence of the thing to which it moues who can doubt that knows that a motiue is an efficient cause and that the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect For the fourth that Gods Revelation is alike for all objects It is ambiguous and if the sense of it be that his Revelation is an equall Motive to induce us to belieue all objects revealed by him it is true but impertinent If the sense of it be that all objects revealed by God are alike that is alike plainly and undoubtedly revealed by him it is pertinent but most untrue Witnesse the great diversity of Texts of Scripture whereof some are so plain and evident that no man of ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them Some are so obscure and ambiguous that to say this or this is the certain sense of them were high presumption For the 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God! In themselues perhaps but not equally to them whose understandings by reason of their different Educations are fashioned and shaped for the entertainment of various opinions and consequently some of them more enclined to belieue such a sense of Scripture others to belieue another which to say that God will not take into his consideration in judging mens opinions is to disparage his goodnesse But to what purpose is it that these things are equally revealed to both as the light is equally revealed to all blind men if they be not fully revealed to either The sense of this Scripture Why are they then baptiz'd for the dead and this He shall bee saved yet so as by fire and a thousand others is equally revealed to you and to another interpreter that is certainly to neither Hee now conceiues one sense of them and you another and would it not be an excellent inference if I should conclude now as you doe That you forsake the formall motiue of faith which is Gods revelation and consequently loose all faith and unity therein So likewise the Iesuites and Dominicans the Franciscans and Dominicans disagree about things equaâ—ly revealed by Almighty God and seeing they doe so I beseech you let me understand
Traditions as in defining emergent controversies Again it followes not because the Churches Authority is warrant enough for us to believe some doctrine touching which the Scripture is silent therefore it is Warrant enough to believe these to which the Scripture seemes repugnant Now the Doctrines which S. Austine received upon the Churches Authority were of the first sort the Doctrines for which we deny your Churches infallibility are of the second And therefore though the Churches authority might be strong enough to bear the weight which S. Austine laid upon it yet happily if may not be strong enough to bear that which you lay upon it Though it may support some Doctrines without Scripture yet surely not against it And last of all to deal ingeniously with you and the World I am not such an Idolater of S. Austine as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he saies it nor that all his sentences are oracles and particularly in this thing that whatsoever was practised or held by the Vniversall Church of his time must needs have come from the Apostles Though considering the neerenesse of his time to the Apostles I think it a good probable way and therefore am apt enough to follow it when I see no reason to the contrary Yet I professe I must have better satisfaction before I can induce my selfe to hold it certain and infallible And this not because Popery would come in at this dore as some have vainly feared but because by the Church Vniversall of some time and the Church Vniversall of other times I see plain contradictions held and practised Both which could not come from the Apostles for then the Apostles had been teachers of falshood And therefore the belief or practise of the present Vniversall Church can be no infallible proof that the Doctrine so beleived or the custome so practised came from the Apostles I instance in the doctrine of the Millenaries and the Eucharists necessity for infants both which Doctrines have been taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some ages without any opposition from any of their Contemporaries and were delivered by them not as Doctors but as Witnesses not as their own opinions but as Apostolike Traditions And therefore measuring the doctrine of the Church by all the Rules which Cardinall Perron gives us for that purpose both these Doctrines must be acknowledged to have been the doctrines of the Ancient Church of some age or ages And that the contrary Doctrines were Catholique at some other time I believe you will not think it needfull for me to prove So that either I must say the Apostles were fountaines of contradictious doctrines or that being the Vniversall Doctrine of the present Church is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles Besides who can warrant us that the Vniversall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolicall seeing in that famous place for Traditions in Tertullian Quicunque traditor any author whatsoever is founder good enough for them And who can secure us that Humane inventions and such as came à quocunque Traditore might not in a short time gain the reputation of Apostolique Seeing the direction then was Precepta maâ—orum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat 45 No lesse you say is S. Chrysost. for the infallible Traditions of the Church But you were to prove the Church infallible not in her Traditions which we willingly grant if they be as universall as the Tradition of the undoubted books of Scripture is to be as infallible as the Scripture is for neither does being written make the word of God the more infallible nor being unwritten make it the lesse infallible Not therefore in her universall Traditions were you to prove the Church infallible but in all her Decrees and definitions of Controversies To this point when you speak you shall have an answer but hitherto you doe but wander 46 But let us see what S. Chrysostome saies They the Apostles delivered not all things in writing who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it and these also are worthy of belief Yes if we knew what they were But many things are worthy of belief which are not necessary to be believed As that Iulius Caesar was Emperour of Rome is a thing worthy of belief being so well testified as it is but yet it is not necessary to be believed a man may be saved without it Those many workes which our Saviour did which S. Iohn supposes would not have been contained in a world of bookes if they had been written or if God by some other meanes had preserv'd the knowledge of them had been as worthy to be believed and as necessary as those that are written But to shew you how much a more faith full keeper Records are then report those few that were written are preserved believed those infinitly more that were not written are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men And seeing God in his providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them he hath freed us from the obligation of 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 Catholique 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 Cardinall Perron in his discourse of Traditions having alleaged this place for them Hold the Traditions c. tells us we must not answer that S. Paul speaks here only of such Traditions which though not in this Epist. to the Thess. yet were afterwards written and in other bookes of Scripture because it is upon occasion of Tradition touching the cause of the hinderance of the comming of Antichrist which was never written that he laies this iniunction upon them to hold the Traditions Well let us grant this Argument good and concluding and that the Church of the Thessalonians or the Catholique 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 comming of Antichrist But what if they did not performe 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
men have been very liberall 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 farre from dreaming of Infallibility 61 And for the Visible Churches holding it a point necessary to Salvation that we believe she cannot erre I know no such tenet unlesse by the Church you mean the Roman Church which you have as much reason to doe as that petty King in Africk hath to think him-himself King of all the world And therefore your telling us if she speak true what danger is it not to believe her and if false that it is not dangerous to believe her Is somewhat like your Popes setting your Lawyers to dispute whether Constantines Donation were valid or no whereas the matter of fact was the farre greater question whether there were any such Donation or rather when without question there was none such That you may not seem to delude us in like manner make it appear that the visible Church doth hold so as you pretend and then whether it be true or false we will consider afterwards But for the present with this invisible tenet of the Visible Church wee will trouble our selves no farther 62 The effect of the next Argument is this I cannot without grievous sinne disobey the Church unlesse I know she commands those things which are not in her power to command and how farre this power extends none can better informe me then the Church Therefore I am to obey so farre as the Church requires my obedience I answer First that neither hath the Catholique Church but only a corrupt part of it declared her selfe 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 informe us what are the limits of the Churches power then the Church her selfe that is then the Roman Clergy who being men subject to the same passions with other men why they should be thought the best Iudges in their own cause I doe not well understand But yet we oppose against them no humane decisive Iudges 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 then in following any Sect or Man applying Scriptures against her Doctrine In as much as we never went about to arrogate to our selves that infallibility or absolute Authority which we take away from you But if you would haue spoken to the purpose you should haue said that in following her you should sooner haue been excusd then in cleaving to the Scripture and to God himselfe 63 Whereas you say The fearfull examples of innumerable persons who for saking the Church upon pretence of her errours have failed even in fundamentall points ought to deterre all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practise This is just as if you should say divers men have fallen into Scylla with going too farre from Charybdis be sure therefore ye keep close to Charybdis divers leaving Prodigality have fallen into covetousnesse therefore be you constant to prodigality Many have fallen from worshipping God perversely and foolishly not to worship him at all from worshipping many Gods to worshipping none this therefore ought to deterre men from leaving superstition or Idolatry for fear of falling into Atheisme and Impiety This is your counsell and Sophistry but God saies clean contrary Take heed you swerve not either to the right hand or to the left you must not doe evill that good may come thereon therefore neither that you may avoid a greater evill you must not be obstinate in a certain error for fear of an uncertain What if some forsaking the Church of Rome have forsaken Fundamentall truths Was this because they forsook the Church of Rome No sure this is causa pro non causa for else all that have forsaken that Church should have done so which we say they have not But because they went too farre from her the golden mean the narrow way is hard to be found and hard to be kept hard but not impossible hard but yet you must not please your selfe out of it though you erre on the right hand though you offend on the milder part for this is the only way that leads to life and few there be that find it It is true if we said there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madnesse to perswade any man to leave it But we protest and proclaime the contrary and that we have very little hope of their Salvation who either out of negligence in seeking the truth or unwillingnesse to find it live and dye in the errors and impieties of that Church and therefore cannot but conceive those feares to be most foolish and ridiculous which perswade men to be constant in one way to hell least happily if they leave it they should fall into another 64 But Not only others but even Protestants themselves whose example ought most to move us pretending to reforme the Church are come to affirme that she perished for many ages which D. Potter cannot deny to be a fundamentall errour against the Article of the Creed I believe the Catholique Church seeing he affirmes the Donatists erred Fundamentally in confining it to Africa To this I Answer First that the errour of the Donatists was not that they held it possible that some or many or most parts of Christendome might fall away from Christianity and that the Church may loose much of her amplitude and be contracted to a narrow compasse in comparison of her former extent which is prov'd not only possible but certain by irrefragable experience For who knowes not that Gentilisme and Mahumetisme mans wickednesse deserving it and Gods providence permitting it have prevail'd to the utter extirpation of Christianity upon farre the greater part of the world And S. Austin when he was out of the heat of Disputation confesses the Militant Church to be like the Moon sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing This therefore was no errour in the Donatists that they held it possible that the Church from a larger extent might be contracted to a lesser nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa For why not to Africk then as well as within these few ages you pretend it was to Europe But their error was that they held de facto this was done when they had no just ground or reason to doe so and so upon a vain pretence which they could not justify seperated themselves from the communion of all other parts of the Church and that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church that he should be of
their communion and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided which was a condition both unnecessary and unlawfull to be required and therefore the exacting of it was directly opposite to the Churches Catholicisme in the very same nature with their Errours who required Circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses as necessary to salvation For whosoever requires harder or heavier conditions of men then God requires of them he it is that is properly an Enemie of the Churches Vniversality by hindering either Men or Countries from adjoyning themselves to it which were it not for these unnecessary and therefore unlawful conditions in probability would haue made thē members of it And seeing the present Church of Rome perswades men they were as good for any hope of Salvation they haue not to be Christians as not to be Roman Catholiques believe nothing at all as not believe all which they impose upon them Be absolutely out of the Churches Communion as be out of their Communion or be in any other whether they be not guilty of the same crime with the Donatists those Zelots of the Mosaicall Law I leave it to the judgement of those that understand reason This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argument But I adde moreover that you neither haue named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many ages who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the church not that the true Church but that the pure Church perished or rather that the Church perished not from its life and existence but from its purity and integrity or perhaps from its splendour and visibility Neither have you proved by any one reason but only affirmed it to be a fundamentall Errour to hold that the Church militant may possibly bee driven out of the world and abolished for a time from the face of the earth 65 But to accuse the Church of any Errour in faith is to say she lost all faith For this is the Doctrine of Catholique Divines that one Errour in faith destroyes faith To which I answer that to accuse the Church of some Errour in faith is not to say she lost all faith For this is not the doctrine of Catholique Divines But that he which is an Heretique in one Article may haue true faith of other Articles And the contrary is only said and not shewed in Charity Mistaken 66 Ad § 21. D. Potter saies We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things and from hence you conclude Therefore we may not depart from it in any thing And this Argument you call a Demonstration But a Fallacy à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid was not used heretofore to be called a Demonstration D. Potter sayes not that you may not depart from any opinion or any practise of the Church for you tell us in this very place that he saies even the Catholique may erre and every man may lawfully depart from Errour He only sayes you may not cease to be of the Church nor depart from those things which make it so to be and from hence you inferre a necessity of forsaking it in nothing Iust as if you should argue thus You may not leaue your friend or brother therefore you may not leave the Vice of your friend or the Errour of your brother What he saies of the Catholique Church p. 75. the same hee extends presently after to every true though never so corrupted part of it And why doe you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgement can fall into any Errour and call this a Demonstration too For as he saies p. 75. That there can be no just cause to depart from the whole Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe So p. 76. He tells you that whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body for sakes the whole So that what he saies of the one hee saies of the other and tells you that neither Vniversall nor Particular Church so long as they continue so may bee forsaken hee meanes Absolutely no more then Christ himselfe may be forsaken absolutely For the Church is the body of Christ and whosoever forsakes either the Body or his coherence to any one part of it must forsake his subordination and relation to the Head Therefore whosoever forsakes the Church or any Christian must forsake Christ himselfe 67 But then he tells you plainly in the same place That it may be lawfull and necessary to depart from a Particular Church in some Doctrines and Practises And this he would haue said even of the Catholike Church if there had been occasion but there was none For there he was to declare and justifie our departure not from the Catholique Church but the Roman which we maintain to be a particular Church But in other places you confesse his doctrine to be that even the Catholique church may erre in points not Fundamentall which you doe not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himselfe And therefore you cannot with any candor interpret his words as if he had said We may not forsake the Church in any thing no more then Christ himselfe but only thus We may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more then Christ himselfe And thus we see sometimes a mountain may travail and the production may be a mouse 68 Ad § 22. But D. Potter either contradicts himselfe or else must grant the Church infallible Because he saies if we did not differ from the Roman we could not agree with the Catholique which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre Answer This Argument to giue it the right name is an obscure and intricate nothing And to make it appeare so let us suppose in contradiction to your supposition either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church doth erre in some few things but that the Roman erres in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches Fallibility a man may truly say unlesse I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid upon D. Potter or doe that which you condemne in him and be driven to say that the same man may hold some errours with the Church of Rome and at the same time with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them For otherwise in neither of these cases is it possible for the same man at the same time to agree both with the Roman and the Catholique 69 In all these Texts of Scripture which are here alleaged in this last Section of this Chapter or in any one of them or in any other doth God say cleerly and plainly The Bishop of Rome and that Society of Christians which adheres to him shall bee ever
6. in these words according to most of your own expositions Vnlesse you eat the Flesh of the sonne of Man and drink his Blood you have no life in you If our Saviour speake there of the Sacrament as to them he does because they conceive he does so Though they may pretend that receiving in one kind they receive the blood together with the body yet they can with no face pretend that they drink it And so obey not our Saviours injunction according to the letter which yet they professe is litterally alwaies to be obeyed unlesse 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 saies Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drinke of this Chalice This a Man that is to examine himselfe is every man that can doe it as is confessed on all hands And therefore it is all one as if he had said let every man examine himselfe and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. They which acknowledge Saint Pauls Epistles and S. Iohns Gospell to be the Word of God one would thinke should not deny but that they are taught these two Doctrines plain enough Yet we see they neither doe 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 Vniversall 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 deale ingenuously and tell me who were they of whom our Saviour saies 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 saies I goe away and come again unto you and I have told you before it come to passe 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 begining 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 yee cannot beare them now Doe 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 behalfe 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 passe Was your Church with him from the begining 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 beare them now as he speaks in the 13. v. immediatly 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. v. and that he speaks to in the 14 And is it not apparent to any one that has but halfe an eye that in the 13. he speaks only to them that then were with him Besides in the very text by you alleaged 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 Prophecie 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 halfes there being in the latter part of it a cleere and convincing Demonstration that you have nothing to doe with the former Vnlesse you will say 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 Ob. 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 confesse that to confine the Spirit of God to those that were then present with Christ is against Scripture But I hope it is easy to conceive a difference between confining the Spirit of God to them and confining the promises made in this place to them God may doe many things which he does not promise at all much more which he does not promise in such or such a place 74 Ob. 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
many Attributes in Scripture are not notes of performance but of duty and teach us not what the thing or Person is of necessity but what it should be Ye are the salt of the Earth said our Saviour to his disciples not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must have been so of necessity and could not have been otherwise in vain had he put them in fear of that which followes If the salt hath lost his 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 bee 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 Errour 78 Fourthly and lastly if we deal most liberally with you and grant that the Apostle here speaks of the Catholique Church calls it the Pillar and ground of Truth and that not only because it should but because it alwaies 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 unlesse 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 bee 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 then 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 biles and botches on his body so the Church may be the Church though it have many corruptions both in doctrine and practice 79 And thus you see we are at liberty from the former places having shewed that the sense of them either must or may be such as will doe your Cause no service But the last you suppose will be a Gordian knot and ties us fast enough The words are He gave some Apostles and some Prophets c. to the consummation of Saints to the work of the Ministry c. Vntill we all meet into the Vnity of faith c. That we be not hereafter Children wavering and carried up and downe 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 meanes to conserve unity of Faith against every wind of Doctrine unlesse it be a Church universally infallible But it is impious to say there is no meanes to conserue unity of faith against every wind of Doctrine Therefore there must be a Church Vniversally Infallible Whereunto I answere that your major is so farre from being confirned that it is plainly confuted by the place alleadged For that tels us of another meanes for this purpose to wit the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors and Doctors which Christ gave upon his Ascention and that their consummating the Saints doing the work of the Ministry and Edifying the body of Christ was the meanes 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 conceipt 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 Vnlesse 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 turne 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 severall Orders of men cleerely distinguished and diversified by the Originall 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 paralell place 1. Cor. 12. to which we are referr'd by your Vulgar Translation God hath set some in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers therefore this subterfuge is stopped against you Ob. But how can they which died in the first Age keep us in Vnity and guard us from Errour that live now perhaps in the last This seemes to be all one as if a man should say that Alexander or Iulius Caesar should quiet a mutiny in the King of Spaines 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 errour 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 ascention by their writings which some of them writ but all approved are even now sufficient meanes to conserve us in Vnity of faith and guarde us from errour 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 Chiefest of you acknowledge contain immediatly all the Principall and Fundamentall 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
