is easier for you to declaim as you do than to dispute against it But these men you say must be Hereticks because they separated from the Communion of the Visible Church and therefore also from the Communion of that which they say was invisible In as much as the invisible Church communicated with the visible 35. Ans I might very justly desire some proof of that which so confidently you take for granted That there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the Truth in the days of our Fore-fathers but only such as dissembled their opinions and lived in your Communion And truly if I should say there were many of this condition I suppose I could make my Affirmative much more probable than you can make your Negative We read in Scripture that Elias conceived there was none left besides himself in the whole Kingdom of Israel who had not revolted from God and yet God himself assures us that he was deceived And if such a man a Prophet and one of the greatest erred in his judgment touching his own time and his own Country why may not you who are certainly but a man and subject to the same passions as Elias was mistake in thinking that in former ages in some Countrey or other there were not always some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal But this answer I am content you shall take no notice of and think it sufficient to tell you that if it be true that this supposed invisible Church did hypocritically communicate with the visible Church in her corruptions then Protestants had cause nay necessity to forsake their Communion also for otherwise they must have joyned with them in the practice of impieties and seeing they had such cause to separate they presume their separation cannot be Schismatical 36. Yes you reply to forsake the external Communion of them with whom they agree in faith is the most formal and proper sin of Schism Answ Very true but I would fain know wherein I would gladly be informed whether I be bound for fear of Schism to communicate with those that believe as I do only in lawful things or absolutely in every thing whether I am to joyn with them in Superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common profession of the Faith wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it This is that which you would have them do or else forsooth they must be Schismaticks But hereafter I pray remember that there is no necessity of communicating even with true Believers in wicked actions Nay that there is a necessity herein to separate from them And then I dare say even you being their judge the reasonableness of their cause to separate shall according to my first observation justifie their separation from being Schismatical 37. Arg. But the property of Schism according to D. Potter is to cut off from the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates And these Protestants have this property therefore they are Schismaticks 38. Ans I deny the Syllogism it is no better than this One Smptom of the Plague is a Feaver but such a man hath a Feaver therefore he hath the Plague The true conclusion which issues out of these Premisses should be this Therefore he hath one Symptom of the plague And so likewise in the former therefore they have one property or one quality of Schismaticks And as in the former instance The man that hath one sign of the plague may by reason of the absence of other requisites not have the plague So these Protestants may have something of Schismaticks and yet not be Schismaticks A Tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure and a just judge that condemns a malefactor do both sentence a man to death and so for the matter do both the same thing yet the one does wickedly the other justly What 's the reason because the one hath cause the other hath not In like manner Schismaticks either always or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate The same do these Protestants yet are not Schismaticks The Reason because Schismaticks do it and do it without cause and Protestants have cause for what they do The impieties of your Church being generally speaking damnable unless where they are excused by ignorance and expiated at least by a general repentance In fine though perhaps it may be true that all Schismaticks do so yet universal affirmatives are not converted and therefore it follows not by any good Logick that all that do so when there is just cause for it must be Schismaticks The cause in this matter of separation is all in all and that for ought I see you never think of But if these rigid Protestants have just cause to cut off your Church from the hope of salvation How can the milder sort allow hope of salvation to the Members of this Church Ans Distinguish the quality of the Persons censured and this seeming repugnance of their censures will vanish into nothing For your Church may be considered either in regard of those in whom either negligence or pride or worldly fear or hopes or some other voluntary sin is the cause of their ignorance which I fear is the case of the generality of men amongst you or in regard of those who owe their Errors from Truth to want of capacity or default of instruction either in respect of those that might know the truth and will not or of those who would know the truth but all things considered cannot In respect of those that have eyes to see and will not see or those that would gladly see but want eyes or light Consider the former sort of men which your more rigid censures seem especially to reflect upon and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy Consider the latter and the mildest will not be too mild So that here is no difference but in words only neither are you flattered by the one nor uncharitably censured by the other 39. Your next blow is directed against the milder sort of Protestants who you say involve themselves in the sin of Schism by communicating with those as you call them exterminating Spirits whom you conceive your self to have proved Schismaticks And now load them further with the crime of Heresie For say you if you held your selves obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errors which yet you confess were not fundamental shall it not be much more damnable to live in confraternity with these who defend an Error of the failing of the Church which in the Donatists you confess to have been properly Heretical 40. Ans You mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you only or principally by reason of your Errors and Corruption For the true reason according to my third observation is not so much because you maintain Errors and Corruptions
Happiness But whether this way lie on the right-hand or the left or strait forwards whether it be by following a living Guide or by seeking my directions in a Book or by hearkening to the secret whisper of some private Spirit to me it is indifferent And he that is otherwise affected and has not a Travellers indifference which Epictetus requires in all that would find the truth but much desires in respect of his ease or pleasure or profit or advancement or satisfaction of friends or any human consideration that one way should be true rather than another it is odds but he will take his desire that it should be so for an assurance that it is so But I for my part unless I deceive my self was and still am so affected as I have made profession not willing I confess to take any thing upon trust and to believe it without asking my self why no nor able to command my self were I never so willing to follow like a sheep every shepheard that should take upon him to guide me or every Flock that should chance to go before me but most apt and most willing to be led by reason to any way or from it and always submitting all other Reasons to this one God hath said so therefore it is true Nor yet was I so unreasonable as to expect Mathematical demonstrations from you in matters plainly incapable of them such as are to be believed and if we speak properly cannot be known such therefore I expected not For as he is an unreasonable Master who requires a stronger assent to his conclusions than his arguments deserve so I conceive him a froward and undisciplin'd Scholar who desires stronger arguments for a conclusion than the matter will bear But had you represented to my understanding such reasons of your Doctrine as being weighed in an even ballance held by an even hand with those on the other side would have turned the Scale and have made your Religion more credible than the contrary certainly I should have despised the shame of one more alteration and with both mine armes and all my heart most readily have embraced it Such was my expectation from you and such my preparation which I brought with me to the reading of your Book 3. Would you know now what the event was what effect was wrought in me by the perusal and consideration of it To deal truly and ingenuously with you I fell somwhat in my good opinion both of your sufficiency and sincerity but was exceedingly confirmed in the ill opinion of the Cause maintained by you I found every where Snares that might entrap and Colours that might deceive the Simple but nothing that might persuade and very little that might move an understanding Man and one that can discern between Discourse and Sophistry In short I was verily perseaded that I plainly saw and could make it appear to all dis-passionate and unprejudicate Judges that a vein of Sophistry and Calumny did run clean through it from the beginning to the end And this I undertook with a full resolution to be an adversary to your Errors but a Friend and Servant to your Person and so much the more a Friend to your Person by how much the severer and more rigid Adversary I was to your Errors 4. In this work my Conscience bears me witness that