Patron as to the great Defendor of it which style Your Majesty hath ever so exactly made good both in securing it from all dangers and in vindicating it by the well ordering and rectifying this Church from all the foul aspersions both of Domestick and Foraign enemies of which they can have no ground but their own want of Judgement or want of Charity But it is an argument of a despairing and lost cause to support it self with these impetuous out-cries and clamours the faint refuges of those that want better arguments like that Stoick in Lucian that cryed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O damned villain when he could say nothing else Neither is it credible the wiser sort of them should believe this their own horrid assertion That a God of goodness should damn to eternal torments those that love him and love truth for errors which they fall into through humane frailty But this they must say otherwise their only great argument from their damning us and our not being so peremtory in damning them because we hope unaffected Ignorance may excuse them would be lost and therefore they are engaged to act on this Tragical part only to fright the simple and ignorant as we do little children by telling them that bites which we would not have them meddle with And truely that herein they do but act a part and know themselves to do so and deal with us here as they do with the King of Spain at Rome whom they accurse and Excommunicate for fashion sake on Maundy-Thursday for detaining part of St. Peters Patrimony and absolve him without satisfaction on Good-Friday methinks their faltring and inconstancy herein makes it very apparent For though for the most part they speak nothing but thunder and lightning to us and damn us all without mercy or exception yet sometimes to serve other purposes they can be content to speak to us in a milder strain and tell us as my Adversary does more than once That they allow Protestants as much Charity as Protestants allow them Neither is this the only contradiction which I have discovered in this uncharitable Work but have shewed that by forgetting himself and retracting most of the principal grounds he builds upon he hath saved me the labour of a Confutation which yet I have not in any place found any such labour or difficulty but that it was undertakable by a man of very mean that is of my abilities And the reason is because it is Truth I plead for which is so strong an argument for it self that it needs only light to discover it whereas it concernes Falshood and Error to use disguises and shadowings and all the fetches of Art and Sophistry and therefore it stands in need of abler men to give that a colour at least which hath no real body to subsist by If my endeavours in this kind may contribute any thing to this discovery and the making plain that Truth which my Charity perswades me the most part of them disaffect only because it hath not been well represented to them I have the fruit of my labour and my wish who desire to live to no other end than to do service to Gods Church and Your most Sacred Majesty in the quality of Your MAJESTIES Most faithful Subject and most humble and devoted Servant William Chillingworth The CONTENTS of the Chapters with the Answers thereunto THe Author of Charity Maintained his Preface to the Reader Page 1. The Answer to the Preface Page 5. The FIRST PART CHAP. I. THe State of the Question with a summary of the Reasons for which men of different Religions one side only can be saved Page 23. The Answer to the First Chapter Shewing that the Adversary grants the Former Question and proposeth a New One And that there is no reason why among men of different Opinions and Communions one Side only can be saved Page 25 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 Page 37 The Answer to the Second Chapter Concerning the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our Understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion Page 45 CHAP. III. That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental is neither pertinent nor true in our present Controversie And that the Catholique visible Church cannot err in either kind of the said Point Page 107 The Answer to the Third Chapter Wherein is maintained That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental is in this present Controversie good and pertinent And that the Catholique Church may err in the latter kind of the said Points Page 115 CHAP. IV. To say that the Creed contains all Points necessary to be believed is neither pertinent to the Question in hand nor in it self true Page 165 The Answer to the Fourth Chapter Wherein is shewed that the Creed contains all necessary Points of meer belief Page 172 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 Page 210 The Answer to the Fifth Chapter The separation of Protestants from the Roman Church being upon just and necessary causes is not any way guilty of Schism Page 227 CHAP. VI. That Luther and the rest of the Protestants have added Heresie unto Schism Page 279 The Answer unto the Sixth Chapter That Protestants are not Heretiques Page 289 CHAP. VII In regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones self Protestants are in a state of Sin as long as they remain separate from the Roman-Church Page 341 The Answer to the Seventh Chapter That Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves to re-unite themselves to the Roman-Church Page 345 The Conclusion Page 365 THE PREFACE To the AUTHOR of CHARITY MAINTAINED WITH An Answer to his Pamphlet entituled A Direction to N. N. SIR UPon the first news of the publication of your Book I used all diligence with speed to procure it and came with such a mind to the reading of it as S. Austin before he was a setled Catholique brought to his conference with Faustus the Manichee For as he thought that if any thing more than ordinary might be said in defence of the Manichean Doctrine Faustus was the man from whom it was to be expected So my perswasion concerning you was Si Pergama dextrâ Defendi possunt certè hac defensa videbo For I conceived that among the Champions of the Roman Church the English in reason must be the best or equall to the best as being by most expert Masters trained up purposely for this war and perpetually practised in it Among the English I saw the Jesuites would yield the first place to none and men so wise in their generation as the Jesuits were if they had any Achilles among them I presumed
but that they left the said Communities So Luther and the rest cannot so much as pretend not to have left the visible Church which according to them was infected with many diseases but can only pretend that they did not sin in leaving her And you speak very strangely when you say In a society of men universally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from the common disease could not be therefore said to separate from the Society For if they do not separate themselves from the Society of the infected persons how do they free themselves and depart from the common disease Do they at the same time remain in the company and yet depart from those infected creatures Wee must then say that they separate themselves from the persons though it be by occasion of the disease Or if you say they free their own pâ—rsons from the common disease yet so that they remaine still in the Company infected subject to the Superiours and Governours thereof eating and drinking and keeping publique Assemblies with them you cannot but know that Luther and your Reformers the first pretended free persons from the supposed common infection of the Romane Church did not so for they endeavoured to force the Society whereof they were parts to be healed and reformed as they were and if â—t refused they did when they had forces drive them away even their Superiours both Spirituall and Temporall as is notorious Or if they had not power to expel that supposed infected Community or Church of that place they departed from them corporally whom mentally they had forsaken before So that you cannot deny but Luther forsook the external Communion and commpany of the Catholique Church for which as your self (z) Pag. 75. confess There neither was nor can be any just cause no more than to depart from Christ himself We do therefore infer that Luther and the rest who forsook that visible Church which they found upon earth were truly and properly Schismatiques 25. Moreover it is evident that there was a division between Luther and that Church which was Visible when he arose but that Church cannot be said to have divided her self from him before whose time the was and in comparison of whom she was a Whole and he but a part therefore we must say that he divided himself and went out of her which is to be a Schismatique or Heretique or both By this argument Optatus Melivitanus proveÌ„th that not Caecilianus but Parmenianus was a Schismatique saying For Caecilianus went (a) Lib. 1. cont Parmen not out of Majorinus thy Grandfather but Majorinus from Cecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chair of Peter or Cyprian but Majorinus in whose Chayr thou sittest which had no beginning before Majorinus Since it manifestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manner it is clear that you are heirs both of the deliverers up of the holy Bible to be burned and also of Schismatiques The Whole argument of this holy Father makes directly both against Luther and all those who continue the division which he begun and proves That going out convinceth those who go our to be Schismatiques but not those from whom they depart That to forsake the Chair of Peter is Schism yea that it is Schism to erect a Chair which had no origin or as it were predecessour before it self That to continue in a division begun by others is to be Heires of Schismatiques and lastly that to depart from the Communion of a particular Church as that of S. Cyprian was is sufficient to make a man incur the guilt of Schism and consequently that although Protestants who deny the Pope to be supream Head of the Church do think by that Heresie to clear Luther from Schism in disobeying the Pope Yet that will not serve to free him from Schism as it importeth a division from the obedience or Communion of the particular Bishop Diocess Church and Country where he lived 36. But it is not the Heresie of Protestants or any other Sectaries that can deprive S. Peter and his Successors of the authority which Christ our Lord conferred upon them over his whole militant Church which is a Point confessed by learned Protestants to be of great Antiquity and for which the judgement of divers most ancient holy Fathers is reproved by them as may be seen at large in Brerely (b) Tract 1. Sect. 3. subd 10. exactly citing the places of such chief Protestants And we must say with S. Cyprian Heresies (c) Ep. 55. have sprung and Schisms been bred from no other cause then for that the Priest of God is not obeyed nor one Priest and Judge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God Which words do plainly condemn Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Universal or of every particular Church For he withdrew himself both from the obedience of the Pope and of all particular Bishops and Churches And no less clear is the said Optatus Melivitanus saying Thou canst not deny (d) Lib. 2. cont Parmen but that thou knowest that in the City of Rome there was first an Episcopal Chair placed for Peter wherein Peter the head of all the Apostles sate whereof also he was called Cephas in which one Chair Unity was to be kept by all lest the other Apostles might attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair and that he should be a Schismatique and sinner who against that one single Chair should erect another Many other authorities of Fathers might be alleadged to this purpose which â—omit my intention being not to handle particular controversies 37. Now the arguments which hitherto I have brought prove that Luther and his followers were Schismatiques without examining for as much as belongs to this Point whether or no the Church can erre in any one thing great or small because it is universally true that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the visible Church of Christ according to S. Augustin saying It is not possible (e) Ep. 48. that any may have just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations upon just cause But since indeed the Church cannot erre in any one Point of Doctrin nor can approve any corruption in manners they cannot with any colour avoid the just imputation of eminent Schism according to the verdict of the same holy Father in these words The most manifest (f) De Bapt. lib. 5. cap. 1. sacriledge of Schism is eminent when there was no cause of separation 38. Lastly I prove that Protestants cannot avoid the note of Schism at least by reason of their mutual separation from one another For most certain it is that there is very great difference for the outward face of a Church and profession of a different
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)
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
pardon the errours of an erring Church yet certainly it is not his will that we should err with the Church or if we do not that we should against conscience profess the errours of it 71. Ad § 24. But Schismatiques from the Church of England or any other Church with this very Answer that they forsake not the Church but the errours of it may cast off from themselves the imputation of Schism Ans True they may make the same Answer and the same defence as we do as a murtherer can cry Not guilty as well as an innocent person but not so truly nor so justly The question is not what may be pretended but what can be proved by Schismatiques They may object errours to other Churches as well as we do to yours but that they prove their accusation so strongly as we can that appears not To the Priests and Elders of the Jews imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles Saint Peter and St. John answered They must obey God rather than men The three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer Give me now any factious Hypocrite who makes Religion the pretence and cloak of his Rebellion and Who sees not that such a one may answer for himself in those very formal words which the holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of And yet I presume no Christian will deny but this Answer was good in the mouth of the Apostles and Martyrs though it were obnoxious to be abused by Traytors and Rebels Certainly therefore it is no good consequence to say Schismatiques may make use of this Answer therefore all that do make use of it are Schismatiques But moreover it is to be observed that the chief part of our defence that you deny your communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrin cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grant their Communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered 72. But the forsaking the Roman Church opens a way to innumerable Sects and Schisms and therefore it must not be forsaken Ans We must not do evil to avoid evil neither are all courses presently lawful by which inconveniences may be avoided If all men would submit themselves to the chief Mufty of the Turks it is apparent there-would be no divisions yet unity is not to be purchased at so dear a rate It were a thing much to be desired that there were no divisions yet difference of opinions touching points controverted is rather to be chosen than unanimous concord in damned errours As it is better for men to go to heaven by divers ways or rather by divers paths of the same way than in the same path to go on peaceably to hell Amica Pax magis amica Veritas 73. But there can be no just cause to forsake the Church so the Doctor grants who notwithstanding teacheth that the Church may err in points not fandamental therefore neither is the Roman Church to be forsaken for such errours Ans There can be no just cause to forsake the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is to cease being a member of the Church This I grant if it will do you any service But that there can be no just cause to forsake the Church in some things or to speak more properly to forsake some opinions and practices which some true Church retains and defends this I deny and you mistake the Doctor if you think he affirms it 74. Ad § 26 27. What prodigious doctrins say you are these Those Protestants who believe that your Church erred in points necessary to salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schism But others c. Prodigious doctrins indeed But who I pray are they that teach them Where does D. Potter accuse those Protestants of damnable Schism who left your Church because they hold it erroneous in necessary points What Protestant is there that holds not that you taught things contrary to the plain precepts of Christ both Ceremonial in mutilating the Communion and Moral in points of Superstition and Idolatry and most bloody tyranny which is without question to err in necessary matters Neither does D. Potter accuse any man of Schism for holding so if he should he should call himself a Schismatique Only he says such if there be any such as affirm that ignorant souls among you who had no means to know the truth cannot possibly be saved that their wisdom and charity cannot be justified Now you your self have plainly affirmed That ignorant Protestants dying with contrition may be saved and yet would be unwilling to be thought to say that Protestants err in no points necessary to salvation For that may be in it self and in ordinary course where there are means of knowledge necessary which to a man invincibly ignorant will prove not necessary Again where doth D. Potter suppose as you make him that there were other Protestants who believed that your Church had no errours Or where does he say they did well to forsake her upon this ridiculous reason because they judged that she retained all means necessary to salvation Do you think us so stupid as that we cannot distinguish between that which D. Potter says and that which you make him say He vindicates Protestants from Schism two ways The one is because they had just and great and necessary cause to separate which Schismatiques never have because they that have it are no Schismatiques For schism is always a causeless separation The other is because they did not joyn with their separation an uncharitable damning of all those from whom they did divide themselves as the manner of Schismatiques is Now that which he intends for a circumstance of our separation you make him make the cause of it and the motive to it And whereas he says Though we separate from you in some things yet we acknowledge your Church a member of the body of Christ and therefore are not Schismatiques You make him say most absurdly We did well to forsake you because we judged you a member of the body of Christ Just as if a brother should leave his brothers company in some ill courses and should say to him Herein I forsake you yet I leave you not absolutely for I acknowledge you still to be my brother and shall use you as a brother And you perverting his speech should pretend that he had said I leave your company in these il courses and I do well to do so because you are my brother so making that the cause of leaving him which indeed is the cause that he left him no farther 75. But you say The very reason for which he acquitteth himself from Schism is because he holds that the Church which they forsook is not cut off from the Body of Christ Ans This is true But can you not perceive a