left them is and hath been the only fountaine of all the Schismes of the Church and that which makes them continue the common incendiary of Christendome and that which as I said before teares into pieces not the coat but the bowels and members of Christ Ridente Turcâ nec dolente Iudae◠Take away these Wals of separation and all will quickly be one Take away this Persecuting Burning Cursing Damning of men for not subscribing to the words of men as the words of God Require of Christians only to believe Christ and to call no man master but him only Let those leave claiming Infallibility that have no title to it and let them that in their words disclaime it disclaime it likewise in their actions In a word take away tyranny which is the Divels instrument to support errours and superstitions and impieties in the severall parts of the world which could not otherwise long withstand the power of Truth I say take away tyranny and restore Christians to their just and full liberty of captivating their understanding to Scripture only and as Rivers when they have a free passage runne all to the Ocean so it may well be hoped by Gods blessing that Vniversall Liberty thus moderated may quickly reduce Christendome to Truth and Vnitie These thoughts of peace I am perswaded may come from the God of peace and to his blessing I commend them and proceed 18 Your fift and last obiection stands upon a false and dangerous supposition That new Heresies may arise For an Heresie being in it selfe nothing else but a Doctrine Repugnant to some Article of the Christian Faith to say that new Heresies may arise is to say that new Articles of Faith may arise and so some great ones among you stick not to professe in plaine tearmes who yet at the same time are not ashamed to pretend that your whole Doctrine is Catholique and Apostolique So Salmeron Non omnibus omnia dedit Deus ut quaelibetaetas suis gaudeat veritatibus quas prior aetas ignoravit God hath not given all things to All So that every age hath its proper verities which the former age was ignorant of Disp. 57. In Ep. ad Rom And againe in the Margent Habet Vnumquodque saeculum peculiares revelationes divinas Every age hath its peculiar Divine Revelations Where that he speaks of such Revelations as are or may by the Church be made matters of Faith no man can doubt that reads him an example whereof he gives us a little before in these words Vnius Augustini doctrina Assumptionis B. Deiparae cultum in Ecclesiam introduxit The Doctrine of Augustine only hath brought in to the Church the Worship of the Assumption of the Mother of God c. Others againe mince and palliate the matter with this pretence that your Church undertakes not to coyne new Articles of faith but only to declare those that want sufficient declaration But if sufficient declaration be necessary to make any doctrine an Article of Faith then this doctrine which before wanted it was not before an Article of faith and your Church by giving it the Essentiall forme and last complement of an Article of faith makes it though not a Truth yet certainly an Article of faith But I would faine know whether Christ and his Apostles knew this Doctrine which you pretend hath the matter but wants the forme 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 learn't it If they knew it then either they conceal'd or declar'd it To say they conceal'd any necessary part of the Gospell is to charge them with farre greater sacriledge then 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 doctrine then what they had received from thē which sure could not merit an Anathema if they left any necessary part of the Gospell untaught It is in a word in plaine tearmes to give them the lye seeing they professe plainly and frequently that they taught Christians the whole doctrine of Christ. If they did know and declare it then was it a full and formall Article of faith and the contrary a full and formall Heresie without any need of further declaration and then their Successours either continued the declaration of it or discontinued If they did the latter how are they such faithfull depositaries of Apostolique Doctrine 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 Successours and they to theirs and so on perpetually then continued it still a full and formall Article of faith and the repugnant doctrine a full and formall Heresie without and before the definition or declaration of a Councell So that Councells 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 runious whatsoever is built upon it must together with it fall to the ground This explication therefore and restriction of this doctrine 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 judgmēt touching the sense of some generall Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receave their declarations under paine 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 confesse the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farre directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sinne to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publique peace-sake 19 Ad § 7. 8. 9. Were I not peradventure more fearefull then I need to be of the imputation of tergiversation I might very easily rid my hands of the remainder of this Chapter For in the Question there discussed you grant for ought I see as much as D. Potter desires and D. Potter grants as much as you desire and therefore that I should
conceived that she needed Reformation But whether this pretence of Reformation will acquit them of Schisme I referre to the unpartiall judges heretofore alleaged as to S. Irenaeus who plainly saith They cannot make any so important REFORMATION as the Evill of the Schisme is pernicious To S. Denis of Alexandria saying Certainly all things should be endured rather then to consent to the division of the Church of God those Martyrs being no lesse glorious that expose themselues to hinder the dismembring of the Church then those that suffer rather then they will offer sacrifice to Idols To S. Augustine who tells us That not to heare the Church is a more grievous thing then if he were striken with the sword consumed with flames exposed to wild beasts And to conclude all in few words he giveth this generall prescription There is no just necessity to divide unity And D. Potter may remember his own words There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe But I haue shewed that Luther and the rest departed from the Church of Christ if Christ had any Church upon earth Therefore there could be no just cause of Reformation or what else soever to doe as they did and therefore they must be contented to be held for Schismatiques 18 Moreover I demand whether those corruptions which moved them to forsake the Communion of the visible Church were in manners or doctrine Corruption in manners yeelds no sufficient cause to leave the Church otherwise men must goe not only out of the Church but out of the world as the Apostle saith Our blessed Saviour foretold that there would bee in the Church cares with choice corne and â—inners with just men If then Protestants wax zealous with the Servants to pluck up the weeds let them first harken to the wisdome of the Master Let both grow up And they ought to imitate them who as S. Augustine saith tolerate for the good of Vnity that which they detest for the good of equity And to whom the more frequent foule such scandals are by so much the more is the merit of their perseverance in the Communion of the Church and the Martyrdome of their patience as the same Saint calls it If they were offended with the life of some Ecclesiasticall persons must they therefore deny obedience to their Pastors and finally break with Gods Church The Pastour of Pastours teacheth us another lesson Vpon the Chaire of Moyses haue sitten the Scribes and Pharisees All things threfore whatsoever they shall say to you obserue yee and doe yee but according to their works doe yee not Must people except against lawes and revolt from Magistrats because some are negligent or corrupt in the execution of the same lawes and performance of their office If they intended Reformation of manners they used a strange means for the achieving of such an end by denying the necessity of Confession laughing at aufferity of pennance condemning the vowes of Chastity poverty obedience breaking fasts c. And no lesse unfit were the Men then the Meanes I loue not recrimination But it is well known to how great crimes Luther Calvin Zwinglius Beza and other of the prime Reformers were notoriously obnoxious as might bee easily demonstrated by the onely transcribing of what others haue delivered upon that subject whereby it would appeare that they were very farre from being any such Apostolicall men as God is wont to use in so great a work And whereas they were wont especially in the beginning of their revolt malitiously to exaggerate the faults of some Clergy men Erasmus said well Epist ad fratres inferior is Germaniae Let the riot lust ambition avarice of Priests and what soever other crimes be gathered together Heresie aâ—one doth exceed all this filthy lake of vices Besides nothing at all was omitted by the sacred Councell of Trent which might tend to reformation of manners And finally the vices of others are not hurtfull to any but such as imitate and consent to them according to the saying of S. Augustine We conserve innocency not by knowing the ill deeds of men but by not yeelding consent to such as we know and by not judging rashly of such faults as we know not If you answer that not corruption in manners but the approbation of them doth yeeld sufficient cause to leaue the Church I reply with S. Augustine that the Church doth as the pretended Reformers ought to haue done tolerate or beare with scandals and corruptions but neither doth nor can approue them The Church saith he being placed betwixt much chaffe and cockle doth beare with many things but doth not approue nor dissemble nor act those things which are against faith and good life But because to approue corruption in manners as lawfull were an errour against Faith it belongs to corruption in doctrine which was the second part of my demand 19 Now then that corruptions in doctrine I still speak upon the untrue supposition of our Adversaries could not afford any sufficient cause or colourable necessity to depart from that visible Church which was extant when Luther rose I demonstrate out of D. Potters own confession that the Catholique Church neither hath nor can erre in points fundamentall as wee shewed out of his own expresse words which he also of set purpose delivereth in divers other places and all they are obliged to maintain the same who teach that Christ had alwaies a visible Church upon earth because any one fundamentall error overthrowes the being of a true Church Now as Schoolmen speak it is implicatio in terminis a contradiction so plain that one word destroyeth the other as if one should say a living dead man to affirm that the Church doth not erre in points necessary to salvation or damnably yet that it is damnable to remain in her Communion because she teacheth errors which are confessed not to be damnable For if the error be not damnable nor against any fundamentall Article of Faith the beliefe thereof cannot bee damnable But D. Potter teacheth that the Catholique Church cannot and that the Roman Church hath not erred against any fundamentall Article of Faith Therefore it cannot bee damnable to remaine in her Communion and so the pretended corruptions in her doctrine could not induce any obligation to depart from her Communion nor could excuse them from Schisme who upon pretence of necessity in point of conscience forsook her And D. Potter will never bee able to salve a manifest contradiction in these his words To depart from the Church of Rome in some Doctrine and practises there might be necessary cause though she wanted nothing necessary to salvation For if notwithstanding these Doctrines and practises shee wanted nothing necessary to salvation how could it be necessary to salvation to forsake her And therefore wee must still conclude that to forsake her was properly an act of Schisme 20
From the selfe same ground of the infallibility of the Church in all fundamentall points I argue after this manner The visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnation upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her Communion by reason of corruption in doctrine as long as for the truth of her Faith and beliefe she performeth the duty which she dweth to God and her Neighbour As long as she performeth what our Saviour exacts at her hands as long as she doth as much as lies in her power to doe But even according to D. Potters Assertions the Church performeth all these things as long as she erreth not in points fundamentall although she were supposed to erre in other points not fundamentall Therefore the Communion of the visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnation upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her Communion by reason of corruption in doctrine The Major or first Proposition of it selfe is evident The Minor or second Proposition doâ—h necessarily follow out of D. Potters own doctrine above-rehearsed that the promises of our Lord made to his Church for his assistance are to be extended only to points of faith or fundamentall Let me note here by the way that by his Or he seemes to exclude from Faith all points which are not fundamentall and so we may deny innumerable Texts of Scripture That It is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers c. but she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in heaven For it is evident that the Church for as much as concernes the truth of her doctrines and beliefe owes no more duty to God and her Neighbour neither doth our Saviour exact more at her hands nor is it in her power to doe more then God doth assist her to doe which assistance is promised only for points fundamentall and conâ—equently as long as she teacheth no fundamentall error her communion cannot without damnation be forsaken And we may fitly apply against D. Potter a Concionatory declamation which he makes against us where he saith May the Church of after Ages make the narrow way to heaven narrower then our Saviour left it c since he himselfe obligeth men under pain of damnation to forsake the Church by reason of errours against which our Saviour thought it needlesse to promise his assistance and for which he neither demeth his grace in this life or glory in the next Will D. Potter oblige the Church to doe more then she may even hope for or to performe on earth that which is proper to heaven alone 21 And as from your own doctrine concerning the infallibility of the Church in fundamentall points we have proved that it was a grievous sinne to forsake her so doe we take a strong argâ—ment from the fallibility of any who dare pretend to reforme the Church which any man in his wits will believe to be indued with at least as much infallibility as private men can challeng D. Potter expresly affirmeth that Christs promises of his assistance are not intended to any particular persons or Churches therefore to leave the Church by reason of errours was at best hand bâ—t to flit from one erring company to another without any new hope of triumphing over errours and without necessity or utility to forsake that Communion of which S. Augustine saith There is no just necessity to divide Vnity Which will appear to be much more evident if we consider that though the Church had maintained some false doctrines yet to leave her Communion to remedy the old were but to adde a new increase of errors arising from the innumerable disagreements of Sectaries which must needs bring with it a mighty masse of falshoods because the truth is but one and indivisible And this reason is yet stronger if we still remember that even according to D. Potter the visible Church hath a blessing not to erre in points fundamentall in which any private Reformer may faile and therefore they could not pretend any necessity to forsake that Church out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more and even into damnable errors Remember I pray you what your selfe affirmes pag. 69. where speaking of our Church and yours you say All the difference is from the weeds which remain there and here are taken away Yet neither here perfectly nor every where alike Behold a fair confession of corruptions still remaining in your Church which you can only excuse by saying they are not fundamentall as likewise those in the Roman Church are confessed to be not fundamentall What man of judgement will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupt one 22 I still proceed to impugne you expresly upon your own grounds You say that it is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers but she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in heaven Now if it be comfort enough to be secured from all capitall dangers which can arise only from error in fundamentall points why were not your first reformers content with enough but would needs dismember the Church out of a pernitious greedinesse of more then enough For this enough which according to you is attained by not erring in points fundamentall was enjoyed before Luthers reformation unlesse you will now against your selfe affirme that long before Luther there was no Church free from error in fundamentall points Moreover if as you say no Church may hope to triumph over all errour till she be in heaven You must either grant that errors not fundamentall cannot yeeld sufficient cause to forsake the Church or else you must affirme that all community may and ought to be forsaken so there will be no end of Schismes or rather indeed there can be no such thing as Schisâ—e because according to you all communities are subject to errors not fundamentall for which if they may be lawfully forsaken it followeth cleerely that it is not Schisme to forsake them Lastly since it is not lawfull to leave the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners because such miseries cannot be avoided in this world of temptation and since according to your Assertion no Church may hope to triumph over all sinne and error You must grant that as she ought not to be left by reason of sinne so neither by reason of errors not fundamentall because both sinne and errour are according to you impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven 23 Furthermore I aske whether it be the Qâ—antity or Number or Quality and Greatnesse of doctrinall errors that may yeild sufficient cause to relinquish the Churches Communion I prove that neither Not the Quality which is supposed to be beneath the degree of points fundamentall or necessary to salvation Not the Quantity or Number for
c. and tell me if you could excuse such Reformers from Schisme Sedition Rebellion Apostasie c what would you say of such Reformers in your Colledge or tumultuous persons in a kingdome Remember now your owne Tenets and then reflect how fit a similitude you have picked out to prove your self a Schismatique You teach that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall but that for all fundamentall points she is secured from error You teach that no particular person or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamentall You and the whole world can witnesse that when Luther began he being but only One opposed himself to All as well subjects as superiours and that even then when he himself confessed that he had no intention of Reformation You cannot be ignorant but that many chief learned Protestants are forced to confesse the Antiquity of our doctrine and practice and doe in severall and many Controversies acknowledge that the Ancient Fathers stood on our Side Consider I say these points and see whether your similitude doe not condemne your Progenitors of Schisme from God's visible Church yea and of Apostasie also from their Religious Orders if they were vowed Regulars as Luther and divers of them were 32 From the Monastery you are fâ—ed into an Hospitall of persons vniversally infected with some disease where you find to be true what I supposed that after your departure from your Brethren you might fall into greater inconveniences and more infectious diseases then those for which you left them But you are also upon the point to abandon these miserable needy persons in whose behalf for Charities sake let me set before you these considerations If the disease neither were nor could be mortall because in that Company of men God had placed a Tree of life If going thence the sick man might by curious tasting the Tree of Knowledge eate poyson under pretence of bettering his health If he could not hope thereby to avoid other diseases like those for which he had quitted the company of the first infected men If by his departure innumerable mischiefs were to ensue could such a man without sencelesnesse be excused by saying that he sought to free himself from the common disease but not forsooth to separate from the society Now your self compare the Church to a man deformed with superfluous fingers and toes but yet who hath not lost any vitall part you acknowledge that out of her society no man is secured from damnable errour and the world can beare witnesse what unspeakable mischiefs and calamities ensued Luthers revolt from the Church Pronounce then concerning them the same sentence which even now I have shewed them to deserve who in the manner aforesaid should separate from persons universally infected with some disease 33 But alas to what passe hath Heresy brought men who terme themselves Christians and yet blush not to compare the beloved Spouse of our Lord the one Dove the purâ—hase of our Saviours most precious blood the holy Catholique Church I mean that visible Church of Christ which Luther found spread over the whole world to a Monastery so disordered that it must be forsaken to the Gyant in Gath much deformed with superfluous fingers and toes to a society of men universally infected with some disease And yet all these comparisons and much worse are neither injurious nor undeserved if once it be granted or can be proved that the visible Church of Christ may erre in any one point of Faith although not fundamentall 34 Before I part from these similitudes one thing I must observe against the evasion of D. Potter that they left not the Church but her Corruptions For as those Reformers of the Monastery or those other who left the company of men universally infected with some disease would deny themselves to be Schismatiques or any way blame-worthy but could not deny but that they left the said Communities So Luther and the rest cannot so much as pretend not to have left the visible Church which according to them was infected with many diseases but can only pretend that they did not sinne in leaving her And you speak very strangly when you say In a society of men universally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from the Common disease could not be therefore said to separate from the Society For if they doe not separate themselves from the Society of the infected persons how doe they free themselves and depart from the common disease Doe they at the same time remain in the company and yet depart from those infected creatures We must then say that they separate themselves from the persons though it be by occasion of the disease Or if you say they free their owne persons from the common disease yet so that they remain still in the Company infected subject to the Superiours and Governours thereof eating and drinking and keeping publique Assemblies with them you cannot but know that Luther and your Reformers the first pretended free persons from the supposed common infection of the Roman Church did not so for they endeavoured to force the Society whereof they were parts to be healed and reformed as they were and if it refused they did when they had forces drive theÌ„ away even their Superiours both spirituall and temporall as is notorious Or if they had no power to expell that supposed infected Community or Church of that place they departed from them corporally whom mentally they had forsaken before So that you cannot deny but Luther forsook the externall Communion and company of the Catholique Church for which as your self confesse There neither was nor can be any just cause no more then to depart from Christ himself We doe therefore infer that Luther and the rest who forâ—ook that visible Church which they found upon earth were truely and properly Schismatiques 35 Moreover it is evident that there was a division between Luther and that Church which was Visible when he arose but that Church cannot be said to have divided her self from him befoâ—e whose time she was and in comparison of whom she was a Whole and he but a part therefore we must say that he divided himself and went out of her which is to be a Schismatique or Heretique or both By this argument Optatus Milevitanus proveth that not Caecilianus but Par menianus was a Schismatique saying For Caecilianus went not out of Maiorinuâ— thy Granaâ—ather but Maiorinus from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chayre of Peter or Cyprian but Maiorinus in whose Chayre thou sittest which had no beginning beâ—ore Maiorinus Since it manifestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manner it is cleare that you are beyres both of the deliverers up of the holy Bible to be burned and also of Schismatiques The whole argument of this holy Father makes directly both against Luther and all those who continue the division which he begun and proves That going out convinceth