I have according to your advice proceeded always with this consideration that I am to give a most strict account of every line and word that passeth under my Pen and therefore have been precisely careful for the matter of my Book to defend truth only and only by Truth And then scrupulously fearful of Scandalizing you or any Man with the manner of handling it 6. In your Pamphlet of Directions to N. N. you have loaded not only my person in particular but all the Learned and Moderate Divines of the Church of England and all Protestants in general nay all wise Men of all Religions but your own with unworthy Contumelies and a Mass of portentous and execrable Calumnies 7. To begin with the last you stick not in the begining of your first Chapter to fasten the imputation of Atheism and Irreligion upon all wise and gallant Men that are not of your own Religion In which uncharitable and unchristian Judgment void of all colour or shadow of probability I know yet by experience that very many of the Bigots of your Faction are partakers with you God forbid I should think the like of you Yet if I should say that in your Religion there want not some temptations unto and some Principles of Irreligion and Atheism I am sure I could make my Assertion much more probable than you have done or can make this horrible imputation 8. For to pass by first that which experience justifies that where and when your Religion hath most absolutely commanded there and then Atheism hath most abounded To say nothing Secondly of your notorious and confessed forging of so many false Miracles and so many lying Legends which is not unlikely to make suspitious men to question the truth of all Nor to object to you Thirdly the abundance of your weak and silly Ceremonies and ridiculous Observances in your Religion which in all probability cannot but beget secret contempt and scorn of it in wise and considering men and consequently Atheism and Impiety if they have this persuasion setled in them which is too rife among you and which you account a piece of Wisdom and Gallantry that if they be not of your Religion they were as good be of none at all Nor to trouble you Fourthly with this that a great part of your Doctrine especially in the Points contested makes apparently for the temporal ends of the teachers of it which yet I fear is a great scandal to many Beaux Esprits among you Only I should desire you to consider attentively when you conclude so often from the differences of Protestants that they have no certainty of any part of their Religion no not of those Points wherein they agree whether you do not that which so magisterially you direct me not to do that is proceed a destructive way and object arguments against your adversaries which tend to the overthrow of all Religion And whether as you argue thus Protestants differ in many things therefore they have no certainty of any thing So an Atheist or a Sceptick may not conclude as well Christians and the Professors of all Religions differ in many things therefore they have no certainty of any thing Again I should desire you to tell me ingenuously whether it be not too probable that your portentous Doctrine of Transubstantiation joyn'd with your foremention'd persuasion of No Papists no Christians hath brought a great many others as well as himself to Averroes's resolution Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis Forasmuch as the Christians worship that which they eat let my Soul be with the Philosophers Whether your
diligence to find the truth do yet miss of it and fall into Error there is no danger in it They that Err and they that do not Err may both be saved So that those places which contain things necessary and wherein Error were dangerous need no Infallible interpreter because they are plain and those that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary neither is Error in them dangerous The Law-maker speaking in the Law I grant it is no more easily understood than the Law it self for his Speech is nothing else but the Law I grant it very necessary that besides the Law-maker speaking in the Law there should be other Judges to determine Civil and Criminal Controversies and to give every man that Justice which the Law allows him But your Argument drawn from hence to shew a necessity of a visible Judge in Controversies of Religion I say is Sophistical and that for many Reasons 14. First Because the variety of Civil cases is infinite and therefore there cannot be possibly Laws enough provided for the determination of them and therefore there must be a Judge to supply out of the Principles of Reason the interpretation of the Law where it is defective But the Scripture we say is a perfect Rule of Faith and therefore needs no supply of the defects of it 15. Secondly To execute the Letter of the Law according to rigour would be many times unjust and therefore there is need of a Judge to moderate it whereof in Religion there is no use at all 16. Thirdly In Civil and Criminal causes the parties have for the most part so much interest and very often so little honesty that they will not submit to a Law though never so plain if it be against them or will not see it to be against them though it be so never so plainly whereas if men were honest and the Law were plain and extended to all cases there would be little need of Judges Now in matters of Religion when the Question is whether every man be a fit Judge and chooser for himself we suppose men honest and such as understand the difference between a Moment and Eternity And such men we conceive will think it highly concerns them to be of the true Religion but nothing at all that this or that Religion should be the true And then we suppose that all the necessary points of Religion are plain and easie and consequently every man in this cause to be a competent Judge for himself because it concerns himself to judge right as much as Eternal happiness is worth And if through his own default he judge amiss he alone shall suffer for it 17. Fourthly in Civil Controversies we are obliged only to external passive obedience and not to an internal and active We are bound to obey the Sentence of the Judge or not to resist it but not always to believe it just But in matters of Religion such a Judge is required whom we should be obliged to believe to have judged right So that in Civil Controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a Judge But in Religion none but he that is infallible 18. Fifthly in Civil Causes there is means and power when the Judge has decreed to compel men to obey his Sentence otherwise I believe Laws alone would be to as much purpose for the ending of differences as Laws and Judges both But all the Power in the World is neither fit to convince nor able to compel a mans Conscience to consent to any thing Worldly terror may prevail so far as to make men profess a Religion which they believe not such men I mean who know not that there is a Heaven provided for Martyrs and a Hell for those that dissemble such truths as are necessary to be professed But to force either any man to believe what he believes not or any honest man to dissemble what he does believe if God commands him to profess it or to profess what he does not believe all the Powers in the World are too weak with all the Powers of Hell to assist them 19. Sixthly in Civil Controversies the case cannot be so put but there may be a Judge to end it who is not a party In Controversies of Religion it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the Judge must be a party For this must be the first whether he be a Judge or no and in that he must be a party Sure I am the Pope in the Controversies of our time is a chief party for it highly concerns him even as much as his Popedom is worth not to yield any one point of his Religion to be Erroneous And he is a man subject to like passions with other men And therefore we may justly decline his Sentence for fear temporal respects should either blind his judgment or make him pronounce against it 20. Seventhly in Civil Controversies it is impossible Titius should hold the land in question and Sempronius too and therefore either the Plantiff must injure the Defendant by disquieting his possession or the Defendant wrong the Plantiff by keeping his right from him But in Controversies of Religion the Case is otherwise I may hold my Opinion and do you no wrong and you yours and do me none Nay we may both of us hold our Opinion and yet do our selves no harm provided the difference be not touching any thing necessary to Salvation and that we love truth so well as to be diligent to inform our Conscience and constant in following it 21. Eightly For the ending of Civil Controversies who does not see it is absolutely necessary that not only Judges should be appointed but that it should be known and unquestioned who they are Thus all the Judges of our Land are known men known to be Judges and no man can doubt or question but these are the Men. Otherwise if it were a disputable thing who were these Judges and they had no certain warrant for their Authority but only some Topical congruities would not any man say such Judges in all likelihood would rather multiply Controversies then end them 22. Ninthly and lastly For the deciding of Civil Controversies men may appoint themselves a judge But in matters of Religion this office may be given to none but whom God hath designed for it who doth not always give us those things which we conceive most expedient for our selves 23. So likewise if our Saviour the King of Heaven had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some Visible Judge finally determined who can doubt but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter He would have said plainly The Bishop of Rome I have appointed to decide all emergent Controversies For that our Saviour designed the Bishop of Rome to this Office and yet would not say so nor cause it to be written ad Rei memoriam by any of the Evangelists or Apostles so much as once but leave it to