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
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
Adversary Pretending his objections are mean and vulgar and such as have been answered a thousand times But if your cause were good these Arts would be needless For though some of his Objections have been often shifted by men * I mean the Divines of Doway whose profession we have in your Belgick Expurgatorius p. 12. in censura Bertrami in these words Seeing in other ancient Catholiques we tolerate extenuate and excuse very many errors and dâ—vising some shift often deny them and put upon them a convenient sense when they are objected to us in disputations and conflâ—cts with our Adversaries we see no reason why Bertram may not deserve the same equity that make a profession of devising shifts and evasions to save themselves and their Religion from the pressure of truth by men that are resolved they will say somthing though they can say nothing to purpose yet I doubt not to make it appear that neither by others have they been truly and really satisfied and that the best Answer you give them is to call them Mean and vulgar objections 12. Ad § 5. But this pains might have been spared For the substance of his Discourse is in a Sermon of D. Ushers and confuted four years ago by Paulus Veridicus It seems then the substance of your Reply is in Paulus Veridicus and so your pains also might well have deen spared But had there been no necessity to help and peece out your confuting his Arguments with disgracing his Person which yet you cannot do you would have considered that to them who compare D. Potters Book and the Arch-Bishops Sermon this aspersion will presently appear a poor Detraction not to be answered but scorned To say nothing that in D. Potter being to answer a Book by express Command from Royal Authority to leave any thing material unsaid because it had been said before especially being spoken at large and without any relation to the Discourse which he was to Answer had been a ridiculous vanity and foul prevarication 13. Ad § 6. In your sixth Parag. I let all pass saving only this That a perswasion that men of different Religions you must mean or else you speak not to the point Christians of divers Opinions and Communions may be saved is a most pernitious Heresie and even a ground of Atheism What strange extractions Chymistry can make I know not but sure I am he that by reason would inferr this Conclusion That there is no God from this ground That God will save men in different Religions must have a higher strain in Logick than you or I have hitherto made shew of In my apprehension the other part of the Contradiction That there is a God should much rather follow from it And whether Contradictions will flow from the same fountain let the Learned judge Perhaps you will say You intended not to deliver here a positive and measured truth and which you expected to be called to account for but only a high and tragical expression of your just detestation of the wicked Doctrin against which you write If you mean so I shall let it pass only I am to advertize the lesse-wary Reader that passionate Expressions and vehement Asseverations are no Arguments unless it be of the weakness of the cause that is defended by them or the man that defends it And to remember you of what Boethius sayes of some such things as these Nubila mens est Haec ubi regnant For my part I am not now in passion neither will I speak one word which I think I cannot justifie to the full and I say and will maintain that to say That Christians of different Opinions and Communions such I mean who hold all those things that are simply necessary to Salvation may not obtain pardon for the Errors wherein they die ignorantly by a general Repentance is so far from being a ground of Atheism that to say the contrary is to crosse in Diameter a main Article of our Creed and to overthrow the Gospel of Christ 14. Ad § 7 8. To the two next Parag. I have but two words to say The one is that I know no Protestants that hold it necessary to be able to prove a Perpetual Visible Church distinct from Yours Some perhaps undertake to do so as a matter of curtesie but I believe you will be much to seek for any one that holds it necessary For though you say that Christ hath promised there shall de a perpetual Visible Church yet you your selves do not pretend that he hath promised there shall be Histories and Records alwayes extant of the professors of it in all ages nor that he hath any where enjoyned us to read those Histories that we may be able to shew them 15. The other is That Breerelie's great exactnesse which you magnifie so and amplifie is no very certain demonstration of his fidelity A Romance may be told with as much variety of circumstances as a true Story 16. Ad 9 10. § Your desires that I would in this rejoynder Avoid impertinencies Not impose doctrins upon you which you disclaim Set down the substance of your Reasons faithfully and entirely Not weary the Reader with unnecessary Quotations Object nothing to you which I can answer my self or which may be returned upon my self And lastly which you repeat again in the end of your Preface speak as clearly and distinctly and univocally as possibly I can are all very reasonable and shall be by me most punctually and fully satisfied Only I have reason to complain that you give us rules only and not good example in keeping them For in some of these things I shall have frequent occasion to shew that Medice cura teipsum may very justly be said unto you especially for objecting what might very easily have been answered by you and may be very justly returned upon you 17. To your ensuing demands though some of them be very captious and ensnaring yet I will give you as clear and plain ingenuous Answers as possibly I can 18. Ad 11. § To the first then about the Perpetuity of the visible Church my Answer is That I believe our Saviour ever since his Ascention hath had in some place or other a Visible true Church on earth I mean a Company of men that professed at least so much truth as was absolutely necessary for their Salvation And I believe that there will be somewhere or other such a Church to the Worlds end But the contrary Doctrin I do at no hand believe to be a damnable Heresie 19. Ad § 12. To the second What Visible Church there was before Luther disagreeing from the Roman I answer that before Luther there were many Visible Churches in many things disagreeing from the Roman But not that the whole Catholique Church disagreed from her because she her self was a Part of the Whole though much corrupted And to undertake to name a Catholike Church disagreeing from her is to make her no Part of
for this Reason neither may they speaking in their Decrees be Judges for the same Reason If the Pope's Decrees you will say be obscure he can explain himself and so the Scripture cannot But the holy Ghost that speaks in Scripture can do so if he please and when he is pleased will do so In the mean time it will be fit for you to wait his leisure and to be content that those things of Scripture which are plain should be so and those which are obscure should remain obscure until he please to declare them Besides he can which you cannot warrant me of the Pope or a Councel speak at first so plainly that his words shall need no farther explanation and so in things necessary we believe he hath done And if you say The Decrees of Councels touching Controversies though they be not the Judge yet they are the Judge's sentence So I say the Scripture though not the Judge is the sentence of the Judge When therefore you conclude That to say a Judge is necessary for deciding Controversies about the meaning of Scripture is as much as to say He is necessary to decide what the holy Ghost speaks in Scripture This I grant is true but I may not grant that a Judge such an one as we dispute of is necessary either to do the one or the other For if the Scripture as it is in things necessary be plain why should it be more necessary to have a Judg to interpret them in plain places than to have a Judg to interpret the meaning of a Councel's Decrees and others to interpret their Interpretations others to interpret theirs and so on for ever And where they are not plain there if we using diligence to find the Truth do yet miss of it and fall into Errour there is no danger in it They that err and they that do not err may both be saved So that those places which contain things necessary and wherein Errour were dangerous need no infallible interpreter because they are plain and those that are obscure need none because they contain not things Necessary neither is Errour in them dangerous 13. The Law-maker speaking in the Law I grant it is no more easily understood than the Law it self for his speech is nothing else but the Law I grant it very necessary that besides the Law-maker speaking in the Law there should be other Judges to determine Civil and Criminal Controversies and to give every man that justice which the Law allows him But your Argument drawn from hence to shew a necessity of a Visible Judge in Controversies of Religion I say is Sophistical and that for many Reasons 14. First Because the variety of Civil cases is infinite and therefore there cannot be possibly Laws enough provided for the determination of them and therefore there must be a Judge to supply out of the Principles of Reason the interpretation of the Law where it is defective But the Scripture we say is a perfect Rule of Faith and therefore needs no supply of the defects of it 15. Secondly To execute the Leter of the Law according to rigor would be many times unjust and therefore there is need of a Judge to moderate it whereof in Religion there is no use at all 16. Thirdly In Civil and Criminal Causes the parties have for the most part so much interest and very often so little honesty that they will not submit to a Law though never so plain if it be against them or will not see it to be against them though it be so never so plainly whereas if men were honest and the Law were plain and extended to all cases there would be little need of Judges Now in matters of Religion when the Question is Whether every man be a fit Judge and chooser for himself we suppose men honest and such as understand the difference between a Moment and Eternity And such men we conceive will think it highly concerns them to be of the true Religion but nothing at all that this or that Religion should be the true And then we suppose that all the necessary points of Religion are plain and easie and consequently every man in this cause to be a competent Judge for himself because it concerns himself to judge right as much as eternal happiness is worth And if through his own default he judge amiss he alone shall suffer for it 17. Fourthly In Civil Controversies we are obliged only to external passive obedience and not to an internal and active We are bound to obey the sentence of the Judge or not to resist it but not alwayes to believe it just But in matters of Religion such a Judge is required whom we should be obliged to believe to have judged right So that in Civil Controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a Judge But in Religion none but he that is infallible 18. Fifthly In Civil Causes there is means and power when the Judge hath decreed to compell men to obey his sentence otherwise I believe Laws alone would be to as much purpose for the ending of differences as Laws and Judges both But all the power in the world is neither fit to convince nor able to compell a man's conscience to consent to any thing Worldly terrour may prevail so far as to make men profess a Religion which they believe not such men I mean who know not that there is a Heaven provided for Martyrs and a Hell for those that dissemble such Truths as are necessary to be professed But to force either any man to believe what he believes not or any honest man to dissemble what he does believe if God commands him to profess it or to profess what he does not believe all the Powers in the World are too weak with all the Powers of Hell to assist them 19. Sixthly In Civil Controversies the case cannot be so put but there may be Judge to end it who is not a party In Controversies of Religion it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the Judge must be a party For this must be the first Whether he be a Judge or no and in that he must be a party Sure I am the Pope in the Controversies of our time is a chief party for it highly concerns him even as much as his Popedom is worth not to yield any one point of his Religion to be erroneous And he is a man subject to like passions with other men And therefore we may justly decline his sentence for fear temporal respects should either blind his judgement or make him pronounce against it 20. Seventhly In Civil Controversies it is impossible Titius should hold the land in question and Sempronius too and therefore either the Plaintiff must injure the Defendant by disquieting his possession or the Defendant wrong the Plaintiff by keeping his right from him But in Controversies of Religion the Case is otherwise I may hold my opinion and do you no wrong and you