those who goe out to be Schismatiques but not those from whom they depart That to forsake the Chaire of Peter is Schisme yea that it is Schisme to erect a Chaire which had no origen or as it were predecessouâ— before it self That to continue in a division begun by others is to be Heires of Schismatiques and lastly that to depart from the Communion of a particular Church as that of S. â—yprian was is sufficient to make a man incur the guilt of Schisme and consequently that although Protestants who deny the Pope to be supreme Head of the Church doe think by that Heresy to cleere Luther from Schisme in disobeying the Pope Yet that wâ—ll not serve to free him from Schisme as it importeth a division from the obedience or Communion of the particular Bishop Diocesse Church and Country where he lived 36 But it is not the Heresy of Protestants or any other Sectaries that can deprive S. Peter and his Successours of the authority which Christ our Lord conferred upon them over his whole militant Church which is a point confessed by learned Protestants to be of great Antiquity and for which the judgement of divers most ancient holy Fathers is reproved by them as may be seen at large in Brerely exactly citing the places of such chiefe Protestants And we must say with S. Cyprian Heresies have sprung and Schismes been bred from no other cause then for that the Priest of God is not obeyed nor one Priest and Iudge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God Which words doe plainely condemne Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Vniversall or of every particular Church For he withdrew himselfe both from the obedience of the Pope and of all particular Bishops and Churches And no lesse cleere is the said Optatus Milevitanus saying Thou caust not deny but that thou knowest that in the City of Rome there was first an Episcopall Chaire placed for Peter wherein Peter the head of all the Apostles sate whereof also he was called Cephas in which one Chaire Vn was to be kept by all least the other Apostles might attribute to themselves each one his particular chaire and that he should be a Schismatique and sinner who against that one single Chaire should erect another Many other Authorities of Fathers might be alleaged to this purpose which I omit my intention being not to handle particular controversies 37 Now the arguments which hitherto I have brought prove that Luther and his followers were Schismatiques without examining for as much as belongs to this point whether or no the Church can erre in any one thing great or small because it is universally true that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the Visible Church of Christ according to S. Augustine saying It is not possible that any may have just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations upon just cause But since indeed the Church cannot erre in any one point of doctrine nor can approve any corruption in manners they cannot with any colour avoid the just imputation of eminent Schisme according to the verdict of the same holy Father in these words The most manifest sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there was no cause of separation 38 Lastly I prove that Protestants cannot avoid the note of Schisme at least by reason of their mutuall separation from one another For most certain it is that there is very great difference for the outward face of a Church and profession of a different faith between the Lutherans the rigid Calvinists and the Protestants of England So that if Luther were in the right those other Protestants who invented Doctrines far different from his and divided themselues from him must be reputed Schismatiques and the like argument may proportionably be applyed to their further divisions subdivisions Which reason I yet urge more strongly out of D. Potter who affirmes that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the errors of the Roman Church a reconciliation is impossible and damnable And yet he teacheth that their difference from the Roman Church is not in fundamentall points Now since among Protestants there is such diversity of beliefe that one denieth what the other affirmeth they must be convicted in conscience that one part is in errour at least not fundamentall and if D. Potter will speak consequently that a reconciliation between them is impossible daÌ„nable what greater division or Schisme can there be then when one part must judge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible daÌ„nable 39 Out of all which premisses this Conclusion followes That Luther his followers were Schismatiques from the universall visible Church from the Pope Christs Vicar on earth Successour to S. Peter from the particular Diocesse in which they received Baptisme from the Countrey or Nation to which they belonged from the Bishop under whom they lived many of them from the Religious Order in which they were professed from one another And lastly from a mans selfe as much as is possible because the selfe same Protestant to day is convicted in conscience that his yesterday's Opinion was an error as D. Potter knows a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant with whom therefore a reconciliation according to D. Potters grounds is both impossible and damnable 40 It seemes D. Potters last refuge to excuse himselfe and his Brethren from Schisme is because they proceeded according to their conscience dictating an obligation under damnation to forsake the errours maintained by the Church of Rome His words are Although we confesse the Church of Rome to be in some sense a true Church and her errors to some men not damnableâ— yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she erres in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors 41 I answer It is very strange that you judge us extreamly Vncharitable in saying Protestants cannot be saved while your selfe avouch the same of all learned Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse If this your pretence of conscience may serue what Schismatique in the Church what popular seditious brain in a kingdome may not alledge the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from Schisme or Sedition No man wishes them to doe any thing against their conscience but we say that they may and ought to rectifie and depose such a conscience which is easie for them to doe even according to your own affirmation that wee Catholiques want no meanes necessary to salvation Easie to doe Nay not to doe so to any man in his right wits must seem impossible For how can these two apprehensions stand together In the Roman Church I enjoy all meanes necessary to
salvation and yet I cannot hope to be saved in that Church or who can conjoyn in one brain not crack't these assertions After due examination I judge the Roman errors not to be in themselues fundamentall or damnable and yet I judge that according to true reason it is damnable to hold them I say according to true reason For if you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedy but that you must rectifie your erring conscience by your other judgement that her errours are not fundamentall nor damnable And this is no more Charity then you daily afford to such other Protestants as you term Brethren whom you cannot deny to be in some errors unlesse you will hold That of contradictory propositions both may be true and yet you doe not judge it damnable to liue in their Communion because you hold their errors not to be fundamentall You ought to know that according to the Doctrine of all Divines there is great difference between a speculatiue perswasion and a practicall dictamen of conscience and therefore although they had in speculation conceived the visible Church to erre in some doctrines of themselves not damnable yet with that speculatiue judgement they might and ought to haue entertained this practicall dictamen that for points not substantiall to faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could break the bond of Charity by breaking unity in Gods Church You say that hay and stubble and such unprofitable stuffe as are corruptions in points not fundamentall laid on the roofe destroyes not the house whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation And you would think him a mad man who to be rid of such stuffe would set his house on fire that so he might walk in the light as you teach that Luther was obliged to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light not without a combustion formidable to the whole Christiā world rather then beare with some errours which did not destroy the foundation of faith And as fo◠others who entred in at the breach first made by Luther they might and ought to haue guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis delivered in these words Indeed it is a matter of great moment and both most profitable to be learned and necessary to be remembred and which we ought again and again to illustrate and inculcate with weighty heapes of examples that almost all Catholiques may know that they ought to receiue the Doctors with the Church and not forsake the faith of the Church with the Doctors And much lesse should they forsake the faith of the Church to follow Luther Calvin and such other Novelists Moreover though your first Reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true yet they might and ought to haue doubted whether they were certain because your selfe affirm that infallibility was not promised to any particular Persons or Churches And since in cases of uncertainties we are not to leave our Superiour nor cast off his obedience or publiquely oppose his decrees your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfie their zealous conscience without a publique breach especially if with this their uncertainty we call to mind the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your own Brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy I wish you would examine the works of your Brethren by the words your selfe sets down to free S. Cyprian from Schisme every syllable of which words convinceth Luther and his Copartners to be guilty of that crime and sheweth in what manner they might with great ease and quietnesse haue rectified their consciences about the pretended errours of the Church S. Cyprian say you was a peaceable and modest man dissented from others in his iudgement but without any breach of Charity condemned no man much lesse any Church for the contrary opinion He believed his own opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others but left them to their liberty Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding Did they censure no man much lesse any Church S. Cyprian believed his own Opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others You belieue the points wherein Luther differs from us not to be fundamentall or necessary and why doe you not thence infer the like THEREFORE he should not haue proceeded to censure others In a word since their disagreement from us concerned only points which were not fundamentall they should haue believed that they might haue been deceived as well as the whole visible Church which you say may erre in such points and therefore their doctrines being not certainly true and certainly not necessary they could not giue sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church 42 In other places you write so much as may serve us to proue that Luther and his followers ought to haue deposed and rectified their consciences As for example when you say When the Church hath declared her selfe in any matter of opinion or of Rites her declaration obliges all her children to peace and externall obedience Nor is it fit or lawfull for any private man to oppose his judgement to the publique as Luther and his fellows did He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he doe it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason and very modestly still containing himself within the dutifull respect which he oweth but if he will factiously advance his own conceits his own conceits yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture despise the Church so far as to cut of her Cōmunion he may be justly branded condemned for a Schismatique yea an Heretique also in some degree in foro exteriori though his opinion were true much more if it be false Could any man even for a Fee haue spoken more home to condemn your Predecessors of Schisme or Heresy Could they haue stronger Motives to oppose the doctrine of the Church and leave her Communion then evidence of Scripture And yet according to your own words they should haue answered rectified their conscience by your doctrine that though their opinion were true and grounded upon evidence of Scripture or reason yet it was not lawfull for any private man to oppose his iudgement to the publique which obligeth all Christians to peace externall obedience and if they cast off the Communion of the Church for maintaining their own Conceits they may be branded for Schismatiques and Heretiques in some degree in foro exteriori that is all other Christians ought so to esteem of them and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you and they also are obliged to behaue themselves
in the face of all Christian Churches as if indeed they were not Reformers but Schismatiques and Heretiques or as Pagans Publicans I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will doe a deed of Charity by putting you in mind into what labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of faith yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he haue evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience or externally deny a truth known to be coÌ„tained in holy Scripture How much more coherently doe Catholiques proceed who believe the universall infallibility of the Church and from thence are assured that there can be no evidence of Scripture or reason against her definitions nor any just cause to forsake her Communion M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man yeelds as much as we haue alleaged out of you The will of God is saith he to haue them doe whatsoever the sentence of judiciall and finall decision shall determine yea though it seeme in their private opinion to swarve utterly from that which is right Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was which he transgressing must of necessity bee guilty of Schisme And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the universall infallibility of the Church or else driue men into the perplexities and labyrinths of dissembling against their conscience whereof now I speake Not unlike to this is your doctrine delivered elsewhere Before the Nicene Councell say you many good Cotholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists that the Baptisme of Heretiques was ineffectuall and with the Novatians that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners These errours therefore if they had gone no further were not in themselves Hereticall especially in the proper and most heavy or bitter sense of that word neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration Her intention was to silence all disputes and to settle peace and unitie in her government to which all wise and peaceable men submitted whatsoever their opinion was And those factious people for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition were very justly branded for Schismatiques For us the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church c. and therefore hee doth uniustlie charge us either with Schisme or Heresie These wordes manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her declarations Doctrines and Commands imposed upon them for silencing all disputes and setling peace and Vnity in the government and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient are justly charged with Schisme and Heresie And it is to be observed that you grant the Donatists to haue been very justly branded for Schismatiques although their opposition against the Church did concern as you hold a point not fundamentall to the Faith and which according to S. Augustine cannot be proved out of Scripture alone and therefore either doth evidently convince that the Church is universally infallible even in points not fundamentall or else that it is Schisme to oppose her declarations in those very things wherein she may erre and consequently that Luther and his fellowes were Schismatiques by opposing the visible Church for points not fundamentall though it were untruely supposed that she erred in such points But by the way how come you on the suddaine to hold the determination of a Generall Councell of Nice to be the declaration of the Catholique Church seeing you teach That Generall Councels may erre even fundamentally And doe you now say with us that to oppose the declaration of the Church is sufficient that one may be branded with Heresie which is a point so often impugned by you 43 It is therefore most evident that no pretended scruple of conscience could excuse Luther which he might and ought to have rectified by meanes enough if Pride Ambition Obstinacy c. had given him leave I grant he was touched with scruple of conscience but it was because he had forsaken the visible Church of Christ and I beseech all Protestants for the loue they beare to that sacred ransome of their soules the Blood of our blessed Saviour attentiuely to ponder and unpartially to apply to their owne Conscience what this Man spoke concerning the feelings and remorse of his How often saith he did my trembling heart beat within me and reprehending me obiect against me that most strong argument Art thou only wise Doe so many worlds erre Were so many ages ignorant What if thou errest and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee And in another place he saith Dost thou who art but One and of no account take upon thee so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many all to erre why may he not permit thee to erre To this belong those arguments the Church the Church the Fathers the Fathers the Councels the Customes the multitudes and greatnes of wise men Whom doe not these Mountaines of arguments these clouds yea these seas of Examples overthrow And these thoughts wrought so deep in his soule that he often wished and desired that he had never begun this businesse wishing yet further that his Writings were burned and buried in eternall oblivion Behold what remorse Luther felt and how he wanted no strength of malice to crosse his own conscience and therefore it was no scruple or conceived obligation of conscience but some other motives which induced him to oppose the Church And if yet you doubt of his courage to encounter and strength to master all reluctations of conscience heare an example or two for that purpose Of Communion under both kinds thus he saith If the Councell should in any case decree this least of all would we then use both kinds yea rather in despight of the Councell and the Decree we would use either but one kind only or neither or in no case both Was not Luther perswaded in Conscience that to use neither kind was against our Saviours command Is this only to offer his opinion to be considered of as you said all men ought to doe And that you may be sure that he spoke from his heart and if occasion had been offered would have been as good as his word mark what he saith of the Elevation of the Sacrament I did know the Elevation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall yet neverthelesse I did retain it in tâ—e Church at Wittemberg to the end I might vexe the divell Carolostadius Was not this a conscience large and capacious enough that could swallow Idolatry Why would he not tolerate Idolatry in the Church of Rome as these men are wont to blaspheame if he could retain it in his own Church at Wittemberge If Carolostadius
Luthers of spring was the Divell who but himself must be his damme Is Almighty God wont to send such furies to preach the Gospell And yet further which makes most directly to the point in hand Luther in his Book of abrogating the Private Masse exhorts the Augustine Friers of Wittemberg who first abrogated the Masse that even against their conscience accusing them they should persist in what they had begun acknowledging that in some things he himself had done the like And Ioannes Mathesius a Lutheran Preacher saith Antonius Musa the Parish Priest of Rocklitz recounted to me that on a time he heartily moaned himself to the Doctor he meanes Luther that he himself could not believe what he preached to others And that D. Luther answered praise and thanks be to God that this happens also to others for I had thought it had happened only to me Are not these conscionable and fit Reformers And can they be excused from Schisme under pretence that they held themselves obliged to forsake the Roman Church If then it be damnable to proceed against ones conscience what will become of Luther who against his conscience persisted in his division from the Roman Church 44 Some are said to flatter themselves with another pernicious conceit that they forsooth are not guilty of sinne Because they were not the first Authors but only are the continuers of the Schisme which was already begunne 45 But it is hard to believe that any man of judgment can think this excuse will subsist when he shall come to give up his finall accompt For according to this reason no Schisme will be damnable but only to the Beginners Whereas contrarily the longer it continues the worse it growes to be and at length degenerates to Heresy as wine by long keeping growes to be Vineger but not by continuance returnes again to his former nature of wine Thus S. Augustine saith that Heresy is Schisme in veterate And in another place We obiect to you only the crime of Schisme which you have also made to become Heresy by evill persevering therein And S. Hierom saith Though Schisme in the beginning may be in some sort understood to be defferent from heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not feigâ—e to it self some Heresy that it may seem to haue departed from the Church upon iust cause And so indeed it falleth out For men may begin â—poÌ„ passioÌ„ but afterward by instinct of corrupt nature seeking to maintain their Schisme as lawfull they fall into some Heresy without which their Separation could not be justified with any colour as in our present case the very affirming that it is lawfull to continue a Schisme unlawfully begun is an error against the main principle of Christianity that it is not lawfull for any Christian to live out of Gods Church within which alone Salvation can be had Or that it is not damnable to disobey her decrees according to the words of our Saviour If he shall not hear the Church let him be to thee as a Pagan or Publican And He that despiseth you despiseth mee We heard above Optatus Milevitanus saying to Parmenianus that both he and all those other who continued in the Schisme begun by Majorinus did inherit their Forefathers Schisme and yet Parmenianus was the third Bishop after Majorinus in his Sea and did not begin but only continue the Schisme For saith this holy Father Caecilianus went not out of Majorinus thy Grand-Father but Majorious from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chaire of Peter or Cyprian but Majorinus in whose Chaire thou fittest which before Majorinus Luther had no beginning Seing it is evident that these things passed in this manner that for example Luther departed from the Church and not the Church from Luther it is cleere that you be HEIRES both of the givers up of the Bible to be burned and of SCHISMATIQVES And the Regall Power or example of Heâ—ry the Eight could not excuse his subjects from Schisme according to what we have heard out of S. Crysostome saying Nothing doth so much provoke the wrath of Almighty God as that the Church should be divided Although we should doe innumerable good deeds if we divide the full Ecclesiasticall Congregation we shall be punished no lesse then they who did rend his naturall Body for that was done to the gaine of the whole world though not with that intention but this hath â—o good in it at all but that the greatest hurt riseth from it These things are spoken not only to those who bear office but to such also as are governed by them Behold therefore how liable both Subjects and Superiours are to the sinne of Schisme if they breake the unity of Gods Church The words of S. Paul can in no occasion be verified more then in this of which we speak They who doe such things are worthy of death and not only they that doe them but they also that consent with the doers In things which are indifferent of their own nature Custome may be occasion that some act not well begun may in time come to be lawfully continued But no length of Time no Quality of Persons no Circumstance of Necessity can legitimate actions which are of their own nature unlawfull and therefore division from Christs mysticall body being of the number of those Actions which Divines teach to be intrinsecè malas evill of their own nature and essence no difference of Persons or Time can ever make it lawfull D. Potter saith There neither was nor can be any cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe And who dares say that it is not damnable to continue a Separation from Christ Prescription cannot in conscience runne when the first beginner and his Successors are conscious that the thing to be prescribed for example goods or lands were unjustly possessed at the first Christians are not like straies that after a certain time of wandring from their right home fall from their owner to the Lord of the Soile but as long as they retaine the indelible Character of Baptisme and live upon earth they are obliged to acknowledge subjection to Gods Church Humane Lawes may come to nothing by discontinuance of time but the Law of God commanding us to conserve Vnity in his Church doth still remain The continued disobedience of Children cannot deprive Parents of their paternall right nor can the Grand-child be undutâ—full to his Grand-Father because his Father was unnaturall to his own parent The longer Gods Church is disobeyed the profession of her Doctrine denied her Sacraments neglected her Liturgy condemned her Vnity violated the more grievous the fault growes to be as the longer a man with-holds a due debt or retaines his neighbours goods the greater injustice he commits Constancy in evill doth not extenuate but aggravate the same which by extension of time receiveth increase of strength and addition of greater