believing them for every obligation ceases when it becomes impossible Who can doubt but the Primitive Christians to whom the Epistles of the Apostles were written either of themselves understood or were instructed by the Apostles touching the sense of the obscure places of them These Traditive interpretations had they been written and dispersed as the Scriptures were had without question been preserved as the Scriptures are But to shew how excellent a Keeper of the Tradition the Church of Rome hath been or even the Catholick Church for want of writing they are all lost nay were all lost within a few Ages after Christ So that if we consult the Ancient Interpreters we shall hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them Cardinal Perron in his discourse of Traditions having alledged this place for them Hold the Traditions c. tell us we must not answer that S. Paul speaks here only of such Traditions which though not in this Epist to the Thessalonians yet were afterwards witten and in other Books of Scripture because it is upon occasion of Tradition touching the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist which was never written that he lays this injunction upon them to hold the Traditions Well let us grant this Argument good and concluding and that the Church of the Thessalonians or the Catholick Church for what S. Paul writ to one Church he writ to all were to hold some unwritten Traditions and among the rest what was the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist But what if they did not perform their duty in this point but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church Shall we not conclude that seeing God would not suffer any thing necessary to Salvation to be lost and he has suffered this Tradition to be lost therefore the knowledge or belief of it though it were a profitable thing yet it was not necessary I hope you will not challenge such authority over us as to oblige us to impossibilities to do that which you cannot do your selves It is therefore requisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed before you require obedience unto it Are you able then to instruct us so well as to be fit to say unto us Now ye know what withholdeth Or do you your selves know that ye may instruct us Can ye or dare you say this or this was this hindrance which S. Paul here meant and all men under pain of damnation are to believe it Or if you cannot as I am certain you cannot go then and Vaunt your Church for the only Watchful Faithful Infallible Keeper of the Apostles Traditions when here this very Tradition which here in particular was deposited with the Thessalonians and the Premitive Church you have utterly lost it so that there is no Footstep or print of it remaining which with Divine Faith we may rely upon Blessed therefore be the goodness of God who seeing that what was not written was in such danger to be lost took order that what was necessary should be written S. Chrysostoms counsel therefore of accounting the Churches Traditions worthy of belief we are willing to obey And if you can of any thing make it appear that it is Tradition we will seek no farther But this we say withal that we are persuaded we cannot make this appear in any thing but only the Canon of Scripture and that there is nothing now extant and to be known by us which can put in so good Plea to be the unwritten Word of God as the unquestioned Books of Canonical Scripture to be the written Word of God 47. You conclude this Paragraph with a sentence of S. Austin's who says The Church doth not approve nor dissemble nor do these things which are against Faith or good Life and from hence you conclude that it never hath done so nor never can do so But though the argument hold in Logick à non posse ad non esse yet I never heard that it would hold back again à non esse ad non posse The Church cannot do this therefore it does it not follows with good consequence but the Church does not this therefore it shall never do it nor can never do it this I believe will hardly follow In the Epistle next before to the same Januarius writing of the same matter he hath these words It remains that the thing you inquire of must be of that third kind of things which are different in divers places Let every one therefore do that which he finds done in the Church to which he comes for none of them is against Faith or good manners And why do you not infer from hence that no particular Church can bring up any Custom that is against Faith or good manners Certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former If a man say of the Church of England what S. Austin of the Church that she neither approves nor dissembles nor does any thing against Faith or good manners would you collect presently that this man did either make or think the Church of England infallible Furthermore it is observable out of this and the former Epistle that this Church which did not as S. Austin according to you thought approve or dissemble or do any thing against Faith or good Life did yet tolerate and dissemble vain superstitions and humane presumptions and suffer all places to be full of them and to be exacted as nay more severely than the commandments of God himself This S. Austin himself professeth in this very Epistle This saith he I do infinitely grieve at that many most wholesom precepts of the Divine Scripture are little regarded and in the mean time all is so full of so many presumptions that he is more grievously found fault with who during his octaves toucheth the Earth with his naked Foot than he that shall bury his Soul in Drunkenness Of these he says that they were neither contained in Scripture decreed by Councils nor corroborated by the Custom of the Universal Church And though not against Faith yet unprofitable burdens of Christian Liberty which made the condition of the Jews more tolerable than that of Christians And therefore he professes of them Approbare non possum I cannot approve them And ubi facultas tribuitur resecanda existimo I think they are to be cut off wheresoever we have power Yet so deeply were they rooted and spread so far through the indiscreet devotion of the People always more prone to superstion than true Piety and through the connivence of the Governors who should have strangled them at their Birth that himself though he grieved at them and could not allow them yet for fear of offence he durst not speak against them multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo Many of these things for fear of
Transubstantiation as is explained one where or other by your School-men Now I beseech you Sir to try your skill and if you can compose their repugnance and make peace between them Certainly none but you shall be Catholick Moderator But if you cannot do it and that after an intelligible manner then you must give me leave to believe that either you do not believe Transubstantiation or else that it is no contradiction that men should subjugate their understandings to the belief of contradictions 48. Ad § 18. This Paragraph consists of two immodest untruths obtruded upon us without shew or shadow of reason and an evident sophism grounded upon an affected mistake of the sense of the word Fundamental 49. The first untruth is that some Protestants make a Church of men scarcely agreeing in one point of faith of men concurring in some one or few Articles of belief and in the rest holding conceits plainly contradictory agreeing only in this one Article that Christ is our Saviour c. Ans This is a shameless Calumny because even these men to the constituting of the very essence of a Church in the lowest degree require not only Faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God and Saviour of the World but also submission to his Doctrin in mind and will Now I beseech you Sir tell me ingenuously whether the Doctrin of Christ may be called without blasphemy scarcely one point of Faith Or whether it consists only of some-one or few Articles of belief Or whether there be nothing in it but only this Article That Christ is our Saviour Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Books of Scripture which were not doubted of in the ancient Church without danger of damnation Nay is it not apparent that no man at this time can without hypocrisie pretend to believe in Christ but of necessity he must do so Seeing he can have no reason to believe in Christ but he must have the same to believe the Scripture I pray then read over the Scripture once more or if that be too much labour the New Testament only and then say whether there be nothing there but scarcely one point of Faith But some one or two Articles of belief Nothing but this Article only that Christ is our Saviour Say whether there be not there an infinite number of Divine Verities Divine precepts Divine promises and those so plainly and undoubtedly delivered that if any sees them not it cannot be because he cannot but because he will not So plainly that whosoever submits sincerely to the Doctrin of Christ in mind and will cannot possibly but submit to these in act and performance And in the rest which it hath pleased God for reasons best known to himself to deliver obscurely or ambiguously yet thus far at least they agree that the sense of them intended by God is certainly true and that they are without passion or prejudice to endeavor to find it out The difference only is which is that true sense which God intended Neither would this long continue if the walls of separation whereby the Divel hopes to make their