nothing that is material and considerable pass without some stricture or animadversion 30. You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is God's Word is the Church and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. § 8. Let the Reader consult the place and he shall find that he and M. Hooker have been much abused both by you here and by M. Breerly and others before you and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose but very much directly to the contrary There he tells us indeed That ordinaly the first Introduction and probable Motive to the belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded that in the same place he plainly denies His words are Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it self is Divine and Sacred The Question then being by what means we are taught this * Some answer so but he doth not some answer that to learn it we have no other way than Tradition As namely that so we believe because we from our Predecessors and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied and by experience we all know that (a) The first outward Motive not the last assurance whereon we rest the first outward Motive leading men to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of God's Church For when we know (b) The whole Church that he speaks of seems to be that particular Church wherein a man is bred and brought up and the Authority of this he makes an Argument which presseth a man's modesty more than his reason And in saying It seems impudent to be of a contrary mind without cause he implies There may be a just cause to be of a contrary mind and that then it were no impudence to be so the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof (c) Therefore the Authority of the Church is not the pause whereon we rest we had need of more assurance and the intâ—insâ—cal Arguments afford â—t the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing (d) Somewhat bâ—t not much until it be backed and inforced by farther reason it self therefore is not the farthest reason and the last resolution somewhat with us before doth now much more prevail when the very thing hath ministred farther reason If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture and our own perswasion which Scripture it self hath setled may be proved a truth infallible (e) Observe I pray Our perswasion and the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture may be proved true Therefore neither or them was in his account the farthest proof In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to relie upon the Scriptures endeavoured still to maintain the Authority of the Books of God by Arguments such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable if they judge thereof as they should Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard even by such kind of proofs so to manifest and clear that Point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent Principle such as all men acknowledg to be true (f) Natural reason thâ—n built on principles common to all men is the last resolution unto which the Churches Authority is but the first inducement By this time I hope the Reader sees sufficient proof of what I said in my Reply to your Preface that M. Breerelie's great ostentation of exactness is no very certain Argument of his fidelity 31. But seeing the belief of Scripture is a necessary thing and cannot be proved by Scripture How can the Church of England teach as she doth Art 6. That all things necessary are contained in Scripture 32. I have answered this already And here again I say That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be That all the Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in Scripture That is all the material objects of our Faith whereof the Scripture is none but only the means of conveying them unto us which we believe not finally and for it self but for the matter contained in it So that if men did believe the Doctrine contained in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous Nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aims at is the belief of the Gospel the Covenant between God and Man the Scripture he hath provided as a means for this end and this also we are to believe but not as the last Object of our Faith but as the Instrument of it When therefore we subscribe to the 6 Art you must understand that by Articles of Faith they mean the final and ultimate Objects of it and not the Means and instrumental Objects and then there will be no repugnance between what they say and that which Hooker and D. Covel and D. Whitaker and Luther here say 33. But Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of Holy Scripture Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. James Kemnitius and other Lutherans the second of Peter the second and third of John The Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of James of Jude and the Apocalyps Therefore without the Authority of the Church no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonical 34. So also the Ancient Fathers and not only Fathers but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the Authority of the very same Books and by their difference shewed they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church For had they done so they must have agreed all with that Church and consequently among themselves Now I pray tell me plainly Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonical or had they not If they had not it seems there is no great harm or danger in not having such a certainty whether some Books be Canonical or no as you require If they had Why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs
Protestants in a long discourse transcribed out of the Protestant's Apology That their Translations of the Scripture are very different and by each other mutually condemned Luther 's Translation by Zwinglius and others That of the Zwinglians by Luther The Translation of Oecolampadius by the Divines of Basil that of Castalio by Beza That of Beza by Castalio That of Calvin by Carolus Molinaeus That of Geneva by M. Parks and King James And lastly One of our Translations by the Puritans 59. All which might have been as justly objected against that great variety of Translations extant in the Primitive Church and made use of by the Fathers and Doctors of it For which I desire not that my word but S. Austin's may be taken They which have translated the Scriptures out of the Hebrew into Greek may be numbred but the Latin Interpreters are innumerable For whensoever any one in the first times of Christianity met with a Greek Bible and seemed to himself to have some ability in both Languages he presently ventured upon an Interpretation So He in his second Book of Christian doctrine Cap. 11. Of all these that which was called the Italian Translation was esteemed best so we may learn from the same S. Austin in Chap. 15. of the same Book Amongst all these interpretations saith he let the Italian be preferred for it keeps closer to the Letter and is perspicuous in the sense Yet so far was the Church of that time from presuming upon the absolute purity and perfection even of this best Translation that S. Hierom thought it necessary to make a new Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew Fountain which himself testifies in his Book de Viris illustribus and to correct the Vulgar version of the New Testament according to the truth of the Original Greek amending many errors which had crept into it whether by the mistake of the Author or the negligence of the Transcribers which work he undertook and performed at the request of Damasus Bishop of Rome You constrain me saith he to make a new work of an old that after the Copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed through the whole World I should sit as it were an Arbitrator amongst them and because they vary among themselves should determine what are those things in them which consent with the Greek verity And after Therefore this present Preface promises the four Gospels only corrected by collation with Greek Copies But that they might not be very dissonant from the custom of the Latin reading I have so tempered with my stile the Translation of the Ancients that those things amended which did seem to change the sense other things I have suffered to remain as they were So that in this matter Protestants must either stand or fall with the Primitive Church 60. The Corruption that you charge Luther with and the falsification that you impute to Zwinglius What have we to do with them Or why may not we as justly lay to your charge the Errours which Lyranus or Paulus Brugensis or Laurentius Valla or Cajetan or Erasmus or Arias Montanus or Augustus Nebiensis or Pagnine have committed in their Translations 61. Which yet I say not as if these Translations of Luther and Zwinglius were absolutely indefensible for what such great difference is there between Faith without the Works of the Law and Faith alone without the Works of the Law Or why does not Without Alone signifie all one with Alone Without Consider the matter a little better and observe the use of these phrases of speech in our ordinary talk and perhaps you will begin to doubt whether you had sufficient ground for this invective And then for Zwinglius if it be true as they say it is that the language our Saviour spake in had no such word as Tosignifie but used always to be in stead of it as it is certain the Scripture does in an hundred places then this Translation which you so declaim against will prove no falsification in Zwinglius but a calumny in you 62. But the faith of Protestants relies upon Scripture alone Scripture is delivered to most of them by Translations Translations depend upon the skill and honesty of Men who certainly may err because they are Men and certainly do err at least some of them because their Translations are contrary It seems then the Faith and consequently the Salvation of Protestants relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds 63. This Objection though it may seem to do you great service for the present yet I fear you will repent the time that ever you urged it against us as a fault that we make mens salvation depend upon uncertainties For the Objection returns upon you many ways as first thus The salvation of many millions of Papists as they suppose and teach depends upon their having the Sacrament of Pennance truly administred unto them This again upon the Minister's being a true Priest That such or such a man is Priest not himself much less any other can have any possible certainty for it depends upon a great many contingent and uncertain supposals He that will pretend to be certain of it must undertake to know for a certain all these things that follow 64. First That he was baptized with due matter Secondly with the due form of words which he cannot know unless he were both present and attentive Thirdly he must know that he was baptized with due Intention and that is that the Minister of his Baptism was not a secret Jew nor a Moor nor an Atheist of all which kinds I fear experience gives you just cause to fear that Italy and Spain have Priests not a few but a Christian in heart as well as Profession otherwise believing the Sacrament to be nothing in giving it he could intend to give nothing nor a Samosatenian nor an Arrian but one that was capable of having due intention from which they that believe not the Doctrine of the Trinity are excluded by you And lastly That he was neither drunk nor distracted at the administration of the Sacrament nor our of negligence or malice omitted his intention 65. Fourthly he must undertake to know that the Bishop which ordained him Priest ordained him compleatly with due Matter Form and Intention and consequently that he again was neither Jew nor Moor nor Atheist nor liable to any such exception as is unconsistent with due Intention in giving the Sacrament of Orders 66. Fifthly he must undertake to know that the Bishop which made him Priest was a Priest himself for your Rule is Nihil dat quod non habet And consequently that there was again none of the former nullities in his Baptism which might make him incapable of Ordination nor no invalidity in his Ordination but a true Priest to ordain him again the requisite matter and form and due intention all concurring 67. Lastly he must pretend to know the same of him that made him Priest and him that made Him
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 Charity mistaken demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamental points And We say you again and again demand such a Catalogue And surely If this one Proposition which here you think to stop our mouths with be a Catalogue yet at least such a Catalogue it is not and therefore as yet you have not performed what you require For if to set down such a Proposition wherein are comprized all points taught by us to be necessary to salvation will serve you instead of a Catalogue you shall have Catalogues enough As we are obliged to believe all under pain of damnation which God commands us to believe There 's one Catalogue We are obliged under Pain of damnation to believe all whereof we may be sufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church There 's another We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe Gods Word and all contained in it to be true There 's a third If these generalities will not satisfie you but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular what those Doctrins are which Christ taught his Apostles and his Apostles the Church what points are contained in Gods Word Then I beseech you do us reason and give us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church-proposals without leaving out or adding any such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to and if you receive not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals I for my part will give you leave to proclaim us Bankrupts 54. Besides this deceitful generality of your Catalogue as you call it another main fault we find with it that it is extreamly ambiguous and therefore to draw you out of the Clouds give me leave to propose some Questions to you concerning it I would know therefore whether by Believing you mean explicitely or implicitely If you mean implicitely I would know Whether your Churches Infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely or no Whether any other point or points besides this be under the same penalty to be believed explicitely or no and if any what they be I would know what you esteem the Proposals of the Catholike visible Church In particular whether the Decree of the Pope ex Cathedra that is with an intent to oblige all Christians by it be a sufficient and an obliging Proposal Whether men without danger of Damnation may examin such a Decree and if they think they have just cause refuse to obey it Whether the Decree of a Councel without the Pope's Confirmation be such an obliging Proposal or no Whether it be so in case there be no Pope or in case it be doubtful who is Pope Whether the Decree of a general Councel confirmed by the Pope be such a Proposal and whether he be an Heretique that thinks otherwise Whether the Decree of a particular Councel confirmed by the Pope be such a Proposal Whether the General uncondemned practice of the Church for some Ages be such a sufficient Proposition Whether the consent of the most eminent Fathers of any Age agreeing in the affirmation of any Doctrin not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries be a sufficient Proposition Whether the Fathers testifying such or such a Doctrin or practice to be Tradition or to be the Doctrin or practice of the Church be a sufficient assurance that it is so Whether we be bound under pain of damnation to believe every Text of the vulgar Bible now authorized by the Roman Church to be the true Translation of the Originals of the Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles without any the least alteration Whether they that lived when the Bible of Sixtus was set forth were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that And if not of that of what Bible they were bound to believe it Whether the Catholike visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome Whether every Christian that hath ability and opportunity be not bound to endevour to know explicitely the Proposals of the Church Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity will not save him that actually and explicitely disbelieves some Doctrin of the Church not knowing it to be so and actually believes some damnable Heresie as that God hath the shape of a man Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church when his Priest or ghostly Father assures him it is so Whether his ghostly Father may not erre in telling him so and whether any man can be obliged under pain of damnation to believe an Errour Whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined when a number of Priests perhaps ten or twenty tell him it is so And what assurance he can have that they neither erre nor deceive him in this matter Why Implicite Faith in Christ or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans Salvation as well as implicite faith in the Church Whether when you say Whatsoever the Church proposeth you mean all that ever she proposed or that only which she now proposeth and whether she now proposeth all that ever she did propose Whether all the Books of Canonical Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so and proposed as such by the Apostles And if not from whom the Church had this Declaration afterward If so whether all men ever since the Apostles time were bound under pain of damnation to believe the Epistle of S. James and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonical at least not to disbelieve it and believe the contrary Lastly why it is not sufficient for any mans Salvation to use the best means he can to inform his conscience and to follow the direction of it To all these demands when you have given fair and ingenuous Answers you shall hear farther from me 55. Ad § 20. At the first entrance into this Paragraph From our own Doctrin That the Church cannot erre in Points necessary it is concluded if we are wise we must forsake it in nothing lest we should forsake it in something necessary To which I answer First that the supposition as you understand it is falsly imposed upon us and as we understand it will do you no service For when we say that there shall be a Church alwaies some where or other unerring in Fundamentals our meaning is but this that there shall be alwaies a Church to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should erre in Fundamentals for if it should do so it would want the very Essence of a Church and therefore cease to be a Church But we never annexed this priviledge to any one Church of any one Denomination as the Greek or the Roman Church which if we had done and set up some setled certain Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our Guide in Fundamentals then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty have