malice If these mens conceits were true the Church might come to be wholly divided by wicked Schismes and yet after some space of time none could be accused of Schisme nor be obliged to returne to the visible Church of Christ and so there should remaine no One true visible Church Let therefore these men who pretend to honour reverence and believe the Doctrine and practise of the visible Church and to condemne their forefathers who forsooke her and say they would not have done so if they had lived in the daies of their Fathers and yet follow their example in remaining divided from her Communion consider how truly these words of our Saviour fall upon them Woe be to you because you build the Prophets sepulchers and garnish the monuments of just men and say If we had been in our Fathers daies we had not been their fellowes in the blood of the Prophets Therefore you are a testimony to your own selves that you are the sonnes of them that killed the Prophets and fill up the measure of your Fathers 46 And thus having demonstrated that Luther his Associates and all that continue in the Schisme by them begun are guilty of Schisme by departing from the visible true Church of Christ it remaineth that we examine what in particular was that Visible true Church from which they departed that so they may know to what Church in particular they ought to returne and then we shall have performed what was proposed to be handled in the fift Point 47 That the Roman Church I speak not for the present of the particular Diocesse of Rome but of all visible Churches dispersed throughout the whole world agreeing in Faith with the Chaire of Peter whether that Sea were supposed to be in the City of Rome or in any other place That I say the Church of Rome in this sense was the visible Catholique Church out of which Luther departed is proved by your own confession who assigne for notes of the Church the true Preaching of Gods word and due administration of Sacraments both which for the substance you cannot deny to the Roman Church since you confesse that she wanted nothing fundamentall or necessary to salvation and for that very cause you think to cleare your selfe from Schisme whose property as you say is to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates Now that Luther and his fellowes were born and baptized in the Roman Church and that she was the Church out of which they departed is notoriously known and therefore you cannot cut her off from the Body of Christ and hope of Salvation unlesse you will acknowledge your selfe to deserve the just imputation of Schisme Neither can you deny her to be truly Catholique by reason of pretended corruptions not fundamentall For your selfe avouch and endeavour to prove that the true Catholique Church may erre in such points Moreover I hope you will not so much as goe about to prove that when Luther rose there was any other true visible Church disagreeing from the Roman and agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrines and you cannot deny but that England in those daies agreed with Rome and other Nations with England And therefore either Christ had no visible Church upon Earth or else you must grant that it was the Church of Rome A truth so manifest that those Protestants who affirme the Roman Church to have lost the nature and being of a true Church doe by inevitable consequence grant that for divers ages Christ had no visible Church on earth from which error because D. Potter disclaimeth he must of necessity maintaine that the Roman Church is free from fundamentall and damnable error and that she is not cut off from the Body of Christ and the Hope of Salvation And if saith he any Zelots amongst us haue proceeded to heavier censures their zeale may be excused but their Charity and wisdome cannot be justified 48 And to touch particulars which perhaps some may object No man is ignorant that the Grecians even the Schismaticall Grecians doe in most points agree with Roman Catholiques and disagree from the Protestant Reformation They teach Transubstantiation which point D. Potter also confesseth Invocation of Saints and Angels veneration of Reliques and Images Auricular Confession enjoyned Satisfaction Confirmation with Chrisme Extream unction All the seaven Sacraments Prayer Sacrifice Almes for the dead Monachisme That Priests may not marry after their Ordination In which points that the Grecians agree with the Roman Church appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines of Wittemberg intituled Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium Iâ—remiae Patriarchae Constantinop de Augustana confessione c. Wittembergae anno 1584. by the Protestant Crispinus and by Sir Edwin Sands in the Relation of the State of Religion of the West And I wonder with what colour of truth to say no worse D. Potter could affirme that the Doctrines debated between the Protestants and Rome are only the partiall and particular fancies of the Roman Church unlesse happily the opinion of Transubstantiation may be excepted wherein the latter Grecians seem to agree with the Romanists Beside the Protestant Authors already cited Petrus Arcudiâ—s a Grecian and a learned Catholique Writer hath published a large Volume the Argument and Title whereof is Of the agreement of the Roman and Greek Church in the seven Sacraments As for the Heresy of the Grecians that the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Some I suppose that Protestants dissvow them in that error as we doe 49 D. Potter will not I think so much wrong his reputation as to tell us that the Waldenses Wiccliffe Husse or the like were Protestants because in some things they disagreed from Catholiques For he well knowes that the example of such men is subject to these manifest exceptions They were not of all Ages not in all Countries But confined to certain places and were interrupted in Time against the notion and nature of the word Catholique They had no Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy nor Succession of Bishops Priests and Pastors They differed among themselues and from Protestants also They agreed in divers things with us against Protestants They held doctrines manifestly absurd and damnable heresies 50 The Waldenses began not before the year 1218 so farre were they from Vniversality of all Ages For their doctrine first they denied all Iudgements which extended to the drawing of bloud and the Sabbath for which cause they were called In-sabbatists Secondly they taught that Lay men and women might consecrate the Sacrament and preach no doubt but by this meanes to make their Master Waldo a meere lay man capable of such functions Thirdly that Clergy men ought to have no possessions or proprieties Fourthly that there should be no division of Parishes nor Churches for a walled Church they reputed as a barne Fiftly that men ought not to take an oath in any case Sixtly
to believe as all Antiquity hath taught us That whosoever either beginnes or continues a division for the Roman Church which we haue proved to be Christs true Militant Church on earth cannot without effectuall repentance hope to be a member of his Triumphant Church in heaven And so I conclude with these words of blessed S. Augustine It is common to all Heretiques to be unable to see that thing which in the world is the most manifest and placed in the light of all Nations out of whose Vnity whatsoever they work though they seem to doe it with great care and diligence can no more availe them against the wrath of God then the Spiders web against the extremity of cold But now it is high time that we treat of the other sort of Division from the Church which is by Heresie THE ANSVVER TO THE FIFTH CHAPTER The separation of Protestants from the Roman Church being upon iust and necessary causes is not any way guilty of Schisme 1 AD § 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. In the seaven first Sections of this Chapter there be many things said and many things supposed by you which are untrue deserue a censure As 2 First That Schisme could not be a Division from the Church or that a Division from the Church could not happen unlesse there alwaies had been and should be a visible Church Which Assertion is a manifest falshood For although there never had been any Church Visible or Invisible before this age nor should be ever after yet this could not hinder but that a Schisme might now be and be a Division from the present visible Church As though in France there never had been untill now a lawfull Monarch nor after him ever should be yet this hinders not but that now there might be a Rebellion and that Rebellion might be an Insurrection against Soveraigne authority 3 That it is a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath been a visible Congregation of faithfull people Which Proposition howsoever you understand it is not absolutely certain But if you mean by Faithfull as it is plain you doe free from all errour in faith then you know all Protestants with one consent affirm it to bee false and therefore without proof to take it for granted is to beg the Question 4 That supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church were guilty of Schisme it is certainly consequent that all who persist in this division must be so likewise Which is not so certaine as you pretend For they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state Civill or Ecclesiasticall doe commit a great fault whereof notwithanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former state when continuance of time hath once setled the present Thus haue I known some of your own Church condemn the Low-countrey men who first revolted from the King of Spain of the sin of Rebellion yet absolve them from it who now being of your Religion there are yet faithfull maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the K. of Spaine 5 Fourthly That all those which a Christian is to esteeme neighbours doe concurre to make one company which is the Church Which is false for a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 6 Fiftly That all the members of the Visible Church are by charity united into one Mysticall body Which is manifestly untrue for many of them have no Charity 7 Sixtly That the Catholique Church signifies one company of faithfull people which is repugnant to your own grounds For you require not true faith but only the Profession of it to make men members of the visible Church 8 Seaventhly That every Heretique is a Schismatique Which you must acknowledge false in those who though they deny or doubt of some point professed by your Church and so are Heretiques yet continue still in the Communion of the Church 9 Eightly That all the members of the Catholique Church must of necessity be united in externall Communion Which though it were much to be desired it were so yet certainly cannot be perpetually true For a man unjustly excommunicated is not in the Churches communion yet he is still a member of the Church and divers times it hath happened as in the case of Chrisostome and Epiphanius that particular men and particular Churches have upon an overvalued difference either renounced Communion mutually or one of them separated from the other and yet both have continued members of the Catholique Church These things are in those seven Sections either said or supposed by you untruly without all shewe or pretence of proofe The rest is an impertinent common place wherein Protestants and the cause in hand are absolutely unconcern'd And therefore I passe to the eighth Section 10 Ad § 8. Wherein you obtrude upon us a double Fallacie One in supposing and taking for granted that whatsoever is affirmed by three Fathers must be true whereas your selves make no scruple of condemning many things of falsehood which yet are maintained by more then thrice three Fathers Another in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases For whereas you say S. Austine c. 62. l. 2. cont Parm. infers out of the former premises That there is no necessity to divide Vnity to let passe your want of diligence in quoting the 62. chapter of that Booke which hath but 23. in it to passe by also that these words which are indeed in the 11. Chapt. are not inferred out of any such premises as you pretend this I say is evident that he saies not absolutely that there never is or can be any necessity to divide Vnity which only were for your purpose but only in such a speciall cale as he there sets down That is When good men tolerate bad men which can doe thē no spirituall hurt to the intent they may not be seperated from those who are spiritually good Then saith he there is no necessity to divide Vnity Which very words doe cleerely give us to understand that it may fall out as it doth in our case that we cannot keep Vnity with bad men without spirituall hurt i. e. without partaking with them in their impieties and that then there is a necessity to divide Unity from them I mean to break off conjunction with them in their impieties Which that it was S. Austines mind it is most evident out of the 21. c. of the same book where to Parmenian demanding how can a man remain pure being joyned with those that are corrupted He answers Very true this is not possible if he be ioyned with them that is if he commit any evill with them or favour them which doe commit it But if he doe neither of these he is not ioyned with them
all in all and that for ought I see you never think of But if these rigid Protestants haue iust 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 censur'd and this seeming repugance 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 feare or hopes or some other voluntary sinne is the cause of their ignorance which I feare is the case of the generality of men amongst you or in regard of those who owe their Errours 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 haue 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 censurers seem especially to reflect upon and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy Consider the latter and the mildest will not be too milde So that here is no difference but in words only neither are you flattered by the one nor uncharitably censur'd by the other 39 Your next blow is directed against the milder sort of Protestants who you say involve themselves in the sinne of Schisme by communicating with those as you call them exterminating Spirits whom you conceiue your selfe to have proved Schismatiques 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 Errours which yet you confesse were not fundamentall shall it not be much more damnable to liue in confraternity with these who defend an Errour of the fayling of the Church which in the Donatists you confesse to haue been properly Hereticall 40 Answ You mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you onely or principally by reason of your Errours and Corruption For the true reason according to my third observation is not so much because you maintaine Errours and Corruptions as because you impose them and will allow your Communion to none but to those that will hold them with you and haue so ordered your Communion that either we must communicate with you in these things or nothing And for this very reason though it were granted that these Protestants held this doctrine which you impute to them And though this Errour were as damnable and as much against the Creed as you pretend Yet after all this this disparity between you and them might make it more lawfull for us to communicate with them then you because what they hold they hold to themselues and refuse not as you doe to communicate with them that hold the contrary 41 Thus we may answer your Argument though both your former Suppositions were granted But then for a second answer I am to tell you that there is no necessity of granting either of them For neither doe these Protestants hold the fayling of the Church from its being but only from its visibility which if you conceive all one then must you conceive that the starres fayle every day and the Sunne every night Neither is it certain that the doctrine of the Churches fayling is repugnant to the Creed For as the truth of the Article of the Remission of sinnes depends not upon the actuall remission of any mans sinnes but upon Gods readinesse and resolution to forgive the sins of all that believe and repent so that although unbeleef or impenitence should be universall and the Faithfull should absolutely fayle from the children of men and the sonne of man should finde no faith on the earth yet should the Article still continue true that God would forgive the sinnes of all that repent In like manner it is not certain that the truth of the Article of the Catholique Church depends upon the actuall existence of a Catholique Church but rather upon the right that the Church of Christ or rather to speak properly the Gospell of Christ hath to be universally believed And therefore the Article may bee true though there were no Church in the world In regard this notwithstanding it remaines still true that there ought to be a Church this Church ought to be Catholique For as of these two Propositions There is a Church in America and There should bee a Church in America The truth of the latter depends not upon the truth of the former so neither does it in these two There is a Church diffused all the world over and There should be a Church diffused all the world over 42 Thirdly if you understand by Errours not fundamentall such as are not damnable it is not true as I haue often told you that we confesse your errours not fundamentall 43 Lastly for your desire that I should here apply an authority of S. Cyprian alleaged in your next number I would haue done so very willingly but indeed I know not how to doe it for in my apprehensiō it hath no more to doe with your present businesse of proving it unlawfull to communicate with these men who hold the Church was not alwaies visible then In nova fert animus Besides I am here again to remember you that S. Cyprians words were they never so pertinent yet are by neither of the parts litigant esteemed any rule of faith And therefore the urging of them and such like authorities serves onely to make Books great and Controversies endlesse 44 Ad § 17. The next Section in three long leaues delivers us this short sense That those Protestants which say they have not left the Churches externall Communion but only her corruptions pretend to doe that which is impossible Because these corruptions were inherent in the Churches externall Communion and therefore he that forsakes them cannot but forsake this 45 Ans. But who are they that pretend they forsooke the Churches corruptions and not her externall communion Some there be that say they have not left the Church that is not ceased to be members of the Church but only left her corruptions some that they have not left the communion but the corruptions of it meaning the internall communion of it and conjunction with it by faith and obedience which disagree from the former only in the manner of speaking for he that is in the Church is in this kinde of communion with it and he that is not in this internall communion is not in the Church Some perhaps that they left not your externall communion in all things meaning that they left it not voluntarily being not fugitivi but fugati as being willing to joyne with you in any act of piety but were by you necessitated and constrained to doe so because you
change the state of the Question but you mistake it For the Question was not whether they might forsake the corruptions of the Church and continue in her externall communion which we confesse impossible because these corruptions were in her communion But the Question was whether they might forsake the corruptions of the Church and not the Church but continue still the Members of it And to this Question there is not in your whole discourse one pertinent syllable 50 We doe not confound internall Acts of understanding with externall deeds but acknowledge as you would have us that we cannot as matters now stand separate from your corruptions but we must depart from your Externall communion For you have so ordered things that whosoever will Communicate with you at all must communicate with you in your corruptions But it is you that will not perceive the difference between being a part of the Church and being in externall Communion with all the other parts of it taking for granted that which is certainly false that no two men or Churches divided in externall communion can be both true parts of the Catholique Church 51 We are not to learn the difference between Schisme Heresy for Heresy we conceive an obstinate defence of any Errour against any necessary Article of the Christian faith And Schisme a causelesse separation of one part of the Church from another But this we say That if we convince you of errors and corruptions professed and practised in your Communion then we cannot be Schismatiques for refusing to joyne with you in the profession of these Errors and the practise of these corruptions And therefore you must free your selves from Error or us from Schisme 52 Lastly whereas you say That you have demonstrated against us that Protestants divided themselves from the externall communion of the Visible Church adde which externall communion was corrupted and we shall confesse the accusation and glory in it But this is not that Quod erat demonstrandum but that we divided our selves from the Church that is made ourselves out-lawes from it and no members of it And moreover in the Reason of your separation from the externall communion of your Church you are mistaken for it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches externall communion was corrupted and needed Reformation 53 That a pretence of Reformation will acquit no man from Schisme we grant very willingly and therefore say that it concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his Salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For unlesse it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient But whether a true Reformation of our selves from Errors superstitions and impieties will not justify our separation in these things our separation I say from them who will not reforme themselves and as much as in them lies hinder others from doing so This is the point you should have spoken to but have not As for the sentences of the Fathers to which you referre us for the determination of this Question I suppose by what I have said above the Reader understands by alleaging them you have gain'd little credit to your cause or person And that if they were competent Iudges of this controversy their sentence is against you much rather then for you 54 Lastly whereas you desire D. Potter to remember his own words There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe and pretend that you have shewed that Luther did so The Doctor remembers his words very well and hath no reason to be ashamed of them Only he desires you to remember that hereafter you doe not confound as hitherto you have done departing from the Church i. e. ceasing to be a member of it with departing from the Churches externall communion and then he is perswaded it will appeare to you that against Luther and his followers you have said many things but shewed nothing 55 But the Church Vniversall remaining the Church Vniversall according to D. Potter may fall into error And from hence it cleerely followes that it is impossible to leave the externall communion of the Church so corrupted and retain externall communion with the Catholique Church Ans. The reason of this consequence which you say is so cleere truly I cannot possibly discern But the conclusion inferr'd methinkes is evident of it selfe and therefore without proofe I grant it I meane that it is impossible to leave the externall communion of the Catholique Church corrupted and to retain externall communion with the Catholique Church But what use you can make of it I doe not understand Vnlesse you will pretend that to say a man may forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church is all one as to say he may forsake the Churches externall Communion and not forsake it If you mean so sure you mistake the meaning of Protestants when they say They forsook not the Church but her corruptions For in saying so they neither affirme nor deny that they forsooke the externall communion of the Church nor speake at all of it But they mean only that they ceased not to be still members of the Church though they ceased to believe and practise some things which the whole Church formerly did believe and practise And as for the externall Communion of the Visible Church we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it that is renounce the practise of some observances in which the whole visible Church before thē did communicate But this we say they did without Schisme because they had cause to do so and no man can have cause to be a Schismatique 56 But your Argument you conceive will bee more convincing if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct Visible true Churches one Pure the other Corrupted but one Church only Ans. The ground of this is no way certain nor here sufficiently proved For whereas you say Histories are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should have read all Histories that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much lesse extant uncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all power in her hands hath been so pernitiously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all Records should remain which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Neither secondly to suppose a Visible Church before Luther which did not erre is it to contradict this ground of D. Potters that the Church may erre Vnlesse you will have us believe that May be and Must be is all one and that all which may be true is true which rule if it were true then sure all men would be honest because all men may be so and you would not
make so bad Arguments unlesse you will pretend you cannot make better Nor thirdly is it to contradict these words The Church may not hope to triumph over all error till she be in Heaven For to triumph over error is to be secure from it to be out of danger of it not to be obnoxious to it Now a Church may be free from error and yet not secure from it and consequently in this sense not triumph over it Fourthly whereas you say it evacuateth the bragge of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church perhaps though I know not who they be that say so by a frequent synecdoche they may mean by the whole the greatest and most illustrious part of it the lustre whereof did much obscure the other though it were not wholly invisible Besides if their bragge be evacuated as you call it let it be so I see no harme will come of it Lastly whereas you say that supposing a visible pure Church Luther must be a Schismatique 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 himselfe to it Not indeed in place wich was not necessary not in externall communion which was impossible but by the Vnion of faith and charity Vpon these grounds I say that the ground of this Argument is no way made certaine yet because it is not manifestly false I am content to let it passe And for ought I see it is very safe for me to doe so for you build nothing upon it which I may not fairely grant For what doe you conclude from hence but that seeing there was no Visible Church but corrupted Luther forsaking the externall communion of the corrupted Church could not but forsake the externall communion of the Catholique Church Well let this also be granted what will come of it What that Luther must be a Schismatique By no meanes For not every separation but only a causeles separation from the communion of the Church we maintain to be Schismaticall Hereunto may be added that though the whole Church were corrupted yet properly speaking it is not true that Luther his Followers forsook the whole corrupted Church or the externall 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 goe about to perswade 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 followes not in as much as themselves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore could no more separate from the whole then 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. In the 18. § you prove that which no man denies that corruption in manners yeelds no sufficient cause to leave the Church yet sure it yeelds sufficient cause to cast them out of the Church that are after the Churches publique admonition obstinate in notorious impieties Neither doth the cutting off such men from the Church lay any necessity upon us either to goe 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 scandall to the Church Our Blessed Saviour foretold you say that there should be in the Church tares with choice corne 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 lawfull to roote these tares such are Heretiques out of the world neither doe Protestants disobey it if they eject manifest Heresies and notorious sinners out of the Church 58 Ad § 19. in the 19. you are so curteous 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 errour to remain in any Churches communion whose errors are not damnable For if the error be not damnable the belief thereof cannot Ans. D. Potter confesseth no such matter but only that he hopes that your errors though in themselves sufficiently damnable yet by accident did not damne all that held them such he meanes and saies as were excusably ignorant of the Truth and amongst the number of their unknown sinnes repented daily of their unknown errors The truth is he thinks as ill of your errors and their desert as you doe 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 mercifull and therefore will not damne them for meere errors who desire to find the truth and cannot and withall 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 negligence would not 59 To your minor also I answer almost in your own words § 42. of this Chap. I thank you for your curteous supposall that your Church may erre and in recompence thereof will doe you a charity by putting you in mind into what Labyrinths you cast your selfe by supposing that the Church may erre in some of her Proposalls and yet denying it lawfull for any man though he know this which you suppose to oppose her judgement or leave her communion Will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience or externally deny that which he knowes true No that you will not for them that doe so you your selfe have pronounced A. damned Crâ—w of dissembling Sycophants Or would you have him continue in your Communion and yet professe your Church to erre This you your selves have made to him impossible Or would you have him beleeve those things true which together with him you have supposed to be Errors This in such a one as is assur'd or perswaded of that which you here suppose that your Church doth erre and such only we say are obliged to forsake your communion is as Schoolemen speak Implicatio in terminis a contradiction so plain that one word destroieth another as if one should say a living dead man
