Epistle to the Romans be of sufficient force for their sense of Justification Then certainly an Argument from as express words in the Epistle to the Galatians will be as concluding for mine in which Epistle he also purposely states the same questions Gal. 3.11 The words are Gal. 3.11 That no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the Just shall live by faith Now to live I hope does not signifie to have ones sins forgiven him but to be Saved Therefore unless S. Paul include a right unto Salvation within the compass of Justification that Text might have been spared as nothing at all serving for his purpose Besides Is not Salvation as free as gracious as undeserved an act of God as Remission of sins Is it not as much for Christs sake that we are saved as that our sins are forgiven us Thus much for what I suppose is meant by Justification I will now as briefly and as perspicuously as I can without using Allegories and Metaphorical expressions with which this point is ordinarily much obscured shew you the combination of these two words in what sense I suppose S. Paul may use this proposition We are Justified by Faith without the Works of the Law 38. In the first place therefore I will lay down this Conclusion as an infallible safe foundation That if we have respect to the proper meritorious cause of our Justification we must not take Faith in that Proposition for any virtue or Grace inherent in us but only for the proper and principal object thereof Jesus Christ and his Merits And the meaning of that Proposition must be that we are not justified for the merits of any Righteousness in our selves whether Legal or Evangelical but only for the Obedience and Death of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ Though this be most true yet I suppose that S. Paul in that proposition had not a respect to the Meritorious Cause of our Justification but to that Formal Condition required in us before we be Justified as I think may appear by that which follows 39. I told you even now that I would in this point purposely abstain from using Metaphors and Figurative Allusions and the reason is because I suppose and not without reasonable grounds that the stating of this point of Justification by Metaphors has made this Doctrine which is set down with greater light and perspicuity in holy Scripture than almost any other to be a Doctrine of the most Scholastical subtilty the fullest of shadows and clouds of all the rest For example In that fashion and dress of Divinity as it is now worn slic'd and mangled into Theses and Distinctions we find this point of our Justification thus express'd That Faith is therefore said to Justifie us because it is that which makes Christs righteousness ours it is as it were an instrument or hand whereby we receive lay hold on and apply Christ unto our selves Here 's nought but flowers of Rhetorick Figures and Metaphors which though they are capable of a good sense yet are very improper to state a Controversie withall 40. But let us examine them a little We must not say they conceive of Faith as if it were a Vertue or Grace or any part of Righteousness inherent in us For Faith as a Grace has no influence at all into our Justification Mark the Coherence of these things Faith is considered as an hand or an instrument in our Justification and yet for all it is a Hand it is nothing in or of us for it seems Hands are not parts of mens bodies Again Faith puts on Christ receives him layes hold upon him makes his righteousness ours and yet it does nothing for all that Besides How can Faith be properly call'd an instrument of Justification An Instrument is that which the principal Cause the Efficient makes use of in his operation Now Justification in this sense is an immanent internal action of God in which there is no co-operation of any other agent nor any real alteration wrought in man the object thereof Does God then use Faith as an instrument in producing the Act of Justification No but it is Instrumentum Passivum saith one That is a thing never heard of in nature before and the meaning is sure Faith certainly is something but what a kind of thing we know not By these means it comes to pass that the Doctrine of our Justification as some men have handled it is become as deep as unsearchable a mystery as that of the Trinity 41. Without question there is nothing can be more evident to a man that shall unpartially consider S. Paul's method in his discourse of Justification then that by Faith he intends some operative working grace in us For instance The Apostle proves that we Christians are to seek for Justification the same way that Abraham attained unto it namely by Faith for saith the Scripture in his quotation Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness What was that which was accounted to him His believing That is say some Christ who was the object of his Belief This is a forc'd interpretation certainly and which a Jew would never have been perswaded to But that Christ was not at all intended in that place it is evident for Abraham's belief there had respect to Gods promise made to him of giving him a Son in his old age and by that Son a Seed as innumerable as the stars in heaven as appears Gen. 15.4 5 6. whereas the Promise of Christ Gen. 15.4 5 6. Gen. 18.18 follows three Chapters after to wit Gen. 18.18 Again the Apostle in many places useth these words We are Justified by Faith in Christ and by the Faith of Jesus Christ which speeches of his will admit of no tolerable sense unless by Faith he intends some work or obedience perform'd by us This therefore being taken for granted that by Faith is meant some condition required at our hands and yet my former conclusion of our Justification only for the merits of Christ remaining firm we will in the next place consider what kind of obedience that of Faith is and in what sense it may be said to justifie us 42. What satisfaction I conceive may be given to this Quaery I will set down in this Assertion Assertion That since Justification even as it includes Remission of sins is that Promise to perform which unto us God has oblig'd himself in the New Covenant it must necessarily presuppose in the person to be so justified such an obedience as the Gospel requires namely first Repentance from dead works a conversion to a new obedience of those holy Moral Commands which are ratifi'd in the Gospel and a relying upon Christ as the only meritorious cause of our Justification and Salvation by a particular Evangelical Faith All this I say is pre-required in the person who is made capable of Justification either in the exercise or at least in
MAndetur Typis hic Liber cui Titulus The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation In quo nihil occurrit à bonis Moribus à Doctrinâ Disciplinâ in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ assertis alienum RICH. BAILIE Vicecan Oxon. PErlegi hunc Librum cui Titulus est The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation In quo nihil reperio Doctrinae vel Disciplinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae adversum sed quamplurima quae Fidem Orthodoxam egregiè illustrant adversantia glossemata acutè perspicuè modestè dissipant Jo. PRIDEAUX S.T.P. Regius Oxon. EGo Samuel Fell Publicus Theol. Professor in Univ. Oxon. ordinarius Praelector D. Marg. Comitiss Richmondiae perlegi Librum cui Titulus est The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation In quo nihil reperio Doctrinae vel Disciplinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae aut bonis Moribus adversum sed multa nervosè modestè eventilata contra Adversarios nostrae Ecclesiae veritatis Catholicae quam felicitèr tuetur Dat. 14º Octob. 1637. SAM FELL Fiat secunda Editio juxta hoc Exemplar Ex. Aedib London Feb. 6. 1637. SAM BAKER PErlegi hunc Librum cui Tit. The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation item Novem Consciones nuperimè additas In quibus omnibus nihil reperio Doctrinae vel Disciplinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae contrarium quo minus cum summâ omnium utilitate Imprimatur Ex. Aed Lambeth 16. Octob. 1663. G. STRADLING S.T.P. Reverendis in Christo Pat. D. Gilb. Archiep. Cant. à Sac. Domest THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS A Safe way to Salvation OR An ANSWER to a Book Entituled Mercy and Truth or Charity maintain'd by Catholiques Which pretends to prove the Contrary To which is Added in this Third Impression The Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy AS ALSO IX SERMONS The First Preached before His Majesty King CHARLES the First the other Eight upon special and eminent Occasions BY William Chillingworth Master of Arts of the University of OXFORD Isaac Casaubon in Epist ad Card. Perron Regis JACOBI nomine scriptâ Rex arbitratur rerum absolutè necessariarum ad salutem non magnum esse numerum Quare existimat ejus Majestas nullam ad incundam concordiam breviorem viam fore quà m si diligentèr separentur necessaria à non necessariis ut de necessariis conveniat omnis opera insumatur in non necessariis libertati Christianae locus detur Simplicitèr necessaria Rex appellat quae vel expressè 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 seu Ecclesiastico candidè separaretur non videtur de iis quae sunt absolutè necessaria inter pios moderatos viros longa aut acris contentio futura Nam pauce illa sunt ut modò dicebamus ferè ex aequo omnibus probantur qui se Christianos dici postulant Atque istam distinctionem Sereniss Rex tanti putat esse momenti ad minuendas Controversias quae hodiè Ecclesiam Dei tantopere exercent ut omnium pacis studiosorum judicet officium esse diligentissimè hanc explicare docere urgere LONDON Printed by E. Cotes for J. Clark and are to be sold by Thomas Thornicroft at the sign of the Eagle and Child in St. Pauls Church-yard near the little North-door M.DC.LXIV TO THE Most HIGH and MIGHTY PRINCE CHALES By the Grace of God KING of Great-Britain France and 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 and ought to be infinitely dearer to you than all the World Not doubting but upon this Dedication I shall be censured for a double boldness both for undertaking so great a Work so far beyond my weak abilities and again for presenting it to such a Patron whose judgement I ought to fear more than any Adversary But for the first it is a satisfaction to my self and may be to others that I was not drawn to it out of any vain opinion of myself whose personal defects are the only thing which I presume to know but undertook it in obedience in Him who said Tu conversus confirma fratres not to St. Peter only but to all men being encouraged also to it by the goodness 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 prejudice 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 grounds on both Sides I was willing to impart to others that satisfaction which was given to my self For my inscribing to it Your Majesties Sacred Name I should labour much in my excuse of it from high presumption had it not some appearance of Title to your Majesties Patronage and protection as being a Defence of that Book which by special order from Your Majesty was written some years since chiefly for the general good but peradventure not without some aime at the recovery of One of Your meanest Subjects from dangerous deviation and so due unto Your Majesty as the fruit of Your own High Humility and most Royal Charity Besides it is in a manner nothing else but a pursuance of and a superstruction upon that blessed Doctrine wherewith I have adorned and armed the Frontispice of my Book which was so earnestly recommended to Your Royal Father of happy memory to all the lovers of Truth and Peace that is to all that were like Himself as the only hopeful means of healing the Breaches of Christendome whereof the Enemy of souls makes such pestilent advantage The lustre of this blessed Doctrine I have endeavoured to uncloud and unvail and to free it from those mists and fumes which have been raised to obscure it by one of that Order which envenomes even poison it self and makes the Roman Religion much more malignant and turbulent than 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 than it shall please the Pope So that whether Your Majesty be considered either as a Pious Son towards Your Royall Father King James or as a tender hearted and compassionate Son towards Your distressed Mother the Catholique Church or as a King of Your Subjects or as a Servant unto Christ this Work to which I can give no other commendation but that it was intended to do You service in all these capacities may pretend not unreasonably to Your Gracious acceptance Lastly being a Defence of that whole Church and Religion You profess it could not be so proper to any
praeparatione cordis in a full resolution of the heart and entire disposition of the mind So that though God be the sole proper Efficient Cause and Christ as Mediatour the sole proper Meritorious Cause of our Justification yet these inherent dispositions are exacted on our part as causae sine quibus non as necessary conditions to be found in us before God will perform this great work freely and graciously towards us and only for the Merits of Christ 43. This Assertion may Reas 1 I suppose be demonstrated first from the nature of a Covenant For unless there be pre-required conditions on man's part to be perform'd before God will proportion his reward the very nature of a Covenant is destroy'd And it will not boot to answer that though there be no qualifications required in a man before he obtain Remission of sins yet they are to be found in us before we be made capable of Salvation For as I have shew'd before Sol. 1 Salvation is as properly a gracious Act of Mercy as free and undeserved a gift as truly bestowed on us only for the Merits of Christ as Remission of sins and therefore may as well consist without any change in us as the former And secondly If that proposition of S. Paul We are Justified by Faith Sol. 2 without the works of the Law exclude all conditions to be perform'd by man If it exclude not only the righteousness of the Law which indeed it doth but the obedience of Faith or the Gospel likewise from being necessary dispositions in us before we receive remission of sins Then another saying of his parallel to this will exclude as well the necessity of an Evangelical Obedience to our salvation For saith S. Paul Eph. 2.8 Eph. 2.8 By Grace are ye saved through Faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God not of Works lest any man should boast Put I hope no man will be so unchristian-like as to exclude the necessity of our good works to salvation for all this saying of S. Paul therefore they may as well be pre-required to Remission of sins notwithstanding the former place 44. Secondly Reas 2 If there be no necessity of any pre-disposition in us before Remission of sins then a man may have his sins forgiven him and so become a person accepted of God whilest he is a person unregenerate unsanctified whilest he is dead in trespasses and sins Eph. 2.1 c. whilest he walks according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the air the Spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience whilest he has his conversation in the lusts of the flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind being notwithstanding his Justification a child of wrath as much as the profanest heathen though the veriest reprobate in the world lastly though he be no child of Abraham according to faith that is not having in him that faith which was imputed to Abraham for righteousness Now whether this Divinity be consonant to Gods Word let your own consciences be Judges 45. A third Argument to prove the Truth of the former Assertion Reas 3 shall be taken from several Texts of Scripture where Justification even as it is taken for Remission of sins is ascribed to other virtues besides Faith whether it be taken for a particular virtue or for the object thereof For example Our Saviour saith expresly Mat. 12.37 By thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned where we see Justification is taken in that proper sense in which we maintain it against the Papists Again If you forgive men their trespasses Mat. 6.14 45. your heavenly Father will also forgive you But if you forgive not men their trespasses neither will your Father forgive your trespasses Again our Saviour speaking concerning Mary saith Her sins are forgiven her because she loved much Luk. 7.47 If the time or your patience could suffer me Reas 4 I might add a fourth Reason to prove my former Assertion which is the clearness and evidence of agreement and reconciliation between S. Paul and S. James in this point upon these grounds without any new invented Justification before men which is a conceit taken up by some men only to shift off an Adversary's argument which otherwise would press them too hard they think for S. Paul's Faith taken for the obedience of the Gospel would easily accord with S. James his holy and undefiled Religion before God Jam. 1.27 or works which is all one And S. James would be S. Paul's expositour without any injury or detraction at all from the merits of Christ or Gods free and undeserved mercy to us in him But I must hasten 46. The full meaning then of S. Paul's Proposition We are justified by Faith and not by the works of the Law and by consequence the state of the whole controversie of Justification in brief may be this That if we consider the efficient cause of our Justification it is only God which Justifies if that for which we are justified that is the meritorious cause thereof it is not for any thing in our selves but only for the obedience and satisfaction of our Blessed Saviour that God will Justifie us But if we have respect to what kind of Conditions are to be found in us before Christ will suffer us to be made partakers of the benefit of his Merits then we must say that we are not justified by such a Righteousness so perfect absolute and complete as the Law of Works does require but by the righteousness of the Gospel by a Righteousness proportionable to that Grace which God is pleased to bestow on us not by the perfection but sincerity of our obedience to the New Covenant And the Apostle's main argument will serve to prove this to any understanding most undeniably S. Paul has demonstrated that if we consider the rigour of the Law all men both Jews and Gentiles are concluded under sin and most necessarily obnoxious to Gods wrath Which Reason of his would not be at all prevailing unless by works of the Law he intended only such a perfect obedience as the Law requires which by reason of mans weakness is become impossible unto him For it might easily be reply'd upon him thus We confess no man can fulfil the Law but the conditions of the Gospel are not only possible but by the assistance of Gods Spirit easie to be performed so that though for this reason the former Righteousness be excluded from our Justification not only quoad meritum but also quoad praesentiam yet the later Evangelical Righteousness is excluded from our Justification only quoad Meritum 47. But I perceive an Objection ready to assault me and I will impartially assist the force and strength thereof against my self with all the advantage I can It is to this purpose When men are disputing in the Schools or discoursing in the Pulpit they