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
between him and Amerbachius and he shall confess as much is and hath been the only fountain of all the Schisms of the Church and that which makes them immortal the common incendiary of Christendom and that which as I said before tears into pieces not the coat but the bowels and members of Christ Ridente Turcâ nec dolente Judaeo Take away these Walls of separation and all will quickly be one Take away this Persecuting Burning Cursing Damning of men for not subscribing to the words of men as the words of God Require of Christians only to believe Christ and to call no man Master but him only Let those leave claiming Infallibility that have no title to it and let them that in their words disclaim it disclaim it likewise in their actions In a word take away Tyranny which is the Devils instrument to support errors and superstitions and impieties in the several parts of the world which could not otherwise long withstand the power of Truth I say take away Tyranny and restore Christians to their just and full liberty of captivating their understanding to Scripture only and as Rivers when they have a free passage run all to the Ocean so it may well be hoped by God's blessing that Universal Liberty thus moderated may quickly reduce Christendom to Truth and Unity These thoughts of peace I am perswaded may come from the God of peace and to His blessing I commend them and proceed 18. Your fifth and last Objection stands upon a false and dangerous supposition That new Heresies may arise For an Heresie being in it self nothing else but a Doctrin Repugnant to some Article of the Christian Faith to say that new Heresies may arise is to say that new Articles of Faith may arise and so some great Ones among you stick not to profess in plain terms who yet at the same time are not ashamed to pretend that your whole Doctrin is Catholique and Apostolique So Salmeron Non omnibus omnia dedit Deus ut quaelibet aetas suis gaudeat veritatibus quas prior aetas ignoravit God hath not given all things to ' All So that every Age hath its proper verities which the former Age was ignorant of Dis 57. in Epist ad Rom. And again in the Margent Habet unumquodque saeculum peculiares revelationes divinas Every Age hath its peculiar Divine Revelations Where that he speaks of such Revelations as are or may by the Church be made matters of Faith no man can doubt that reads him an example whereof he give us a little before in these words Unius Augustini doctrina Assumptionis B. Deiparae cultum in Ecclesiam introduxit The Doctrin of Augustine only hath brought into the Church the Worship of the Assumption of the Mother of God c. Others again mince and palliate the matter with this pretence that your Church undertakes not to coyn new Articles of Faith but only to declare those that want sufficient Declaration But if sufficient declaration be necessary to make any Doctrin an Article of Faith then this Doctrin which before wanted it was not before an Article of Faith and your Church by giving it the Essential form and last complement of an Article of Faith makes it though not a Truth yet certainly an Article of Faith But I would fain know whether Christ and his Apostles knew this Doctrin which you pretend hath the matter but wants the form of an Article of Faith that is sufficient declaration whether they knew it to be a necessary Article of the Faith or no. If they knew it not to be so then either they taught what they knew not which were very strange or else they taught it not and if not I would gladly be informed seeing you pretend to no new Revelations From whom you learned it If they knew it then either they concealed or declared it To say they concealed any necessary part of the Gospel is to charge them with far greater sacriledge than what was punished in Ananias and Saphira It is to charge these glorious Stewards and Dispensers of the Mysteries of Christ with want of the great vertue requisite in a Steward which is Fidelity It is to charge them with presumption for denouncing Anathema's even to Angels in case they should teach any other Doctrin than what they had received from them which sure could not merit an Anathema if they left any necessary part of the Gospel untaught It is in a word in plain terms to give them the lye seeing they profess plainly and frequently that they taught Christians the whole Doctrin of Christ If they did know and declare it then it was a full and formal Article of faith and the contrary a full and formal Heresie without any need of further declaration and then their Successors either continued the declaration of it or discontinued it If they did the latter How are they such faithful Depositaries of Apostolique Doctrin as you pretend Or what assurance can you give us that they might not bring in new and false Articles as well as suffer the oldand true ones to be lost If they did continue the declaration of it and deliver it to their Successors and they to theirs and so on perpetually then continued it still a full and formal Article of Faith and the repugnant doctrin a full and formal Heresie without and before the definition or declaration of a Councel So that Councels as they cannot make that a truth or falshood which before was not so so neither can they make or declare that to be an Article of Faith or an Heresie which before was not so The supposition therefore on which this Argument stands being false and ruinous whatsoever ' is built upon it must together with it fall to the ground This explication therefore and restriction of this doctrin whereof you make your advantage was to my understanding unnecessary The Fathers of the Church in after-times might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sense of some general Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all Ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some Ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Councel though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publique peace sake 19. Ad § 7 8 9. Were I not peradventure more fearful than I need to be of the imputation of tergiversation I might very easily rid my hands of the remainder of this Chapter For in the Question there discussed you grant for ought I see as much as D. Potter desires and D. Potter grants as much as
necessary parts of it omitted had been to speak impertinently and rather to confirm than confute their error It is plain therefore that he must mean as I pretend that all the necessary Doctrine of the Gospel which was preached by S. Peter was written by S. Mark Now you will not deny I presume that S. Peter preached all therefore you must not deny that S. Mark wrote all 42. Our next inquiry let it be touching S. John's intent in writing his Gospel whether it were to deliver so much truth as being believed and obeyed would certainly bring men to eternal life or only part of it and to leave part unwritten A great man there is but much less than the Apostle who saith that writing last he purposed to supply the defects of the other Evangelists that had wrote before him which if it were true would sufficiently justifie what I have undertaken that at least all the four Evangelists have in them all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ Neither will I deny but S. John's secondary intent might be to supply the defects of the former three Gospels in some things very profitable But he that pretends that any necessary Doctrine is in S. John which is in none of the other Evangelists hath not so well considered them as he should do before he pronounce sentence of so weighty a matter And for his prime intent in writing his Gospel what that was certainly no Father in the world understood it better than himself Therefore let us hear him speak Many other signs saith he also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Book But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing you may have life in his Name By these are written may be understood either these things are written or these signs are written Take it which way you will this conclusion will certainly follow That either all that which S. John wrote in his Gospel or less then all and therefore all much more was sufficient to make them believe that which being believed with lively faith would certainly bring them to eternal life 43. This which hath been spoken I hope is enough to justifie my undertaking to the full that it is very probable that every one of the four Evangelists hath in his Book the whole substance all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ But for S. Luke that he hath written such a perfect Gospel in my judgment it ought to be with them that believe him no manner of question Consider first the introduction to his Gospel where he declares what he intends to write in these words For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst us even as they delivered unto us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word it seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of things from the first to write to thee in order most excellent Theophilus that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed Add to this place the entrance to his History of the Acts of the Apostles The former Treatise have I made O Theophilus of all that Jesus began both to do and teach until the day in which he was taken up Weigh well these two places and then answer me freely and ingenuously to these demands 1. Whether S. Luke doth not undertake the very same thing which he says many had taken in hand 2. Whether this were not to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst Christians 3. Whether the whole Gospel of Christ and every necessary Doctrine of it were not surely believed among Christians 4. Whether they which were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word from the beginning delivered not the whole Gospel of Christ 5. Whether he doth not undertake to write in order these things whereof he had perfect understanding from the first 6. Whether he had not perfect understanding of the whole Gospel of Christ 7. Whether he doth not undertake to write to Theophilus of all those things wherein he had been instructed 8. And whether he had not been instructed in all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ 9 Whether in the other Text All things which Jesus began to do and teach must not at least imply all the Principal and necessary things 10. Whether this be not the very interpretation of your Rhemish Doctors in their Annotation upon this place 11. Whether all these Articles of the Christian Faith without the belief whereof no man can be saved be not the Princicipal and most necessary things which Jesus taught 12. And lastly Whether many things which S. Luke hath wrote in his Gospel be not less principal and less necessary than all and every one of these When you have well considered these proposals I believe you will be very apt to think if S. Luke be of credit with you That all things necessary to salvation are certainly contained in his writings alone And from hence you will not chuse but conclude that seeing all the Christians in the world agree in the belief of what S. Luke hath written and not only so but in all other Books of Canonical Scripture which were never doubted of in and by the Church the Learned Arch-Bishop had very just and certain ground to say That in these Propositions which without Controversie are universally received in the whole Christian world so much truth is contained as being joyned with holy obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting Salvation and that we have no cause to doubt but that as many as walk according to this rule neither overthrowing that which they have builded by superinducing any damnable Heresie thereupon nor otherwise vitiating their holy Faith with a lewd and wicked conversation peace shall be upon them and upon the Israel of God 44. Against this you object two things The one that by this Rule Seeing the Doctrin of the Trinity is not received universally among Christians the denial of it shall not exclude Salvation The other that the Bishop contradicts himself in supposing a man may believe all necessary Truths and yet superinduce some damnable Heresies 45. To the first I answer what I conceive he would whose words I here justifie that he hath declared plainly in this very place that he meant not an absolute but a limited Universality and speaks not of propositions universally believed by all Professions of Christianity that are but only by all those several Professions of Christianity that have any large spread in any part of the world By which words be excludes from the universality here spoken of the deniers of the Doctrin of the Trinity as being but a handful of men in respect of all nay in respect of any of these Professions which maintain it
reality are joyned together Thus one man may consider and love a sinner as he is a man friend benefactor or the like and at the same time not consider him nor love him as he is a sinner because these are acts of our Understanding and Will which may respect their objects under some one formality or consideration without reference to other things contained in the self-same objects But if one should strike or kill a sinful man he will not be excused by alledging that he killed him not as a man but as a sinner because the self-same person being a man and the sinner the external act of murder fell joyntly upon the man and the sinner And for the same reason one cannot avoid the company of a sinner and at the same time be really present with that man who is a sinner And this is our case and in this our Adversaries are egregiously and many of them affectedly mistaken For one may in some Points believe as the Church believeth and disagree from her in other One may love the truth which she holds and detest her pretended corruptions But it is impossible that a man should really separate himself from her external Communion as she is corrupted and be really within the same external Communion as she is sound because she is the self-same Church which is supposed to be sound in some things and to err in others Now our question for the present doth concern only this Point of external Communion because Schism as it is distinguished from Heresie is committed when one divides himself from the External Communion of that Church with which he agrees in Faith Whereas Heresie doth necessarily imply a difference in matter of Faith and belief and therefore to say that they left not the visible Church but her errors can only excuse them from Heresie which shall be tryed in the next Chapter but not from Schism as long as they are really divided from the external Communion of the self-same visible Church which notwithstanding those errors wherein they do in judgment dissent from her doth still remain the true Catholique Church of Christ and therefore while they forsake the corrupted Church they forsake the Catholique Church Thus then it remaineth clear that their chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the question confoundeth internal acts of the Understanding with the external Deeds doth not distinguish between Schism and Heresie and leaves this demonstrated against them That they divided themselves from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church because they conceived that she needed Reformation But whether this pretence of Reformation will acquit them of Schism I refer to the unpartial Judges heretofore (n) Numb 8. alleadged as to S. Irenaeus who plainly saith They cannot make any so important REFORMATION as the Evil of the Schism is pernitious To S. Denis of Alexandria saying Certainly all things should be endured rather than to consent to the division of the Church of God those Martyrs being no less glorious that expose themselves to hinder the dismembring of the Church then those that suffer rather than they will offer sacrifice to Idols To S. Augustine who tels us That not to hear the Church is a more grievous thing than if he were stricken with the sword consumed with flames exposed to wild Beasts And to conclude all in few words he giveth this general prescription There is no just necessity to divide unity And D. Potter may remember his own words There neither was (s) Pag. 75. nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But I have shewed that Luther and the rest departed from the Church of