Book Besides any private man who truly believes the Scripture and seriously endeavours to know the will of God and to doe it is as secure as the visible Church more secure then your Church from the danger of erring in fundamentalls for it is impossible that any man so qualified 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 farre 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 professe this I cannot but I must lye 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 and false hoods is certainly a capitall sinne and of great affinity with the sinne which shall never be forgiven 95 But neither is the Church of Protestants perfectly free from errors and corruptions so the Doctor confesses p. 69. which he can only excuse by saying they are not fundamentall as likewise those in the Roman Church are confessed not to be fundamentall And what man of Iudgement will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one Ans. And yet you your selfe 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 judgement 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 beliefe and profession of her supposed corruptions as the condition of her Communion which this Church confessedly corrupted doth not What man of judgement will think it any disparagement to his judgement to preferre the better though not simply the best before that which is starke naught To preferre indifferent good health before a diseased and corrupted state of Body To preferre a field not perfectly weeded before a field that is quite over-runne with weeds and thornes And therefore though Protestants have some Errors yet seeing they are neither so great as yours nor impos'd with such tyranny nor maintained with such obstinacy he that conceives it any disparagement to his judgement to change your Communion for theirs though confessed to have some corruptions it may well be presum'd that he hath but little judgement For as for your pretence that yours are confessed not to be fundamentall it is an affected mistake as already I have often told you 66 Ad § 22. But D. Potter saies it is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers but she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and error till she be in heaven Now if it be comfort enough to be secur'd from all capitall dangers which can arise only from error in fundamentall points Why were not our first Reformers content with enough but would needs dismember the Church out of apernitious greedinesse of more then enough Ans. I have already shewed sufficiently how capitall danger may arise from errors though not fundamentall I adde now that what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough according to that of the Gospell to whom much is given of him much shall be required That the same error may be not capitall to those who want meanes of finding the truth and capitall to others who have meanes 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 S. Cyprian upon another occasion and also by the British Quartodecimans to the maintainers of the Doctrine of your Church and by both this very answer was returned and therefore I cannot but hope that for their sakes you will approve it 67 But if as the Doctor saies no Church may hope to triumph over all error ti◠she be in heaven then we must either grant that errors not fundamentall cannot yeeld sufficient cause to forsake the Church or you must affirme that all Communities may and ought to be forsaken Answ. The Doctor does 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 totriumph over all But then we say not that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errors unfundamentall unlesse it exact withall either a dissimulation of the being noxious or a Profession of them against the dictate of conscience if they be meere errors This if the Church does as certainly yours doth then her communion is to be forsaken rather then the sinne of hypocrisy to be committed Whereas to forsake the Churches of Protestants for such errors there is no necessity because they erre to themselves doe not under pain of Excommunication exact the profession of their errors 68 But the Church may not be left by reason of sinne therefore neither by reason of errors not fundamentall in as much as both sinne and error are impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven Ans. The reason of the consequence does not appear to mee But I answer to the Antecedent Neither for sinne nor errors ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and injoyne them but if she doe as the Roman does then we must forsake men rather then God leave the Churches communion rather then commit sinne or professe known errors to be divine truths For the Prophet EZechiel hath assured us that to say the Lord hath said so when the Lord hath not said so is a great sinne and a high presumption be the matter never so small 69 Ad § 23. 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 Fundamentall Not the number because the foundation is strong enough to support them Ans. Here againe you vainely 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 laies necessity on us either to forsake your company or to professe what we know to be false 70 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 thou how dare we alleage his command that we must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not fundamentall Ans. He that commands us to pardon our Brother sinning against us so often will not allow us for his sake to sinne with him so much as once He will have us doe any thing but sinne rather then offend any man But his will is also that we offend all the World rather then sinne in the least matter And therefore though his will were and it were in our power which yet is false to pardon the errors of an erring Church yet certainly it is not his will that we should erre with the Church or if we doe not that we should against conscience professe the errors of it 71 Ad § 24. But Schismatiques from the Church of England or any other Church with this very Answer that they forsake not the Church but the errors of it may cast off from themselves the imputation of Schisme Ans. True they may make the same Answer and the same defence as we doe as a murtherer can cry not guilty as well as an innocent person but not so truly nor so justly The question is not what may be pretended but what can bee proved by Schismatiques They may object errors to other Churches as well as we doe to yours but that they prove their accusation so strongly as we can that appeares not To the Priests and elders of the Iewes imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Iohn answered they must obey God rather then men The three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer Give me now any factious Hypocrite who makes religion the pretence and cloke of his Rebellion and who sees not that such a one may answer for himselfe in those very formall words which the holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of And yet I presume no Christian will deny but this answer was good in the mouth of the Apostles and Martyrs though it were obnoxious to be abused by Traitors and Rebels Certainly therefore it is no good consequence to say Schismatiques may make use of this Answer therefore all that doe make use of it are Schismatiques But moreover it is to be observed that the chiefe part of our defence that you deny your communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grant their Communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered 72 But the forsaking the Roman Church opens a way to innumerable Sects and Schismes and therefore it must not be forsaken Ans. We must not doe evill to avoid evill neither are all courses presently lawfull by which inconveniences may be avoided If all men would submit themselves to the chiefe Mufty of the Turkes it is apparent there would be no divisions yet unity is not to be purchased at so deare a rate It were a thing much to be desired that there were no divisions yet difference of opinions touching points controverted is rather to be chosen then unanimous concord in damned errors As it is better for men to goe to heaven by diverse waies or rather by divers paths of the same way then in the same path to goe on peaceably to hell Amica Pax magis amica Veritas 73 But there can be no iust cause to forsake the Church so the Doctor grants who notwithstanding teacheth that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall therefore neither is the Roman Church to be forsaken for such errors Ans. There can be no just cause to forsake the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is to cease being a member of the Church This I grant if it will doe you any service But that there can be no just cause to forsake the Church in some things or to speak more properly to forsake some opinions and practices which some true Church retaines and defends this I deny and you mistake the Doctor if you think he affirmes it 74 Ad § 26. 27. What prodigious doctrines say you are these Those Protestants who belieue that your Church erred in points necessary to salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schisme But others c. Prodigious doctrines indeed But who I pray are they that teach them Where does D. Potter accuse those Protestants of damnable Schisme who left your Church because they hold it erroneous in necessary points What Protestant is there that holds not that you taught things contrary to the plaine precepts of Christ both Ceremoniall in mutilating the Communion and Morall in points of superstition Idolatry and most bloody tyranny which is without question to erre in necessary matters Neither does D. Potter accuse any man of Schisme for holding so if he should he should call himselfe a Schismatique Only he saies such if there be any such as affirm that ignorant soules among you who had no means to know the truth cannot possibly be saved that their wisdome and charity cannot be justified Now you your selfe haue plainly affirmed That ignorant Protestants dying with contrition may bee saved and yet would be unwilling to be thought to say that Protestants erre in no points necessary to salvation For that may be in it selfe and in ordinary course where there are meanes of knowledge necessary which to a man invincibly ignorant will proue not necessary Again where doth D. Potter suppose as you make him that there were other Protestants who believed that your Church had no errours Or where does hee say they did well to forsake her upon this ridiculous reason because they judged that she retained all means necessary to salvation Doe you think us so stupid as that wee cannot distinguish between that which D. Potter sayes and that which you make him say He vindicates Protestants from Schisme two waies The one is because they had just and great and necessary cause to separate which Schismatiques never haue because they that haue it are no Schismatiques For schisme is alwaies a causelesse separation The other is because they did not joyn with their separation an uncharitable damning of all those from whom they did divide themselves as the manner of Schismatiques is Now that which he intends for a circumstance of our separation you make him make the cause of it and the motiue to it And whereas he saies though we separate from you in some things yet we acknowledge your Church a member of the body of Christ and therefore are not Schismatiques You make him say most absurdly we did well to forsake you because we iudged you a member of the body of Christ. Iust as if a brother should leaue his Brothers company in some ill courses and should say
to him Herein I forsake you yet I leave you not absolutely for I acknowledge you still to be my brother and shall use you as a brother And you perverting his speech should pretend that he had said I leaue your company in these ill courses and I doe well to doe so because you are my Brother so making that the cause of his leaving him which indeed is the cause that he left him no farther 75 But you say The very reason for which hee acquitteth himselfe from Schisme is because he holds that the Church which they forsook is not cut off from the Body of Christ. Ans. This is true But can you not perceive a difference between justifying his separation from Schisme by this reason and making this the reason of his separation If a man denying obedience in some unlawfull matter to his lawfull Soveraign should say to him herein I disobey you but yet I am no Rebell because I acknowledge you my Soveraign Lord and am ready to obey you in all things lawfull should not he be an egregious sycophant that should accuse him as if he had said I doe well to disobey you because I acknowledge you my lawfull Soveraign Certainly hee that joynes this acknowledgment with his necessitated disobedience does well but he that makes this consideration the reason of his disobedience doth ill Vrge therefore this as you call it most solemn foppery as far as you please For every understanding Reader will easily perceiue that this is no foppery of D. Potters but a calumny of yours from which he is as far as he is from holding yours to bee the true Church whereas it is a sign of a great deal of Charity in him that he allowes you to be a Part of it 76 And whereas you pretend to finde such unspeakable comfort here in that we cannot cleare our selues from Schisme otherwise then by acknowledging that they doe not nor cannot cut off your Church from the hope of salvation I beseech you to take care that this false comfort cost you not too deare For why this good opinion of God Almighty that he will not damne men for errour who were without their owne fault ignorant of the truth should be any consolation to them who having the key of knowledge will neither use it themselves nor permit others to use it who haue eyes to see and will not see who haue cares to heare and will not heare this I assure you passeth my capacity to apprehend Neither is this to make our salvation depend on yours but only ours and yours not desperatly inconsistent Nor to say wee must be damn'd unlesse you may be saved but that we assure our selues if our lives be answerable we shall be saved by our knowledge And that wee hope and I tell you again Spes est reiincertae nomen that some of you may possibly bee the rather saved by occasion of their unaffected Ignorance 77 For our Brethren whom you say we condemn of heresie for denying the Churches perpetuity we know none that doe so unlesse you conceive a corrupted Church to be none at all and if you doe then for ought I know in your account we must be all Heretiques for all of us acknowledge that the Church might be corrupted even with errors in themselves damnable and not only might but hath been 78 But Schisme consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith Now we must professe you agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamentall Articles Therefore we are Schismatiques Ans. Either in your Major by all points of faith you mean all fundamentall points only or all simply and absolutely If the former I deny your Major for I may without all schisme divide from that Church which erres in any point of faith Fundamentall or otherwise if she require the profession of this Errour among the conditions of her Communion Now this is our case If the latter I deny the syllogisme as having manifestly foure termes and being cosen German to this He that obeys God in all things is innocent Titius obeys God in some things Therefore he is innocent 79 But they who judge a reconciliation with the Church of Rome to be damnable they that say there might be iust and necessary cause to depart from it and that they of that Church which haue understanding means to discover their Errour and neglect to use them are not to bee flattered with hope of salvation they doe cut off that Church from the body of Christ and the hope of salvation and so are Schismatiques But D. Potter doth the former therefore is a Schismatique Ans. No he doth not not cut off that whole Church from the hope of salvation not those members of it who were invincibly or excusably ignorant of the truth but those only who having understanding and meanes to discover their errour neglect to use them Now these are not the whole Church therefore he that supposing their impenitence cuts these off from hope of salvation cannot be justly said to cut off that whole Church from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation 80 Ad § 28. 29. Whereas D. Potter saies There is a great difference between a Schisme from them and a Reformation of our selves this you â—ay is a quaint subtilty by which all Schisme and sinne may be as well excused It seems then in your judgement that theeves and adulterers and murtherers and traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants that they did no hurt to others but only reforme themselves But then me thinks it is very strange that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schisme and that to this day never any Theefe or Murtherer should haue been heard of to make use of this Apologie And then for Schismatiques I would know whether Victor Bishop of Rome who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not conforming to his Church in keeping Easter whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius upon pretence that himselfe was elected Bishop of Rome when indeed he was not whether Felicissimus and his Crew that went out of the Church of Carthage and set up altar against altar because having fallen in persecutioÌ„ they might not be restored to the peace of the Church presently upon the intercession of the Confessours whether the Donatists who divided from and damned all the world because all the world would not excommunicate them who were accused onely and not convicted to haue been Traditors of the sacred Books whether they which for the slips infirmity of others which they might and ought to tolerate or upon some difference in matters of Order Ceremony or for some errour in doctrine neither pernitious nor hurtfull to faith or piety separate themselves from others or others from themselves or lastly whether they that put themselves out of the Churches unity and obedience because their opinions are
reason is alike for all erres in many things are of necessity to forsake that Church in the Profession and practice of those errors 105 But to consider your exception to this speech of the Doctors somewhat more particularly I say your whole discourse against it is compounded of falsehoods and impertinencies The first falsehood is that he in these words avoucheth that no learned Catholiques can be saved Vnlesse you will suppose that all learned Catholiques are convinc'd in conscience that your Church erres in many things It may well be fear'd that many are so convinc'd and yet professe what they believe not Many more have been and have stifled their consciences by thinking it an act of humility to doe so Many more would have beene had they with liberty and indifference of judgement examined the grounds of the Religion which they professe But to think that all the Learned of your side are actually convinc'd of errors in your Church and yet will not forsake the profession of them this is so great an uncharitablenesse that I verily believe D. Potter abhorres it Your next falsehood is That the Doctor affirmes that you Catholiques want no meanes to Salvation and that he judges the Roman errors not to be in themselves fundamentall or damnable Which calumny I have very often confuted and in this very place it is confuted by D. Potter and confessed by your selfe For in the beginning of this Answer you tell us that the Doctor avouches of all Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse that they cannot be saved Certainly then he must needs esteeme them to want something necessary to Salvation And then in the Doctors saying it is remarkable that he confesses your errors to some men not damnable which cleerely imports that according to his judgement they were damnable in themselves though by accident to them who lived and died in invincible ignorance and with repentance they might prove not damnable A third is that these Assertions the Roman Errors are in themselves not damnable and yet it is damnable for me who know them to be errors to hold and confesse them are absolutely inconsistent which is false for be the matter what it will yet for a man to tell a lye especially in matter of Religion cannot but be damnable How much more then to goe on in a course of lying by professing to believe these things divine Truths which he verily believes to be falsehoods and fables A fourth is that if we erred in thinking that your Church holds errors this error or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed and deposed by judging those errors not damnable For what repugnance is there between these two suppositions that you doe hold some errors and that they are not damnable And if there be no repugnance between them how can the beleefe of the latter remove or destroy or if it be erroneous rectify the belief of the former Nay seeing there is a manifest consent between them how can it be avoided but the belief of the latter will maintaine and preserve the belief of the former For who can conjoyne in one braine not crackt pardon me if I speake to you in your own words these Assertions In the Roman Church there are errors not damnable and in the Roman Church there are no errors at all Or what sober understanding would ever think this a good collection I esteeme the errors of the Roman Church not damnable therefore I doe amisse to think that she erres at all If therefore you would have us alter our judgements that your Church is erroneous your only way is to shew your doctrine consonant at least not evidently repugnant to Scripture and Reason For as for this device this short cut of perswading our selves that you hold no errours because we believe your errors are not damnable assure your selfe it will never hold 106 A fift falsehood is That we daily doe this favour for Protestants you must mean if you speak consequently to judge they have no errors because we judge they have none damnable Which the world knowes to be most untrue And for our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errors the justification hereof is not so much that their errors are not damnable as that they require not the beliefe and profession of these errors among the conditions of their communion Which puts a main difference between them and you because we may continue in their communion without professing to believe their opinions but in yours we cannot A sixt is that according to the Doctrine of all Divines there is any difference between a speculative perswasion of conscience of the unlawfulnesse of any thing and a practicall Dictamen that the same thing is unlawfull For these are but diverse words signifying the same thing neither is such a perswasion wholly speculative but tending to practice nor such a dictamē wholly practicall but grounded upon speculation A Seventh is That Protestants did only conceive in speculation that the Church of Rome erred in some doctrines and had not also a practicall dictamen that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errors An eighth is that it is not lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errors not appertaining to the substance of Faith which is not universally true but with this exception unlesse that Church requires the belief and profession of them The ninth is that D. Potter teacheth that Luther was bound to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light Confuted manifestly by D. Potter in this very place for by the house of God you mean the Roman Church and of her the Doctor saies that a necessity did lye upon him even under pain of damnation to forsake the Church of Rome in her errors This sure is not to say that he was obliged to forsake her for an unnecessary light The tenth is covertly vented in your intimation that Luther and his followers were the proper cause of the Christian worlds combustion Whereas indeed the true cause of this lamentable effect was your violent persecution of them for serving God according to their conscience which if it be done to you you condemne of horrible impiety and therefore may not hope to be excused if you doe it to others 107 The eleaventh is that our first reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain Which is to say that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formall and expresse termes containes many of these opinions And the reason of this assertion is very vaine for though they had not an absolute infallibility promised unto them yet may they be of some things infallibly certaine As Euclide sure was not infallible yet was he certain enough that twice two were foure and that every whole was greater then a part of that whole And so though Calvin Melancthō were not infallible in all things yet they might and did know well enough that your Latine Service was condemned by S.