Divisions eternal were pulled down and Error were not supported against Truth by human advantages But for the present God forbid the matter should be so ill as you make it For whereas you looking upon their points of difference and agreement through I know not what strange glasses have made the first innumerable and the other scarce a number the Truth is clean contrary that those divine Verities Speculative and Practical wherein they universally agree which you will have to be but a few or but one or scarcely one amount to many millions 〈◊〉 if an exact account were taken of them And on the other side the Points in variance are in comparison but few and those not of such a quality but the Error in them may well consist with the belief and obedience of the entire Covenant ratified by Christ between God and man Yet I would not be so mistaken as if I thought the Errors even of some Protestants unconsiderable things and matters of no moment For the truth is I am very fearful that some of their opininions either as they are or as they are apt to be mistaken though not of themselves so damnable but that good and holy men may be saved with them yet are too frequent occasions of our remissness and slackness in running the race of Christian Perfection of our deferring Repentance and conversion to God of our frequent relapses into sin and not seldom of security in sinning and consequently though not certain causes yet too frequent occasions of many mens damnation and such I conceive all these Doctrines which either directly or obliquely put men in hope of Eternal happiness by any other means saving only the narrow way of sincere and Universal obedience grounded upon a true and lively Faith These Errors therefore I do not elevate or extenuate and on condition the ruptures made by them might be composed do heartily wish that the cement were made of my dearest Blood and only not to be an Anathema from Christ Only this I say that neither are their points of agreement so few nor their differences so many as you make them nor so great as to exclude the opposite Parties from being members of one Church Militant and Joynt Heirs of the Glory of the Church Triumphant 50. Your other palpable untruth is that Protestants are far more bold to disagree even in matters of Faith than Catholick Divines you mean your own in Questions meerly Philosophical or not determined by the Church For neither do they differ at all in matters of Faith if you take the word in the highest sense and mean by matters of Faith such Doctrines as are absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed or not to be disbelieved And then in those wherein they do differ with what colâ—â—r or shadow of Argument can you make good that they are more bold to disagree than you are in Questions meerly Philosophical or not determined by the Church For is there not as great repugnancy between your assent and dissent your affirmation and negation your Est Est Non Non as there is between theirs You follow your Reason in those things which are not determined by your Church and they theirs in things not plainly determined in Scripture And wherein then consists their greater their far greater boldness And what if they in their contradictory opininions pretend both to rely upon the truth of God doth this make their contradictions ever a whit the more repugnant I had always thought that all contradictions had been equally contradictions and equally repugnant because the least of them are as far asunder as Est and Non Est can make them and the greatest are no farther But then you in your differences by name about Predetermination the Immaculate Conception the Popes
obedience to all Courts of civil judicature yet he says not they are bound to think that determination lawful and that sentence just Nay it is plain he says that they must do according to the Judges sentence though in their private opinion it seem unjust As if I be wrongfully cast in a suit at Law and sentenced to pay an hundred pound I am bound to pay the money yet I know no Law of God or man that binds me in conscience to acquit the Judge of error in his sentence Neither is there any necessity as you say that he must either acknowledge the Universal Infallibility of the Church or drive men into dissembling against their Conscience seeing nothing hinders but I may obey the sentence of a Judge paying the mony he awards me to pay or forgoing the house or land which he hath judged from me and yet withal plainly profess that in my Conscience I conceive his Judgment erroneous To which purpose they have a saying in France that whosoever is cast in any cause hath liberty for ten days after to rail at his Judges 110. But observe I pray that Mr. Hooker says not absolutely and in all their causes but onely in litigious causes of the quality of those whereof he there treats In such matters as have plain Scripture or reason neither for them nor against them and wherein men are perswaded this or that way upon their own only probable collection in such cases This perswasion saith he ought to be fully setled in mens hearts that the will of God is that they should not disobey the certain commands of their lawful Superiors upon uncertain grounds But do that which the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determin For the purpose a Question there is whether a Surplice may be worn in Divine Service The authority of Superiors injoyns this Ceremony and neither Scripture nor reason plainly forbids it Sempronius notwithstanding is by some inducements which he confesses to be onely probable lead to this perswasion that the thing is unlawful The quaere is whether he ought for matter of practice follow the injunction of authority or his own private and only probable perswasion M. Hooker resolves for the former upon this ground that the certain commands of the Church we live in are to be obeyed in all things not certainly unlawful As for requiring a blind and an unlimited obedience to Ecclesiastical decisions universally and in all cases even when plain Text or reason seems to controul them M. Hooker is as far from making such an Idol of Ecclesiastical Authority as the Puritans whom he writes against I grant saith he that proof derived from the authority of mans judgment is not able to work that assurance which doth grow by a stronger proof And therefore although ten thousand General Councils would set down one and the same definitive sentence concerning any point of Religion whatsoever yet one demonstrative reason alledged or one manifest testimony cited from the word of God himself to the contrary could not choose but over-weigh them all in as much as for them to be deceived it is not impossible it is that Demonstrative Reason or Divine Testimony should deceive And again Whereas it is thought that especially with the Church and those that are called mans authority ought not to prevail It must and doth prevail even with them yea with them especially as far as equity requireth and farther we maintain it not For men to be tied and led by authority as it were with a kind of captivity of judgment and though there be reason to the contrary not to listen to it but to follow like beasts the first in the Herd this were brutish Again that authority of men should prevail with men either against or above reason is no part of our belief Companies of learned men be they never so great and reverend are to yield unto reason the weight whereof is no whit prejudiced by the simplicity of his person which doth alledge it but being found to be sound and good the bare opinion of men to the contrary must of necessity stoop and give place Thus M. Hooker in his Seventh Section of his Second Book 112. Ad § 43. The next Section hath in it some objections against Luthers person but 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 Devil 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 oposed 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 ask't whether it be probable that that should be Gods cause which needs to be maintained by such Devilish means CHAP. VI. The ANSWER to the Sixth CHAPTER Shewing that Protestants are not Hereticks Ad § 1. HE that will accuse any one man much more any great multitude of men of any great and horrible crime should in all reason and justice take care that the greatness of his evidence do equal if not exceed the quality of the crime And such an accusation you would here make shew of by pretending first to lay such grounds of it as are either already proved or else yielded on all sides and after to raise a firm and stable structure of convincing arguments upon them But both these I find to be meer and vain pretences and having considered this Chapter also without prejudice or passion as I did the former I am enforced by the light of Truth to pronounce your whole discourse a painted and ruinous Building upon a weak and sandy foundation 2. Ad § 2 3. First for your grounds a great part of them is falsely said to be either proved or granted It is true indeed that Man by his natural wit and industry could never have attained to the knowledge of Gods will to give him a supernatural and eternal happiness nor of the means by which his pleasure was to bestow this happiness upon him And therefore your first ground is good That it was requisite his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that end and means by a knowledge supernatural I say this is good if you mean by knowledge an apprehension or belief 3. But then whereas you add that if a such a knowledge were no more than probable it could not be able sufficiently to overbear our
