is easier for you to declaim as you do than to dispute against it But these men you say must be Hereticks because they separated from the Communion of the Visible Church and therefore also from the Communion of that which they say was invisible In as much as the invisible Church communicated with the visible 35. Ans I might very justly desire some proof of that which so confidently you take for granted That there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the Truth in the days of our Fore-fathers but only such as dissembled their opinions and lived in your Communion And truly if I should say there were many of this condition I suppose I could make my Affirmative much more probable than you can make your Negative We read in Scripture that Elias conceived there was none left besides himself in the whole Kingdom of Israel who had not revolted from God and yet God himself assures us that he was deceived And if such a man a Prophet and one of the greatest erred in his judgment touching his own time and his own Country why may not you who are certainly but a man and subject to the same passions as Elias was mistake in thinking that in former ages in some Countrey or other there were not always some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal But this answer I am content you shall take no notice of and think it sufficient to tell you that if it be true that this supposed invisible Church did hypocritically communicate with the visible Church in her corruptions then Protestants had cause nay necessity to forsake their Communion also for otherwise they must have joyned with them in the practice of impieties and seeing they had such cause to separate they presume their separation cannot be Schismatical 36. Yes you reply to forsake the external Communion of them with whom they agree in faith is the most formal and proper sin of Schism Answ Very true but I would fain know wherein I would gladly be informed whether I be bound for fear of Schism to communicate with those that believe as I do only in lawful things or absolutely in every thing whether I am to joyn with them in Superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common profession of the Faith wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it This is that which you would have them do or else forsooth they must be Schismaticks But hereafter I pray remember that there is no necessity of communicating even with true Believers in wicked actions Nay that there is a necessity herein to separate from them And then I dare say even you being their judge the reasonableness of their cause to separate shall according to my first observation justifie their separation from being Schismatical 37. Arg. But the property of Schism according to D. Potter is to cut off from the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates And these Protestants have this property therefore they are Schismaticks 38. Ans I deny the Syllogism it is no better than this One Smptom of the Plague is a Feaver but such a man hath a Feaver therefore he hath the Plague The true conclusion which issues out of these Premisses should be this Therefore he hath one Symptom of the plague And so likewise in the former therefore they have one property or one quality of Schismaticks And as in the former instance The man that hath one sign of the plague may by reason of the absence of other requisites not have the plague So these Protestants may have something of Schismaticks and yet not be Schismaticks A Tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure and a just judge that condemns a malefactor do both sentence a man to death and so for the matter do both the same thing yet the one does wickedly the other justly What 's the reason because the one hath cause the other hath not In like manner Schismaticks either always or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate The same do these Protestants yet are not Schismaticks The Reason because Schismaticks do it and do it without cause and Protestants have cause for what they do The impieties of your Church being generally speaking damnable unless where they are excused by ignorance and expiated at least by a general repentance In fine though perhaps it may be true that all Schismaticks do so yet universal affirmatives are not converted and therefore it follows not by any good Logick that all that do so when there is just cause for it must be Schismaticks The cause in this matter of separation is all in all and that for ought I see you never think of But if these rigid Protestants have just cause to cut off your Church from the hope of salvation How can the milder sort allow hope of salvation to the Members of this Church Ans Distinguish the quality of the Persons censured and this seeming repugnance of their censures will vanish into nothing For your Church may be considered either in regard of those in whom either negligence or pride or worldly fear or hopes or some other voluntary sin is the cause of their ignorance which I fear is the case of the generality of men amongst you or in regard of those who owe their Errors from Truth to want of capacity or default of instruction either in respect of those that might know the truth and will not or of those who would know the truth but all things considered cannot In respect of those that have eyes to see and will not see or those that would gladly see but want eyes or light Consider the former sort of men which your more rigid censures seem especially to reflect upon