yee offend against God by troubling his Church without iust and necessary cause Be it that there are some reasons inducing you to think hardly of our Lawes Are those Reasons demonstrative are they necessary or but meer probabilities only An argument necessary and demonstratiue is such as being proposed to any man and understood the minde cannot choose but inwardly assent Any one such reason dischargeth I grant the conscience and setteth it at ful liberty For the publique approbation given by the body of this whole Church unto those things which are established doth make it but probable that they are good And therefore unto a necessary proofe that they are not good it must giue place This plain declaration of his judgement in this matter this expresse limitation of his former resolution hee makes in the very same Section which affords your former quotation and therefore what Apology can bee made for you and your store-house M. Brerely for dissembling of it I cannot possibly imagine 111 D. Potter p. 131. saies That the errors of the Donatists and Novatians were not in themselves Heresies nor could be made so by the Churches determination But that the Churches intention was only to silence disputes and to settle peace and unity in her government which because they factiously opposed they were justly esteemed Schismatiques From hence you conclude that the same condemnation must passe against the first Reformers seeing they also opposed the commands of the Church imposed on them for silencing all disputes and setling Peace and Vnity in government But this collection is deceitfull and the reason is Because though the first Reformers as well as the Donatists and Novatians opposed herein the Commands of the Visible Church that is of a great part of it yet the Reformers had reason nay necessity to doe so the Church being then corrupted with damnable errors which was not true of the Church when it was opposed by the Novatians and Donatists And therefore though they and the Reformers did the same action yet doing it upon different grounds it might in these merit applause and in them condemnation 112 Ad § 43. The next § hath in it some objections against Luthers person but none against his cause which alone I have undertaken to justify therefore I passe it over Yet this I promise that when you or any of your side shall publish a good defence of all that your Popes have said done especially of them whom Bellarmin beleeves in such a long train to have gone to the Divell then you shall receive an ample Apology for all the actions and words of Luther In the mean time I hope all reasonable and equitable judges will esteeme it not unpardonable in the great and Heroicall spirit of Luther if being opposed and perpetually baited with a world of Furies hee were transported sometimes and made somewhat furious As for you I desire you to be quiet and to demand no more whether God be wont to send such Furies to preach the Gospell Vnlesse you desire to heare of your killing of Kings Massacring of Peoples Blowing up of Parliaments and have a minde to be ask't whether it bee probable that that should bee Gods cause which needs to bee maintained by such Divellish meanes 112 Ad § 44. 45. In the two next Particles which are all of this Chapter that remain unspoken to you spend a great deale of reading wit reason against some men who pretending to honour believe the Doctrine practice of the visible Church you mean your own and condemning their Forefathers who forsook her say they would not have done so yet remain divided from her Communion Which men in my judgement cannot be defended For if they believe the Doctrine of your Church then must they believe this doctrine that they are to returne to your Communion And therefore if they doe not so it cannot be avoided but they must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so I leave them only I am to remember you that these men cannot pretend to be Protestants because they pretend to believe your doctrine which is opposite in Diameter unto the doctrine of Protestants and therefore in a worke which you professe to have written meerly against Protestants all this might have been spared CHAP. VI. That Luther and the rest of Protestants have added Heresie unto Schisme BECAVSE Vice is best knowne by the contrary Vertue we cannot well determine what Heresie is nor who be Heretiques but by the opposite vertue of Faith whose Nature being once understood as farre as belongs to our present purpose we shall passe on with ease to the definition of Heresie and so be able to discerne who be Heretiques And this I intend to doe not by entring into such particular Questions as are controverted between Catholiques and Protestants but only by applying some generall grounds either already proved or else yeelded to on all sides 2 Almighty God having ordained Man to a supernaturall End of Beatitude by supernaturall meanes it was requisite that his Vnderstanding should be enabled to apprehend that End and meanes by a supernaturall knowledge And because if such a knowledge were no more then probable it could not be able sufficiently to overbeare our Will and encounter with human probabilities being backed with the strength of flesh and blood It was further necessary that this supernaturall knowledge should be most certaine and infallible and that Faith should beleeue nothing more certainly then that it self is a most certain Beliefe and so be able to beat downe all gâ—y probabilities of humane Opinion And because the aforesaid Means and end of Beatificall Vision do farre exceed the reach of naturall wit the certainty of faith could not alwaies be joyned with such evidence of reason as is wont to be found in the Principles or Conclusions of humane naturall Sciences that so all flesh might not glory in the arme of flesh but that he who glories should glory in our Lord Moreover it was expedient that our belief or assent to divine truths should not only be unknowne or inevident by any humane discourse but that absolutely also it should be obscure in it self and ordinarily speaking be void even of supernaturall evidence that so we might have occasion to actuate and testifie the obedience which we owe to our God noâ— only by submitting our Will to this Will and Commands but by subjecting also our Vnderstanding to this Wisdome and Words captivating as the Apostle speaks the same Vnderstanding to the Obedience of Faith Which occasion had been wanting if Almighty God had made â—â—â—ere to us the truths which now are certainly but not evidently presented to our minds For where Truth doth manifestly open it self not obedience but necessity commands our assent For this reason Divines teach that the Objects of Faith being not evident to humane reason it is in mans power not only to abstaine from believing by suspending our Iudgments or exercising no act one
communicating with the Bishop of Rome to communicate with whom was ever taken by the Ancient Fathers as an assured signe of being a true Catholique They had also as S. Augustine 〈◊〉 a pretended Church in the house and territory of a Spanish Lady called Lucilla who went flying out of the Catholique Church because she had been justly checked by Caecilianus And the same Saint speaking of the conference he had with Fortunius the Donatist saithâ— Here did he first attempt to affirme that his Communion was spread over the whole Earth c. but because the thing was evidently false they got out of this discourse by confusion of language whereby neverthelesse they sufficiently declared that they did not hold that the true Church ought necessarily to be confined to one place but only by meere necessity were forced to yield that it was so in fact because their Sect which they held to be the only true Church was not spread over the world In which point Fortunius and the rest were more modest then he who should affirme that Luther's reformation in the very beginning was spread over the whole Earth being at that time by many degrees not so farre diffused as the Sect of the Douâ—tists I have no desire to prosecute the similitude of Protestants with Donatists by remembring that the Sect of these men was begun and promoted by the passion of Lucilla and who is ignorant what influence two women the Mother and Daughter ministred to Protestancy in England Nor will I stand to observe their very likenes of phrase with the Donatists who called the Chaire of Rome the Chaire of pestilence and the Roman Church an Harlot which is D. Potter's owne phrase wherein he is lesse excusable then they because he maintaineth her to be a true Church of Christ and therefore let him duely ponder these words of S. Augustine against the Dâ—â—atists If I persecute him iustly who detracts from his Neighbour why should I not persecute him who detracts from the Church of Christ and saith this is not she but this is an Harlot And least of all will I consider whether you may not be well compared to one Ticonius a Donatist who wrote against Pâ—rmenianus likewise a Donatist who blasphemed that the Church of Christ had perished as you doe even in this your Book writ against some of your Protestant Brethren or as you call them Zeloâ—s among you who hold the very same or rather a worse Heresie and yet remained among them even after Parmenianus had excommunicated him as those your Zealous Brethren would proceed against you if it were in their power and yet like Ticonius you remain in their Communion and come not into that Church which is hath been and shall ever be universall For which very cause S. Augustin complaines of Ticonius that although he wrote against the Donatists yet he was of an hart so extreamly absurd as not to forsake them altogether And speaking of the same thing in another place he observes that although Tiâ—onius did manifestly confute them who affirmed that the Church had perished yet he saw not saith this holy Father that which in good consequence he should have seen that those Christians of Africa belonged to the Church spread over the whole world who remained vnited not with them who were divided from the communion and vnity of the same world but with such as did communicate with the whole world But Parmenianus and the rest of the Donatists saw that consequence and resolved rather to settle their mind in obstinacy against the most manifest truth which Ticoâ—us maintained then by yeelding thereto to be overcome by those Churches in Africa which enioyed the Communion of that vnity which Ticonius defended from which they had divided themselves How fitly these words agree to Catholiques in England in respect of the Protestants I desire the Reader to consider But thesâ— and the like resemblances of Protestants to the Donatists I willingly let passe and only vrge the main point That since Luthers Reformed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Luther and yet was because so forsooth they will needs have it in the Apostles time they must of necessity affirme heretically with the Donatists that the true and unspotted Church of Christ perished and that she which remained on earth was O bâ—asphemy◠〈◊〉 Harlot Moreover the same heresy followes out of the doctrine of D. Potter and other Protestants that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall because we have shewed that every errour against any one revealed truth is Heresy and damnable whether the matter bee otherwise of it selfe great or small And how can the Church more truely be said to perish then when she is permitted to maintaine a damnable Heresy Besides we will hereafter prove that by any act of Heresy all divine faith is lost and to imagine a true Church of faithfull persons without any faith is as much as to fancy a living man without life It is therefore cleere that Donatist-like they hold that the Church of Christ perished yea they are worse then the Donatists who saâ—d that the Church remained at least in Africa whereas Protestants must of necessity be forced to grant that for along space before Luther she was no where at all But let us goe forward to other reasons 18 The holy Scripture and Ancient Fathers doe assigne Separation from the Visible Church as a mark of Heresie according to that of S. Iohâ— They went out from us And Some who went out from us And Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things And accordingly Vincentius Lyrinensis saith Who ever began heresies who did not first separate himself from the Vniversality Antiquity and Consent of the Catholique Church But it is manifest that when Luther appeared there was no visible Church distinct from the Roman out of which she could depart as it is likewise well knowne that Luther and his followers departed out of her Therefore she is no way lyable to this Mark of Heresie but Protestants cannot possibly avoid it To this purpose S. Prosper hath these pithy words A Christian communicating with the universall Church is a Catholique and he who is divided from her is an Heretique and Antichrist But Luther in his first Reformation could not communicate with the visible Catholique Church of those times because he began his Reformation by opposing the supposed Errors of the then visible Church we must therefore say with S. Prosper that he was an Heretique c. Which like-likewise is no lesse cleerely proved out of S. Cypriâ—n saying Not we g departed from them but they from us and since Heresies and Schismes are bred afterwards while they make to themselves divers Conventicles they have forsakeâ— the head and origen of Truth 19 And that we might not remain doubtfull what separation it is which is the marke of Heresy the ancient Fathers tell us more in particular that it
faith had they known it necessary S. Luke especially who plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary Me thinks S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their Priviledge to them Me thinks instead of saying Your faith is spoken of all the world over which you haue no reason to be very proud of for he saies the very same thing to the Thessalonians he could not haue fayl'd to haue told them once at least in plaine termes that their faith was the Rule for all the World for ever But then sure he would haue forborn to put them in feare of an impossibility as hee doth in his eleventh Chap. that they also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not look to their standing might fall away to infidelity as the Iews had done Me thinks in all his other Epistles at least in some at least in one of them he could not have fayled to haue given the world this direction had he known it to be a true one that all men were to be guided by the Church of Rome and none to separate from it under pain of damnation Me thinks writing so often of Heretiques and Antichrist hee should haue given the world this as you pretend onely sure preservative from them How was it possible that S. Peter writing two Catholique Epistles mentioning his own departure writing to preserve Christians in the faith should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended Successours the Bishops of Route How was it possible that S. Iames and S. Iude in their Catholique Epistles should not giue this Catholique direction Me thinks S. Iohn instead of saying he that believeth that Iesus is the Christ is born of God The force of which direction your glosses doe quite enervate and make unavailable to discern who are the sonnes of God should haue said Hee that adheres to the doctrine of the Roman Church and lives according to it he is a good Christian and by this Mark yee shall know him What man not quite out of his witts if he consider as he should the pretended necessity of this doctrine that without the beliefe hereof no man ordinarily can be saved can possibly force himselfe to conceive that all these good and holy men so desirous of mens salvation and so well assured of it as it is pretended should be so deeply and affectedly silent in it and not One say it plainly so much as once but leaue it to be collected from uncertain Principles by many more uncertain consequences Certainly he that can judge so uncharitably of them it is no marvell if he censure other inferiour servants of Christs Atheists and Hypocrites and what he pleases Plain places therefore I did and had reason to look for when I heard you say the holy Scripture assignes Separation from the visible Church as a Mark of Heresie But instead hereof what haue you brought us but meer impertinencies S. Iohn saith of some who pretended to be Christians and were not so and therefore when it was for their advantage forsook their Profession They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us Of some who before the decree of the Councell to the contrary were perswaded and accordingly taught that the convert Gentiles were to keep the Law of Moses it is said in the Acts Some who went out from us And again S. Paul in the same book forewarnes the Ephesians that out of them should arise men speaking perverse things And from these places which it seems are the plainest you have you collect that separation from the Visible Church is assigned by Scripture as a Mark of Heresie Which is certainly a strang and unheard of strain of Logick Vnlesse you will say that every Text wherein it is said that some body goes out from some body affords an Argument for this purpose For the first place there is no certainty that it speaks of Heretiques but no Christians of Antichrists of such as denied Iesus to be the Christ See the place and you shall confesse as much The second place it is certain you must not say it speaks of Heretiques for it speaks only of some who beleeved and taught an Errour while it was yet a question and not evident and therefore according to your doctrine no formall Heresy The third saies indeed that of the Professours of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresy But not one of them all that saies or intimates that whosoever separates from the Visible Church in what state soever is certainly an Heretique Heretiques I confesse doe alwayes doe so But they that doe so are not alwayes Heretiques for perhaps the state of the Church may make it necessary for them to doe so as Rebels alwayes disobey the command of their King yet they which disobey a Kings command which perhaps may be unjust are not presently Rebels 21 Your Allegations out of Vincentius Prosper and Cyprian are lyable to these exceptions 1. That they are the sayings of men not assisted by the Spirit of God and whose Authoritie your selves will not submit to in all things 2. That the first and last are meerly impertinent neither of them affirming or intimating that separation from the present Visible Church is a mark of Heresy and the former speaking plainly of separation from Vniversality Consent and Antiquity which if you will presume without proof that we did and you did not you beg the Question For you know we pretend that we separated only from that present Church which had separated from the doctrine of the Ancient and because she had done so and so farre forth as she had done so and no farther And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true according to your own grounds For you say a man may be divided from the Church upon meer Schisme without any mixture of Heresy And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresy Lastly a man may be divided by an unjust excommunication and be both before and after a very good Catholique and therefore you cannot maintain it Vniversally true That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretique and Antichrist 22 In the 19. § we have the Authority of eight Fathers urg'd to prove that the separation from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of S. Peter I conceive you mean as it is the Particular Church is the mark of Heresy Which kind of argument I might well refuse to answer unlesse you would first promise me that whensoever I should produce as plain sentences of as great a number of Fathers as ancient for any doctrine whatsoever that you will subscribe to it though it fall out to be cōtrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church For I conceive nothing in the world more unequall or unreasonable then that you should presse us with
of a more powerfull principality there is a necessity that all the Churches that is all the faithfull round about should resort in which the Apostolique Tradition hath been alwaies observed by those who were round about If any man say I have been too bold a Critick in substituting observata instead of conseruata I desire him to know that the conjecture is not mine and therefore as I expect no praise for it so I hope I shall be farre from censure But I would intreat him to consider whether it be not likely that the same greek word signifying observo and conservo the Translater of Irenaeus who could hardly speak Latine might not easily mistake and translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conservata est instead of observata est Or whether it be not likely that those men which ancienly wrote Books and understood them nor might not easily commit such an error Or whether the sense of the place can be salved any other way if it can in Gods name let it if not I hope he is not to be condemned who with such a little alteration hath made that sense which he found non sense 30 But whether you will have it Observata or Conservata the new sumpsimus or the old mumpsimus possibly it may be something to Irenaus but to us or our cause it is no way materiall For if the rest be rightly translated neither will Conservata afford you any argument against us nor Observata helpe us to any evasion For though at the first hearing the glorious attributes here given and that justly to the Church of Rome the confounding Heretiques with her tradition and saying it is necessary for all Churches to resort to her may sound like Arguments for you yet hee that is attentive I hope will easily discover that it might be good and rationall in Irenaeus having to doe with Heretiques who somewhat like those who would be the only Catholiques declining a tryall by Scripture as not contayning 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 rationall in Iraeneus to urge them with any Tradition of more credit then their own especially a Tradition consonant to Scripture and even contain'd in it and yet that it may be irrationall in you to urge us who doe not decline Scripture but appeale to it as a perfect rule of faith with a Tradition which we pretend is many wayes repugnant to Scripture and repugnant to a Tradition far more generall then 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 Vnited with all other Apostolique Churches then 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 errour but Tradition and therefore though Irenaeus his Argument may be very probable yet yours may be worth nothing Thirdly that foureteen hundred yeares may have made a great deale of alteration in the Roman Church as Rivers though neere the fountain they may retaine their native and unmixt syncerity yet in long progresse 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 plaies the Historian only and not the Prophet and saies only that the Apostolique Tradition had been alwayes there as in other Apostolique Churches conserved or observed choose you whether but that it should be alwayes so he saies not neither had he any warrant He knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the Churches of Christ to Anti-christ that the Roman Church in particular was 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 appeares manifestly out of this book of Irenaeus quoted by you that the doctrine of the Chiliasts was in his judgment Apostolique Tradition as also it was esteemed for ought appeares 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 Iustine Martyr professeth that all good and Orthodoxe Christians of his time beleeved it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques Now I demand was this Tradition one of those that was conserved and observed in the Church of Rome or was it not If not had Irenaeus known so much he must have retracted this commendation of that Church If it was then the Tradition of the present Church of Rome contradicts the Ancient and accounts it Hereticall and then sure it can be no certain note of Heresie to depart from them who have departed from themselves and prove themselves subject unto Errour by holding contradictions Fiftly and lastly that out of the Story of the Church it is as manifest as the light at noone that though Irenaeus did esteem the Roman Tradition a great Argument of the doctrine which he there delivers and defends against the Heretiques 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 witnesse of Tradition in generall Inasmuch as in his own life his action proclaim'd the contrary For when Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunication and damnation Irenaeus and all the other Western Bishops though agreeing with him in his observation yet sharply reprehended him for excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their disagreeing plainly shewing that they esteemed that not a necessary doctrine 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 Heretiques though separated and cut off from the Roman Church Cardinall Perron to avoyd the stroak of this conuincing argument raiseth a cloud of eloquent words which because you borrow them of him in your Second part I will here insert and with short censures dispell and let his Idolaters see that Truth is