What wisdom was it to forsake a Church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation indued with Succession of Bishops c. usque ad Election or Choice I answer Yet might it be great wisdom to forsake a Church not acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation but accused and convicted of many damnable errors certainly damnable to them who were convicted of them had they still persisted in them after their conviction though perhaps pardonable which is all that is acknowledged to such as ignorantly continued in them A Church vainly arrogating without possibility of proof a perpetual Succession of Bishops holding always the same doctrine and with a ridiculous impudence pretending perpetual possession of all the world whereas the world knows that a little before Luthers arising your Church was confined to a part of a part of it Lastly a Church vainly glorying in the dependence of other Churches upon her which yet she supports no more than those crouching Anticks which seem in great buildings to labour under the weight they bear do indeed support the Fabrick For a corrupted and false Church may give authority to preach the Truth and consequently against her own falshoods and corruptions Besides a false Church may preserve the Scripture true as now the Old Testament is preserved by the Jews either not being arrived to that height of impiety as to attempt the corruption of it or not able to effect it or not perceiving or not regarding the opposition of it to her corruptions And so we might receive from you lawful Ordination and true Scriptures though you were a false Church and receiving the Scriptures from you though not from you alone I hope you cannot hinder us neither need we ask your leave to believe and obey them And this though you be a false Church and receiving the Scriptures from you though not from you alone I hope you cannot hinder us neither need we ask your leave to believe and obey them And this though you be a false Church is enough to make us a true one As for a Succession of men that held with us in all points of Doctrine it is a thing we need not and you have as little as we So that if we acknowledge that your Church before Luther was a true Church it is not for any ends for any dependence that we have upon you but because we conceive that in a charitable construction you may pass for a true Church Such a Church and no better as you do sometimes acknowledge Protestants to be that is a Company of men wherein some ignorant Souls may be saved So that in this ballancing of Religion against Religion and Church against Church it seems you have nothing of weight and moment to put into your Scale nothing but Smoak and Wind vain shadows and phantastical pretences Yet if Protestants on the other side had nothing to put in their Seal but those negative commendations which you are pleased to afford them nothing but no Unity nor means to procure it no farther extent when Luther arose than Luthers Body no Universality of time or place no visibility or being except only in your Church no Succession of Persons or Doctrine no leader but Luther in a quarrel begun upon no ground but passion no Church no Ordination no Scriptures but such as they received from you if all this were true and this were all that could be pleaded for Protestants possibly with an allowance of three grains of partiality your Scale might seem to turn But then if it may appear that part of these objections are falsly made against them the rest vainly that whatsoever of truth is in these imputations is impertinent to this Tryal and whatsoever is pertinent is untrue and besides that plenty of good matter may be alledged for Protestants which is here dissembled then I hope our Cause may be good notwithstanding these pretences 55. I say then that want of Universality of time and place The invisibility or not existence of the professors of Protestant Doctrine before Luther Luthers being alone when he first opposed your Church Our having our Church Ordinations Scriptures personal and yet not Doctrinal Succession from you are vain and impertinent allegations against the truth of our Doctrine and Church That the entire truth of Christ without any mixture of Error should be professed or believed in all places at any time or in any place at all times is not a thing evident in reason neither have we any Revelation for it And therefore in relying so confidently on it you build your House upon the Sand. And what obligation we had either to be so peevish as to take nothing of yours or so foolish as to take all I do not understand For whereas you say that this is to be choosers and therefore Hereticks I tell you that though all Hereticks are choosers yet all choosers are not Hereticks otherwise they also which choose your Religion must be Hereticks As for our wanting Unity and Means of proving it Luthers opposing your Church upon meer passion our following private men rather than the Catholick Church the first and last are meer untruths for we want not Unity nor means to procure it in things necessary Plain places of Scripture and such as need no interpreter are our means to obtain it Neither do we follow any private men but only the Scripture the Word of God as our rule and reason which is also the gift of God given to direct us in all our actions in the use of this rule And then for Luthers opposing your Church upon meer passion it is a thing I will not deny because I know not his Heart and for the same reason you should not have affirmed it Sure I am whether he opposed your Church upon reason or no he had reason enough to oppose it And therefore if he did it upon passion we will follow him only in his action and not in his passion in his opposition not in the manner of it and then I presume you will have no reason to condemn us unless you will say that a good action cannot be done with reason because some Body before us hath done it upon passion You see then how imprudent you have been in the choice of your arguments to prove Protestants unwise in the choice of their Religion 56. It remains now that I should shew that many reasons of moment may be alledged for the justification of Protestants which are dissembled by you and not put into the Balance Know then Sir that when I say the Religion of Protestants is in prudence to be preferred before yours as on the one side I do not understand by your Religion the Doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius or any other private man amongst you nor the Doctrine of the Sorbon or of the Jesuits or of the Dominicans or of any other particular Company among you but that wherein you all agree or profess to agree the Doctrine of the
heareth Christ and he that despiseth him despiseth Christ They urge out of John 14. ver 15 16. I will ask my Father and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth But here also what warrant have we by you to understand the Church of Rome whereas he that compares v. 26. with this shall easily perceive that our Saviour speaks only of the Apostles in their own persons for there he says going on in the same discourse The Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said to you which cannot agree but to the Apostles themselves in person and not to their Successors who had not yet been taught and therefore not forgotten any thing and therefore could not have them brought to their remembrance But what if it had been promised to them and their Successors had they no Successors but them of the Roman Church this indeed is pretended and cried up but for proofs of it desiderantur Again I would fain know whether there be any certainty that every Pope is a good Christian or whether he may not be in the sence of the Scripture of the World If not how was it that Bellarmine should have cause to think that such a rank of them went successively to the Devil III. A Conference concerning the Infallibility of the Roman Church Proving that the present Church of Rome either errs in her worshipping the Blessed Virgin Mary or that the Ancient Church did err in condemning the Collyridians as Hereticks 1. Demand WHether the Infallibility of the Roman Church be not the foundation of their Faith which are members of that Church Answ The Infallibility of the Church is not the foundation but a part of their Faith who are members of the Church And the Roman Church is held to be the Church by all those who are members of it Reply That which is the last Reason why you believe the Scripture to be the written Word of God and unwritten Traditions his unwritten word and this or that to be the true sense of Scripture that is to you the foundation of your Faith and such unto you is the Infallible Authority of the Roman Church Therefore unto you it is not only a part of your faith but also such a part as is the foundation of all other parts Therefore you are deceived if you think there is any more opposition between being a part of the faith and the foundation of other parts of it than there is between being a part of a house and the foundation of it But whether you will have it the foundation of your faith or only a part of it for the present purpose it is all one 2. Demand Whether the Infallibility of the Roman Church be not absolutely overthrown by proving the present Roman Church is in error or that the Ancient was Answ It is if the Error be in those things wherein she is affirmed to be infallible viz. in points of Faith Reply And this here spoken of whether it be lawful to offer Tapers and Incense to the honour of the Blessed Virgin is I hope a Question concerning a point of Faith 3. Demand Whether offering a Cake to the Virgin Mary be not as lawful as to offer Incense and Tapers and divers other oblations to the same Virgin Answ It is as lawful to offer a Cake to her honour as Wax-Tapers but neither the one nor the other may be offered to her or her honour as the term or object of the Action For to speak properly nothing is offered to her or to