hear you say that he declines this Question and never tells you whether or no there be any other points of faith which being sufficiently propounded as divine Revelations may be denied and dis-believed He tells you plainly there are none such and therefore you cannot say that he tells you not whether there be any such Again it is almost as strange to me why you should say this was the only thing in question Whether a man may deny or disbelieve any point of faith sufficiently presented to his understanding as a truth revealed by God For to say that any thing is a thing in question me-thinks at the first hearing of the words imports that it is by some affirmed and denied by others Now you affirm I grant but What Protestant ever denied that it was a sin to give God the lye Which is the first and most obvious sense of these words Or which of them ever doubted that to disbelieve is then a fault when the matter is so proposed to a man that he might and should and were it not for his own fault would believe it Certainly he that questions either of these justly deserves to have his wits called in question Produce any one Protestant that ever did so and I will give you leave to say It is the only thing in question But then I must tell you that your ensuing Argument viz. To deny a truth witnessed by God is damnable But of two that disagree one must of necessity deny some such truth Therefore one only can be saved is built upon a ground clean different from this postulate For though it be always a fault to deny what either I do know or should know to be testified by God yet that which by a cleanly conveyance you put in the place hereof To deny a truth witnessed by God simply without the circumstance of being known or sufficiently proposed is so far from being certainly damnable that it may be many times done without any the least fault at all As if God should testifie something to a man in the Indies I that had no assurance of this testification should not be oblig'd to believe it For in such cases the Rule of the Law hath place Idem est non esse non apparere not to be at all and not to appear to me is to me all one If I had not come and spoken unto you saith our Saviour you had had no sin 10. As little necessity is there for that which follows That of two disagreeing in a matter of faith one must deny some such truth Whether by such you understand Testified at all by God or testified and sufficiently propounded For it is very possible the matter in controversie may be such a thing wherein God hath not at all declared himself or not so fully and clearly as to oblige all men to hold one way and yet be so overvalued by the parties in variance as to be esteemed a matter of faith and one of those things of which our Savior says He that believeth not shall be damn'd Who sees not that it is possible two Churches may excommunicate and damn each other for keeping Christmass ten dayes sooner or later as well as Victor excommunicated the Churches of Asia for differing from him about Easter day And yet I believe you will confess that God had not then declared himself about Easter nor hath now about Christmass Anciently some good Catholique Bishops excommunicated and damned others for holding there were Antipodes and in this question I would fain know on which side was the sufficient proposal The contra-Remonstrants differ from the Remonstrants about the point of Predetermination as a matter of faith I would know in this thing also which way God hath declared himself whether for Predetermination or against it Stephen Bishop of Rome held it as a matter of faith and Apostolique Tradition That Heretiques gave true Baptism Others there were and they as good Catholiques as he that held that this was neither matter of Faith nor matter of Truth Justin Martyr and Irenaeus held the doctrine of the Millenaries as a matter of faith and though Justin Martyr deny it yet you I hope will affirm that some good Christians held the contrary S. Augustine I am sure held the communicating of Infants as much Apostolique tradition as the Baptizing of them whether the Bishop and the Church of Rome of his time held so too or held otherwise I desire you to determine But sure I am the Church of Rome at this present holds the contrary The same S. Austin held it no matter of faith that the Bishops of Rome were Judges of Appeals from all parts of the Church Catholique no not in Major Causes and Major Persons whether the Bishop or Church of Rome did then hold the contrary do you resolve me but now I am resolv'd they do so In all these differences the point in question is esteemed and proposed by one side at least as a matter of faith and by the other rejected as not so and either this is to disagree in matters of faith or you will have no means to shew that we do disagree Now then to shew you how weak and sandy the foundation is on which the whole fabrick both of your Book and Church depends answer me briefly to this Dilemma Either in these oppositions one of the opposite Parts erred damnably and denied God's truth sufficiently propounded or they did not If they did then they which do deny God's truth sufficiently propounded may go to heaven and then you are rash and uncharitable in excluding us though we were guilty of this fault If not then there is no such necessity that of two disagreeing about a matter of faith one should deny God's truth sufficiently propounded And so the Major and Minor of your Argument are proved false Yet though they were as true as Gospel and as evident as Mathematical Principles the Conclusion so impertinent is it to the Premises might still be false For that which naturally issues from these Propositions is not Therefore one only can be saved But Therefore one of them does something that is damnable But with what Logick or what Charity you can inferr either as the immediate production of the former premises or as a Corollary from this Conclusion Therefore one only can be saved I do not understand unless you will pretend that this consequence is good Such a one doth something damnable therefore he shall certainly be damned Which whether it be not to overthrow the Article of our Faith which promises remission of sins upon repentance and consequently to ruine the Gospel of Christ I leave it to the Pope and the Cardinals to determine For if against this it be alleaged that no man can repent of the sin wherein he dies This muce I have already stopped by shewing that if it be a sin of Ignorance this is no way incongruous 11. Ad § 4. You proceed in sleighting and disgracing your
soever it is holds that which indeed is opposite to the sense of the Scripture which God intended for it is impossible that God should intend Contradictions But then this intended sense is not so fully declared but that they which oppose it may verily believe that they indeed maintain it and have great shew of reason to induce them to believe so and therefore are not to be damned as men opposing that which they either know to be a Truth delivered in Scripture or have no probable Reason to believe the contrary but rather in Charity to be acquitted and absolved as men who endeavour to find the Truth but fail of it through humane frailty This ground being laid the Answer to your ensuing Interrogatories which you conceive impossible is very obvious and easie 14. To the first Whether it be not in any man a grievous sin to deny any one Truth contained in holy Writ I answer Yes if he knew it to be so or have no probable Reason to doubt of it otherwise not 15. To the second Whether there be in such denial any distinction between Fundamental and not-Fundamental sufficient to excuse from Heresie I answer Yes There is such a Distinction But the Reason is because those Points either in themselves or by accident are Fundamental which are evidently contained in Scripture to him that knows them to be so Those not-Fundamental which are there-hence deducible but probably only not evidently 16. To the third Whether it be not impertinent to alledge the Creed as containing all Fundamental Points of Faith as if believing it alone we were at Liberty to deny all other Points of Scripture I answer It was never alledged to any such purpose but only as a sufficient or rather more than a sufficient Summarie of those Points of Faith which were of necessity to be believed actually and explicitly and that only of such which were meerly and purely Credenda and not Agenda 17. To the fourth drawn as a Corollary from the former Whether this be not to say that Of Persons contrary in belief one part only can be saved I answer By no means For they may differ about Points not contained in Scripture They may differ about the sense of some ambiguous Texts of Scripture They may differ about some Doctrines for and against which Scriptures may be alledged with so great probability as may justly excuse either Part from Heresie and a self-condemning Obstinacy And therefore though D. Potter do not take it ill that you believe your selves may be saved in your Religion yet notwithstanding all that hath yet been pretended to the contrarie he may justly condemn you and that out of your own principles of uncharitable presumption for affirming as you do that no man can be saved out of it CHAP. II. What is that means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our Understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion OF our estimation respect and reverence to holy Scripture even Protestans themselves do in fact give testimony while they possess it from us and take it upon the integrity of our custody No cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of supreme and sole Judge to holy Writ if both the thing were not impossible in it self and if both reason and experience did not convince our understanding that by this Assertion Contentions are increased and not ended We acknowledge holy Scrippture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a Writing can be a Rule We only deny that it excludes either divine Tradition though it be unwritten or an external Judge to keep to propose to interpret in a true Orthodox and Catholique sense Every single Book every Chapter yea every period of holy Scripture is infallibly true and wants no due perfection But must we therefore inferr that all other Books of Scripture are to be excluded lest by addition of them we may seem to derogate from the perfection of the former When the first Books of the Old and New Testament were written they did not exclude unwritten Traditions nor the Authority of the Church to decide Controversies and who hath then so altered their nature and filled them with such jealousies as that now they cannot agree for fear of mutual disparagement What greater wrong is it for the written Word to be compartner now with the unwritten than for the unwritten which was once alone to be afterward joyned with the written Who ever heard that to commend the fidelity of a Keeper were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody Or that to extol the integrity and knowledge and to avouch the necessity of a Judge in suits of Law were to deny perfection in the Law Are there not in Common-wealths besides the Laws written and unwritten customs Judges appointed to declare both the one and the other as several occasions may require 2. That the Scripture alone cannot be Judge in Controversies of Faith we gather it very clearly From the quality of a writing in general From the nature of holy Writ in particular which must be believed as true and infallible From the Editions and Translations of it From the difficulty to understand it without hazard of Error From the inconveniences that must follow upon the ascribing of sole Judicature to it and finally From the Confessions of our Adversaries And on the other side all these difficulties ceasing and all other qualities requisite to a Judge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord we must conclude that She it is to whom in doubts concerning Faith and Religion all Christians ought to have recourse 3. The name notion nature and properties of a Judge cannot in common reason agree to any meer writing which be it otherwise in it its kind never so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility yet it must ever be as all writings are deaf dumb and inanimate By a Judge all wise men understand a person endued with life and reason able to hear to examine to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties in such sort as that each one may know whether the sentence be in favour of his cause or against his pretence and he must be applyable and able to do all this as the diversity of Controversies Persons Occasions and Circumstances may require There is a great and plain distinction betwixt a Judge and a Rule For as in a Kingdom the Judge hath his Rule to follow which are the received Laws and Customs so are not they fit orable to declare or be Judges to themselves but that office must belong to a living Judge The holy Scripture may be and is a Rule but cannot be a Judge because it being always the same cannot declare it self any one time or upon any one occasion more particularly then upon any other and let it be read over an hundred times it will be still the same and no more fit alone to terminate Controversies in Faith than the Law
between these two We receive the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received and we receive those that are commonly received because they are so To say this were indeed to make being commonly received a Rule or reason to know the Canon by But to say the former doth no more make it a Rule then you should make the Church of England the Rule of your receiving them if you should say as you may The Books of the New Testament we receive for Canonical as they are received by the Church of England 45. You demand Upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther against you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand Upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon and agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it selfe no more apparently reasonable than our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say Your Churches infallibility is your ground I demand again some infallible ground both for the Churches infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands until you settle me upon a Rock I mean give such an Answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Universal Tradition I reply your Churches infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receive it is For we do not profess our selves so absolutely and undoubtedly certain neither do we urge others to be so of those Books which have been doubted as of those that never have 46. The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it self alone but by some extrinsecal Authority Which you need not prove for no wise man denies it But then this Authority is that of Universal Tradition not of Your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospel of S. Matthew is the Word of God as that all which your Church sayes is true That Believers of the Scripture by considering the Divine matter the excellent precepts the glorious promises contained in it may be confirmed in their faith of the Scriptures Divine Authority and that among other inducements and enforcements hereunto internal arguments have their place and force certainly no man of understanding can deny For my part I professe if the Doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the Fountain of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one main Pillar of my faith and for want of it I fear should be much stagger'd in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Believer sees by that glorious Beam of Divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internal Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is he is moved to and strengthened in his beliefe of it and by this partly not wholly by this not alone but with the concurrence of other Arguments He that will quarrel with him for saying so must finde fault with the Master of the Sentences and all his Schollers for they all say the same The rest of this Paragragh I am as willing it should be true as you are to have it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholly unconcerned You might have met with an Answerer that would not have suffered you to have said so much Truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose 48. In the next Division out of your liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporal light is by it self alone able to determine and move our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposal Faith still you say must go before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that have eyes so the Scripture only to those that have the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture do move and determine our Understanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must be before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else than the Understanding's assent And therefore upon this supposal Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presupposed before the assent of Faith unto which it moves and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it self being able as here you suppose to determine and move the Understanding to assent that is to believe them and the Verities contained in them Neither is this to say that the eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceive that in this comparison Faith answers to the Eye But if you will not pervert it the Analogie must stand thus Scripture must answer to light The eye of the soul that is the Understanding or the faculty of assenting to the Bodily eye And lastly assenting or believing to the act of Seeing As therefore the light determining the Eye to see though it presupposeth the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the object on which it is imployed yet it self is presuppos'd and antecedent to the act of seeing as the cause is alwaies to its effect So if you will suppose that Scripture like light moves the Understanding to assent the Understanding that is the eye and object on which it workes must be before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the beliefe whereto the Scripture moves and the Underis moved which answers to the act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already To what purpose should the Scripture do that which was done before Nay indeed How were it possible it should be so any more than a Father can beget a Son that he hath already Or an Architect built a house that is built already Or than this very world can be made again before it be unmade Transubstantion indeed is fruitful of such Monsters But they that have not sworn themselves to the defence of Error will easily perceive that jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digress 49. The close of this Paragraph is a fit cover for such a dish There you tell us That if there must be some other means precedent to Scripture to beget faith this can be no other than the Church By the Church we know you doe and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can have faith but he must be moved to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants
are comprised all Points by us taught to be necessary to Salvation in these words We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholique Visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God If any be of another mind all Catholiques denounce him to be no Catholique But enough of this And I go forward with the Infallibility of the Church in all Points 20. For even out of your own Doctrin that the Church cannot err in Points necessary to Salvation any wise man will infer that it behoves all who have care of their souls not to forsake her in any one Point 1. Because they are assured that although her Doctrine proved not to be true in some Point yet even according to D. Potter the Error cannot be Fundamental nor destructive of Faith and Salvation neither can they be accused of any the least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the universal Church Secondly since she is under pain of eternal damnation to be believed and obeyed in some things wherein confessedly she is indued with infallibility I cannot in wisdom suspect her credit in matters of less moment For who would trust another in matters of highest consequence and be afraid to relie on him in things of less moment Thirdly since as I said we are undoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest or Fundamental Points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those Fundamental Points be I cannot without hazard of my soul leave her in any one Point lest perhaps that Point or Points wherein I forsake her prove indeed to be Fundamental and necessary to Salvation Fourthly that Visible Church which cannot err in Points Fundamental doth without distinction propound all her Definitions concerning matters of Faith to be believed under Anathema's or Curses esteeming all those who resist to be deservedly cast out of her Communion and holding it a Point necessary to Salvation that we believe she cannot err wherein if she speak true then to deny any one point in particular which she defineth or to affirm in general that she may err puts a man into a state of damnation Whereas to believe her in such Points as are not necessary to Salvation cannot endanger Salvation and likewise to remain in her Communion can bring no great harm because she cannot maintain any damnable error or practice but to be divided from her the being Christ's Catholique Church is most certainly damnable Fifthly the true Church being in lawful and certain possession of Superiority and Power to command and require Obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grievous sin withdraw my obedience in any one unless I evidently know that the thing commanded comes not within the compass of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better inform me how far God's Church can proceed than God's Church her self Or to what Doctor can the Children and Scholars with greater reason and more security flye for direction than to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused than in cleaving to any particular Sect or Person teaching or applying Scriptures against her Doctrin or Interpretation Sixthly the fearful examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the Church upon pretence of her Errors have failed even in Fundamental Points and suffered shipwrack of their Salvation ought to deter all Christians from opposing her in any one Doctrin or practice as to omit other both ancient and modern heresies we see that divers chief Protestants pretending to reform the corruptions of the Church are come to affirm that for many ages she erred to death and wholly perished which D. Potter cannot deny to be a Fundamental Error against that Article of our Creed I believe the Catholique Church as he affirmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the Universal Church within Africa or some other small tract of soil Lest therefore I may fall into some Fundamental Error it is most safe for me to believe all the Decrees of that Church which cannot err fundamentally especially it we add That according to the Doctrin of Catholique Divines one error in Faith whether it be for the matter it self great or small destroys Faith as is shewed in Charity Mistaken and consequently to accuse the Church of any one Error is to affirm that she lost all Faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaves Christ no visible Church on earth 21. To all these Arguments I add this Demonstration D. Potter teacheth that there neither was (c) Pag. 75. nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But if the Church of Christ can err in some Points of Faith men not only may but must forsake her in those unless D. Potter will have them to believe one thing and profess another and if such errors and corruptions should fall out to be about the Churches Liturgy publique Service administration of Sacraments the like they who perceive such errors must of necessity leave her external Communion And therefore if once we grant the Church may err it followeth that men may and ought to forsake her which is against D. Potter's own words or else they are inexcusable who left the Communion of the Roman Church under pretence of errors which they grant not to be Fundamental And if D. Potter think good to answer this argument he must remember his own Doctrin to be that even the Catholique Church may err in Points not Fundamental 22. Another argument for the universal Infallibility of the Church I take out of D. Potter's own words If saith he we (d) Pag. 97. 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 unless he presuppose that the Church truly Catholique cannot err in Points not Fundamental For if she may err in such Points the Roman Church which he affirmeth to err only in Points not Fundamental may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may err in Points not Fundamental Therefore either he must acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words or else must grant that the Church truly Catholique cannot err in Points not Fundamental which is what we intended to prove 23. If Words cannot perswade you that in all Controversies you must relie upon the infallibility of the Church at least yield your assent to Deeds Hitherto I have produced Arguments drawn as it were ex natura rei from the Wisdom and Goodness of God who cannot fail to have left some infallible means to determine Controversies which as we have 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 prove the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concern Faith and Religion Our
of those that understand reason This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argument But I adde moreover that you neither have named those Protestants who held the Church to have 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 splendor and visibility Neither have you proved by any one reason but only affirmed it to be a Fundamental Error to hold that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world and abolished for a time from the face of the earth 65. But to accuse the Church of any Error in Faith is to say she lost all Faith For this is the Doctrin of Catholique Divines that one Errour in Faith destroyes Faith To which I answer that to accuse the Church of some Error in Faith is not to say she lost all Faith For this is not the Doctrin of all Catholique Divines But that he which is an Heretique in one Article may have 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 says not that you may not depart from any opinion or any practice of the Church for you tell us in this very place that he sayes even the Catholique may err and every man may lawfully depart from Error He only says You may not cease to be of the Church nor depart from those things which make it so to be and from hence you infer a necessity of forsaking it in nothing Just as if you should argue thus You may not leave your friend or brother therefore you may not leave the Vice of your friend or the Errour of your brother What he sayes of the Catholique Church p. 75. the same he extends presently after to every true though never so corrupted part of it And why do you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgment can fall into any Error and call this a Demonstration too For as he sayes p. 75. That there can be no just cause to depart from the whole Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself So p. 76. he tels you That whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body forsakes the whole So that what he sayes of the one he sayes of the other and tels you that neither Universal nor particular Church so long as they continue so may be forsaken he means Absolutely no more than Christ himself 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 himself 67. But then he tels you plainly in the same place That it may be lawful and necessary to depart from a Particular Church in some Doctrins and Practices And this he would have 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 Catholike Church but the Roman which we maintain to be a particular Church But in other places you confess his Doctrin to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in points not Fundamental which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself 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 than Christ himself but only thus We may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more than Christ himself And thus we see sometimes A mountain may travel and the production may be a mouse 68. Ad § 22. But D. Potter either contradicts himself 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 give it the right name is an obscure and intricate Nothing And to make it appear 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 Unless I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therefore you must retract you imputation laid upon D. Potter or do that which you condemn in him and be driven to say that the same man may hold some errors with the Church of Rome and at the same time with the Catholique Church not to hold but condemn 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 clearly and plainly The Bishop of Rome and that Society of Christians which adheres to him shall be ever the infallible guide of Faith You will confess I presume he doth not and will pretend it was not necessary Yet if the King should tell us the Lord Keeper should judge such and such causes but should either not tell us at all or tell us but doubtfully who should be Lord-Keeper should we be any thing the nearer for him to an end of contentions Nay rather would not the dissentions about the Person who it is increase contentions rather than end them Just so it would have been if God had appointed a Church to be Judge of Controversies and had not told us which was that Church Seeing therefore God doth nothing in vain and seeing it had been in vain to appoint a Judge of Controversies and not to tell us plainly who it is and seeing lastly he hath not told us plainly no not at all who it is Is it not evident he hath appointed none Obj. But you will say perhaps if it be granted once that some Church of one denomination is the infallible Guide of Faith it will be no difficult thing to prove that yours is the Church seeing no other Church pretends to be so Answ Yes the Primitive and
Miracles how shall I proceed at our meeting Or how shall I know the man on whom I may securely relie Procure will you say to know whether he believe all Fundamental Points of Faith For if he do his faith for point of belief is sufficient for Salvation though he err in an hundred things of less moment But how shall I know whether he hold all Fundamental Points or no For till you tell me this I cannot know whether or no his belief be sound in all Fundamental Points Can you say the Creed Yes and so can many damnable Hereticks But why do you ask me this question Because the Creed contains all fundamental Points of Faith Are you sure of that Not sure I hold it very probable (y) Pag. 241. Shall I hazard my soul on probabilities or even wagers This yeelds a new cause of dispaire But what doth the Creed contain all Points necessary to be believed whether they rest in the understanding or else do further extend to practice No. It was composed to deliver Credenda not Agenda to us Faith not Practice How then shall I know what Points of belief which direct my practice be necessary to Salvation Still you chalk out new paths for Desperation Well are all Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter Fundamental I cannot say so How then shall I know which in particular be and which be not fundamental Read my Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. there you shall find that fundamental Doctrins are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertain (z) Pag. 211 213 214. to be Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved They are those grand and capital Doctrins which make up our Faith in Christ that is that common Faith which is alike precious in all being one and the same in the highest Apostle and the meanest Believer which the Apostle else-where cals the first Principles of the Oracles of God and the form of sound words But how shall I apply these general definitions or descriptions or to say the truth these only varied words and phrases for I understand the word fundamental as well as the word principal essential grand and capital doctrins c. to the particular Articles of the Creed in such sort as that I may be able precisely exactly particularly to distinguish Fundamental Articles from Points of less moment You labour to tell us what Fundamental Points be but not which they be and yet unless you do this your Doctrin serves only either to make men dispair or else to have recourse to those whome you call Papists and which give one certain Rule that all Points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of Faith in such sense as that to deny any one cannot stand with Salvation And seeing your self acknowledges that these men do not err in Points Fundamental I cannot but hold it most safe for me to joyn with them for the securing of my soul and the avoiding of desperation into which this your Doctrin must cast all them who understand and believe it For the whole discourse and inferences which here I have made are either your own direct Assertions or evident Consequences cleerly deduced from them 20. But now let us answer some few Objections of D. Potters against that which we have said before to avoid our argument That the Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed he saith The Creed is an abstract of such (a) Pag. 234. necessary Doctrins as are delivered in Scripture or collected out of it and therefore needs not express the Authority of that which it supposes 21. This Answer makes for us For by giving a reason why it was needless that Scripture should be expressed in the Creed you grant as much as we desire namely that the Apostles judged it needless to express all necessary Points of Faith in their Creed Neither doth the Creed suppose or depend on Scripture in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence inferr from the Articles of the Creed that there is any Canonical Scripture at all and much less that such Books in particular be Canonical Yea the Creed might have been the same although holy Scripture had never been written and which is more the Creed even in priority of time was before all the Scripture of the New Testament except the Gospel of S. Mathew And so according to this reason of his the Scripture should not mention Articles contained in the Creed And I note in a word how little connexion D. Potters arguments have while he tels us that The Creed (b) Pag. 234. is an Abstract of such necessary Doctrins as are delivered in Scripture or collected out of it and therefore needs not express the authority of that which it supposes it doth not follow The Articles of the Creed are delivered in Scripture therefore the Creed supposeth Scripture For two distinct writtings may well deliver the same Truths and yet one of them not suppose the other unless D. Potter be of opinion that two Doctors cannot at one time speake the same truth 22. And notwithstanding that D. Potter hath now told us it was needless that the Creed should express Scripture whose Authority it supposes he comes at length to say that the Nicene Fathers in their Creed confessing that the holy Ghost spake by the Prophets doth thereby sufficiently avow the divine Authority of all Canonical Scripture But I would ask him whether the Nicene Creed be not also an Abstract of Doctrins delivered in Scripture as he said of the Apostles Creed and thence did infer that it was needless to express Scripture whose authority it supposes Besides we do not only believe in general that Canonical Scripture is of divine Authority but we are also bound under pain of damnation to believe that such and such particular Books not mentioned in the Nicene Creed are Canonical And lastly D. Potter in this answer grants as much as we desire which is that all Points of Faith are not contained in the Apostles Creed even as it is explained by other Creeds For these words who spake by the Prophets are no waies contained in the Apostles Creed and therefore contain an Addition not an Explanation thereof 23. But how can it be necessary saith D. Potter for any Christian to have more in his Creed than the (c) Pag. 221. Apostles had and the Church of their times I answer You trifle not distinguishing between the Apostles belief and that abridgment of some Articles of Faith which we call the Apostles Creed and withall you beg the question by supposing that the Apostles believed no more than is contained in their Creed which every unlearned person knows and believes and I hope you will not deny but the Apostles were endued with greater knowledg than ordinary persons 24. Your