nor any thing towards it Never any error was imputed to the Arrians for denying the Authority or the infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome Besides what Eusebius saies he saies out of Irenaeus Neither doth or can the Cardinall deny the story to be true therefore he goes about by indirect Arts to foyle it cast a blurre upon it Lastly whensoever Eusebius saies any thing which the Cardinall thinkes for the advantage of his side he cites him and then he is no Arrian or at least hee would not take that for an answer to the arguments he drawes out of him b That Ruffinus was enemy to the Roman Church is said but not proved neither can it be c Eusebius saies the same also of caeteri omnes Episcopi all the other Bishops that they advised Victor to keepe those things that belonged to peace and unity and that they sharpely reprehended Victor for having done otherwise d This is said but no offer made of any proofe of it The Cardinall thinks we must take every thing upon his word They to whom the Tradition was delivered Polyerates and the Asian Bishops knew no such matter nay professed the contrary And who is more likely to know the Truth they which lived within two ages of the fountain of it or the Cardinall who lived sixteen ages after it e How can it make against those that object it seeing it is evident from Irenaeus his Reprehension that he thought Victor and the Roman Church no infallible nor sufficient Iudge of what was necessary to be believed and done what not what was Vniversall Tradition what not what was a sufficient ground of Excommunication and what not and consequently that there was no such necessity as is pretended that all other Churches should in matters of faith conforme themselves to the Church of Rome f This is to suppose that Excommunication is an Act or Argument or signe of Power Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church Story that it was often used by Equalls upon Equalls and by Inferiors upon Superiors if the equalls or inferiors thought their equalls or superiors did any thing which deserved it g And what is this but to confesse that they thought that a small cause of excommunication and unsufficient which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient And consequently that Victor and his Part declared that to be a matter of faith and of necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity h True you have so expounded it but not proved nor offered any proofe of your exception This also we must take upon your Authority Irenaeus speaks not one word of any other power to which he compares or before which he preferres the power of the Roman Church And it is evident out of the Councell of Chalcedon that all the Principality which it had was given it not by God but by the Church in regard it was seated in the Imperiall City Whereupon when afterwards Constantinople was the Imperiall City they decreed that that Chuch should have equall Priviledges and dignity and preheminence with the Church of Rome All the Fathers agreed in this decree saving only the Legats of the Bishop of Rome shewing plainly that they never thought of any Supremacy given the Bishops of Rome by God or grounded upon Scripture but only by the Church and therefore alterable at the Churches pleasure i This is falsely translated Convenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam every body knowes signifies no more but to resort or come to the Roman Church which then there was a necessity that men should doe because that the affaires of the Empire were transacted in that place But yet Irenaeus saies not so of every Church simply which had not been true but only of the adjacent Churches for so he expounds himselfe in saying To this Church it is necessary that every Church that is all the faithfull round about should resort With much more reason therefore we returne the Argument thus Had Irenaeus thought that all Churches must of necessity agree with the RomaÌ„ how could he all other Bishops have then pronounc'd that to be no matter of Faith no sufficient ground of Excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought to be so And how then could they have reprehended Victor so much for the ill use of his power as Cardinall Perron confesses they did seeing if that was true which is pretended in this also as well as other things it was necessary for them to agree with the Church of Rome Some there are that say but more wittily then truly that all Cardinall Bellarmines works are so consonant to themselves as if he had written them in two houres Had Cardinall Perron wrote his book in two houres sure he would not have done that here in the middle of the Book which he condemns in the beginning of it For here he urgeth a consequence drawn from the mistaken words of Irenaeus against his lively and actuall practice which proceeding there he justly condemnes of evident injustice His words are For who knowes not that it is too great an injustice to alleage consequences from passages and even those ill interpreted and misunderstood and in whose illation there is alwaies some Paralogisme hid against the expresse words and the lively actuall practise of the same Fathers from whom they are collected and that may be good to take the Fathers for Adversaries and to accuse them for want of sense or memory but not to take them for Iudges and to submit themselves to the observation of what they have believ'd and practised k This is nothing to the purpose he might choose these examples not as of greater force and authority in themselves but as fitter to be imploied against Victor as domestique examples are fitter and more effectuall then forraine and for his omitting to presse him with his own example and others to what purpose had it been to use them seeing their Letters sent to Victor from all parts wherein they reprehend his presumption shewed him sufficiently that their example was against him But besides he that reads Irenaeus his Letter shall see that in the matter of the Lent Fast and the great variety about the celebration of it which he paralels with this of Easter he presseth Victor with the example of himselfe and others not Bishops of Rome both they saith hee speaking of other Bishops notwithstanding this difference retained peace among themselves and wee also among our selves retaine it inferring from his example that Victor also ought to doe so l If the Popes proceeding was just then the Churches of Asia were indeed and in the sight of God excommunicate and out of the state of Salvation which Irenaeus and all the other ancient Bishops never thought And if they were so why doe you accouâ—t them Saints and Martyrs But the truth is that these Councells did no way shew
the Popes proceedings just but rather the contrary For though they setled an uniformity in this matter yet they setled it as a matter formerly indifferent not as a matter of faith or necessity as it is evident out of Athanasius consequently they rather declare Victors proceeding unjust who excommunicated so many Churches for differing from him in an indifferent matter m It seemes then Polycrates might be a Saint and a Martyr and yet think the commands of the Roman Church enjoyned upon pain of damnation contrary to the commandements of God Besides S. Peter himselfe the head of the Church the Vicar of Christ as you pretend made this very answer to the High Priest yet I hope you will not say he was his inferior and obliged to obey him Lastly who sees not that when the Pope commandes us any thing unjust as to communicate Lay men in one kinde to use the Latine service we may very fitly say to him it is better to obey God then men and yet never think of any authority he hath over us n Between requesting and summoning methinkes there should be some difference and Polycrates saies no more but that hee was requested by the Church of Rome to call them and did so Here then as very often the Cardinall is faine to help the dice with a false translation and his pretence being false every one must see that that which he pretends to be insinuated by it is cleerely inconsequent o Polycrates was deceived if he believed it to be against Gods commandement and the Pope deceived as much in thinking it to be Gods commandement for it was neither the one nor the other but an indifferent matter wherein God had not interposed his Authority Neither did the Councell of Nice embrace the censure of Victor by acknowledging his Excommunication to be just and well grounded for which the Cardinall neither doth pretend nor can produce any proofe any way comparable to the fore-alleaged words of Athanasius testifying the contrary though peradventure having setled the observation and reduced it to an uniformity they might excommunicate those who afterward should trouble the Churches peace for an indifferent matter And thus much for Irenaeus 31 I come now to S. Austine and to the first place out of him where he seemes to say that the Succession in the Sea of Peter was the Rock which our Saviour meant when he said upon this Rock c. I answer first we have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof because S. Austine himselfe was not but retracts it as uncertain leaves to the Reader whether he will think that or another more probable Retr l. 1. c. 26. Secondly what he saies of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place he saies it else where of all the Successions in all other Apostolique 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 Apostolique Churches nay more from these then from that because in Rome the Donatists had a Bishop though not a perpetuall Succession of them but in other Apostolique Churches they wanted both These scatter'd men saith he of the Donatists Epist. 165. read in the holy bookes the Churches to which the Apostles wrote and have no Bishop in them But what is more perverse and mad then 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 seeme great service in upbraiding the Donatists as Schismatiques because they had not Communion with the Church of Rome overthrowes and undoes it all againe and as it were with a spunge wipes out all that he had said for you by adding after that they were Schismatiques because They had not the fellowship of Cōmunion with the seven Churches of Asia to which S. Iohn writes whereof he pronounces confidently though I know not upon what ground 〈◊〉 septem Ecclesias quicquid for is est alienum est Now I pray tell me doe you esteeme the Authority of these Fathers a sufficient assurance that separation from these other Apostolique Churches was a certain marke of Heresy or not If so then your Church hath been for many Ages hereticall If not how is their authority a greater argument for the Roman then for the other Churches If you say they conceived separation from these Churches a note of Schisme 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 urg'd this only as a probable and not as a certain Argument so also they might doe that In a word whatsoever answer you can devise to shew that these Fathers made not separation from these other Churches a mark of Heresy apply that to your own Argument and it will be satisfied 32 The other place is evidently impertinent to the present question nor is there in it any thing but this That Caecilian might contemne the multitude of his adversaries because those that were united with him were more and of more account then those that were against him Had he preferr'd the Roman Church alone before Caecilians enemies this had been litle but something but when other Countries from which the Gospell came first into Africa are joyned in this Patent with the Church of Rome how she can build any singular priviledge upon it I am yet to learne Neither doe I see what can be concluded from it but that in the Roman Church was the Principality of an Apostolique Sea which no man doubts or that the Roman Church was not the Mother Church because the Gospell came first into Africa not from her but from other Churches 33 Thus you see his wordes make very litle or indeed nothing for you But now his Action which according to Cardinall Perrons rule is much more to be regarded then his words as not being so obnoxious to misinterpretatiō I mean his famous opposition of three Bishops of Rome in succession touching the great question of Appeales wherein he and the rest of the African Bishops proceeded so farre in the first or second Milevitan Councell as to decree any African Excommunicate that should appeale to any man out of Africk and therein continued resolute unto death I say this famous Action of his makes cleerely 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 Vnion and Conformity with the doctrine of the Roman Church in all things which she held necessary was a certain note of a good Catholique and by Gods command necessary to Salvation how was it possible they should have opposed it in this Vnlesse you will say they were all so foolish as to believe at once
will let it passe and desire you to give me some peece or shadow of reason why I may not doe all this without a perpetuall Succession of Bishops and Pastours that have done so before me You may judge as uncharitably and speak as maliciously of me as your blind zeale to your Superstition shall direct you but certainly I know and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know that I doe beleeve the Gospell of Christ as it is delivered in the undoubted books of Canonicall Scripture as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing and I beleeve it upon this Motive because I conceive it sufficiently abundantly superabundantly proved to be divine Revelation And yet in this I doe not depend upon any Succession of men that have alwayes beleeved it without any mixture of Errour nay I am fully perswaded there hath been no such Succession aud yet doe not find my self any way weakned in my faith by the want of it but so fully assured of the truth of it that not only though your divels at Lowden doe tricks against it but though an Angell from heaven should gainsay it or any part of it I perswade my self that I should not be moved This I say and this I am sure is true and if you will be so hyperscepticall as to perswade me that I am not sure that I doe beleeve all this I desire you to tell me how are you sure that you beleeve the Church of Rome For if a man may perswade himself he doth beleeve what he doth not beleeve then may you think you beleeve the Church of Rome and yet not beleeve it But if no man can erre concerning what he beleeves then you must give me leave to assure my selfe that I doe beleeve and consequently that any man may beleeve the foresaid truths upon the foresaid motives without any dependance upon any Succession that hath beleeved it alwayes And as from your definition of faith so from your definition of Heresy this phancy may be refuted For questionlesse no man can be an Heretique but he that holds an Heresie and an Heresie you say is a Voluntary Errour therefore no man can be necessitated to be an Heretique whether he will or no by want of such a thing that is not in his power to have But that there should have been a perpetuall Succession of Beleevers in all points Orthodox is not a thing which is in your power therefore our being or not being Heretiques depends not on it Besides what is more certain then that he may make a streight line who hath a Rule to make it by though never man in the world had made any before and why then may not he that beleeves the Scripture to be the word of God and the Rule of faith regulate his faith by it and consequently beleeve aright without much regarding what other men either will doe or have done It is true indeed there is a necessity that if God will have his words beleeved he by his Providence must take order that either by succession of men or by some other meanes naturall or supernaturall it be preserv'd and delivered and sufficiently notified to bee his word but that this should be done by a Succession of men that holds no errour against it certainly there is no more necessity then that it should be done by a Succession of men that commit no sinne against it For if men may preserve the Records of a Law and yet transgresse it certainly they may also preserve directions for their faith and yet not follow them I doubt not but Lawyers at the Barre doe find by frequent experience that many men preserve and produce evidences which being examined of times make against themselves This they doe ignorantly it being in their power to suppresse or perhaps to alter them And why then should any man conceive it strange that an erroneous and corrupted Church should preserve and deliver the Scriptures uncorrupted when indeed for many reasons which I have formerly alleaged it was impossible for them to corrupt them Seeing therefore this is all the necessity that is pretended of a perpetuall Succession of men orthodoxe in all points certainly there is no necessity at all of any such neither can the want of it prove any man or any Church Hereticall 39 When therefore you have produced some proofe of this which was your Major in your former Syllogisme That want of Succession is a certain mark of Heresy you shall then receive a full answer to your Minor We shall then consider whether your indelible Character be any reality or whether it be a creature of your own making a fancy of your own imagination And if it be a thing and not only a word whether our Bishops and Priests have it not as well as yours whether some mens perswasion that there is no such thing can hinder them from having it or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing Any more then a mans perswasion that he has not taken Physick or Poyson will marke him not to have taken it if hee has or hinder the operation of it And whether Tertullian in the place quoted by you speak of a Priest made a Lay-man by just deposition or degradation and not by a voluntary desertion of his Order And whether in the same place he set not some make upon Heretiques that will agree to your Church Whether all the Authority of our Bishops in England before the Reformation was conferr'd on them by the Pope And if it were whether it were the Pope's right or an usurpation If it were his right whether by Divine Law or Ecclesiasticall And if by Ecclesiasticall only whether he might possibly so abuse his power as to deserve to loose it Whether de facto he had done so Whether supposing he had deserved to loose it those that deprived him of it had power to take it from him Or if not whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it untill good caution were put in and good assurance given that if he had it again he would not abuse it as he had formerly done Whether in case they had done unlawfully that took his power from him it may not things being now setled and the present government established be as unlawfull to goe about to restore it Whether it be not a Fallacy to conclude because we believe the Pope hath no power in England now when the King and State and Church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it therefore wee cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation Whether without Schisme a man may not withdraw obediēce from an usurp'd Authority commanding unlawfull things Whether the Roman Church might not give authority to Bishops and Priests to oppose her errors as well as a King gives Authority to a Iudge to judge against him if his cause be bad as well as Traian gave
no fewer then seven times May you be pleased to look back to your own Book you shall find it so as I have said that at least in a hundred other places you make your advantage of this false imputation which when you have observ'd and withall considered that your selfe plainly intimate that D. Potters discourses which here you censure would be good and concluding if we did not as we doe not free you from damnable errour I hope you will acknowledge that my vouchsafing these Sections the honour of any farther answer is a great supererrogation in point of civility Neverthelesse partly that I may the more ingratiate my selfe with you but especially that I may stop their mouthes who will be apt to say that every word of yours which I should omit to speak to is an unanswerable argument I will hold my purpose of answering them more punctually and particularly 19 First then to your little parenthesis which you interline among D. Potters words § 7. That any small error in faith destroies all faith To omit what hath been said before I answer here what is proper for this place that S. Austine whose authority is here stood upon thought otherwise He conceived the Donatists to hold some error in faith and yet not to have no faith His words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident you are with us saith he to the Donatists Ep. 48. in Baptisme in the Creed in the other Sacraments And again Super gestis cum emerit Thou hast proved to me that thou hast faith prove to me likewise that thou hast charity Paralell to which words are these of Optatus Amongst us and you is one Ecclesiasticall conversation common lessons the same faith the same Sacraments Where by the way we may observe that in the judgements of these Fathers even the Donatists though Heretiques and Schismatiques gave true Ordination the true Sacrament of Matrimony true Sacramentall Absolution Confirmation the true Sacrament of the Eucharist true extream Vnction or else choose you whether some of these were not then esteem'd Sacraments But for Ordination whether he held it a Sacrament or no certainly he held that it remain'd with them entire for so he saies in expresse tearmes in his book against Parmenianus his Epistle Which Doctrine if you can reconcile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church Eris mihi magnus Apollo 20 Whereas in the beginning of the 8. Sect. you deny that your argument drawn from our confessing the Possibility of your Salvation is for simple people alone but for all men I answer certainly whosoever is moved with it must be so simple as to think this a good and a concluding reason Some ignorant men in the Roman Church may be sav'd by the confession of Protestants which is indeed all that they confesse therefore it is safe for me to be of the Roman Church and he that does think so what reason is there why he should not think this as good Ignorant Protestans may be saved by the confession of Papists by name Mr K. therefore it is safe for me to be of the Protestant Church Whereas you say that this your argument is grounded upon an inevitable necessity for us either to grant Salvation to your Church or to entail certain damnation upon our own because ours can have no being till Luther unlesse yours be supposed to have been the true Church I answer this cause is no cause For first as Luther had no being before Luther and yet he was when he was though he was not before so there is no repugnance in the termes but that there might be a true Church after Luther though there were none for some ages before as since Columbus his time there have been Christians in America though before there were none for many ages For neither doe you shew neither does it appear that the generation of Churches is univocall that nothing but a Church can possibly beget a Church nor that the present being of a true Church depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all ages any more then the present being of Peripateticks or Stoicks depends upon a perpetuall pedigree of them For though I at no hand deny the Churches perpetuity yet I see nothing in your book to make me understand that the truth of the present depends upon it nor any thing that can hinder but that a false Church Gods providence overwatching and overruling it may preserve the meanes of confuting their own Heresies and reducing men to truth and so raising a true Church I mean the integrity and the authority of the word of God with men Thus the Iewes preserve meanes to make men Christians and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants and Protestants which you say are a false Church doe as you pretend preserve means to make men Papists that is their own Bibles out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be Papists Secondly you shew not nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church depends on the truth of yours For though you talke vainly as if you were the only men in the world before Luther yet the world knowes that this but talke and that there were other Christians besides you which might have perpetuated the Church though you had not beene Lastly you shew not neither doth it appear that your being acknowledged in some sense a true Church doth necessarily import that we must grant salvation to it unlesse by it you understand the ignorant members of it which is a very unusuall Sinechdoche 21 Whereas you say that Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saved I answ S. Austin himselfe granted that those among them who sought the Truth being ready when they found it to correct their error were not Heretiques and therefore notwithstanding their error might be saved And this is all the Charity that Protestants allow to Papists 22 Whereas you say that D. Potter having cited out of S. Austine the words of the Catholiques that the Donatists had true Baptisme when he comes to the contrary words of the Donatist addes no Church no Salvation Ans. You wrong D. Potter who pretends not to cite S. Austines formall words but only his sense which in him is compleat and full for that purpose whereto it is alleaged by D. Potter His words are Petilianus dixit venite ad Ecclesiam Populi aufugite Traditores si perire non vultis Petilian saith come to the Church yee people and fly from the Traditours if ye will not be damn'd for that yee may know that they being guilty esteeme very well of our Faith Behold I Baptize these whom they have infected but they receive those whom we have baptized Where it is plain that Petilian by his words makes the Donatists the Church and excludes the Catholiques from salvation absolutely And therefore no Church no Salvation was not D. Potters addition