her honour but to God in the honour of the Blessed Virgin For Incense it is a foul slander that it is offered any way to the Blessed Virgin for that incensing which is used in the time of Mass is ever understood by all sorts of people to be directed to God only Reply If any thing be offered to her she is the Object of that oblation as if I see water and through water something else the water is the object of my sight though not the last object If I honour the Kings Deputy and by him the King the Deputy is the object of my action though not the final object And to say these things may be offered to her but not as to the object of the action is to say they may be offered to her but not to her For what else is meant by the object of an action but that thing on which the action is imployed and to which it is directed If you say that by the object of the action you mean the final object only wherewith the action is terminated you should then have spoken more properly and distinctly and not have denied her simply to be the object of this action when you mean only she is not such a kind of object no more than you may deny a man to be a living creature meaning only that he is not a horse Secondly I say it is not required of Roman Catholicks when they offer Tapers to the Saints that by an actual intention they direct their action actually to God but it is held sufficient that they know and believe that the Saints are in Subordination and near Relation to God and that they give this honour to the Saints because of this relation And to God himself rather habitually and interpretative than actually expresly and formally As many men honour the Kings Deputy without having any present thought of the King and yet their action may be interpreted an honour to the King being given to his Deputy only because he is his Deputy and for his relation to the King Thirdly I say there is no reason or ground in the world for any man to think that the Collyridians did not chuse the Virgin Mary for the object of their worship rather than any other Woman or any other Creature meerly for her relation to Christ and by consequence there is no ground to imagine but that at least habitually and interpretative they directed their action unto Christ if not actually and formally And Ergo if that be a sufficient defence for the Papists that they make not the Blessed Virgin the final object of their worship but worship her not for her own sake but for her relation unto Christ Epiphanius surely did ill to charge the Collyridians with Heresie having nothing to impute to them but only that he was informed that they offered a Cake to the honour of the Blessed Virgin which honour yet they might and without question did give unto her for her relation unto Christ and so made her not the last object and term of their worship and from hence it is evident that he conceived the very action it self substantially and intrinsically malitious i. e. he believed it a sin that they offered to her at all and so by their action put her in the
And whether she can set us down such interpretations of all obscurities in the Faith as shall need no farther interpretations If she cannot then she hath not that power which you pretend she hath of being an Infallible Teacher of all Divine verities and an infallible interpreter of obscurities in the Faith for she cannot teach us all Divine verities if she cannot write them down neither is that an interpretation which needs again to be interpreted If she can Let her do it and then we shall have a writing not only capable of but actually endowed with both these perfections of being both so compleat as to need no Addition and so evident as to need no Interpretation Lastly whatsoever your Church can do or not do no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Jesus if he had pleased could have writ us a rule of Faith so plain and perfect as that it should have wanted neither any part to make up its integrity nor any clearness to make it sufficiently intelligible And if Christ could have done this then the thing might have been done a writing there might have been indowed with both these properties Thus therefore I conclude a writing may be so perfect a Rule as to need neither Addition nor Interpretation But the Scripture you acknowledge a perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule therefore it needs neither Addition nor Interpretation 8. You will say that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it must be beholden to Tradition to give it this Testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the Word of God I answer First there is no absolute necessity of this For God might if he thought good give it the attestation of perpetual Miracles Secondly that it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith another to be proved so unto us And thus though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of Faith by its own saying so for nothing is proved true by being said or written in a Book but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it self yet it may be so in it self and contain all the material Objects all the particular Articles of our Faith without any dependance upon Tradition even this also not excepted that this Writing doth contain the rule of Faith Now when Protestants affirm against Papists that Scripture is a perfect rule of Faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a gainsayer that there is a God or that the Book called Scripture is the Word of God For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spoken will believe them never a whit the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them which presuppose it Divine and a Rule of Faith as Papists and Protestants do contains all the material Objects of Faith is a compleat and Total and not only an imperfect and a partial Rule 9. But every Book and Chapter and Text of Scripture is Infallible and wants no due perfection and yet excludes not the Addition of other Book of Scripture Therefore the perfection of the whole Scripture excludes not the Addition of unwritten Tradition I answer Every Text of Scripture though it have the perfection belonging to a Text of Scripture yet it hath not the perfection requisite to a perfect Rule of Faith and that only is the perfection which is the subject of our discourse So that this is to abuse your Reader with the ambiguity of the word Perfect In effect as if you should say a Text of Scripture may be a perfect Text though there be others beside it therefore the whole Scripture may be a perfect Rule of Faith though there be other parts of this Rule besides the Scripture and though the Scripture be but a part of it 10. The next Argument to the same purpose is for Sophistry Cosin German to the former When the first Books of Scripture were written they did not exclude unwritter Tradition Therefore now also that all the Books of Scripture are written Traditions are not excluded The sense of which Argument if it have any must be this When only a part of the Scripture was written then a part of the Divine Doctrine was unwritten Therefore now when all the Scripture is written yet some part of the Divine Doctrine is yet unwritten If you say your conclusion is not that it is so but without disparagement to Scripture may be so without disparagement to the truth of Scripture I grant it but without disparagement to the Scriptures being a perfect Rule I deny it And now the Question is not of the Truth but the perfection of it which are very different things though you would fain confound them For Scripture might very well be all true though it contain not all necessary Divine Truth But unless it do so it cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith for that which wants any thing is not perfect For I hope you do not imagine that we conceive any Antipathy between Gods Word Written and unwritten but that both might very well stand together All that we say is this that we have reason to believe that God de Facto hath ordered the matter so that all the Gospel of Christ the whole Covenant between God and Man is now Written Whereas if he had pleased he might so have disposed it that part might have been written and part unwritten but then he would have taken order to whom we should have had recourse for that part of it which was not written which seeing he hath not done as the Progress shall demonstrate it is evident he hath left no part of it unwritten We know no man therefore that says It were any injury to the written Word to be joyned with the unwritten if there were any wherewith it might be joyned but that we deny The fidelity of a Keeper may very well consist with the Authority of the thing committed to his Custody But we know no one Society of Christians that is such a faithful Keeper as you pretend The Scripture it self was not kept so faithfully by you but that you suffered infinite variety of Readings to creep into it all which could not possibly be Divine and yet in several parts of your Church all of them until the last Age were so esteemed The interpretations of obscure places of Scripture which without Question the Apostles taught the Primitive Christians are wholly lost there remains no certainty scarce of any one Those Worlds of Miracles which our Saviour did which were not written for want of writing are vanished out of the memory of men And many profitable things which the Apostles taught and writ not as that which S. Paul glances at in his second Epistle to the Thesalon of the cause of the hindrance of the coming of