and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy Consider the latter and the mildest will not be too mild So that here is no difference but in words only neither are you flattered by the one nor uncharitably censured by the other 39. Your next blow is directed against the milder sort of Protestants who you say involve themselves in the sin of Schism by communicating with those as you call them exterminating Spirits whom you conceive your self to have proved Schismaticks And now load them further with the crime of Heresie For say you if you held your selves obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errors which yet you confess were not fundamental shall it not be much more damnable to live in confraternity with these who defend an Error of the failing of the Church which in the Donatists you confess to have been properly Heretical 40. Ans You mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you only or principally by reason of your Errors and Corruption For the true reason according to my third observation is not so much because you maintain Errors and Corruptions
or any way noxious But that no Church may hope to be secure from all Error simply for this were indeed truly to triumph over all But then we say not that the Communion of any Church is to be forsaken for Errors unfundamental unless it exact with all either a dissimulation of them being noxious or a Profession of them against the dictate of Conscience if they be meer Errors This if the Church does as certainly yours doth then her Communion is to be forsaken rather than the sin of Hypocrisie to be committed Whereas to forsake the Churches of Protestants for such Errors there is no necessity because they Err to themselves and do not under pain of Excommunication exact the profession of their Errors 68. Obj. But the Church may not be left by reason of sin therefore neither by reason of Errors not Fundamental in as much as both sin and Error are impossible to be avoided till she be in Heaven Answ The reason of the consequence does not appear to me But I answer to the Antecedent Neither for sin or Errors ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and joyn them but if she do as the Roman does then we must forsake men rather than God leave the Churches Communion rather than commit sin or profess known Errors to be Divine truths For the Prophet Ezekiel hath assured us that to say the Lord hath said so when the Lord hath not said so is a great sin and a high presumption be the matter never so small 69. Ad § 23. Obj. But neither the Quality nor the number of your Churches Errors could warrant our forsaking of it Not the Quality because we suppose them not Fundamental Not the number because the Foundation is strong enough to support them Answ Here again you vainly suppose that we conceive your Errors in themselves not damnable Though we hope they are not absolutely unpardonable but to say they are pardonable is indeed to suppose them damnable Secondly though the Errors of your Church did not warrant our departure yet your Tyrannous imposition of them would be our sufficient justification For this lays necessity on us either to forsake your company or to profess what we know to be false 70. Obj. Our Blessed Saviour hath declared his Will that we forgive a private offender Seventy Seven times that is without limitation of quantity of time or quality of Trespasses and then how dare we alledge his command that we must not pardon his Church for Errors acknowledged to be not Fundamental Answ He that commands us to pardon our Brother sinning against us so often will not allow us for his sake to sin with him so much as once He will have us do any thing but sin rather than offend any man But his will is also that we offend all the World rather than sin in the least matter And therefore though his will were and it were in our power which yet is false to pardon the Errors of an Erring Church yet certainly it is not his will that we should Err with the Church or if we do not that we should against Conscience profess the Errors of it 71. Ad § 24. Obj. But Schismaticks from the Church of England or any other Church with this very Answer that they forsake not the Church but the Errors of it may cast off from themselves the imputation of Schism Answ True they may make the same Answer and the same defence as we do as a Murtherer can cry not guilty as well as an Innocent person but not so truly nor so justly The question is not what may be pretended but what can be proved by Schismaticks They may object Errors to other Churches as well as we do to yours but that they prove their accusation so strongly as we can that appears not To the Priests and Elders of the Jews imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles S. Peter and S. John answered they must obey God rather than men The three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer Give me now any factious Hypocrite who makes Religion the pretence and Cloke of his Rebellion and who sees not that such a one may answer for himself in those very formal words which the Holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of And yet I presume no Christian will deny but this answer was good in the mouth of the Apostles and Martyrs though it were obnoxious to be used by Traitors and Rebels Certainly therefore it is no good consequence to say Schismaticks may make use of this Answer therefore all that do make use of it are Schismaticks But moreover it is to be observed that the cheif part of our defence that you