be between those that are good Christians and those that are not so But instead thereof had delivered this one Proposition which would have been certainly effectual for all the aforesaid good intents and purposes The Roman Church shall be for ever infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of Faith 84. Whereas you say If we will believe we have all in the Creed when we have not all it is not the Apostles fault but our own I tell you plainly if it be a fault I know not whose it should be but theirs For sure it can be no fault in me to follow such Guides whithersoever they lead me Now I say they have led me into this perswasion because they have given me great reason to believe it and none to the contrary The reason they have given me to believe it is because it is apparent and confest they did propose to themselves in composing it some good end or ends As that Christians might have a form by which for matter of Faith they might profess themselves Catholiques So Putean out of Tho. Aquinas That the faithful might know what the Christian people is to believe explicitly So Vincent Filiucius That being separated into divers parts of the World they might preach the same thing And that that might serve as a mark to distinguish true Christians from Infidels So Card Riclieu Now for all these for any other good intent I say it will be plainly uneffectual unless it contain at least all Points of simple Belief which are in ordinary course necessary to be explicitly known by all men So that if it be a fault in me to believe this it must be my fault to believe the Apostles wise and good men which I cannot do if I believe not this And therefore what Richardus de sancto Victore says of God himself I make no scruple at all to apply to the Apostles and to say Si error est quod credo à vobis deceptus sum If it be an error which I believe it is you and my reverend esteem of you and your actions that hath led me into it For as for your suspition That we are led into this perswasion out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own It is plainly uncharitable I know no opinion I have which I would not as willingly forsake as keep if I could see sufficient reason to enduce me to believe that it is the will of God I should forsake it Neither do I know any opinion I hold against the Church of Rome but I have more evident grounds then this whereupon to build it For let but these Truths be granted That the authority of the Scripture is independent on your Church and dependent only in respect of us upon universal Tradition That Scripture is the only Rule of Faith That all things necessary to Salvation are plainly delivered in Scripture Let I say these most certain and Divine Truths be laid for Foundations and let our superstructions be consequent and coherent to them and I am confident Peace would be restored and Truth maintained against you though the Apostles Creed were not in the World CHAP. V. That Luther Calvin their Associates and all who began or continue the Separation from the external Communion of the Roman Church are guilty of the proper and formal sin of Schism THE Searcher of all Hearts is witness with how unwilling minds we Catholiques are drawn to fasten the denomination of Schismatiques or Heretiques on them for whose souls if they employed their best blood they judge that it could not be better spent If we rejoyce that they are contristated at such titles our joy riseth not from their trouble or grief but as that of the Apostles did from the fountain of Charity because they are contristated to repentance that so after unpartial examination they finding themselves to be what we say may by God's holy grace begin to dislike what themselves are For our part we must remember that our obligation is to keep within the mean betwixt uncharitable bitterness and pernitious flattery not yielding to worldly respects nor offending Christian Modesty but uttering the substance of truth in so Charitable manner that not so much we as Truth and Charity may seem to speak according to the wholesome advice of S. Gregory Nazianzen in these divine words We do not affect peace with (a) Orat. 32. prejudice of the true doctrine that so we may get a name of being geatle and mild and yet we seek to conserve peace fighting in a lawful manner and containing our selves within our compass and the rule of Spirit And of these things my judgment is and for my part I prescribe the same law to all that deal with souls and treat of true Doctrine that neither they exasperate mens minds by harshness nor make them haughty or insolent by submission but that in the cause of Faith they behave themselves prudently and advisedly and do not in either of these things exceed the mean With whom agreeth S. Leo saying it behoveth us in such causes to be (b) Epist 8. most careful that without noise of contentions both Charity be conserved and Truth maintained 2. For better method we will handle these Points in order First we will set down the nature and essence or as I may call it the Quality of Schism In the second place the greatness and grievousness or so to term it the Quantity thereof For the Nature or Quality will tell us who may without injury be judged Schismatiques and by the greatness or quantity such as find themselves guilty thereof will remain acquainted with the true state of their soul and whether they may conceive any hope of Salvation or no. And because Schism will be found to be a division from the Church which could not happen unless there were always a visible Church we will Thirdly prove or rather take it as a Point to be granted by all Christians that in all Ages There hath been such a Visible Congregation of Faithful People Fourthly we will demonstrate that Luther Galvin and the rest did separate themselves from the Communion of that always visible Church of Christ and therefore were guilty of Schism And fifthly we will make it evident that the visible true Church or Christ out of which Luther and his followers departed was no other but the Roman Church and consequently that both they and all others who persist in the same divisions are Schismatiques by reason of their separation from the Church of Rome 1. Point The nature of Schism 3. For the first Point touching the Nature or Quality of Schism As the natural perfection of man consists in his being the Image of God his Creator by the powers of his soul so his supernatural perfection is placed in similitude with God as his last End and Felicity and by having the said spiritual faculties his Understanding and Will is linked to him
manners but the approbation of them doth yield sufficient cause to leave the Church I reply with S. Augustine that the Church doth as the pretended Reformers ought to have done tolerate or bear with scandals and corruptions but neither doth nor can approve them The Church saith he being placed (z) Pag. 75. betwixt much chaffe and cockle doth bear with many things but doch not approve nor dissemble nor act those things which are against Faith and good life But because to approve corruption in manners as lawful were an error against Faith it belongs to corruption in Doctrin which was the second part of my demand 19. Now then that corruptions in Doctrin 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. Potter's own confession that the Catholique Church neither hath nor can err in Points Fundamental as we shewed out of his own express 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 alwayes a visible Church upon earth because any one Fundamental error overthrows 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 err in Points necessary to Salvation or damnably and 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 Fundamental Article of Faith the belief thereof cannot be damnable But D. Potter teacheth that the Catholique Church cannot and that the Roman Church hath not erred against any Fundamental Article of Faith Therefore it cannot be damnable to remain in her Communion and so the pretended corruptions in her doctrins could not induce any obligation to depart from her Communion nor could excuse them from Schism who upon pretence of necessity in Point of Conscience forsook her And D. Potter will never be able to salve a manifest contradiction in these his words To depart from the Church a of Rome in some Doctrins and practises there might be necessary cause though she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation For if notwithstanding these Doctrins and practises she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation how could it be necessary to Salvation to forsake her And therefore we must still conclude that to forsake her was properly an act of Schism 20. From the self-same ground of the infallibility of the Church in all Fundamental 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 Doctrin as long as for the truth of her Faith and belief she performeth the duty which she oweth 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 do But even according to D. Potters Assertions the Church performeth all these things as long she erreth not in Points Fundamental although she were supposed to err in other Points not Fundamental 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 Doctrin The Major or first Proposition of it self is evident The Minor or second Proposition doth necessarily follow out of D. Potter's own Doctrin above-rehearsed that the promises of our Lord made to his Church for his assistance are to be (b) Pag. 131. extended only to Points of Faith or Fundamental Let me note here by the way that by his or he seems to exclude from Faith all Points which are not Fundamental and so we may deny innumerable Texts of Scripture That It is (c) Pag. 155. comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers c. but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error till she be in heaven For it is evident that the Church for as much as concerns the truth of her Doctrins and belief ows no more duty to God and her Neighbour neither doth our Saviour exact more at her hands nor is it in her power to do more than God doth assist her to do which assistance is promised only for Points Fundamental and consequently as long as she teacheth no Fundamental 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 (d) Pag. 221. narrower than our Saviour lest it c since he himself obligeth men under pain of damnation to forsake the Church by reason of errors against which our Saviour thought it needless to promise his assistance and for which he neither denyeth his grace in this life or glory in the next Will D. Potter oblige the Church to do more then she may even hope for or to perform on earth that which is proper to heaven alone 21. And as from your own Doctrin concerning the infallibility of the Church in Fundamental Points we have proved that it was a grievous sin to forsake her so do we take a strong argument from the fallibility of any who dare pretend to reform the Church which any man in his wits will believe to be indued with at least as much infallibility as private men can challenge and D. Potter expresly affirmeth that Christs promises of his assistance are not intended (e) Pag. 151. to any particular persons or Churches and therefore to leave the Church by reason of errors was at best hand but to flit from one erring company to another without any new hope of triumphing over errors and without necessity or utility to forsake that Communion of which S. Augustine saith There is (f) Ep. cont Parmen lib. 2. c. 1â— no just necessity to divide Unity Which will appear to be much more evident if we consider that though the Church had maintained some false Doctrins yet to leave her Communion to remedy the old were but to add a new increase of errors arising from the innumerable disagreements of Sectaries which must needs bring with it a mighty mass of fallehoods 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 err in Points Fundamental in which any private Reformer may fail 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
way How come you on the suddain to hold the Determination of a Generall Councell of Nice to be the declaration of the Catholique Church seeing you teach That General 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 means 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 love they beare to that sacred ransome of their soules the Blood of our Blessed Saviour attentively to ponder and unpartially to apply to their own Conscience what this Man spoke concerning the feelings and remorse of his How often saith he did my trembling heart (p) Tom. 2. Germ. Ien fol. 9. et tom 2. Witt. of anno 1562. de abrog Miss privat fol. 244. beat within me and reprehending me object against me that most strong argument Art thou only wise Do so many words 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 (q) Tom. 5. Ano not brevis account take upon thee so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many and 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 greatness of wise men Whom do not these Mountains of arguments these clouds yea these seas of Examples overthrow And these thoughts wrought so deep in his soul that he often wisht and desired that he had (r) Colloq mensal fol. 158. never begun this business wishing yet further that his Writings were burned and buried (f) Prefat in tom German Ien. in eternal oblivion Behold what remorse Luther felt and how he wanted no strength of malice to cross 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 Councel (t) De formula missae should in any case decree this least of all would we then use both kinds yea rather in despight of the Councel 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 do 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 (u) In parva Confess the Elevation of the Sacrament to be Idolatrical yet nevertheless I did retain it in the Church at Wittemberg to the end I might vex the Devil Carolostadius Was not this a Conscience large and capaciouâ— enough that could swallow Idolatry Why would he not tolerate Idolatry in the Church of Rome as these men are wont to blaspheme if he could retain it in his own Church at Wittemberg If Carolostadius Luther's off-spring was the Devil who but himself must be his dam Is Almighty God wont to lend such Furies to preach the Gospel And yet further which makes most directly to the point in hand Luther in his Book of abrogating the Private Mass exhorts the Augustine Fryers of Wittemberg who first abrogated the Mass that even against their Conscience accusing them they should persist in what they had begun Vid. Tan. tom 2. disput 1. q. 2. dub 4. n. 108. acknowledging that in some things he himself had done the like And Joannes Mathesius a Lutheran Preacher saith Antonius Musa the Parish Priest (w) In orat Germ. 12. de Luth. of Rocklitz recounted to me that on a time he heartily moaned himself to the Doctor he means 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 Schism 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 sin Because they were not the first Authors but only are the continuers of the Schism which was already begun 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 final account For according to this reason no Schism will be damnable but only to the Beginners Whereas contrarily the longer it continues the worse it grows to be and at length degenerates to Heresie as Wine by long keeping grows to be Vinegar but not by continuance returns again to his former nature of Wine Thus S. Augustine saith that Heresie is (x) Lib. 2. cont Cresc c. 7. Schism inveterate And in another place We object to you only the (y) Ep. 164. crime of Schism which you have also made to become Heresie by evil persevering therein And S. Hierom saith Though Schism (z) Upon these words ad Tit. 3. Haereticum hominem c. in the beginning may be in some sort understood to be different from Heresie yet there is no Schism which doth not fain to it self some Heresie that it may seem to have departed from the Church upon just cause And so indeed it falleth out For men may begin upon passion but afterward by instinct of corrupt nature seeking to maintain their Schism as lawful they fall into some Heresie without which their Separation could not be justified with any colour as in our present case the very affirming that it is lawful to continue a Schism unlawfully begun is an errour against the main principle of Christianity that it is not lawful 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 (a)