Antichrist are wholly lost and extinguished So unfaithful or negligent hath been this keeper of Divine verities whose eyes like the Keepers of Israel you say have never Slumbred nor Slept Lastly we deny not but a Judge and a Law might well stand together but we deny that there is any such Judge of Gods appointment Had he intended any such Judge he would have named him lest otherwise as now it is our Judge of Controversies should be our greatest Controversie 11. Ad 2 3 4 5 6. § In your second Paragraph you sum up those arguments wherewith you intend to prove that Scripture alone cannot be Judge in Controversies Wherein I profess unto you before hand that you will fight without an Adversary For though Protestants being warranted by some of the Fathers have called Scripture the Judge of Controversies and you in saying here That Scripture alone cannot be Judge imply that it may be called in some sense a Judge though not alone Yet to speak properly as men should speak when they write of Controversies in Religion the Scripture is not a Judge of Controversies but a Rule only and the only Rule for Christians to judge them by Every man is to Judge for himself with the Judgment of Discretion and to choose either his Religion first and then his Church as we say or as you his Church first and then his Religion But by the consent of both sides every man is to judge and choose and the Rule whereby he is to guide his choice if he be a natural man is Reason if he be already a Christian Scripture which we say is the Rule to judge Controversies by Yet not all simply but all the Controversies of Christians of those that are already agreed upon This first Principle that the Scripture is the Word of God But that there is any man or any company of men appointed to be judge for all men that we deny and that I believe you will never prove The very truth is we say no more in this matter than evidence of Truth hath made you confess in plain terms in the beginning of this chap. viz That Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith for as much as a writing can be a Rule So that all your reasons whereby you labour to dethrone the Scripture from this office of Judging we might let pass as impertinent to the conclusion which we maintain and you have already granted yet out of courtesie we will consider them 12. Your first is this a Judge must be a person fit to end Controversies but the Scripture is not a person nor fit to end Controversies no more than the Law would be without the Judges therefore though it may be a Rule it cannot be a Judge Which conclusion I have already granted Only my request is that you will permit Scripture to have the properties of a Rule that is to be fit to direct every one that will make the best use of it to that end for which it was ordained And that is as much as we need desire For as if I were to go a Journey and had a guide which could not Err I needed not to know my way so on the other side if I know my way or have a plain rule to know it by I shall need no guide Grant therefore Scripture to be such a Rule and it will quickly take away all necessity of having an Infallible guide But without a living Judge it will be no fitter you say to end Controversies than the Law alone to end Suits I answer if the Law were plain and perfect and men honest and desirous to understand aright and obey it he that says it were not fit to end Controversies must either want understanding himself or think the World wants it Now the Scripture we pretend in things necessary is plain and perfect and men we say are obliged under pain of Damnation to seek the true sense of it and not to wrest it to their preconceived Phansies Such a Law therefore to such men cannot but be very fit to end all Controversies necessary to be ended For others that are not so they will end when the World ends and that is time enough 13. Your next encounter is with them who acknowledging the Scripture a Rule only and not a Judge make the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture the judge of Controversies Which you disprove by saying That the Holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us than the Scripture in which he speaks But by this reason neither the Pope nor a Council can be a Judge neither For first denying the Scriptures the writings of the Holy Ghost to be Judges you will not I hope offer to pretend that their decrees the writings of men are more capable of this function the same exceptions at least if not more and greater lying against them as do against Scripture And then what you Object against the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture to exclude him from this office The same I return upon them and their decrees to debar them from it that they speaking unto us only in their decrees are no more intelligible than the decrees in which they speak And therefore if the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture may not be a judge for this reason neither may they speaking in their decrees be Judges for the same Reason If the Popes decrees you will say be obscure he can explain himself and so the Scripture cannot But the Holy Ghost that speaks in Scripture can do so if he please and when he is pleased will do so In the mean time it will be fit for you to wait his leisure and to be content that those things of Scripture which are plain should be so and those which are obscure should remain obscure until he please to declare them Besides he can which you cannot warrant me of the Pope or a Coucil speak at first so plainly that his Words shall need no farther explanation and so in things necessary we believe he has done And if you say the Decrees of Councils touching Controversies though they be not the Judge yet they are the Judges Sentence So I say the Scripture though not the Judge is the Sentence of the Judge When therefore you conclude That to say a Judge is necessary for deciding Controversies about the meaning of Scripture is as much as to say he is necessary to decide what the Holy Ghost speaks in Scripture This I grant is true but I may not grant that a Judge such a one as we dispute of is necessary either to do the one or the other For if the Scripture as it is in things necessary be plain why should it be more necessary to have a judge to interpret them in plain places than to have a judge to interpret the meaning of a Councils decrees and others to interpret their Interpretations and others to interpret theirs and so on for ever And where they are not plain there if we using
of any probable Doctors though the contrary may be certainly free from sin and theirs be doubtful Which doctrin in the former part of it is apparently false For though wisdom and Charity to our selves would perswade us always to do so yet many times that way which to our selves and our salvation is more full of hazard is notwithstanding not only lawful but more Charitable and more noble For example to flie from a persecution and so to avoid the temptation of it may be the safer way for a mans own salvation yet I presume no man ought to condemn him of impiety who should resolve not to use his liberty in this matter but for Gods greater glory the greater honour of truth and the greater confirmation of his brethren in the faith choose to stand out the storm and endure the fiery tryal rather than avoid it rather to put his own soul to the hazard of a temptation in hope of Gods assistance to go through with it than to baulk the opportunity of doing God and his brethren so great a service This part therefore of this Doctrin is manifestly untrue The other not only false but impious for therein you plainly give us to understand that in your judgment a resolution to avoid sin to the uttermost of our power is no necessary means of Salvation nay that a man may resolve not to do so without any danger of damnation Therein you teach us that we are to do more for the love of our selves and our own happiness than for the love of God and in so doing contradict our Saviour who expresly commands us to love the Lord our God with all our heart with all our soul and with all our strength and hath taught us that the love of God consists in avoiding sin and keeping his commandments Therein you directly cross S. Pauls Doctrin who though he were a very probable Doctor and had delivered his judgment for the lawfulness of eating meats offered to Idols yet he assures us that he which should make scruple of doing so and forbear upon his scruple should not sin but only be a weak brother whereas he who should do it with a doubtful conscience though the action were by S. Paul warranted lawful yet should sin and be condemned for so doing You pretend indeed to be rigid defenders and stout champions for the necessity of good works but the truth is you speak lies in Hypocrisie and when the matter is well examined will appear to make your selves and your own functions necessary but obedience to God unnecessary Which will appear to any man who considers what strict necessity the Scripture imposes upon all men of effectual mortification of the habits of all Vices and effectual Conversion to newness of Life and Universal obedience and withal remembers that an act of Attrition which you say with Priestly absolution is sufficient to Salvation is not mortification which being a work of difficulty and time cannot be performed in an instant But for the present it appears sufficiently out of this impious assertion which makes it absolutely necessary for men either in Act if it be possible or if not in Desire to be Baptized and Absolved by you and that with Intention and in the mean time warrants them that for avoiding of sin they may safely follow the uncertain guidance of a vain man who you cannot deny may either be deceived himself or out of malice deceive them and neglect the certain direction of God himself and their own Consciences What wicked use is made of this Doctrine your own long experience can better inform you than it is possible for me to do yet my own little conversation with you affords me one memorable example to this purpose For upon this ground I knew a young Scholar in Doway licensed by a great Casuist to swear a thing as upon his certain knowledge whereof he had yet no knowledge but only a great presumption because forsooth it was the opinion of one Doctor that he might do so And upon the same ground whensoever you shall come to have a prevailing party in this Kingdom and power sufficient to restore your Religion you may do it by deposing or killing the King by blowing up of Parliaments and by rooting out all others of a different Eaith from you Nay this you may do though in your own opinion it be unlawful because a Bellar. Contr. Barcl c. 7. In 7. c. refutare conatur Barcl verba illa Romuli Veteres illos Imperatores Constantium Valentem Caeteros non ideo toleravit Ecclesia quod legitime successissent sed quod illos sine populi detrimento coercere non poterat Et miratur hcc idem scripfisse Bellarminum l. 5. de Pontif. c. 7. Sed ut magis miretur sciat hoc idem sensisse S. Thomam 2. 