Christ if Christ had any Church upon earth Therefore there could be no just cause of Reformation or what else soever to do as they did and therefore they must be contented to be held for Schismatiques 18. Moreover I demand whether those corruptions which moved them to forsake the Communion of the Visible Church were in manners or doctrin Corruption in manners yields no sufficient cause to leave the Church otherwise men must go not only out of the Church but out of the world as the Apostle (t) 1 Cor. 5.10 saith Our blessed Saviour foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choise Corn and sinners with just men If then Protestants wax zealous with the Servants to pluck up the weeds let them first hearken to the wisdom of the Master Let both grow up And they ought to imitate them who as S. Augustine saith Tolerate for the good of (u) Ep. 162. Unity that which they detest for the good of equity And to whom the more frequent and foul such scandals are by so much the more is the merit of their perseverance in the Communion of the Church and the Martyrdom of their patience as the same Saint calls it If they were offended with the life of some Ecclesiastical persons must they therefore deny obedience to their Pastors and finally break with Gods Church The Pastor of Pastors teacheth us another lesson Upon the Chair of Moses (w) Mat. 33. have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you observe yee and do yee but according to their works do you not Must people except against laws and revolt from Magistrates because some are negligent or corrupt in the execurion of the same laws and performance of their office If they intended reformation of manners they used a strange means for the atchieving of such an end by denying the necessity of Confession laughing at austerity of pennance condemning the Vows of Chastity Poverty Obedience breaking Fasts c. And no less unfit were the Men than the Means I love not recrimination But it is well known to how great crimes Luther Calvin Zuinglius Beza and others of the prime Reformers were notoriously obnoxious as might be easily demonstrated by the only transcribing of what others have delivered upon that subject whereby it would appear that they were very far from being any such Apostolical men as God is wont to use in so great a work And whereas they were wont especially in the beginning of their revoult maliciously to exaggerate of the faults some Clergy men Erasmus said well Ep. ad Fratres inferior is Germaniae Let the riot lust ambition avarice of Priests and whatsoever other crimes be gathered together Heresie alone doth exceed all this filthy lake of vices Besides nothing at all was omitted by the sacred Council of Trent which might tend to Reformation of manners And finally the vices of others are not hurtful to any but such as imitate and consent to them according to the saying of S. Augustine we conserve (y) Ep. 116. innocency not by knowing the ill deeds of men but by not yielding conscent to such as we know and by not judging rashly of such faults as we know not If you answer that not corruption in
damnable errors Remember I pray you what your self affirms pag. 69. where speaking of our Church and yours you say All the difference is from the weeds which remain there and here are taken away Yet neither here perfectly nor every where alike Behold a fair confession of corruptions still remaining in your Church which you can only excuse by saying they are not Fundamental as likewise those in the Roman Church are confessed to be not Fundamental What man of judgment will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupt one 22. I still proceed to impugn you expresly upon your own grounds You say That it is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error till she be in heaven Now if it be comfort enough to be secured from all capital dangers which can arise only from error in Fundamental Points why were not your first Reformers content with enough but would needs dismember the Church out of a pernicious greediness of more than enough For this enough which according to you is attained by not erring in Points Fundamental was enjoyed before Luther's reformation unless you will now against your self affirm that long before Luther there was no Church free from error in Fundamental Points Moreover if as you say no Church may hope to triumph over all error till she be in heaven You must either grant that errors not Fundamental cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the Church or else you must affirm that all Community may and ought to be forsaken and so there will be no end of Schisms or rather indeed there can be no such thing as Schism because according to you all communities are subject to errors not Fundamental for which if they may be lawfully forsaken it followeth clearly that it is not Schism to forsake them Lastly since it is not lawful to leave the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners because such miseries cannot be avoided in this world of temptation and since according to your Assertion no Church may hope to triumph over all sin and error You must grant that as she ought not to be left by reason of sin so neither by reason of errors not Fundamental because both sin and error are according to you impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven 23. Furthermore I ask Whether it be the Quantity and Number or Quality and Greatness of doctrinal errors that may yield sufficient cause to relinquish the Churches Communion I prove that neither Not the Quality which is supposed to be beneath the degree of Points Fundamental or necessary to Salvation Not the Quantity or Number for the foundation is strong enough to support all such unnecessary additions as you tearm them And if they once weighed so heavy as to overthrow the foundation they should grow to Fundamental errors into which your self teach the Church cannot fall Hay and stubble say you and such (g) Pag. 155. unprofitable stuffe laid on the roof destroys not the house whilest the main pillars are standing on the foundation And tell us I pray you the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated I know you cannot do it and therefore being uncertain whether or no you have cause to leave the Church you are certainly obliged not to forsake her Our blessed Saviour hath declared his will that we forgive a private offender seventy seven times that is without limitation of quantity of time or quality of trespasses and why then dare you alledge his command that you must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not Fundamental What excuse can you feign to your selves who for Points not necessary to Salvation have been occasions causes and Authors of so many mischiefs as could not but unavoidably accompany so huge a breach in Kingdoms in Common-wealths in private persons in publique Magistrates in body in soul in goods in life in Church in the State by Schisms by rebellions by war by famin by plague by bloud-shed by all sorts of imaginable calamities upon the whole face of the earth wherein as in a map of Desolation the heaviness of your crime appears under which the world doth pant 24. To say for your excuse that you left not the Church but her errors doth not extenuate but aggravate your sin For by this device you sow seeds of endless Schisms and put into the mouth of aâ— Separatists a ready Answer how to avoid the note of Schism from your Protestant Church of England or from any other Church whatsoever They will I say answer as you do prompt that your Church may be forsaken if she fall into errors though they be not Fundamental and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errors which two grounds being once laid it will not be hard to infer the consequence that she may be forsaken 25. From some other words of D. Potter I likewise prove that for Errors not Fundamental the Church ought not to be forsaken There neither was saith he nor can be (h) Pag. 75. any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself To depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrins and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to Salvation Mark his Doctrin that there can be no just cause to depart from the Church of Christ and yet he teacheth that the Church of Christ may err in Points not Fundamental Therefore say I we cannot forsake the Roman Church for Points not Fundamental for then we might also forsake the Church of Christ which your self deny and I pray you consider whether you do not plainly contradict your self while in the words above recited you say there can be no just cause to forsake the Catholique Church and yet that there may be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome since you grant that the Church of Christ may err in Points not Fundamental and that the Roman Church hath erred only in such Points as by and by we shall see more in particular And thus much be said to disprove their chiesest Answer that they left not the Church but her corruptions 26. Another evasion D. Potter bringeth to avoid the imputation of Schism and it is because they still acknowledg the Church of Rome to be a Member of the body of Christ and not cut off from the hope of Salvation And this saith he clears us from the (i) Pag. 76. imputation of Schism whose property it is to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates 27. This is an Answer which perhaps you may get some one to approve if first you can put him out of his wits For what prodigious Doctrins are these Those Protestants who believe
that the Church erred in Points necessary to Salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schism But others who believed that she had no damnable errors did very well yea were obliged to forsake her and which is more miraculous or rather monstrous they did well to forsake her formally and precisely because they judged that she retained all means necessary to Salvation I say because they so judged For the very reason for which he acquitteth himself and condemneth those others as Schismatiques is because he holdeth that the Church which both of them forsook is not cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation whereas those other Zelors deny her to be a member of Christs body or capable of Salvation wherein alone they disagree from D. Potter for in the effect of separation they agree only they do it upon a different motive or reason Were it not a strange excuse if a man would think â—o cloak his rebellion by alleadging that he held the person against whom he rebelleth to be his lawful Soveraign And yet D. Potter thinks himself free from Schism because he forsook the Church of Rome but yet so as that still he held her to be the true Church and to have all necessary means to Salvation But I will no further urge this most solemn foppery and do much more willingly put all Catholiques in mind what an unspeakable comfort it is that our Adversaries are forced to confess that they cannot clear themselves from Schism otherwise than by acknowledging that they do not nor cannot cut off from the hope of Salvation out Church Which is as much as if they should in plain terms say They must be damned unless we may be saved Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemn your zealous brethren of Heresie for denying the Churches perpetuity but doth not clear your self from Schism which consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of Faith as you must profess your self to agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamental Articles For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of Salvation and so condemn your self of Schism And lastly even according to this your own definition of Schism you cannot clear your self from that crime unless you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own Assertions For if you do not cut us off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation how come you to say in another place that you judge a reconciliation with us to be (k) Pag. 20. damnable That to depart from the Church of Rome there might be just and necessary (l) Pag. 77. cause That they that have the understanding and means to discover their error and neglect to use them (m) Pag. 79. we dare not flatter them say you with so easie a censure of hope of Salvation If then it be as you say a property of Schism to cut off from the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates how will you clear your self from Schism who dare not flatter us with so easie a censure and who affirm that a reconciliation with us is damnable But the truth is there is no constancy in your Assertâ—ons by reason of dâ—fficulties which press you on all sides For you are loath to affiâ—m cleerly that we may be saved lest such a grant might be occasion as in all reason it ought to be of the conversion of Protestants to the Roman Church And on the other side if you affirm that our Church erred in Points Fundamental or necessary to Salvation you know not how nor where nor among what company of men to find a perpetual visible Church of Christ before Luther And therefore your best shift is to say and unsay as your occasions command I do not examine your Assertion that it is the property of Schism to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates wherein you are mightily mistaken as appears by your own exampie of the Donatists who were most formal and proper Heretiques and not Schismatiques as Schism is a vice distinct from Heresie Besides although the Donatists and Luciserians whom you also alledge had been meer Schismatiques yet it were against all good Logick from a particular to infer a general Rule to determine what is the property of Schism 28. A third device I find in D. Potter to clear his brethren from Schism There is saith he great difference between (n) Pag. 75. a Schism from them and a Reformation of our selves 29. This I confess is a quaint subtilty by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused For what devil incarnate could meerly pretend a separation and not rather some oâ—her motive of vertue truth profit or pleasure But now fince their pretended Reformation consisted as they gave out in forsaking the corruptions of the Church the Reformation of themselves and their division from us falls out to be one and the self-same thing Nay we see that although they infinitely disagree in the particulars of their reformation yet they symbolize and consent in the general Point of forsaking our pretended corruptions An evident sign that the thing upon which their thoughts first pitched was not any particular Modell or Idaea of Religion but a setled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome Wherefore this Metaphysical speculation that they intended only to reform themselves cannot possibly excuse them from Schism unless first they be able to prove that they were obliged to depart from us Yet for as much as concernes the fact it self it is clear that Luther's revolt did not proceed from any zeal of reformation The motive which put him upon so wretched and unfortunate a work were Covetousness Ambition Lust Pride Envy and grudging that the promulgation of Indulgences was not committed to himself or such as he desired He himself taketh God to witness that he fell into these troubles casually and (o) Casu non voluntate in has turbaslincidi Deum ipsum testor against his will not upon any intention of Reformation not so much as dreaming or suspecting any change which might (p) Act. et Mon. Pag. 404. happen And he began to preach against Indulgences when he knew not what (q) Sleidan l. 16 fol. 232. the matter meant For saith he I scarcely understood (r) Sleid. lib. 13. fol. 177. then what the name of Indulgences meant In so much as afterwards Luther did much mislâ—ke of his own undertaken course oftentimes saith he wishing (Å¿) Luth in colloq mensal that I had never begun that business And Fox saith It is apparent that (t) Act. Mon. Pag pag. 404. Luther promised Cardinal Cajeran to keepe silence provided also his adversaries would do the like M. Cowper reporteth further that Luther by his letter submitted (u) Cowp in his Chronicle himself to the Pope so