of Schism it is certainly consequent that all who persist in this Division must be so likewise Which is not so certain as you pretend For they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any State Civil or Ecclesiastical do commit a great fault whereof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former State when continuance of time hath once setled the present Thus have I known some of your own Church condemn the Low-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 faithful maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the King of Spain 5. Fourthly That all those which a Christian is to esteem neighbours do concur to make one company which is the Church Which is false for a Christian is to esteem those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 6. Fifthly That all the Members of the Visible Church are by charity united into one Mystical body Which is manifestly untrue for many of them have no Charity 7. Sixthly That the Catholique Church signifies one company of faithful people which is repugnant to your own grounds For you require not true Faith but only the Profession of it to make men members of the visible Church 8. Seventhly 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. Eighthly That all the Members of the Catholique Church must of necessity be united in external Communion Which though it were much to be desired it were so yet certainly cannot be perpetually true For a man unjustly excommmunicated is not in the Churches Communion yet he is still a Member of the Church and divers time it hath happened as in the case of Chrysostom 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 shew or pretence of proof The rest is impertinent common place wherein Protestants and the cause in hand are absolutely unconcern'd And therefore I pass to the eighth Section 10. Ad § 8. Wherein you obtrude upon us a double Fallacy One in supposing and taking for granted that whatsoever is affirmed by three Fathers must be true whereas your selves make no scruple of condemning many things of falshood which yet are maintained by more than thrice three Fathers Another in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases For whereas you say S. Austin c. 62. l. 2. cont Parm. inferrs out of the former premises That there is no necessity to divide Unity to let pass your want of diligence in quoting the 62. Chapter of that Book which hath but 23. in it to pass by also that these words which are indeed in the 11. Chapter are not inferred out of any such premises as you pretend this I say is evident that he says not absolutely that there never is or can be any necessity to divide Unity which only were for your purpose but only in such a special case as he there sets down That is When good men tolerate bad men which can do them no spiritual hurt to the intent they may not be separated from these who are spiritually good Then saith he there is no necessity to divide Unity Which very words do clearly give us to understand that it may fall out as it doth in our case that we cannot keep Unity with bad men without spiritual hurt i.e. without partaking with them in their impieties and that then there is a necessity to divide Unity from them I mean to break off conjunction with them in their impieties Which that it was S. Austin's mind it is most evident out of the 21. c. of the same Book where to Parmenian demanding How can a man remain pure being joyned with those that are corrupted he answers Very true this is not possible if he be joyned with them that is if he commit any evil with them or favour them which do commit it But if he do neither of these he is not joyned with them And presently after These two things retained will keep such men pure and uncorrupted that is neither doing ill nor approving it And therefore seeing you impose upon all men of your Communion a necessity of doing or at least approving many things unlawful certainly there lies upon us an unavoidable necessity of dividing Unity either with you or with God and whether of these is rather to be done be ye Judges 11. Irenaeus also says not simply which only would do you service there cannot possibly be any so important Reformation as to justifie a separation from them who will not reform But only they cannot make any corruption so great as is the pernitiousness of a Schism Now They here is a relative and hath an antecedent expressed in Irenaeus which if you had been pleased to take notice of you would easily have seen that what Iraeneus says falls heavy upon the Church of Rome but toucheth Protestants nothing at all For the men he speaks of are such as Propter modicas quaslibet causas for trifling or small causes divide the body of Christ such as speak of peace and make war such as strain at gnats and swallow Camels And these saith he can make no reformation of any such importance as to countervail the danger of a division Now seeing the causes of our separation from the Church of Rome are as we pretend and are ready to justifie because we will not be partakers with her in Superstition Idolatry Impiety and most cruel Tyranny both upon the bodies and souls of men Who can say that the causes of our separation may be justly esteemed Modicae quaelibet causae On the other side seeing the Bishop of Rome who was contemporary to Irenaeus did as much as in him lay cut off from the Churches unity many great Churches for not conforming to him in an indifferent matter upon a difference Non de Catholico dogmate sed de Ritu vel Ritus potiùs tempore Not about any 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 sharply and bitterly for it by most of the Bishops of the world as Eusebius testifies Euseb hist l. 5. c. 24. Perron Replic 3.
that those amongst you who were invincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy have their errors pardoned and their souls saved And this is all he says and this you confess to be all he says in divers places of your Book which is no more than you your self do and must affirm of Protestants and yet I believe you will not suffer us to inferr from hence that you grant Protestants to have for the substance the true preaching of the Word and due administration of the Sacraments and want nothing fundamental or necessary to salvation And if we should draw this consequence from your concession certainly we should do you injury in regard many things may in themselves and in ordinary course be necessary to salvation to those that have means to attain them as your Church generally hath which yet by accident to these which were by some impregnable impediment debarred of these means may by Gods mercy be made unnecessary 27. Lastly whereas you say that Protestants must either grant that your Church then was the visible Church or name some other disagreeing from yours and agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrin or acknowledge there was no visible Church It is all one as if to use S. Paul's similitude the head should say to the foot Either you must grant that I am the whole body or name some other member that is so or confess that there is no body To which the foot may answer I acknowledge there is a body and yet that no member beside you is this body nor yet that you are it but only a part of it And in like manner say we We acknowledge a Church there was corrupted indeed universally but yet such a one as we hope by Gods gracious acceptance was still a Church We pretend not to name any one Society that was this Church and yet we see no reason that can inforce us to confess that yours was the Church but only a part of it and that one of the worst then extant in the World In vain therefore have you troubled your self in proving that we cannot pretend that either the Greeks Waldenses Wickliffites Hussites Muscovites Armenians Georgians Abyssines were then the visible Church For all this discourse proceeds upon a false and vain supposition and begs another point in Question between us which is that some Church of one denomination and one Communion as the Roman the Greek c. must be always exclusively to all other Communions the whole visible Church And though perhaps some weak Protestant having this false principle setled in him that there was to be always some Visible Church of one denomination pure from all error in doctrin might be wrought upon prevailed with by it to forsake the Church of Protestants yet why it should induce him to go to yours rather than the Greek Church or any other which pretends to perpetual succession as well as yours that I do not understand unless it be for the reason which Aeneus Sylvius gave why more held the Pope above a Council than a Council above the Pope which was because Popes did give Bishopricks and Archbishopricks but Councils gave none and therefore suing in Forma Pauperis were not like to have their cause very well maintained For put the case I should grant of meer favour that there must be always some Church of one Denomination and Communion free from all errours in doctrin and that Protestants had not always such a Church it would follow indeed from thence that I must not be a Protestant But that I must be a Papist certainly it would follow by no better consequence than this If you will leave England you must of necessity go to Rome And yet with this wretched Fallacy have I been sometimes abused my self and known many other poor souls seduced not only from their own Church and Religion but unto yours I beseech God to open the eyes of all that love the truth that they may not always be held captive under such miserable delusions 28. We see then how unsuccessful you have been in making good your accusation with reasons drawn from the nature of the thing and which may be urged in common against all Protestants Let us come now to the Arguments of the other kind which you build upon D. Potter's own words out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince Protestants of Schism 29. But let the understanding Reader take with him but three or four short Remembrances and I dare say he shall find them upon examination not only answerable but already answered The Memorandums I would commend to him are these 30. 1. That not every separation but only a causeless separation from the external Communion of any Church is the Sin of Schism 31. 2. 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. 3. That to leave the Church and to leave the external 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 have those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as faith and Obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publike worship of God This little Armour if it be rightly placed I am perswaded will repel 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 applyed to Luther thus If the Church perished what Church brought forth Donatus you say Luther If she could not perish what madness moved the sect of Donatus to separate upon pretence to avoyd the Communion of bad men Whereunto one fair answer to let pass many others is obvious out of the second observation That this sentence though it were Gospel as it is not is impertinently applyed 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 instead of Donatus in the later part of the Dilemma as well as in the former would make a suspicious man conjecture that you your self took notice of this exception of disparity 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 Doctrin if by the true Church be understood the pure Church as you do understand it is a certain truth and it is easier for you to declaim as you do than to dispute against it But these men you say must
be 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. Answ I might very justly desire some proof of that which so confidently you take for granted That there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the Truth in the days of our Fore-fathers but only such as dissembled their opinions and lived in your Communion And truly if I should say there were many of this condition I suppose I could make my Affirmative much more probable than you can make your Negative We read in Scripture that Elias conceived There was none left beside himself in the whole Kingdom of Israel who had not revolted from God and yet God himself assures us that he was deceived And if such a man a Prophet and one of the greatest erred in his judgment touching his own time and his own 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 always some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal But this answer I am content you shall take no notice of and think it sufficient to tell you that if it be true that this supposed invisible Church did hypocritically communicate with the visible Church in her corruptions then Protestants had cause nay necessity to forsake their Communion also for otherwise they must have joyn'd with them in the practise of impieties and seeing they had such cause to separate they presume their separation cannot be schismatical 36. Yes you reply To forsake the external Communion of them with whom they agree in faith is the most formal and proper sin of Schism Answ Very true but I would fain know wherein I would gladly be informed whether I be bound for fear of Schism to communicate with those that believe as I do only in lawful things or absolutely in every thing whether I am to joyn with them in superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common profession of the faith wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it This is that which you would have them do or else forsooth they must be Schismatiques But hereafter I pray you remember that there is no necessity of communicating even with true Believers in wicked actions Nay that there is a necessity herein to separate from them And then I dare say even you being their judge the reasonableness of their cause to separate shall according to my first observation justifie their separation from being schismatical 37. Arg. But the property of Schism according to D. Potter is to cut off from the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates And these Protestants have this property Therefore they are Schismatiques 38. Ans I deny the Syllogism it is no better than this One Sympton of the Plague is a Feaver But such a man hath a Feaver Therefore he hath the Plague The true Conclusion which issues out of these Premisses should be this Therefore he hath one Sympton of the Plague And so likewise in the former Therefore they have one property or one quality of Schismatiques And as in the former instance The man that hath one sign of the Plague may by reason of the absence of other requisites not have the plague So these Protestants may have something of Schismatiques and yet not be Schismatiques A Tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure and a just judge that condemns a malefactor do both sentence a man to death and so for the matter do both the same thing yet the one does wickedly the other justly What 's the reason because the one hath cause the other hath not In like manner Schismatiques either always or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate The same do these Protestants and yet are not Schismatiques The reason because Schismatiques do it and do it without cause and Protestants have cause for what they do The impieties of your Church being generally speaking damnable unless where they are excus'd by ignorance and expiated at least by a general repentance In fine though perhaps it may be true that all Schismatiques do so yet universal affirmatives are not converted and therefore it follows not by any good Logick that all that do so when there is just cause for it must be Schismatiques The cause in this matter of separation is all in all and that for ought I see you never think of But if these rigid Protestants have just cause to cut off your Church from the hope of salvation How can the milder sort allow hope of Salvation to the Members of this Church Ans Distinguish the quality of the Persons censur'd and this seeming repugnance of their censures will vanish into nothing For your Church may be considered either in regard of those in whom either negligence or pride or worldly fear or hopes or some other voluntary sin is the cause of their ignorance which I fear is the case of the generality of men amongst you or in regard of those who owe their 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 have eyes to see and will not see or those that would gladly see but want eyes or light Consider the former sort of men which your more rigid censures seem especially to reflect upon and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy Consider the later and the mildest will not be too mild So that here is no difference but in words only neither are you flatter'd 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 sin of Schism by communicating with those as you call them exterminating Spirits whom you conceive your self 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 confess were not fundamental shall it not be much more damnable to live in confraternity with these who defend an Errour of the failing of the Church which in the Donatists you confess to have been properly Heretical 40. Answ You mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you only or principally by reason of your Errours and Corruption For the true reason according to my third Observation is not so much because you maintain Errours and Corruption as because you impose them and will allow your Communion to none but to those that will hold them