2. q. 12. art 2. ad 1. Vbi dicit Ecclesiam tolerasse ut fideles obedirent Juliano Apostatae quia in sui novitate nondum habebant vires compescendi Principes terrenos Et postea Sanctus Gregorius dicit nullum adversus Juliani persecutionem fuisse remedium praeter lacrymas quoniam non habebat Ecclesia vires quibus illus tyrannidi resistere posset Bellarmine a man with you of approved Vertue Learning and Judgment hath declared his opinion for the lawfulness of it in saying that want of power to maintain a Rebellion was the only reason that the Primitive Christians did not Rebel against the persecuting Emperors By the same rule seeing the Priests and Scribes and Pharisees men of greatest repute among the Jews for Vertue Learning and Wisdom held it a lawful and a pious work to persecute Christ and his Apostles it was lawful for the People to follow their Leaders for herein according to your Doctrine they proceeded prudently and according to the conduct of opinion maturoly weighed and approved by men as it seemed to them of Vertue Learning and Wisdom nay by such as sate in Moses Chair and of whom it was said whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do which Universal you pretend is to be understood Universally and without any restriction or limitation And as lawful was it for the Pagans to persecute the Primimitive Christians because Trajan and Pliny men of great Vertue and Wisdom were of this opinion Lastly that most impious and detestable Doctrine which by a foul calumny you impute to me who abhor and detest it that men may be saved in any Religion follows from this ground unavoidably For certainly Religion is one of those things which is necessary only because it is commanded for if none were commanded under pain of damnation how could it be damnable to be of any Neither can it be damnable to be of a false Religion unless it be a sin to be so For neither are men saved by good luck but only by obedience neither are they damned for their ill Fortune but for sin and disobedience Death is the wages of nothing but
sin and S. James sure intended to deliver the adequate cause of sin and Death in those words Lust when it hath conceived bringeth forth sin and sin when it is finished bringeth forth Death Seeing therefore in such things according to your Doctrine it is sufficient for avoiding of sin that we proceed prudently and by the conduct of some probable opinion maturely weighed and approved by men of Learning Vertue and Wisdom and seeing neither Jews want their Gamaliels nor Pagans their Antoninus's nor any Sect of Christians such professors and maintainers of their several Sects as are esteemed by the People which know no better and that very reasonably men of Vertue Learning and Wisdom it follows evidently that the embracing their Religion proceeds upon such reason as may warrant their action to be prudent and this is sufficient for avoiding of sin and therefore certainly for avoiding damnation for that in humane affairs discourse evidence and certainty cannot be always expected I have stood the longer upon the refutation of this Doctrine not only because it is impious and because bad use is made of it and worse may be but only because the contrary position That men are bound for avoiding sin always to take the safest way is a fair and sure Foundation for a clear confutation of the main conclusion which in this Chapter you labour in vain to prove and a certain proof that in regard of the precept of Charity towards ones self and of obedience to God Papists unless ignorance excuse them are in state of sin as long as they remain in subjection to the Roman Church 9. for if the safer way for avoiding sin be also the safer way for avoiding damnation then certainly the way of Protestants must be more secure and the Roman way more dangerous take but into your consideration these ensuing Controversies Whether it be lawful to worship Pictures to Picture the Trinity to invocate Saints and Angels to deny Lay-men the Cup in the Sacrament to adore the Sacraments to prohibit certain Orders of Men and Women to Marry to Celebrate the publick service of God in a language which the assistants generally understand not and you will not choose but confess that in all these you are on the more dangerous side for the committing of sin and we on that which is more secure For in all these things if we say true you do that which is impious on the other side if you were in the right yet we might be secure enough for we should only not do something which you confess not necessary to be done We pretend and are ready to justifie out of principles agreed upon between us that in all these things you violate the manifest commandments of God and alledge such Texts of Scripture against you as if you would weigh them with any indifference would put the matter out of question but certainly you cannot with any modesty deny but that at least they make it questionable On the other side you cannot with any face pretend and if you should know not how to go about to prove that there is any necessity of doing any of these things that it is unlawful not to worship Pictures not to Picture the Trinity not to invocate Saints and Angels not to give all men the entire Sacrament not to adore the Eucharist not to prohibit Marriage not to Celebrate Divine Service in an unknown Tongue I say you neither do nor can pretend that there is any law of God which enjoyns us no nor so much as an Evangelical Council that advises us to do any of these things Now where no law is there can be no sin for sin is the transgression of the Law It remains therefore that our forbearing to do these things must be free from all danger and suspicion of sin whereas your acting of them must be if not certainly impious without all contradiction questionable and dangerous I conclude therefore that which was to be concluded that if the safer way for avoiding sin be also as most certainly it is the safer way for avoiding damnation then certainly the way of Protestants must be more safe and the Roman way more dangerous 12. Ad § 5. Here you begin to make some shew of arguing and the first Argument put into form stands thus Every least Error in Faith destroys the nature of Faith It is certain that some Protestants do Err and therefore they want the substance of Faith The Major of which Syllogism I have formerly confuted by unanswerable Arguments out of one of your own best Authors who shews plainly that he hath amongst you as strange as you make it many other Abettors Besides if it were true it would conclude that either you or the Dominicans have no Faith in as much as you oppose one another as much as Arminians and Calvinists 13. The Second Argument stands thus Since all Protestants pretend the like certainty it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all Which Argument if it were good then what can hinder but this must also be so Since Protestants and Papists pretend the like certainty it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all And this too Since all Christians pretend the like certainty it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all And thirdly this Since men of all Religions pretend a like certainty it is clear that none of them have any at all And lastly this Since oft-times they which are abused with a specious Paralogism pretend the like certainty with them which demonstrate it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all Certainly Sir Zeal and the Devil did strangely blind you if you did not see that these horrid impieties were the immediate consequences of your positions if you did see it and yet would set them down you deserve worse censure Yet such as these are all the Arguments wherewith you conceive your self to have proved undoubtedly that Protestants have reason at least to doubt in what case they stand 14. Your third and fourth Argument may be thus put into one Protestants cannot tell what points in particular be Fundamental therefore they cannot tell whether they or their Brethren do not Err Fundamentally and whether their difference be not Fundamental Both which deductions I have formerly shewed to be most inconsequent for knowing the Scripture to contain all Fundamentals though many more points besides which makes it difficult to say precisely what is Fundamental and what not knowing this I say and believing it what can hinder but that I may be well assured that I believe all Fundamentals and that all who believe the Scripture sincerely as well as I do not differ from me in any thing Fundamental 15. In the close of this Section you say that you omit to add that we want the Sacrament of Repentance instituted for the remission of sins or at least we must confess that we hold it not necessary and