Copartners to be guilty of that crime and sheweth in what manner they might with great ease and quietness have rectified their consciences about the pretended errors of the Church S. Cyprian say you was a peaceable (l) Pag. 124. and modest man dissented from others in his judgement but without any breach of Charity condemned no man much less any Church for the contrary opinion He believed his own Opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others but lest them to their liberty Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding Did they censure no man much less any Church S. Cyprian believed his own Opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others You believe the Points wherein Luther differs from us not to be fundamental or necessary and why do you not thence infer the like THEREFORE he should not have proceeded to censure others In a word since their disagreement from us concerned only Points which were not fundamental they should have believed that they might have been deceived as well as the whole visible Church which you say may erre in such Points and therefore their Doctrins being not certainly true and certainly not necessary they could not give sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church 42. In other places you write so much as may serve us to prove that Luther and his followers ought to have deposed and rectified their consciences As for example when you say When the Church (m) Pag. 105. hath declared herself in any matter of opinion or of rites her declaration obliges all her children to peace and external obedience Nor is it fit or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgment to the publique as Luther and his fellows did He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason and very modestly still containing himself within the dutiful respect which he oweth but if he will factiously advance his own conceits his own conceits and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture and despise the Church so far as to cut off her Communion he may be justly branded and condemned for a Schismatique yea and an Heretique also in some degree and in foro exteriori though his opinion were true and much more if it be false Could any man even for a Fee have spoken more home to condemn your Predecessors of Schism or Heresie Could they have stronger Motives to oppose the Doctrin of the Church and leave her Communion than evidence of Scripture And yet according to your own words they should have answered and rectified their conscience by your Doctrin that though their opinion were true and grounded upon evidence of Scripture or Reason yet it was not lawful for any private maâ— to oppose his judgment to the publique which obligeth all Christians to peace and external obedience and if they cast off the Communion of the Church for maintaining their own Conceits they may be branded for Schismatiques and Heretiques in some degree et in foro exteriori that is all other Christians ought so to esteem of them and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you and they also are obliged to behave themselves in the face of all Christian Churches as if indeed they were not Reformers but Schismatiques and Heretiques or as Pagans and Publicans I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will do a deed of Charity by putting you in minde into what Labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some Points of Faith and yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he have evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man to dissemble against his conscience or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture How much more coherently do Catholiques proceed who believe the universal infallibility of the Church and from thence are assured that there can be no evidence of Scripture or reason against her definitions nor any just cause to forsake her Communion M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man yeelds as much as we have alleadged out of you The will of God is saith he to have (n) In his preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiastical Policy Sect. 6. Pag. 28. them do whatsoever the sentence of judiciall and final decision shall determine yea though it seem in their private opinion to swarve utterly from that which is right Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was which he transgressing must of necessity be guilty of Schism And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the universal infallibility of the Church or else drive men into the perplexities and labyrinths of dissembling against their conscience whereof now I speak Not unlike to this is your Doctrin delivered elsewhere Before the Nicene Councel say you many (o) Pag. 132. good Catholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists that the Baptism of Heretiques was ineffectual and with the Novatians that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners These errors therefore if they had gone no further were not in themselves Heretical especially in the proper and most heavy or bitter sense of that word neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration Her intention was to silence all disputes and to settle peace and unity in her government to which all wise and peacable men submitted whatsoever their opinion was And those factious people for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition were very justly branded for Schismatiques For us the Mistaker will never prove that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church c. and therefore he doth unjustly charge us either with Schism or Heresie These words manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her Declarations Doctrins and Commands imposed upon them for silencing all disputes and setling peace and Vnity in the government and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient are justly charged with Schism and Heresie And it is to be observed that you grant the Donatists to have been very justly branded for Schismatiques although their opposition against the Church did concerne as you hold a Point not Fundamental to the Faith and which according to S. Augustin cannot be proved out of Scripture alone and therefore either doth evidently convince that the Church is universally infallible even in Points not Fundamental or else that it is Schism to oppose her Declarations in those very things wherein she may erre and consequently that Luther and his fellowes were Schismatiques by opposing the visible Church of Points not Fundamental though it were untruly supposed that she erred in such Points But by the
Mat. 18. the Church let him be to thee as a Pagan or Publican And He (b) Luk. 10.16 that despiseth you despiseth me We heard above Optatus Milevitanus saying to Parmenianus that both he and all those other who continued in the Schism begun by Majorinus did inherit their Fore-fathers Schism and yet Parmenianus was the third Bishop after Majorinus in his Sea and did not begin but only continue the Schism For saith this holy Father Caecilianus (c) Lib. 1. cont Parm. went not out of Majorinus thy Grand-father but Majorinus from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chair of Peter or Cyprian but Majorinus in whose Chair thou fittest which before Majorinus Luther had no beginning Seeing it is evident that these things passed in this manner that for example Luther departed from the Church and not the Church from Luther it is clear that you be HEIRS both of the givers up of the Bible to be burned and of SCHISMATIQUES And the Regal Power or example of Henry the Eighth could not excuse his subjects from Schism according to what we have heard out of S. Chrysostom saying Nothing doth so much provoke (d) Hom. 11. in ep ad Eph. the wrath of Almighty God as that the Church should be divided Although we should do innumerable good deeds if we divide the full Ecclesiastical Congregation we shall be punished no less than they who did rend his natural Body for that was done to the gain of the whole world though not with that intention but this hath no good in it at all but that the greatest hurt riseth from it These things are spoken not only to those who bear office but to such also as are governed by them Behold therefore how lyable both Subjects and Superiours are to the sin of Schism if they break the unity of Gods Church The words of S. Paul can in no occasion be verified more than in this of which we speak They who do such things (e) Rom. 1.31 are worthy of death and not only they that do them but they also that consent with the doers In things which are indifferent of their own nature Custom may be occasion that some act not well begun may in time come to be lawfully continued But no length of Time no Quality of Persons no Circumstance of Necessity can legitimate actions which are of their own nature unlawful and therefore division from Christs Mystical Body being of the number of those Actions which Divines teach to be intrinsecè malas evil of their own nature and essence no difference of Persons or Time can ever make it lawful D. Potter saith There neither was nor can be any cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself And who dates say that it is not damnable to continue a Separation from Christ Prescription cannot in conscience run when the first beginner and his successors are conscious that the thing to be prescribed for example goods or lands were unjustly possessed at the first Christians are not like strayes that after a certain time of wandring from their right home fall from their owner to the Lord of the Soil but as long as they retain the indelible Character of Baptism and live upon earth they are obliged to acknowledge subjection to Gods Church Humane Laws may come to nothing by discontinuance of time but the Law of God commanding us to conserve Unity in his Church doth still remain The continued disobedience of Children cannot deprive Parents of their parental right nor can the Grand-child be undutiful to his Grand-Father because his Father was unnatural to his own Parent The longer Gods Church is so disobeyed the profession of her Doctrin denyed her Sacraments neglected her Liturgy condemned her Unity violated the more grievous the fault grows to be As the longer a man withholds a due debt or retains his neighbours goods the greater injustice he commits Constancy in evil doth not extenuate but aggravate the same which by extension of time receiveth increase of strength and addition of greater malice If these mens conceits were true the Church might come to be wholly divided by wicked Schisms and yet after some space of time none could be accused of Schism nor be obliged to return to the visible Church of Christ and so there should remain no one true visible Church Let therefore these men who pretend to honour reverence and believe the Doctrin and practice of the Visible Church and to condemn their forefathers who forsook her and say They would not have done so if they had lived in the dayes of their Fathers and yet follow their example in remaining divided from her Communion consider how truly these words of our Saviour fall upon them Woe be to you because you build (f) Mar. 23. ver 29 c. the Prophets Sepulchers and garnish the monuments of just men and say If we had been in our Fathers dayes we had not been their fellows in the bloud of the Prophets Therefore you are a testimony to your own selves that you are the sons of them that killed the Prophets and fill up the measure of your Fathers 46. And thus having demonstrated that Luther his Associates and all that continue in the Schism by them begun are guilty of Schism by departing from the visible true Church of Christ it remaineth that we examin what in particular was that visible true Church from which they departed that so they may know to what Church in particular they ought to return and then we shall have performed what was proposed to be handled in the fifth Point 47. That the Roman Church I speak not for the present of the particular Diocess of Rome but of all visible Churches dispersed throughout the whole world agreeing in Faith with the Chair of Peter 5. Point Luther and the rest departed from the Roman Church whether that Sea were supposed to be in the City of Rome or in any other place That I say the Church of Rome in this sense was the visible Catholique Church out of which Luther departed is proved by your own confession who assign for notes of the Church the true Preaching of Gods Words and due administration of Sacraments both which for the substance you cannot deny to the Roman Church since you confess that she wanted nothing Fundamental or necessary to Salvation and for that very cause you think to clear your self from Schism whose property as you say is to cut off from the (g) Pag. 76. Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates Now that Luther and his fellows were born and baptized in the Roman Church and that she was the Church out of which they departed is notoriously known and therefore you cannot cut her off from the Body of Christ and hope of Salvation unless you will acknowledge your self to deserve the just imputation of Schism Neither can you deny her to be
impossible that we should be rewarded without the intercession of the Virgin Mary He held seven Sacraments Purgatory and other Points And against both Catholiques and Protestants he maintained sundry damnable Doctrins as divers Protestant Writers relate As first If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sin he doth not indeed either give Orders Consecrate or Baptize Secondly That Ecclesiastical Ministers ought not to have any temporal possessions nor propriety in any thing but should beg and yet he himself brake into heresie because he had been deprived by the Archbishop of Canterbury of a certain Benefice as all Schisms and Heresies begin upon passion which they seek to cover with the cloak of Reformation Thirdly he condemned lawful Oaths like the Anabaptists Fourthly he taught that all things came to pass by absolute necessity Fifthly he defended humane merits as the wicked Pelagians did namely as proceeding from â—atural forces without the necessary help of Gods grace Sixthly that no man is a Civil Magistrate while he is in mortal sin and that the people may at their pleasure correct Princes when they offend by which Doctrin he proves himself both an Heretique and a Traytour 53. As for Huss his chiefest Doctrins were That Lay people must receive in both kinds and That Civil Lords Prelates and Bishops lose all right and authority while they are in mortal sin For other things he wholly agreed with Catholiques against Protestants and the Bohemians his followers being demanded in what points they disagreed from the Church of Rome propounded only these The necessity of Communion under both kinds That all Civil Dominion was forbidden to the Clergie That Preaching of the Word was free for all men and in all places That open crimes were in no wise to be permitted for avoiding of greater evil By these particulars if is apparent that Husse agreed with Protestants against us in one only Point of both kinds which according to Luther is a thing indifferent because he teacheth that Christ in this matter (q) In epist ad Bohemâ—s commanded nothing as necessary And he saith further If thou come to a place (r) De utraque specie Sacram. where one only kind is administred use one kind only as others do Melancthon likewise holds it a a thing (Å¿) In Cent. epist Theol. pag. 225. indifferent and the same is the opinion of some other Protestants All which considered it is clear that Procestants cannot challenge the Waldenses Wickliffe and Husse for members of their Church and although they could yet that would advantage them little towards the finding them out a perpetual visible Church of theirs for the reasons above (t) Numb 49. specified 54. If D. Potter would go so far off as to fetch the Muscovites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians or Abissines into his Church they would prove over dear bought For they eiâ—her hold the damnable Heresie of Eutyches or use Circumcision or agree with the Greek or Roman Church And it is most certain that they have nothing to do with the Doctrin of the Protestants 55. It being therefore granted that Christ had a visible Church in all Ages and that there can be none assigned but the Church of Rome it follows that she is the true Catholique Church and that those pretended Corruptions for which they forsook her are indeed divine truths delivered by the visible Catholique Church of Christ And that Luther and his followers departed from her and consequently are guilty of Schism by dividing themselves from the Communion of the Roman Church Which is clearly convinced out of D. Potter himself although the Roman Church were but a particular Church For he saith Whosoever professes (u) Pag. 67. himself to forsake the Communion of any one member of the body of Christ must confess himself consequently to forsake the whole Since therefore in the same place he expresly acknowledges the Church of Rome to be a member of the body of Christ and that it is clear they have forsaken her it evidently follows that they have forsaken the whole and therefore are most properly Schismatiques 56. And lastly since the crime of Schism is so grievous that according to the Doctrin of holy Fathers rehearsed above no multitude of good works no moral honesty of life no cruel death endured even for the profession of some Article of Faith can excuse any one who is guilty of that sin from damnation I leave it to be considered whether it be not true Charity to speak as we believe and to believe as all Antiquity hath taught us That whosoever either begins or continues a division from the Roman Church which we have proved to be Christ's true Militant Church on earth cannot without effectâ—al repentance hope to be a member of his Triumphant Church in heaven And so I conclude with these words of blessed S. Augustiae It is common (w) Cont. Parm lib. 2. c. 3. to all Heretiques to be unable to see that thing which in the world is the most manifest and placed in the light of all Nations out of whose unity whatsoever they work though they seem to do it with great care and diligence can no more avail them against the wrath of God than the Spider's web against the extremity of cold But now it is high time that we treat of the other sort of Division from the Church which is by Heresie The ANSWER to the FIFTH CHAPTER The separation of Protestants from the Roman Church being upon just and necessary causes is not any way guilty of Schism 1. AD § 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. In the seven first Sections of this Chapter there be many things said and many things supposed by you which are untrue and deserve a censure As 2. First That Schism could not be a Division from the Church or that a Division from the Church could not happen unless there always had been and should be a visible Church Which Assertion is a manifest falshood For although there never had been any Church Visible or Invisible before this Age nor should be ever after yet this could not hinder but that a Schism might now be and be a Division from the present visible Church As though in France there never had been until now a lawful Monarch nor after him ever should be yet this hinders not but that now there might be a Rebellion and that Rebellion might be an Insurrection against Soveraign Authority 3. That it is a point to be granted by all Christians that in all Ages there hath been a visible Congregation of faithful people Which Proposition howsoever you understand it is not absolutely certain But if you mean by Faithful as it is plain you do free from all error in faith then you know all Protestants with one consent affirm it to be false and therefore without proof to take it for granted is to beg the Question 4. That supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church were guilty