external communion was corrupted and needed Reformation 53. That a pretence of Reformation will acquit no man from Schism we grant very willingly and therefore say that it concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his Salvation is worth to look most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For unless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient But whether a true Reformation of our selves from errors superstition and impieties will not justifie our separation in these things our separation I say from them who will not reform themselves and as much as in them lies hinder others from doing so This is the point you should have spoken to but have not As for the sentences of the Fathers to which you refer us for the determination of this Question I suppose by what I have said above the Reader understands by alleadging them you have gain'd little credit to your cause or person And that if they were competent Judges of this controversie their sentence is against you much rather than for you 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 than from Christ himself 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 do 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 external communion and then he is perswaded it will appear to you that against Luther and his followers you have said many things but shewed nothing 55. But the Church Universal remaining the Church Universal according to D. Potter may fall into error And from hence it cleerly followes that it is impossible to leave the external communion of the Church so corrupted and retain external communion with the Catholique Church Ans The reason of this consequence which you say is so cleer truly I cannot possibly discern But the conclusion inferr'd me-thinks is evident of it self and therefore without proof I grant it I mean that it is impossible to leave the external communion of the Catholique Church corrupted and to retain external communion with the Catholique Church But what use you can make of it I do not understand Unless 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 external 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 affirm nor deny that they forsook the external communion of the Church nor speak 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 external Communion of the Visible Church we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it that is renounce the practice of some observances in which the whole Visible Church before them did communicate But this we say they did without Schism because they had cause to do so and no man can have cause to be a Schismatique 56. But your Argument you conceive will be more convincing if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct Visible true Churches one Pure the other Corrupted but one Church only Ans The ground 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 matters nor that all should be extant that were written much less extant uncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all the 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 err is it to contradict this ground of D. Potters that the Church may err Unless 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 unless 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 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 brag be evacuated as you call it let it be so I see no harm will come of it Lastly whereas you say that supposing a visible pure Church Luther must be a Schismatick who separated from all visible Churches I tell you if you will suppose a visible Church extant before and when Luther arose conformable to him in all points of doctrin necessary and profitable then Luther separated not from this Church but adjoyned himself to it Not indeed in place which was not necessary not in external communion which was impossible but by the Union of faith and charity Upon these grounds I say that the ground of this Argument is no way made certain yet because it is not manifestly false I am content to let it pass And for ought I see it is very safe for me to do so for you build nothing upon it which I may not fairly grant For what do you rupted Luther forsaking the external communion of the corrupted Câ—urch could not but forsake the external 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 means For not every separation but only a causless separation from the communion of the Church we maintain to be Schismatical Hereunto may be added that though the whole Church were corrupted yet properly speaking it is not true that Luther and his Followers forsook the whole corrupted Church or the external communion of it But only that he forsook that Part of it which was corrupted and still would be so and forsook not but only reformed another Part which Part they themselves
particular States and Churches but the immortalizing the greater more lamentable divisions of Christendom and the world And therefore what can follow from it but perhaps in the judgement of carnal policy the temporal benefit and tranquillity of temporal States and Kingdoms but the infinite prejudice if not the desolation of the Kingdom of Christ And therefore it well becomes them who have have their portions in this life who serve no higher State than that of England or Spain or France nor this neither any further than they may serve themselves by it who think of no other happiness but the preservation of their own fortunes and tranquillity in this world who think of no other means to preserve States but human power and Machivilian policy and believe no other Creed but this Regi aut Civitati imperium habenti nihil injustum quod utile Such men as these it may become to maintain by worldly power and violence their State-instrument Religion For if all be vain and false as in their judgment it is the present whatsoever is better than any because it is already setled an 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 Mankind 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 Kingdoms 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 than to force weak men by the profession of a Religion which they believe not to lose their own eternal happiness out of a vain and needless fear lest they may possibly disturb their temporal quietness There being no danger to any State from any mans opinion unless it be such an opinion by which disobedience to authority or impiety is taught or licenc'd which sort I confess may justly be punished as well as other faults or unless this sanguinary doctrin be joyn'd with it That it is lawful for him by human violence to enforce others to it Therefore if Protestants did offer violence to other mens consciences and compel them to embrace their Reformation I excuse them not much less 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 und tyrannous violence though it may be avoided according to that of our Saviour When they persecute you in one City flie 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 than Murderers to die for their religion rather than to fight for it But of all the men in the world you are most unfit to accuse them hereof against whom the souls of the Martyrs from under the Altar cry much lowder than against all their other Persecutors together Who for these many ages together have daily sacrificed Hecatombs of innocent Christians under the name of Heretiques to blind zeal and furious superstition Who teach plainly that you may propagate your Religion whensoever you have power by deposing of Kings and invasion of Kingdoms and think when you kill the adversaries of it you do God good service But for their departing corporally from them whom mentally they had forsaken For their forsaking the external Communion and company of the unreformed part of the Church in their superstitions and impieties thus much of your accusation we embrace and glory in it And say though some Protestants might offend in the maner or degree of their separation yet certainly their separation it self was not Schismatical 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 just cause to do so no more than to depart from Christ himself I have shewed divers times already that you deal very injuriously with him confounding together Departing from the Church and Departing from some general opinions and practises which did not constitute but vitiate not make the Church but marr it For though he saies that which is most true that there can be no just cause to depart from the Church that is to cease being a member of the Church no more than to depart from Christ himself in as much as these are not divers but the same thing yet he nowhere denies but there might be just and necessary cause to depart from some opinions and practices of your Church nay of the Catholique Church And therefore you do vainly to inferr 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 Caecilianus and the Chayr of Cyprian and 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 Diocess be none because they had just and necessary cause of their departure For otherwise they must have continued in the profession of known Errors and the practice of manifest Corruptions 98. Ad § 36 In the next Section you tel us that Christ our Lord gave S. Peter and his successors authority over his whole Militant Church And for proof hereof you first referre us to Brerely citing exactly the places of such chief Protestants as have 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 prove this point true you only 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 than any of those who are pretended to be confessed by Protestants to have held with you in this matter and when those whom you have to do 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 less than Apostolical is a certain note of truth Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend that Protestants did confess 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
seems to me to imply the contradiction of the first For to say That the Sacriledge of Schism is eminent when there is no cause of separation implies to my understanding that there may be a cause of Separation Now in the first he says plainly That this is impossible Neither doth any reconciliation of his words occurre to me but only this that in the former he speaks upon supposition that the Publique service of God wherein men are to communicate is unpolluted and no unlawful thing practiced in their communion which was so true of their communion that the Donatists who separated did not deny it And to make this answer no improbable evasion it is observable out of S. Austin and Optatus that though the Donatists at the beginning of their Separation pretended no cause of it but only that the men from whom they separated were defiled with the contagion of Traditors yet afterwards to make the continuance of it more justifiable they did invent and spread abroad this calumny against Catholiques that they set pictures upon their altars which when S. Austin comes to Answer he does not deny the possibility of the thing for that had been to deny the Catholique Church to be made up of men all which had free-will to evil and therefore might possibly agree in doing it and had he denyed this the Action of after-Ages had been his refutation Neither does he say as you would have done that it was true they placed pictures there and moreover worshipped them but yet not for their own sakes but for theirs who were represented by them Neither does he say as you do in this Chapter that though this were granted a Corruption yet were they not to separate for it What then does he Certainly nothing else but abhorr the thing and deny the imputation Which way of answering does not I confess plainly shew but yet it somewhat intimates that he had nothing else to answer and that if he could not have denyed this he could not have denyed the Donatists separation from them to have been just If this Answer to this litle Argument seem not sufficient I add moreover that if it be applyed to Luther's separation it hath the common fault of all your Allegations out of Fathers Impertinence For it is one thing to separate from the communion of the whole world another to separate form all the Communions in the world One thing to divide from them who are united among themselves another to divide from them who are divided among themselves Now the Donatists separated from the whole world of Christians united in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same maner which was a very great Argument that they could not have just cause to leave them according to that of Tertullian Variâsse debuer at error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos unum est non est Erratum sed Traditum But Luther and his followers did not so The world I mean of Christians and Catholiques was divided and subdivided long before he divided from it and by their divisions had much weakned their own authority and taken away from you this plea of S. Austin which stands upon no other Foundation but the Unity of the whole worlds Communion 102. Ad § 38. If Luther were in the right most certain those Protestants that differed from him were in the wrong But that either he or they were Schismatiques it follows not Or if it does then either the Jesuits are Schismatiques from the Dominicans or they from the Jesuits The Canonists from the Jesuits or the Jesuits from the Canonists The Scotists from the Thomists or they from the Scotists The Franciscans from the Dominicans or the Dominicans from the Franciscans For between all these the world knows that in point of Doctin there is a plain and irreconcileable contradiction and therefore one Part must be in error at least not Fundamental Thus your Argument returns upon your self and if it be good proves the Roman Church in a manner to be made up of Schismatiques But the answer to it is that it begges this very false and vain Supposition That whosoever in any point of doctrin is a Schismatique 103. Ad § 39. In the next place you number up your victories and tell us that out of these premises this conclusion follows That Luther and his followers were Schismatiques from the Visible Church the Pope the Diocess wherein they were baptized from the Bishop under whom they lived from the Countrey to which they belonged from their Religious order wherein they were professed from one another and lastly from a mans self Because the self same Protestant is convicted to day that his yesterdayes opinion was an error To which I Answer that Luther and his followers separated from many of these in some opinions and practices But that they did it without cause which only can make them Schismatiques that was the only thing you should have prov'd and to that you have not urged one reason of any moment All of them for weight and strength were cosen-germans to this pretty device wherewith you will prove them Schismatiques from themselves because the self same Protestant to day is convicted in conscience that his yesterdayes opinion was an error It seems then that they that hold errors must hold them fast and take special care of being convicted in conscience that they are in error for fear of being Schismatiques Protestants must continue Protestants and Puritans Puritans and Papists Papists nay Jewes and Turks and Pagans must remain Jews and Turks and Pagans and go on constantly to the Devil or else forsooth they must be Schismatiques and that from themselves And this perhaps is the cause that makes Papists so obstinate not only in their common superstition but also in adhering to the proper phancies of their several Sects so that it is a miracle to hear of any Jesuit that hath forsaken the opinion of the Jesuits or any Dominican that hath chang'd his for the Jesuits Whithout question this Gentleman my adversary knows none such or else methinks he should not have objected it to D. Potter That he knew a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant which is likely to be true But sure if this be all his fault he hath no reason to be ashamed of his acquaintance For possibly it may be a fault to be in errour because many times it proceeds from a fault But sure the forsaking of errour cannot be a sin unless to be in errour be a vertue And therefore to do as you do to damn men for false opinions and to call them Schismatiques for leaving them to make pertinacy in errour that is an unwillingness to be convicted or a resolution not to be convicted the form of Heresie and to find fault with men for being convicted in conscience that they are in error is the most incoherent and contradictious injustice that ever was heard of But Sir