of Salvation to none among you but to those whose ignorance was the cause of their error and no sinne cause of their ignorance and presently after when another project comes in your head you make his words softer then oile towards you you pretend he does and must confesse That your Doctrine containes no damnable error that your Church is certainly a true Church that your way to heaven is a safe way and all these acknowledgements you set down simple and absolute without any restriction or limitation whereas in the Doctor they are all so qualified that no knowing Papist can promise himselfe any security or comfort from them We confesse saith he the Church of Rome to be in some sense a true Church and her errors to some men not damnable we believe her Religion safe that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some such as believe what they professe But we believe it not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as professe it when they believe or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinate might believe the contrary Observe I pray these restraining termes which formerly you have dissembled A true Church in some sense not damnable to some men a safe way that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some And then seeing you have pretended these confessions to be absolute which are thus plainly limited how can you avoid the imputation of an egregious Sophister You quarrell with the Doctor in the end of your Preface for using in his Book such ambiguous tearmes as these in some sort in some sense in some degree and desire him if he make any reply either to forbear them or to tell you roundly in what sort in what sense in what degree he understands these and the like mincing phrases But the truth is he hath not left them so ambiguous and undetermin'd as you pretend but told you plainly in what sense your Church may passe for a true Church viz. In regard we may hope that she retaines those truths which are simply absolutely and indispensably necessary to Salvation which may suffice to bring those good soules to heaven who wanted meanes of discovering their errors this is the charitable construction in which you may passe for a Church And to what men your Religion may be safe and your errors not damnable viz. to such whom Ignorance may excuse and therefore he hath more cause to complain of you for quoting his words without those qualifications then you to finde fault with him for using of them 30 That your Discourse in the 12. § presseth you as forcibly as Protestants I have shewed above I adde here 1. Whereas you say that faith according to rigid Calvinists is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more then weak and so much nothing that it can never begotten That these are words without sense Never any Calvinist affirmed that faith was so weak and so much nothing that it can never be gotten but it seemes you wanted matter to make up your Antithesis and therefore were resolved to speak empty words rather then loose your figure Crimina rasis Librat in antithetis doct as posuisse Figuras Laudatur 2. That there is no Calvinist that will deny the Truth of this proposition Christ died for all nor to subscribe to that sense of it which your Dominicans put upon it neither can you with coherence to the received Doctrine of your own Society deny that they as well as the Calvinists take away the distinction of sufficient and effectuall grace and indeed hold none to be sufficient but only that which is effectuall 3. Whereas you say They cannot make their calling certain by good workes who doe certainly believe that before any good works they are justified and justified by faith alone and by that faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified I ans There is no Protestant but believes that Faith Repentance and universall Obedience are necessary to the obtaining of Gods favour and eternall happinesse This being granted the rest is but a speculative Controversy a Question about words which would quickly vanish but that men affect not to understand one another As if a company of Physitians were in consultation and should all agree that three medicines and no more were necessary for the recovery of the Patients health this were sufficient for his direction towards the recovery of his health though concerning the proper and specificall effects of these three medicines there should be amongst them as many differences as men So likewise being generally at accord that these three things Faith Hope Charity are necessary to salvation so that whosoever wants any of them cannot obtain it and he which hath them all cannot faile of it it is not very evident that they are sufficiently agreed for mens directions to eternall Salvation And seeing Charity is a full comprehension of all good workes they requiring Charity as a necessary qualification in him that will be saved what sense is there in saying they cannot make their calling certain by good workes They know what salvation is as well as you and have as much reason to desire it They believe it as heartily as you that there is no good worke but shall have its proper reward and that there is no possibility of obtaining the eternall reward without good workes and why then may not this Doctrine be a sufficient incitement and provocation unto good workes 31 You say that they certainly believe that before any good works they are iustified But this is a calumny There is no Protestant but requires to Iustification Remission of sinnes and to Remission of sinnes they all require Repentance and Repentance I presume may not be denied the name of a good worke being indeed if it be rightly understood and according to the sense of the word in Scripture an effectuall conversion from all sinne to all holinesse But though it be taken for meer sorrow for sinnes past and a bare purpose of amendment yet even this is a good worke and therefore Protestants requiring this to Remission of sinnes and Remission of sinnes to justification cannot with candor be pretended to believe that they are justified before any good worke 32 You say They believe themselves iustified by faith alone and that by that faith whereby they believe themselves iustified Some peradventure doe so but withall they believe that that faith which is alone and unaccompanied with sincere and universall obedience is to be esteem'd not faith but presumption and is at no hand sufficient to justification that though Charity be not imputed unto justification yet is it required as a necessary disposition in the person to be justified and that though in regard of the imperfection of it no man can be justified by it yet that on the other side no man can be justified without it So that upon the whole matter a man may truly and safely say that the
Doctrine of these Protestants taken altogether is not a Doctrine of Liberty not a Doctrine that turnes hope into presumptioÌ„ and carnall security though it may justly be feared that many licentious persons taking it by halfes have made this wicked use of it For my part I doe heartily wish that by publique Authority it were so ordered that no man should ever preach or print this Doctrine that Faith alone justifies unlesse he joynes this together with it that universall obedience is necessary to salvation And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by faith without the works of the Law were never read in the Church but when the 13. Chap. of the 1. Epist. to the Corinth concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read together with them 33 Whereas you say that some Protestants doe expresly affirme the former point to be the soule of the Church c. and that therefore they must want the Theologicall vertue of Hope and that none can have true hope while they hope to be saved in their Communion I Ans. They have great reason to believe the Doctrine of Iustification by faith only a Point of great weight and importance if it be rightly understood that is they have reason to esteeme it a principall and necessary duty of a Christian to place his hope of justification and salvation not in the perfection of his own righteousnesse which if it be imperfect will not justify but only in the mercies of God through Christs satisfaction and yet notwithstanding this nay the rather for this may preserve themselves in the right temper of good Christians which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and feare If this Doctrine be otherwise expounded then I have here expounded I will not undertake the justification of it only I will say that which I may doe truly that I never knew any Protestant such a soli-fidian but that he did believe these divine truths That he must make his calling certain by good workes That he must work out his salvation with Fear and Trembling and that while he does not so he can have no well-grounded hope of Salvation I say I never met with any who did not believe these divine Truths and that with a more firme and a more unshaken assent then he does that himselfe is predestinate and that he is justified by believing himselfe justified I never met with any such who if he saw there were a necessity 〈◊〉 doe either would not rather forgoe his beliefe of these Doctrines then the former these which he sees disputed and contradicted and opposed with a great multitude of very potent Arguments then those which being the expresse words of Scripture whosoever should call into question could not with any modesty pretend to the title of Christian. And therefore there is no reason but we may believe that their full assurance of the former Doctrines doth very well qualify their perswasion of the latter and that the former as also the lives of many of them doe sufficiently testify are more effectuall to temper their hope and to keep it at a stay of a filiall and modest assurance of Gods favour built upon the conscience of his love and fear then the latter can be to swell and puffe them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption This reason joyn'd with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men of this opinion is a sufficient ground for Charity to hope well of their hope and to assure our selves that it cannot be offensive but rather most acceptable to God if notwithstanding this diversity of opinion we embrace each other with the strict embraces of love communion To you and your Church we leave it to separate Christians from the Church and to proscribe them from heaven upon triviall and trifling causes As for our selves we conceive a charitable judgement of our Brethren and their errors though untrue much more pleasing to God then a true judgement if it be uncharitable and and therefore shall alwaies choose if we doe erre to erre on the milder and more mercifull part and rather to retain those in our Communion which deserve to be ejected then eject those that deserve to be retain'd 34 Lastly whereas you say that seeing Protestants differ about the point of Iustification you must needs inferre that they want Vnity in faith and consequently all faith and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamentall I Answer to the first of these inferences that as well might you inferre it upon Victor Bishop of Rome and Poliâ—rates upon Stephen Bishop of Rome and S. Cyprian in as much as it is indeniably evident that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation the other esteemed not so But points of Doctrine as all other things are as they are and not as they are esteemed neither can a necessary point be made unnecessary by being so accounted nor an unnecessary point be made necessary by being overvalued But as the ancient Philosophers whose different opinions about the soule of man you may read in Aristotle de Anima and Cicero's Tusculan Questions notwithstanding their divers opinions touching the nature of the soule yet all of them had soules and soules of the same nature Or as those Physitians who dispute whether the braine or heart be the principall part of a man yet all of them have braines and have hearts and herein agree sufficiently So likewise though some Protestants esteeme that Doctrine the soule of the Church which others doe not so highly value yet this hinders not but that which is indeed the soule of the Church may be in both 〈◊〉 of them and though one account that a necessary truth which 〈◊〉 account neither necessary nor perhaps true yet this notwithstanding in those truths which are truly really necessary they may all agree For no Argument can be more sophisticall then this They differ in some points which they esteeme necessary Therefore they differ in some that indeed and in truth are so â—35 Now as concerning the other inference That they cannot agree what points are fundamentall I have said and prov'd formerly that there is no such necessity as you imagin or pretend that men should certainly know what is and what is not fundamentall They that believe all things plainly delivered in Scripture believe all things fundamentall and are at sufficient Vnity in matters of faith though they cannot precisely and exactly distinguish between what is fundamentall and what is profitable nay though by error they mistake some vaine or perhaps hurtfull opinions for necessary and fundamentall Truths Besides I have shewed above that as Protestants doe not agree for you overreach in saying they cannot touching what points are fundamentall so neither doe you agree what points are defin'd so to be accounted and what are not nay nor concerning the subject in which God hath placed this pretended
assuraneâ— whereon we rest b The whole Church that he speaks of seemes to be that particular Church wherein a man is bred and brought up and the authority of this he makes an argument which presseth a mans modesty more then his reason And in saying it seemes impudent to be of a contrary mind without cause he implyes There may be a just cause to be of a contrary mind and that then it were no impudence to be so c Therefore the authority of the Church is not the pause whereon we rest we had need of more assurance and the intrinsecall arguments afford it d Somewhat but not much untill it be back'd and inforced by farther reason it selfe therefore is not the farthest reason and the last resolution e Observe I pray our persuasion and the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture may be proved true therefore neither of them was in his account the farthest proofe f Naturall reason then built on principles common to all men is the last resolution unto which the Churches authority is but the first inducement a Neque enim sic pasuit integritas atque notitia literarum quamlibet illustris Episcopi custodiri quemadmodum scriptura Canonica tot linguarum literis ordine successione celebrationis Ecclesiasticae cusâ—oditur contra quam non defuerunt tamen qui sub nonâ—â—ibus Apostolâ—rum multa confingereâ—t Frustra quidem Quia illa sic commendata sic celebrata sic nota est Ferum quid poâ—sit adversus literas non Canonica authoritate fundaâ—as etiam hinc demonstrabit impiae 〈◊〉 audaciae quod adversus eos quae tanta notitiae mole firmatae sunt fese erigere non praetermisit Aug. ep 48. ad Vincent contra Donat Rogat b In hac Germani textâ—s pervestigatione satis perspicue inter omnes constat nullum argumentum esse certius ac famius quam antiquorum probatorum codicum latinorum fidem c. sic Sixtus in praefat Pro Edit vulg c. 21. p. 99. Bell. deverbâ— Deil. 2. c. 11. p. 120. a See Greg. Mor. l. 19. c. 13. b Thus he testifies Com in Esa. c. 6. in these words Vnde Paulas Apost in Epist. ad Heb. quam Latina consuetudo non recipit and again in c. 8. in these In Ep. quâ—e ad Hebâ—aeos scribitur licet eam Latina Consuâ— etudo inter Canoincas Scripturas no recipiat c. * Contra Parmâ—a l. 5. in Prin. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. Bellarm. de veâ—bo Dei l. 4. c 11. a Pag. 209. b Charity Mistaken cap. 8. Pagâ— 75. c Pag. 211 d Pag. 212 e Pag. 250 f Pag. 246. g Pag. 246. h Sub. Leon. â—0 Sess. 11. i Cap. 13. v. â— k Cap. ult v. 18. l Pag. 122. m Mar. 16. 18. n Ioan. 16. 13. o In his Sermons Serm. 2. pag. 50. p Pag. 150. q Ioan. c. 16. 13. c. â—4 16. r Pag. 151. 152. s Epist. 118. t Lib. 4. de Bapt. c. 24. u Lib. 10. de Gene â—i ad liter cap. 23. w Serm. 14. de verbis Apost c. 18. x See Protocoll Monâ—â—ch edit 2. p. 307. y Lib. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. 34. z De â—nit Eccles c. 19. a De Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. b Hom. 4. c De Sacra Script p. 678. d â—p 119. e Instit. l. 4. Cap. 2 f Cent. Ep. Theol. ep 74. g In Assertionib art 36 h Tract 1. c. 2. Sect. 14. after F. i Cap. 1. v. 4. k Chark in the Tower disputation the 4. daies conference l Fox Act. Mon p. 402. m The Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Consessions pag. 253. n Tract 3. Sect. 7. vnder m. n. 15. o In his answer to a Popish pamphlet p. 68 p Vid. Gul. Reginald Calv. Turcis lib. â— c. 6. q Pag. 113. 114. Motton in his Treatise of the kingdome of Israel p. 94. r Pag. 121. s Pag. 122. t Comment in Mat. c. 16. u Pag. 123. w Pag. 253. x A moderate examination c. c. 1. paulò post initium y Pag. 126. a Pag. 241. b P. 215. c Pag. 75 d Pag. 97. e Mat. 16. f Ioan. 14. g Ioan. 16. h 1. Tim. c. 3. i Ephes. 4. k Pag. 151. 153. l Deutil cred cap. 8. a Prov. 16. 33. b Prov. 16. 10. c Prov. 21. 1. d Mat. 18. 20. e Mat. 2. 7. f Mat. 25. 2. g Mat. 28. 20. h Luk. 10. 16. i Heb. 13. 17. k Ephes. 4. 11. l 1. Tim. 3. 15. m Mat. 18. 17. n Mat. 7. 8. o Ia. 1. 5. p Isay. 59. 21. a Luk. 12. 48. b 6. Heb. 11. a 1. Cor. 11. 28. b 1. Cor. 14. 15. 16. 26. a De Corona Militis c. 3. 4. Where having recounted sundry unwritten Traditions then observed by Christâ—ans many whereof by the way notwithstanding the Councell of Trents profession to receive them and the written word with like affection of Piety are now rejected and neglected by the Church of Rome For example Immersion in Baptism Tasting a mixture of milke and honey presently after Abstaining from Bathes for a weeke after Accounting it an impiety to â—ray kneeling on the Lords day or between Easter and Pentecost I say having reckoned up these and other Traditions in the 3. chapt He addes another in the fourth of the Veiling of Women And then addes Since I find no law for this it followes that Tradition must have given this observation to custome which shall gaine in time Apostolique authority by the interpretation of the reason it By these examples therefore it is declared that the observing of unwritten Tradition being confirmed by custome may bee defended The perseverance of the observation being a good testimoâ—y of the goodnesse of the Tradition Now custome even in civill affaires where a Law is wanting passes for a law Neither is it materiall whether it be grounded on Scripture or reason seeing reason is commendâ—tion enough for a law Moreover if law be grounded on reason all that must be law which is so grounded A quocanq productum Whosoever is the producer of it Doe ye thinke it is not lawfull Omni fideli for every faithfull man to conceive and constitute Provided he constitute only what is not repugnant to Gods will what is conducible for discipline and available to salvation seeing the Lord sayes why even of our selves judge yee nor what is right And a little after This reason now demand saving the respect of the Tradition A quocunque Traditore ceâ—seâ—ur nec auctorem respiciens sed Auctoritatem From whatsoever Tradition it comes neither regard the Author but the Authority b Hier. * Perâ—on a Cap. 3. n. 3. b Pag. 216. c Pag 24â— e Pag. 216. f Pag. 216. g Pag. 216. h 2. 2 q. 1. Art 8. k Pag. 235 215. l 2 2. q. 1. art 8. ad 6 m Pag. 231. n De Peâ—cat Orig. lib. 2. c. 22 p Pap. 235. q Heb. 11. 6. r Pag. 35â— s
decreta sedis Apostolicae imo universalis Ecclesiae haec literis sacris confirmata contemnitis aâ—sque ulla dubietate peccatis c Beda lib. 3. Eccl. Hist. c. 25. Erasm. Ep. lib. 15. Ep. ad Gode schalcum Ros. a 2. Cor. 10. b 2. Cor. 10. 5. c Heb. 11. d 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. e 2. Pet. 1. â— 19. f Rom 〈…〉 1. g Psal. 92. h Eccles. 19. 4. i Praescript cap. 28. k Praesc c. 21. 37. l Praes c. 21. m Lib. 3 〈◊〉 haeres cap. 〈◊〉 n 〈…〉 o 1 Cor. 13. 13. p 2. 2. q. 39. 〈…〉 q â—ag 1â—6 r Epist. 50. s De Vnit Eccles cap. 6. t Cont. lit Peâ—il lib. 1. cap. 104. u Anno 3â—1 â—u 2 Spâ—nd w De Vâ—â— Eccleâ— 3. x Ep. 163. y Conc. super gest cum Eâ—â—rit z De doctâ— Chriâ—â— lib. 3. cap. 30. a Cont. Parâ— l. 1. cap. 1. b 2 Ioan. 19. c Act. 15. 2â— d Act. 20. 30. e Lib. adversus haer c. 3â— f Dimiâ— temp cap. 5. h Ep. 57. ad Damas. i Lib. 1. Apoleg k Ibid. lib. 3. l De obitu Satyri fratris m Lib. 1 cp 4. ad Iâ—peraâ—ores n Epist. 55. ad Cornel. o Epist. 52. p Lib. 3. cont 〈◊〉 â— 3. q Ia Psal. cont patrem Donati r Ep. 162. s Praeser cap. 36. t Epist. ad Pont. Rom u Epist. ad Hâ—rmis P. P. w Mat. 24. 35. x Praesâ—r cap. 41. y In Millenario sexto Pag. 187. z See Adamum TaÌ„â—erum tom 4. disp 7. quaest 2. duâ— 3. 4. a Dyer fol. 234. term Mich. 6. â— Eliz. b Sup. c. 5. c L. 3. c. 5. d L. 4. c. 43. e Contr. epist. Fundam c. 4. f Praef. ad lib Periarchon g Cont. Faust cap. 2. h Lib. 28. cont Eaust cap. 2. i Cap. 24. k Lib. de Pâ—storib c. 8. l Cant. â— m Ep. 48. n Heb. 11. 6. The faith of Protestants wanteth Certainty o 2. 2. 4. 5. ar 3. in corp q Ad 2. They want the second Condition of Faith Obscurity Their faith wants Prudence r Cont. ep Fund c. 5. s Lib. de util Cred. c. 14. t Iâ— epist. coâ—t Anah ad duos Parochoâ— to 2. Germ. Witt. sol 229. 230. x Contra Donar post collat cap. 24. y Deut. c. 32. 31. Their faith wants Supernaturality z Galat. 1. 7. Ad §. 1 a M. Hooker in his answer to Travers his supplication I have taught that the assurance of things which we believe by the word is not so certain as of that we perceive by sence And is it as certaine Yes I taught that the things which God doth promise in his word are surer unto us then any thing we touch handle or see But are we so sure and certain of them If we be why doth God so often prove his promises unto us as he doth by arguments taken from our sensible experience We must be surer of the proofe then the thing proved otherwise it is no proofe How is it that if ten men doe all looke upon the Moone every one of them knowes it as certainly to bee the Moone as another but many believing one and the same promises all haue not one and the same fullnesse of perswasion How falleth it out that men being assured of any thing by sence can be no surer of it then they are whereas the strongest in faith that liveth upon the earth had alwaies need to labour and strive and pray that his assurance concerning heavenly and spirituall things may grow increase and be augmented P. 1. C. 2. § 14. P. 2. C. 5. §. 32. Ch. 5. §. 41. Hierom de scrip Eccle. tit Fortunatianus b It is confessed by Baronius Anno. 238. N. 41. By Bellarm l. 4. de R. Pont. c. 7. § Tertia ratio c Confessed by Baronius An. 258. N. 14. 15. By Card. Perron Repl. l. 1. c. 25. d Vide Con. Cartho apud sur To. 1. e Bell. l. 2. de Con. c. 5. Aug. ep 48. lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 13 Bell. l. 2. de Con. c 5. § 1. Canisius in Initio Catech. Sept. die 14. Rom. 11. In Dial. cunt Tryphon Lib. 3 cap. 2. Or this reply to King Iames. C. 2. §. 32. Calv. ubi supâ—a Ruffin in vers hist. Eccl Eus. l. 5. c. 24. Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Kuffin b. c. 24. Iren. l. 3. c. 3. 1. Booke 〈◊〉 25 Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. l. 22 Iren. apud Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 26. Conc. Antioch c. 1. Conc. Const. c. 7. Conc. Eph. p. 2. act â— Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Hieron in script Eccl. in Polyer Exod. 12. Hieronym ubi supra Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23. Beda in frag de Aequinoctio veâ—nali * Can. 2â— * In his Letter to Casaubon towards the end * In ep ad Episcopos in Africaâ— Where he cleerely shewes that this question was not a question of faithe by saying The Câ—uncelloâ— Nice was celebrated by occasion of the Arrian heresy and the difference about Easter In so much 〈◊〉 they in 〈…〉 and Mâ—sopotamia did â—â—ffer herein from us and kept this feast on the same day with the Iâ—wes But thankes be to God an agreement was made as concerning the Faith so 〈◊〉 concerning this holy 〈◊〉 a You doe ill to translate it the Principality of the Sea Apostolique as if there were but one whereas S. Austine presently after speaks of Apostolicall Churches in the plurall number and makes the Bishops of the joynt Commisioners for the judging of Ecclesiâ—sticall causes b The words of the Decree which also Bellarmine l 1. de Matrim c. 17. assures us to have bin â—erm'd by S. Austine are these Si qui Africani ab Episâ—â—pis provocandum putaverint non nisi ad Africanâ— provocent Concilia vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum à nullo intra Africaâ— in Communionem suscipiatur This Decree is by Gratian most impudently corrupted For whereas the Fathers of that Councell intended it particularly against the Church of Rome he tels us they forbad Appeales to All excepting only the Church of Rome 〈…〉 a Hierom. Cont. Lucifâ—rianos b In Theodoret Hist. 16. c. l. 2. c In ep 48. 〈◊〉 Vincentium d Convnenitorij lib. 1. c. 4. e In vita Naziauz f In Orat. Arian 〈◊〉 g To. â— a Cant. 2 4. b 1. Ioan. 3. v. 16. c De mendac cap. 6. d Mat. 6 e Math. 10. 17. f In his true difference c. Part. 4. pag. 168. 369. g Cent. 3. cap. 6. Col. 1â—7 h Chap. 5. Huâ— 9. i Eccl. 3. 27. k Pag. 112. l Pag. 81. m Ps. 57. 6. n Pag. 126. o Ad lit Petil. l. 2. cap. 10â— p Contra Cresc lib. 1. cap. 21. q Pag. 7â— Bellar. Contr. Barcl c. 7. In 7. c. resutare conâ—tur Bardâ—verba illa Romuli Veteres illos Imperotores Constantium Valentem Caeteros non ideo toleravit Ecclesia quod legitimè successissent sed quod illos sine populi detrimento coercere non poâ—erat Et miratur hoc idem scripsisse Bellarminum l 5. de Pontif. c. 7. Sed ut magis miretur sciat hoc idem sensisse S. Thâ—mâ—m 2. 2. 〈◊〉 12 art 2. ad 1. â—â—bi dicit Ecclesiam tolerasse ut sideles obedirent Iuliano Apostatae quiâ—iâ— suinovitate nondum habebant vires â—oÌ„pescendi Principes terrenos Et posiâ—a Sanctus Gregorius decit nullum adversus Iuliani persecutionem fuisse remediuâ— praeter lachrimas quoniam non habebat Ecclesia vires quibus illius tyrannidi resistere posset * Iâ— Problem 15. 16. Lib. 5. prope initium Lib. 2. c. 3. Cont. lit Petil l. 2. 〈…〉 Chap. 1. §. 4. c. 3. §. 53. â—libi