of Schism it is certainly consequent that all who persist in this Division must be so likewise Which is not so certain as you pretend For they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any State Civil or Ecclesiastical do commit a great fault whereof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former State when continuance of time hath once setled the present Thus have I known some of your own Church condemn the Low-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
difference between justifying his separation from Schism by this reason and making this the reason of his separation If a man denying obedience in some unlawful matter to his lawful Soveraign should say to him Herein I disobey you but yet I am no Rebel because I acknowledg you my Soveraign Lord and am ready to obey you in all things lawful should not he be an egregious Sycophant that should accuse him as if he had said I do well to disobey you because I acknowledge you my lawful Soveraign Certainly he that joyns this acknowledgment with his necessitated obedience does well but he that makes this consideration the reason of disobedience doth ill Urge therefore this as you call it most solemn foppery as far as you please For every understanding Reader will easily perceive that this is no foppery of D. Potters but a calumny of yours from which he is as far as he is from holding yours to be the true Church whereas it is a sign of a great deal of Charity in him that he allows you to be a Part of it 76. And whereas you pretend to find such unspeakable comfort herein that we cannot clear our selves from Schism otherwise than by acknowledging that they do not nor cannot cut off your Church from the hope of salvation I beseech you to take care that this false comfort cost you not too dear For why this good opinion of God Almighty that he will not damn men for errour who were without their own fault ignorant of the truth should be any consolation to them who having the key of knowledge will neither use it themselves nor permit others to use it who have eyes to see and will not see who have ears to hear and will not hear this I assure you passeth my capacity to apprehend Neither is this to make our salvation depend on yours but only ours and yours not desperately inconsistent nor to say we must be damn'd unless you may be saved but that we assure our selves if our lives be answerable we shall be saved by our knowledge And that we hope and I tell you again Spes est rei incertae nomen that some of you may possibly be saved by occasion of their unaffected Ignorance 77. For our brethren whom you say we condemn of heresie for denying the Churches perpetuity we know none that do so unless you conceive a corrupted Church to be none at all and if you do then for ought I know in your account we must be all Heretiques for all of us acknowledge that the Church might be corrupted even with errours in themselves damnable and not only might but hath been 78. But Schism consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith Now we must profess you say that we agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamental Articles Therefore we are Schismatiques Ans Either in your Major by all points of faith you mean all fundamental points only or all simply and absolutely If the former I deny your Major for I may without all schism divide from that Church which errs in any point of faith Fundamental or otherwise if she require the profession of this Error among the conditions of her Communion Now this is our case If the later I deny the syllogism as having manifestly four tearms and being cosen-german to this He that obeys God in all things is innocent Titius obeys God in some things Therefore he is innocent 79. But they who judge a reconciliation with the Church of Rome to be damnable they that say there might be just and necessary cause to depart from it and that they of that Church which have understanding and means to discover their Errour and neglect to use them are not to be slattered with hope of salvation they do cut off that Church from the body of Christ and the hope of salvation and so are Schismatiques but D. Potter doth the former therefore he is a schismatique Ans No he doth not not cut off that whole Church from the hope of salvation not those members of it who were invincibly or excusably ignorant of the truth but those only who having understanding and means to discover their errour neglect to use them Now these are not the whole Church and therefore he that supposing their impenitence cuts these off from hope of salvation cannot be justly said to cut off that whole Church from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation 80. Ad § 28 29. Whereas D. Potter says There is a great difference between a Schism from them and a Reformation of our selves this you say is a quaint subtilty by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused It seems then in your judgment that theeves and adulterers and murtherers and traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants that they did no hurt to others but only reform themselves But then methinks it is very strange that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schism that to this day never any Theef or Murtherer should have been heard of to make use of this Apologie And then for Schismatiques I would know Whether Victor Bishop of Rome who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not consorming to his Church in keeping Easter whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius upon pretence that himself was elected Bishop of Rome when indeed he was not whether Felicissimus and his Crew that went out of the Church of Carthage and set up Altar against Altar because having fallen in persecution they might not be restored to the peace of the Church presently upon the intercession of the Confessours whether the Donatists who divided from and damned all the World because all the World would not excommunicate them who were accused only and not convicted to have been Traditors of the sacred Books whether they which for the slips and infirmities of others which they might and ought to tolerate or upon some difference in matters of Order and Ceremony or for some Errour in Doctrin neither pernitious nor hurtful to Faith or Piety sepatate themselves from others or others from themselves or lastly whether they that put themselves out of the Churches unity and obedience because their opinions are not approved there but reprehended and confuted or because being of impious conversation they are impatient of their Churches censure I would know I say whether all or any of these may with any face or without extream impudency put in this plea of Protestants and pretend with as much likelyhood as they that they did not separate from others but only reform themselves But suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own defence falsely doth it follow by any good Logick that therefore this Apology is not to be imployed by Protestants who may say so truly We make say they no Schism from you but only a reformation of our selves This you reply
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
yield a passive obedience to swarve utterly from that which is right If you will draw his words to such a construction as if he had said they must think the sentence of judicial and final decision just and right though it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from what is right It is manifest you make him contradict himself and make him say in effect They must think thus though at the same time they think the contrary Neither is there any necessity 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 money he awards me to pay or forgoing the house or land which he hath judged from me and yet withall plainly profess that in my conscience I conceive his judgement erroneous To which purpose they have a saying in France that whosoever is cast in any cause hath liberty for ten daies after to rayl at his Judges 110. This answer to this place the words themselves offered me even as they are alleaged by you But upon perusal of the place in the Author himself I find that here as else-where you and M. Brerely wrong him extreamly For mutilating his words you make him say that absolutely which he there expresly limits to some certain cases In litigious and controverted causes of such a quality saith he the will of God is to have them do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final Decision shall determine Observe I pray He saies not absolutely and in all causes this is the will of God But only in litigious causes of the quality of those whereof he there entreats 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 superiours upon uncertain grounds But do that which the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine For the purpose a Question there is Whether a Surplice may be worn in Divine service The Authority of Superiours injoynes this Ceremony and neither Scripture nor Reason plainly forbids it Sempronius notwithstanding is by some inducements which he confesses to be only probable let to this perswasion that the thing is unlawful The quaere is Whether he ought for matter of practice to 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 Which rule is your own and by you extended to the commands of all Superiors in the very next Section before this in these words In cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our Superior nor cast off his obedience or publiquely oppose his decrees And yet if a man should conclude upon you that either you make all Superiors universally infallible or else drive men into perplexities and labyrinths of doing against conscience I presume you would not think your self fairly dealt with but alleage that your words are not extended to all cases but limited to cases of uncertainty As little therefore ought you to make this deduction from M. Hooker's words which are apparently also restrained to cases of uncertainty For as for requiring a blind and an unlimited obedience to Ecclesiastical decisions universally and in all cases even when plain Texts or reason seems to controle 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 alleaged or one manifest Testimony cited from the Word of God himself to the contrary could not chuse 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 Where as it is thought that especially with the Church and those that are called man's 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 tyed 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 follow like Beasts the first in the Heard 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 prejudic'd by the simplicity of his person which doth alleage it but being found to be sound and good the bare opinion of men to the contrary must of necessity stoop give place Thus M Hooker in his 7. Sect. Book 2. which place because it is far distant from that which is alleaged by you the oversight of it might be excusable did you not impute it to D. Potter as a fault that he cites some clauses of some Books without reading the whole But besides in that very Sect. out of which you take this corrupted sentence he hath very pregnant words to the same effect as for the orders establish'd sith equity reason favour that which is in being till orderly judgment of decision be given against it it is but justice to exact of you and perversness in you it should be to deny thereunto your willing obedience Not that I judg it as a thing allowable for men to observe those Laws which in their hearts they are stedfastly perswaded to be against the Law of God But your perswasion in this case ye are all bound for the time to suspend and in otherwise doing ye offend against God by troubling his Church without just and necessary cause Be it that there are some reasons inducing you to think hardly of our Laws Are those Reasons demonstrative are they necessary or but meer probabilities only An argument necessary and demonstrative is such as being proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent Any one such reason dischargeth I grant the Conscience and setteth it at full liberty For the publique approbation given by the body of this whole Church unto those things which are established doth make it but probable that they are good And therefore unto a necessary proof that they are not good is must give place This plain declaration of
conserved or observed choose you whether but that it should be alwayes so he sayes not neither had he any warrant He knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the Churches of Christ to Anti-christ that the Roman Church in particular was fore-warned that she also Rom. 11. Nay the whole Church of the Gentiles might fall if they lookt not to their standing and therefore to secure her that she should stand for ever he had no Reason nor Authority Fourthly that it appears manifestly out of this Book of Irenaeus quoted by you that the doctrin of the Chiliasts was in his judgement Apostolique Tradition as also it was esteemed for ought appears to the contrary by all the Doctors and Saints and Martyrs of or about his time for all that speak of it or whose judgements in the point are any way recorded are for it and Justin Martyr professeth that all good and Orthodox Christians of his time believed it and those that did not In Dial. cum Tryphon he reckons amongst Heretiques Now I demand was this Tradition one of those that was conserved and observed in the Church of Rome or was it not If not had Irenaeus known so much he must have retracted this commendation of that Church If it was then the Tradition of the present Church of Rome contradicts the Ancient and accounts it Heretical and then sure it can be no certain note of Heresie to depart from them who have departed from themselves and prove themselves subject unto Errour by holding contradictions Fifthly and lastly that out of the Story of the Church it is as manifest as the light at noon that though Irenaeus did esteem the Roman Tradition a great Argument of the doctrin which he there delivers and defends against the Heretiques of his â—ime viz. That there is one God yet he was very far from thinking that Church was and ever should be a safe keeper and an infallible witness of Tradition in general Inasmuch as in his own life his action proclaim'd the contrary For when Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunication and damnation Irenaeus and all the other Western Bishops though agreeing with him in his observation yet sharply reprehended him for excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their disagreeing plainly shewing that they esteemed that not a necessary doctrin and a sufficient ground of excommunication which the Bishop of Rome and his adherents did so account of For otherwise how could they have reprehended him for excommunicating them had they conceived the cause of this Excommunication just and sufficient And besides evidently declaring that they esteemed not separation from the Roman Church a certain mark of Heresie seeing they esteemed not