his judgment in this matter this express limitation of his former resolution he makes in the very same Section which affords your former quotation and therefore what Apology can be made for you and your Store-house M. Brerely for dissembling of it I cannot possibly imagine 111. D. Potter p. 131. sayes That 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 pass against the first Reformers seeing they also opposed the commands of the Church imposed on them for silencing all Disputes and setling Peace and Unity in Government But this Collection is deceitful 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 do 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 Luther's person and none against his cause which alone I have undertaken to justifie and therefore I pass 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 and done especially of them whom Bellarmine believes in such a long train to have gone to the Divel 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 esteem it not unpardonable in the great and Heroical spirit of Luther if being opposed and perpetually baited with a world of Furies he 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 Gospel Unless you desire to hear of your killing of Kings Massacring of Peoples Blowing up of Parliaments and have a mind to be askt Whether it be probable that that should be Gods cause which needs to be maintained by such Divellish means 113 Ad § 44 45. In the two next Particles which are all of this Chapter that remain unspoken to you spend a great deal of reading and wit and reason against some men who pretending to honour and believe the Doctrin and 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 judgment cannot be defended For if they believe the Doctrin of your Church then must they believe this doctrin that they are to return to your Communion And therefore if they do 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 Doctrin which is opposite in Diameter unto the doctrin of Protestants and therefore in a Work which you profess 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 Schism BEcause Vice is best known 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 far as belongs to our present purpose we shall pass on with ease to the definition of heresie and so be able to discern who be Heretiques And this I intend to do not by entring into such particular Questions as are controverted between Catholiques and Protestants but only by applying some general grounds either already proved or else yielded to on all sides 2 Almighty God having ordained Man to a supernatural End of Beatitude by supernatural means it was requisite that his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that End and Means by a supernatural knowledge And because if such a knowledge were no more than probable it could not be able sufficiently to overbear our will and encounter with human probabilities being backed with the strength of flesh and blood It was further necessary that this supernatural knowledge should be most certain and infallible and that Faith should believe nothing more certainly than that it self is a most certain Belief and so be able to bear down all gay probabilities of humane Opinion And because the aforesaid means and end of Beatifical Vâ—sion do fat exceed the reach of natural wit the certainty of faith could not always be joyned with such evidence of reason as is wont to be found in the Principles or Conclusions of humane natural Sciences that so all flesh might not glory in the arm of flesh but he who glories should glory (a) 2 Cor. 1â— in our Lord. Moreover it was expedient that our belief or assent to divine truths should not only be unknown or inevident by any humane discourse but that absolutely also it should be obscure in it self and ordinarily speaking be void even of supernatural evidence that so we might have occasion to actuate and testifie the obedience which we ow to our God not only by submitting our will to his Will and Commands but by subjecting also our Understanding to his Wisdom and words captivating as the Apostle speaks the same Understanding (b) 2 Cor. 10.5 to the Obedience of Faith Which occasion had been wanting if Almighty God had made clear 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 abstain from believing by suspending our Judgments or exercising no act one way or other but also to disbelieve that is to believe the contrary of that which faith proposeth as the example of innumerable Arch-heretiques can bear witness This obscurity of faith we learn from holy Scripture according to those words of the Apostle Faith is the (c) Heb. 11. substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing And We see by a glass (d) 1 Cor. 13. in a dark manner but then face to face And accordingly S. Peter faith Which you do well attending unto as to (e) 2 Pet. 1.19 a Candle shining in a dark place 3 Faith being then obscure whereby it differeth from natural Sciences and yet being
of the Apostles the (h) Lib. 28. cont Faust cap. 2. Church hath brought down to our days by a never-interrupted course of times and by undoubted succession of connection Now that the Reformation begun by Luther was interrupted for divers ages before him is manifest our of History and by his endeavouring a Reformation which must presuppose Abuses He cannot therefore pretend a continued Succession of that Doctrin which he sought to revive and reduce to the knowledge and practise of men And they ought not to prove that they have a Succession of doctrin because they agreee with the doctrin of the Apostles but contrarily we must infer that they agree not with the Apostles because they cannot pretend a never-interrupted succession of doctrin from the times of the Apostles till Luther And here it is not amiss to note that although the Waldeases Wickliff c. had agreed with Protestants in all points of doctrin yet they could not brag of Succession from them because their doctrin hath not been free from interruption which necessarily crosseth Succession 25 And as want of Succession of Persons and Doctrin cannot stand with that Universality of Time which is inseparable from the Catholique Church so likewise the disagreeing Sects which are dispersed throughout divers Countries and Nations cannot help towards that Universality of Place wherewith the true Church must be endued but rather such local multiplication doth more and more lay open their division and want of succession in Doctrin For the excellent Observation of S. Augustine doth punctually agree with all modern Heretiques wherein this holy Father having cited these words our of the Prophet Ezechiel (i) Cap. 24. My flocks are dispersed upon the whole face of the Earth he adds this remarkable sentence Not all Heretiques (k) Lib. de Pastorib c. 8. are spread over the face of the Earth and yet there are Heretiques spread over the whole face of the Earth some here some there yet they are wanting in no place they know not one another One Sect for example in Africa another Heresie in the East another in Egypt another in Mesopotania In divers places there are divers one Mother pride hath begot them all as our own Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all saithful people dispersed throughout the whole world No wonder then if Pride breed Dissention and Charity Union And in another place applying to Heretiques those words of the Canticles If thou know not (l) Cant. 1. thy self go forth and follow after the steps of the flocks and seed the kids he saith If thou know not thy self go (m) Ep. 48. thou forth I do not cast thee out but go thou out that it may be said of thee They went from us but they were not of us Go thou out in the steps of the flocks not in my steps but in the steps of the flocks nor of one flock but of divers and wandring flocks And feed thy Kids not as Peter to whom is said Feed thy sheep but seed thy kids in the Tabernacle of the Pastors not in the Tabernacle of the Pastor where there is one flock and one Pastor In which words this holy Father doth set down the Marks of Heresie to wit going out from the Church and Want of Unity among themselves which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme Visible Pastor and Head under Christ And so it being Proved that Protestants havâ—â— neither succession of Persons nor Doctrin nor Universality of Time or Place cannot avoid the just note of Heresie 26 Hitherto we have brought arguments to prove that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of Heresie against the Negative Precept of saith which obligeth 〈◊〉 under pain of damnation not to imbrace any one errour contrary to any Truth sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by Almighty God Which were enough to make good that among Persons who disagree in any one Point of Faith one part only can be saved Yet we will now prove that whosoever erreth in any one point doth also break the Affirmative Precept of Faith whereby we are obliged positively to believe some revealed truth with an infallible and supernatural Faith which is necessary to salvation even necessitate sinis or medii as Divines speak that is so necessary that not any after he is come to the use of Reason was or can be saved without it according to the words of the Apostle Without saith (n) Heb. 11.6 it is impossible to please God 27 In the beginning of this Chapter I shewed that to Christian Catholique faith are required Certainty Obscurity Prudence and Supernaturality All which Conditions we will prove to be wanting in the belief of Protestants even in those points which are true in themselves and to which they yield assent as happeneth in all those particulars wherein they agree with us from whence it will follow that they wanting true Divine saith want means absolutely necessary to salvation The faith of Protestants wanteth Certainty 28 And first that their belief wanteth Certainty I prove because they denying the Universal infallibility of the Church can have no certain ground to know what Objects are revealed or testified by God Holy Scripture is in it self most true and infallible but without the direction and declaration of the Church we can neither have certain means to know what Scâ—ipture is Canonical nor what Translations be faithful nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Every Protestant as I suppose is perswaded that his own opinions be true and that he hath used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer Conferring of divers Texts c. and yet their disagreements shew that some of them are deceived And therefore it is clear that they have no one certain ground whereon to relie for understanding of Scripture And seeing they hold all the Articles of Faith even concerning fundamental points upon the self same ground of Scripture interpreted not by the Churches Authority according to some other Rules which as experience of their contradictions teach do sometimes fail it is clear that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all And albeit sometime it chance to hit on the truth yet it is likewise apt to lead them to error As all Arch-heretiques believing some truths and withall divers errors upon the same ground and motive have indeed no true divine infallible faith but only a fallible humane opinion and perswasion For if the ground upon which they rely were certain it could never produce any errour 29 Another cause of uncertainty in the faith of Protestants must rise from their distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental For since they acknowledge that every error in fundamental points destroyeth the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points be fundamental it followeth that they must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamental error and so want the substance of faith
that commits any sin must not think himself a true believer Besides seeing faith worketh by Charity and Charity is the effect of faith certainly if the cause were perfect the effect would be perfect and consequently as you make no degrees in Faith so there would be none in Charity and so no man could possibly make any progress in it but all crue believers should be equal in Charity as in faith you make them equal and from thence it would follow unavoidably that whosoever finds in himself any true faith must presently perswade himself that he is perfect in Charity and whosoever on the other side discovers in his charity any imperfection must not believe that he hath any true faith These you see are strange and portentous consequences and yet the deduction of them from your doctrin is clear and apparent which shews this doctrin of yours which you would fain have true that there might be some necessity of your Churches infallibility to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth but even to all Religion and Piety and fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or Charity And therefore I must entreat and adjure you either to discover unto me which I take God to witness I cannot perceive some fallacy in my reasons against it or never hereafter to open your mouth in defence of it 5 As for that one single reason which you produce to confirm it it will appear upon examination to be resolved finally into a groundless Assertion of your own contrary to all Truth and experience and that is That no degree of faith less than a most certain and infallible knowledge can be able sufficiently to overbear our will and encounter with humane probabilities being backt with the strength of Flesh and Blood For who sees not that many millions in the world forgo many times their present ease and pleasure undergo great and toilsom labours encounter great difficulties adventure upon great dangers and all this not upon any certain expectation but upon a probable hope of some future gain and commodity and that not infinite and eternal but finite and temporal Who sees not that many men abstain from many things they exceedingly desire not upon any certain assurance but a probable fear of danger that may come after What man ever was there so madly in love with a present penny but that he would willingly spend it upon any little hope that by doing so he might gain an hundred thousand pound And I would fain know what gay probabilities you could devise to disswade him from this Resolution And if you can devise none what reason then or sense is there but that a probable hope of infinite and eternal happiness provided for all those that obey Christ Jesus much more a firm faith though not so certain in some sort as sense or science may be able to sway our will to obedience and encounter with all those temptations which Flesh and Blood can suggest to avert us from it Men may talk their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty but did they generall believe that obedience to Christ were the only way to present and eternal felicity but as firmly and undoubtedly as that there is such a City as Constantinople nay but as much as Caesar's Commentaries or the History of Salust I believe the lives of most men both Papists and Protestants would be better than they are Thus therefore out of your own words I argue against you He that requires to true faith an absolute and infallible certainty for this only Reason because any less degree could not be able to overbear our will c. imports that if a less degree of faith were able to do this then a less degree of faith may be true and divine and saving Faith But experience shews and reason confirms that a firm faith though not so certain as sense or science may be able to encounter and overcome our will and affections And therefore it follows from your own reason that faith which is not a most certain and infallible knowledge may be true and divine and saving faith 6 All these Reasons I have imployed to shew that such a most certain and infallible faith as here you talk of is not so necessary but that without such a high degree of it it is possible to please God And therefore the Doctrins delivered by you § 26 are most presumptuous and uncharitable viz. That such a most certain and infallible faith is necessary to salvation Necessitate Finis or Medii so necessary that after a man is come to the use of reason no man ever was or can be saved without it Wherein you boldly intrude into the judgment-feat of God and damn men for breaking Laws not of God's but your own making But withall you clearly contradict yourself not only where you affirm That your faith depends finally upon the Tradition of Age to Age of Father to Son which cannot be a fit ground but only for a Moral Assurance nor only where you pretend that not alone Hearing and Seeing but also Histories Letters Relations of many which certainly are things not certain and infallible are yet foundations good enough to support your faith Which Doctrin if it were good and allowable Protestants might then hope that their Histories and Letters and Relations might also pass for means sufficient of a sufficient Certainty that they should not be excluded from Salvation for want of such a Certainty But indeed the pressure of the present difficulty compell'd you to speak here what I believe you will not justifie with a pretty tergiversation to shew D. Potter your means of moral certainty whereas the Objection was that you had no means or possibility of infallible certainty for which you are plainly at as great a loss and as far to seek as any of your Adversaries And therefore it concerns you highly not to damn others for want of it lest you involve your selves in the same condemnation according to those terrible words of S. Paul Thou art inexcusable O Man whosoever thou art that judgest For wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thy self for thou that judgest dost the same things c. In this therefore you plainly contradict your self And lastly most plainly in saying as you do here you contradict and retract your pretence of Charity to Protestants in the beginning of your Book For there you make profession that you have no assurance but that Protestants dying Protestants may possibly die with contrition and be saved And here you are very peremptory that they cannot but want a means absolutely necessary to salvation and wanting that cannot but be damned The third Condition you require to faith is that our assent to divine Truths should not only be unknown and unevident by any humane discourse but that absolutely also it should be obscure in it self and ordinarily speaking be void even of supernatural evidence Which words