them Heretiques though separated and cut off from the Roman Church Cardinal Perron to avoid the stroak of this convincing argument raiseth a cloud of eloquent words Lib. 3. cap. 2. Of his Reply to King Iames. c. 2. sect 32. which because you borrow them of him in your Second part I will here insert and with short censures dispel and let his Idolaters see that Truth is not afraid of Giants His words are these The first instance then that Calvin alleageth against the Popes censures is taken from Eusebius a an Arrian author and from Ruffinus b enemie to the Roman Church his translator who writ c that S. IRENAEUS reprehended Pope Victor for having excommunicated the Churches of Asia for the question of the day of Pasche which they observed according to a particular tradition that S. JOHN had introduced d for a time in their Provinces Calv. ubi supra because of the neighbourhood of the Jews and to bury the Synagogue with honour and not according to the universal Tradition of the Apostles Irenaeus saith Calvin reprehended Pope Victor bitterly because for a light cause he had moved a great and perillous contention in the Church There is this in the Text that Calvin produceth he reprehended him that he had not done well to cut off from the body of unity so many and so great Churches But against whom maketh this Ruffin in vers hist Eccl Eus l. 5 c. 24. but e against those that object it for who sees not that S. IRENAEUS doth not there reprehend the Pope for the f want of power but for the ill use of his power and doth not reproach to the Pope that he could not excommunicate the Asians but admonisheth him that for g so small a cause he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Irenaeus saith Eusebius did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he should not cut off all the Churches of God which â—eld this ancient tradition And Ruffinus translating and envenoming Eusebius saith Ruffin ib. c. 24. Iren l. 3. c. 3.1 Book Ch. 25. He questioned Victor that he had not done well in cutting off from the Body of Unity so many and so great Churches of God And in truth how could S. IRENAEUS have reprehended the Pope for want of power he that cites To the Roman Church because of a more powerful principality that is to say as above appeareth h because of a principality more powerful than the temporal or as we have expounded otherwhere because of a more powerful Original i It is necessary that every Church should agree And k therefore also S. IRENAEUS alleageth not to Pope Victor the example of him and of the other Bishops of the Gauls assembled in a Council holden expresly for this effect who had not excommunicated the Asians Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 22. nor the example of Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem and of the Bishops of Palestina assembled in another Council holden expresly for the same effect who had not excommunicated them nor the example of Palmas and of the other Bishops of Pontus assembled in the same manner and for the same cause in the Region of Pontus who had not excommunicated them but only alleadges to him the example of the Popes his predecessors Iren. apud Euseb hist Eccl. 5. c. 26. The Prelates saith he who have presided before Soter in the Church where thou presidest Anisius Pius Hyginus Telesphorus and Sixtus have not observed this custom c. and nevertheless none of those that observed it have been excommunicated And yet O admirable providence of God the l success of the after-ages shewed that even in the use of his power the Popes proceeding was just For after the death of Victor the Councils of Nicea of Constantinople and of Ephesus Conc. Antioch c. 1. Conc. Const c. 7. Conc. Eph. p. 2. act 6. excommunicated again those that held the same custom with the Provinces that the Pope had excommunicated and placed them in the Catalogue of Heretiques under the titles of heretiques Quarto-decumans But to this instance Calvins Sect do annex two
to choose a Subject from a King to the extream hazard of his Sacred Person whom by all possible obligations they are bound to defend do they know think you the general rule without exception or limitation left by the Holy Ghost for our direction in all such cases 1 Sam. 26.9 Who can lift up his hand against the Lords Anointed and be innocent Or do they consider his command in the Proverbs of Solomon My son fear God and the King Prov. 24.21 and meddle not with them that desire change Or his counsel in the Book of Ecclesiastes I counsel thee to keep the Kings Commandement Eccles 8.2 and that in regard of the Oath of God Or because they possibly may pretend that they are exempted from or unconcerned in the commands of obedience delivered in the Old Testament Do they know and remember the precept given to all Christians by St. Peter Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supream or unto Governors as unto them that are sent by him Or that terrible sanction of the same command They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation left us by St. Paul in his Ep. to the Romans who then were the miserable Subjects of the worst King the worst man nay I think I may add truly the worst beast in the world that so all Rebels mouths might be stopt for ever and left without all colour or pretence whatsoever to justifie resistance of Soveraign Power Undoubtedly if they did know and consider and lay close to their hearts these places of Scripture or the fearful judgment which befel Corah Dathan and Abiram for this very sin which now they commit and with a high hand still proceed in it would be impossible but their hearts would smite them as David's did upon an infinitely less occasion and affright them out of those wayes of present confusion and eternal damnation And then on the other side they that maintain the Kings righteous cause with the hazzard of their lives and fortunes but by their oaths and curses by their drunkenness and debauchery by their irreligion and prophanness fight more powerfully against their party then by all other means they do or can fight for it are not I fear very well acquainted with any part of the Bible but that strict caution which properly concerns themselves in the Book of Leviticus I much doubt they have scarce ever heard of it When thou goest to warr with thine Enemies then take heed there be no wicked thing in thee not only no wickedness in the cause thou maintainest nor no wickedness in the means by which thou maintainest it but no personal impieties in the persons that maintain it Beloved for the former two we have reason to be full of comfort and confidence For what is our cause what is that which you fight and we pray for but to deliver the King and all his good Subjects out of the power of their Enemies who will have no peace but with their slaves and vassals and for the means by which it is maintained it is not by lying it is not by calumnies it is not by running first our selves and then forcing the people to universal perjury but by a just warr because necessary and by as fair and merciful a warr as if they were not Rebels and Traytors you fight against but Competitours in a doubtful Title But now for the third part of the caution that to deal ingenuously with you and to deliver my own soul if I cannot other mens that I cannot think of with half so much comfort as the former but seeing so many Jonasses imbarqued in the same ship the same cause with us and so many Achans entering into Battle with us against the Cananites seeing Publicans and sinners on the one side against Scribes and Pharisees on the other on the one side Hypocrisie on the other Prophaness no honesty nor justice on the one side and very little piety on the other On the one side horrible oaths curses and blasphemies on the other pestilent lies calumnies and perjury When I see amongst them the pretence of Reformation if not the desire pursued by Antichristian Mahumetan Devillish means and amongst us little or no zeal for Reformation of what is indeed amiss little or no care to remove the cause of God's anger towards us by just lawfull and Christian means I profess plainly I cannot without trembling consider what is likely to be the event of these Distractions I cannot but fear that the goodness of our cause may sink under the burthen of our sins And that God in his justice because we will not suffer his Judgments to atchieve their prime scope and intention which is our amendment and reformation may either deliver us up to the blind zeal and fury of our Enemies or else which I rather fear make us instruments of his Justice each against other and of our own just and deserved confusion This I profess plainly is my fear and I would to God it were the fear of every Souldier of his Majesties Army but that which encreaseth my fear is that I see very many of them have very little or none at all I mean not that they are fearless towards their Enemies that 's our joy and triumph but that they shew their courage even against God and fear not him whom it is madness not to fear Now from whence can their not fearing Him proceed but from their not knowing him their not knowing his will and their own duty not knowing how highly it concerns Souldiers above other professions to be Religious and then if ever when they are engaged in dangerous adventures and every moment have their lives in their hands When they go to warr with their Enemies then to take heed there be no wicked thing in them You see Beloved how many instances and examples I have given you of our gross ignorance of what is necessary and easie for us to know and to these it were no difficult matter to add more Now from whence can this ignorance proceed but from supine negligence and from whence this negligence but from our not believing what we pretend to believe For did we believe firmly and heartily that this Book were given us by God for the rule of our Actions and that obedience to it were the certain and only way to eternal happiness it were impossible we should be such enemies to our selves such Traytors to our own souls as not to search it at least with so much diligence that no necessary point of our duty plainly taught in it could possibly escape us But it is certain and apparent to all the world that the greatest part of Christians through gross and wilful negligence remain utterly ignorant of many necessary points of their duty to God and Man and therefore it is much to be feared that this Book and the Religion of Christ contained in it among an infinite
say that all things considered it was absolutely impossible for you to avoid it is flatly to deny it Others there are that think they have done enough if to confession of sin they add some sorrow for it if when the present fit of sin is past and they are returned to themselves the sting remaining breed some remorse of conscience some complaints against their wickedness and folly for having done so and some intentions to forsake it though vanishing and ineffectual These heat-drops this morning dew of sorrow though it presently vanish and they return to their sin again upon the next temptation as a dogg to his vomit when the pang is over yet in the pauses between while they are in their good mood they conceive themselves to have very true and very good repentance so that if they should have the good fortune to be taken away in one of these Intervalla one of these sober moods they should certainly be saved which is just as if a man in a Quartane Ague or the Stone or Gout should think himself rid of his disease as oft as he is out of his fit But if repentance were no more but so how could St. Paul have truly said That godly sorrow worketh repentance 1 Cor. 7.10 Every man knows that nothing can work it self The Architect is not the house which he builds the Father is not the Son which he begets the Tradesman is not the work which he makes and therefore if sorrow godly sorrow worketh repentance certainly sorrow is not repentance the same St. Paul tels us in the same place That the sorrow of the world worketh death and you will give me leave to conclude from hence therefore it is not death and what shall hinder me from concluding thus also Godly sorrow worketh repentance therefore it is not repentance To this purpose it is worth the observing that when the Scripture speaks of that kind of repentance which is only sorrow for something done and wishing it undone it constantly useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which forgiveness of sins is no where promised So it is written of Judas the son of perdition Matth. 27.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he repented and went and hanged himself and so constantly in other places But that repentance to which remission of sins and salvation is promised is perpetually expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a through change of the heart and soul of the life and actions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 3.2 which is rendred in our last translation Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand But much better because freer from ambiguity in the entrance to our Common Prayer Book Amend your lives for the kingdom of heaven is at hand From whence by the way we may observe That in the judgment of those holy and learned Martyrs Repentance and amendment of life are all one And I would to God the same men out of the same care of avoyding mistakes and to take away occasion of cavilling our Liturgy from them that seek it and out of fear of encouraging carnal men to security in sinning had been so provident as to set down in terms the first sentence taken out of the 18 th of Ezekiel and not have put in the place of it an ambiguous and though not in it self yet accidentally by reason of the mistake to which it is subject I fear very often a pernitious paraphrase for whereas thus they make it At what time soever a sinner doth repent him of his sins from the bottom of his heart I will put all his wickedness out of my remembrance saith the Lord The plain truth if you will hear it is the Lord doth not say so these are not the very words of God but the paraphrase of men the words of God are as followeth If the wicked turn from all the sins which he hath committed and keep all my Statutes and do that which is lawful and right he shall surely live he shall not die where I hope you easily observe that there is no such word as At what time soever a sinner doth repent c. and that there is a wide difference between this as the word repent usually sounds in the ears of the people and turning from all sins and keeping all Gods Statutes that indeed having no more in it but sorrow and good purposes may be done easily and certainly at the last gasp and it is very strange that any Christian who dies in his right senses and knows the difference between heaven and hell should fail of the performing it but this work of turning keeping and doing is though not impossible by extraordinary mercy to be performed at last yet ordinarily a work of time a long and laborious work but yet heaven is very well worth it and if you mean to go through with it you had need go about it presently Yet seeing the Composers of our Liturgy thought fit to abreviate Turning from all sin and keeping all God's Statutes and doing that which is lawful and right into this one word Repenting it is easie and obvious to collect from hence as I did before from the other place that by Repentance they understood not only sorrow for sin but conversion from it The same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 12.42 is used in speaking of the Repentance of the Ninivites And how real hearty and effectual a Conversion that was you may see Jonas 3. from the 5 to the last verse The People of Niniveh believed God and put on sackcloth from the greatest of them to the least of them for word came to the King of Niniveh and he arose from his Throne and he cast his Robe from him and covered him with sackcloth and sate in ashes and he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Niniveh by the decree of the King and of his Nobles saying Let neither man nor beast heard nor flock taste any thing let them not feed nor drink water but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth and cry mightily unto God yea let every one turn from his evill way and from the violence which is in their hands who can tell if God will turn and repent and turn away his fierce anger that we perish not Which words contain an excellent and lively pattern for all true penitents to follow and whereunto to conform themselves in their humiliation and repentance And truly though there be no Jonas sent expresly from God to cry unto us Yet forty dayes and Niniveh shall be destroyed yet seeing the mouth of Eternal Truth hath taught us that a Kingdom divided is in such danger of ruin and destruction that morally speaking if it continue divided it cannot stand and seeing the strange and miserable condition of our Nation at this time may give any considerable man just cause to fear that as in Rehoboam's case so likewise in ours The thing is of the Lord intending to bring