must have a very favourable construction or else they will not be sense For who can make any thing of these words taken properly that faith must be an unknown unevident assent or an assent absolutely obscure I had always thought that known and unknown obscure and evident had been affections not of our Assent but the Object of it not of our belief but the thing believed For well may we assent to a thing unknown obscure or unevident but that our assent it self should be called therefore unknown or obscure seems to me as great an impropriety as if I should say Your sight were green or blew because you see something that is so In other places therefore I answer your words but here I must answer your meaning which I conceive to be That it is necessary to faith that the Objects of it the points which we believe should not be so evidently certain as to necessitate our understanding to an Assent that so there might be some merit in faith as you love to speak who will not receive no not from God himself but a penny-worth for a penny but as we some obedience in it which can hardly have place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not where the understanding does all and the will nothing Now seeing the Religion of Protestants thought it be much more credible than yours yet is not pretended to have the absolute evidence of sense or demonstration therefore I might let this doctrin pass without exception for any prejudice that can redound to us by it But yet I must not forbear to tell you that your discourse proves indeed this condition requisite to the merit but yet not to the essence of faith without it faith were not an act of obedience but yet faith may be faith without it and this you must confess unless you will say either the Apostles believed not the whole Gospel which they preached or that they were not cy-witnesses of a great part of it unless you will question S. John for saying that which we have seen with our eys which our hands have handled c declare we unto you nay our Saviour himself for saying Thomas because thou seest thou believest Blessed are they which have not seen yet have believed Yet if you will say that in respect of the things which they saw the Apostles assent was not pure and proper and meer faith but somewhat more an assent containing faith but superadding to it I will not contend with you for it will be a contention about words But then again I must crave leave to tell you that the requiring this condition is in my judgment a plain revocation of the former For had you made the matter of faith either naturally or supernaturally evident it might have been a fitly attempered and duly proportioned object for an absolute certainty natural or supernatural But requiring as you do that faith should be an absolute knowledge of a thing not absolutely known an infallible certainty of a thing which though it be in it self yet it is not made appear to us to be infallibly certain to my understanding you speak impossibilities And truly for one of your Religion to do so is but a good Decorum For the matter and object of your Faith being so full of contradictions a contradictions faith may very well become a contradictious Religion Your faith therefore if you please to have it so let it be a free necessitated certain uncertain evident obscure prudent and foolish natural and supernatural unnatural assent But they which are unwilling to believe non-sense themselves or to perswade others to do so it is but reason they should make the faith wherewith they believe an intelligible compossible consistent thing not define it by repugnancies Now nothing is more repugnant than that a man should be required to give most certain credit unto that which cannot be made appear most certainly credible and if it appear to him to be so then is it not obscure that it is so For if you speak of an acquired rational discursive faith certainly these Reasons which make the object seem credible must be the cause of it and consequently the strength and firmity of my assent must rise and fall together with the apparent credibility of the object If you speak of a supernatural infused faith then you either suppose it infused by the former means and then that which was said before must be said again for whatsoever effect is wrought meerly by means must bear proportion to and cannot exceed the vertue of the means by which it is wrought As nothing by water can be made more cold than water nor by fire more hot than fire nor by honey more sweet than honey nor by gall more bitter than gall Or if you will suppose it infused without means then that power which infuseth into the understanding assent which bears Analogy to sight in the eye must also infuse Evidence that is Visibility into the Object and look what degree of assent is infus'd into the understanding at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the Object And for you to require a strength of credit beyond the appearance of the object 's credibility is all one as if you should require me to go ten miles an hour upon an horse that will go but five to discern a man certainly through a myst or cloud that makes him not certainly discernable to hear and sound more clearly than it is audible to understand a thing more fully than it is intelligible and he that doth so I may well expect that his next injunction will be that I must see something that is invisible hear something inaudible understand something that is wholly unintelligible For he that demands ten of me knowing I have but five does in effect as if he demanded five knowing that I have none and by like reason you requiring that I should see things farther then they are visible require I should see something invisible and in requiring that I believe something more firmly than it is made to me evidently credible you require in effect that I believe some thing which appears to me incredible and while it does so I deny not but that I am bound to believe the truth of many Texts of Scripture the sense whereof is to me obscure and the truth of many Articles of faith the manner whereof is obscure and to humane understandings incomprehensible But then it is to be observed that not the sense of such Texts not the manner of these things is that which I am bound to believe but the truth of them But that I should believe the truth of any thing the truth whereof cannot be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of faith required of me this I say for any man to be bound to is unjust and unreasonable because to do it is impossible 8 Ad § 4 5 6 7 8.9 10 11 12. Yet
examination the grounds of it prove uncertain or to leave it if they prove apparently false My own experience assures me that in this imputation I do you no injury but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking doubting of any part of your Doctrin among mortal sins For from hence it followes that seeing every man must resolve that he will never commit mortal sin that he must never examin the grounds of it at all for fear he should be mov'd to doubt or if he do he must resolve that no motives be they never so strong shall move him to doubt but that with his will and resolution he will uphold himself in a firm beliefe of your Religion though his reason and his understanding fail him And seeing this is the condition of all those whom you esteem good Catholiques who can deny but you are a Company of men unwilling and afraid to understand lest you should do good That have eyes to see and will not see that have not the love of truth which is only to be known by an indifferent tryall and therefore deserve to be given over to strong delusions men that love darkness more than light in a word that you are the blind leading the blind and what prudence there can be in following such Guides our Saviour hath taught us in saying If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch 73. There remains unspoken to in this Section some places out of S. Austin and some sayings of Luther wherein he confesses that in the Papacy are many good things But the former I have already considered and return'd the argument grounded on them As for Luther's speeches I told you not long since that we follow no private men and regard not much what he saies either against the Church of Rome or for it but what he proves He was a man of a vehement spirit and very often what he took in hand he did not do it but over-do it He that will justifie all his speeches especially such as he wrote in heat of opposition I believe will have work enough Yet in these sentences though he over-reach in the particulars yet what he saies in general we confess true and confess with him that in the Papacy are many good things which have come from them to us but withal we say there are many bad neither do we think our selves bound in prudence either to reject the good with the bad or to retain the bad with the good but rather conceive it a high point of wisdome to separate between the pretious and the vile to sever the good from the bad and to put the good in vessels to be kept and to cast the bad away to try all things and to hold that which is good 74. Ad § 32. Your next and last argument against the faith of Protestants is because wanting Certainty and Prudence it must also want the fourth condition Supernaturality For that being a humane perswasion it is not in the essence of it supernatural and being imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from Divine motion and so is not supernatural in respect of the cause from which it proceedeth Ans This little discourse stands wholly upon what went before and therefore must fall together with it I have proved the Faith of Protestants as certain and as prudent as the faith of Papists and therefore if these be certain grounds of supernaturality our faith may have it as well as yours I would here furthermore be inform'd how you can assure us that your faith is not your perswasion or opinion for you make them all one that your Churches Doctrin is true Or if you grant it your perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subject of it an humane perswasion I desire also to know what sense there is in pretending that your perswasion is not in regard of the object only and cause of it but in the nature or essence of it supernatural Lastly whereas you say that being imprudent it cannot come from divine motion certainly by this reason all they that believe your own Religion and cannot give a wise and sufficient reason for it as millions amongst you cannot must be condemn'd to have no supernatural faith or if not then without question nothing can hinder but that the imprudent faith of Protestants may proceed from divine motion as well as the imprudent faith of Papists 75. And thus having weighed your whole discourse and found it altogether lighter than vanity why should I not invert your conclusion and say Seeing you have not proved that whosoever errs against any one point of Faith loseth all divine Faith nor that any error whatsoever concerning that which by the Parties litigant may be esteem'd a matter of faith is a grievous sin it follows not at all that when two men hold different doctrins concerning Religion that but one can be saved Not that I deny but that the sentence of Saint Chrysostome with which you conclude this Chapter may in a good sense be true for oftimes by the faith is meant only that Doctrin which is necessary to Salvation and to say that salvation may be had without any the least thing wich is necessary to salvation implyes a repugnance and destroys it self Besides not to believe all necessary points and to believe none at all is for the purpose of salvation all one and therefore he that does so may justly be said to destroy the Gospel of Christ seeing he makes it uneffectual to the end for which it was intended the Salvation of mens soules But why you should conceive that all differences about Religion are concerning matters of faith in this high notion of the word for that I conceive no reason CHAP. VII In regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones self Protestants are in state of Sin as long as they remain separated from the Roman-Church THAT due Order is to be observed in the Theological Vertue of Charity whereby we are directed to preferre some Objects before others is a truth taught by all Divines and declared in these words of holy Scripture He hath ordered (a) Cant. 2 4 Charity in me The reason whereof is because the infinite Goodness of God which is the formal object or Motive of Charity and for which all other things are loved is differently participated by different Objects and therefore the love we bear to them for Gods sake must accordingly be unequal In the vertue of Faith the case is far otherwise because all the Objects or points which we believe do equally participate the divine Testimony or Revelation for which we believe alike all things propounded for such For it is as impossible for God to speak an untruth in a small as in a great matter And this is the ground for which we have so often affirmed that any least error against Faith is in jurious to God and destructive of Salvation 2. This order in
the necessity of being good holy and vertuous No by no means I am not come to destroy the Law but to fulfil it The righteousness of the Law according to the substance thereof shall be as necessarily required by vertue of that New Covenant which I preach unto you and to which I exhort you all to submit your selves as ever it was by the Old Covenant only because of your weakness and infirmity I will abate the rigour of it Those who notwithstanding my offer of Grace and Pardon upon such easie conditions as I prescribe will yet continue in an habitual state of profaneness and irreligion shall be as culpable nay ten times more miserable than if they never had heard of me for their wilful neglecting so great salvation It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for one tittle of the Law to fail For God would be no looser by the annihilation of the world whereas if any part of the Moral Law should expire the very beams and rayes of Gods essential goodness should be darkened and destroy'd 33. In like manner saith St. Paul Rom. 11. ult Rom. 3. ult Do we make void the Law through Faith God forbid yea we establish the Law Now if a succeeding Covenant establisheth any part of a Precedent especially if there be any alteration made in the conditions established all obligation whatsoever is taken from the Old Covenant and those conditions are in force only by vertue of the New When the Norman Conquerour was pleas'd to establish and confirm to the English some of the ancient Saxons Laws Are those Laws then become in force as they are Saxon No for the Authority of the Saxons the Authors of those Laws is supposed to be extinguished and therefore no power remains in them to look to the execution of them But by the confirmation of the Norman they are become indeed Norman Laws and are now in force not because they were first made by the Saxons but only by vertue of the succeeding power of the Norman line So likewise when the Gospel enjoyns the substance of the same duties which the old Covenant of Works required Are we Christians enforc'd to the obedience of them because they are duties of the Law By no means But only because our Saviour and only Law-maker Jesus Christ commands the same in the Law of Faith 34. Thus far the New Covenant is in some terms of agreement with the Old inasmuch as the same Moral duties are enjoyn'd in them both as parts of the conditions of both But the difference herein is That the Law commands a precise exact fulfilling of these Precepts as I told you before which the Gospel descending to our infirmities remits and qualifies much For in the Gospel he is accounted to fulfil the moral Precepts that obeys them according to that measure of Grace which God is pleas'd to allow him that obeys God though not with a perfect yet with a sincere upright heart that when he is overcome with a temptation to sin continues not in it but recovers himself to his former righteousness by Repentance and new Obedience Thus much then for the moral Precepts and with what difference they are commanded in the Old and New Covenant 35. In the second place there is another part of Evangelical Obedience which is purely Evangelical and which has no commerce nor reference at all to the Law and that is the Grace of Repentance For saith St. Paul Act. 17 30. Act. 17.30 But now that is by the Gospel God commands all men every where to repent Now Repentance implies a serious consideration and acknowledgment of that miserable estate whereunto our sins have brought us and hereupon an hearty unfeigned sorrow for them a perfect hatred and detestation of them inferring a full peremptory resolution to break them off and interrupt the course of them by new obedience This I say is an obedience purely Evangelical The Law of Works did not at all meddle with it neither indeed could it The Law condemns a man assoon as ever he is guilty of the breach thereof and makes no promise at all of Remission of sins upon Repentance but rather quite excludes it Yet from the grace of Repentance we may gather a forcible argument to make good that which before we spoke concerning the Renewing of the Moral Precepts in the New Covenant For no reasonable man can deny that Repentance is absolutely necessary before a man can be Justified Now what is that for which for example a new converted Heathen repents but the breach of the Moral Law therefore by this necessity of Repentance he acknowledgeth and so do we that by such sins he was excluded from all hope of being Justified Now it were absurd for a man to say that any thing excludes a man from being capable of receiving the promises of a Covenant but only the breaking of the conditions thereof 36. The third part of Evangelical Righteousness is Faith not Moral but Christian which is A relying upon Christ as the only meritorious cause of whatsoever benefit we obtain by the new Covenant It being for his sake both that God bestowes upon us grace whereby we are enabled to perform his will and after we have done our duty that he will freely and not as wages bestow upon us the reward thereof There is another virtue Evangelical which is Hope but of that I must speak in my last point And thus I have gone through the Conditions required on mans part in the New Covenant all which I suppose are implyed in this word Faith which being taken in so general a sense may I conceive be thus not improperly defined viz. To be a receiving and embracing of the Promises made unto us in Christ upon the terms and conditions proposed in the Gospel 37. Now follow the conditions on Gods part comprehended in these words The hope of Righteousness which are equivalent to the term of Justification the nature whereof I shall now endeavour to discover Justification I suppose imports the whole Treasure of blessings and favours which God who is rich in mercy will freely bestow on those whom he accepts as Righteous for his beloved Son our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ his sake which are first Remission of sins and an interest unto the Joyes of heaven in this life and a full consummation both of Grace and Glory in the life to come Some I know think that S. Paul when he discourses of Justification thereby intends only Remission of sins And the ground of this opinion is taken from S. Paul quoting those words of David Rom. 4.6 7 8. when he states the Doctrine of Justification Rom. 4.6 7 8. where he saith that David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without works saying Blessed are they whose unrighteousness is forgiven and whose sins are covered Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord will not impute sin But if this Argument out of the