deny your Communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your Doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grant their Communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered 72. Obj. But the forsaking the Roman Church opens a way to innumerable Sects and Schisms and therefore it must not be forsaken Answ We must not do evil to avoid evil neither are all courses presently lawful by which inconveniencies may be avoided If all men would submit themselves to the chief Mufty of the Turks it is apparent there would be no divisions yet Unity is not to be purchased at so dear a rate It were a thing much to be desired that there were no divisions yet difference of opinions touching points controverted is rather to be chosen than unanimous concord in damned Errors As it is better for men to go to Heaven by diverse ways or rather by divers Paths of the same way than in the same path to go on peaceably to Hell Amica Pax magis amica Veritas Peace is dear to me but Truth is dearer 74. Ad § 26.27 Here you make D. Potter to say that Protestants did well to forsake the Church of Rome because they judged she retained all means necessary to Salvation Answ Who was ever so stupid as to give this ridiculous reason D. Potter Vindicates Protestants for Schism two ways The one is because they had just and great and necessary cause to separate which Schismaticks never have because they that have it are no Schismaticks For Schism is always a causeless separation The other is because they did not joyn with their separation an uncharitable damning of all those from whom they did divide themselves as the manner of Schismaticks is Now that which he intends for a circumstance of our separation you make him make the cause of it and the motive to it And whereas he says though we separate from you in some things yet we acknowledge your Church a member of the Body of Christ and therefore are not Schismaticks You make him say most absurdly we did well to forsake you because we judged you a member of the Body of Christ
and did no more than Papists are bound to justifie what several Popes have said and done c. 5.112 M. They may be members of the Catholick Church that are not united in external Communion c. 5.9 The Protestant Doctrin of Merit explained c. 4.35 36. The Authors Motives to change his Religions with Answers to them Pref. 42.43 The Faith of Papists resolved at last into the Motives of Credibility c. 2.154 The Mischiefs that followed the Reformation not imputable to it c. 5.92 N. What make points necessary to be believed c. 4.4 11. No more is necessary to be believed by us than by the Apostles c. 4.67 70 71 72. Papists make many things necessary to salvation which God never made so c. 7.7 All necessary points of Faith are contained in the Creed c. 4.73 74. Why some points not so necessary were put into the Creed c. 4.75 76. Protestants may agree in necessary points though they may overvalue some things they hold c. 7.34 To impose a necessity of professing known errors and practising known corruptions is a just cause of separation c. 5.31 36 40 50 59 60 68 69. O. A blind obedience is not due to Ecclesiastical decisions though our practise must be determined by the sentence of superiours in doubtful cases c. 5.110 A probable opinion may be followed according to the Roman Doctors though it be not the safest way for avoiding sin c. 7 8. Optatus's saying impertinently urged against Protestants c. 5.99 100. Though we receive Ordination and Scripture from a false Church yet we may be a true Church c. 6.54 P. Whether Papists or Protestants most hazard their souls on probabilities c. 4.57 What we believe concerning the Perpetuity of the Visible Church Ans Pref. 18. Whether 1 Tim. 3.15 The Pillar and ground of Truth belong to Timothy or to the Church c. 3.76 If those words belong to the Church whether they may not signifie her duty and yet that she may err in neglecting it c. 3.77 A possibility of being deceived argues not an uncertainty in all we believe c. 3.26 50 c. 5.107 c. 6.47 By joyning in the Prayers of the Roman Church we must joyn in her unlawful practices c. 3.11 Preaching of the Word and administring the Sacrament how they are inseparable notes of the Church and how they make it visible c. 5.19 Private Spirit how we are to understand it c. 2.110 Private Spirit is not appealed to i. e. to dictates pretending to come from Gods spirit when Controversies are referred to Scripture c. 2.110 Whether one is left to his private spirit reason and discourse by denying the Churches infallibility and the harm of it Pref. 12 13. c. 2.110 A mans private judgment may be opposed to the publick when Reason and Scripture warrant him c. 5.109 A probable opinion according to the Roman Doctors may be followed though it is not the safest way for avoiding sin c. 7.8 It 's hard for Papists to resolve what is a sufficient proposal of the Church c. 3.54 Protestants are on the surer side for avoiding sin and Papists on the more dangerous side to commit sin shewed in instances c. 7.9 R. Every man by Reason must judge both of Scripture and the Church c. 2.111 112 113 118 120 122. Reason and judgment of discretion is not to be reproached for the private spirit c. 2.110 If men must not follow their Reason what they are to follow c. 2.114 115. Some kind of Reformation may be so necessary as to justifie separation from a corrupt Church though every pretence of reformation will not c. 5.53 Nothing is more against Religion than using violence to introduce it c. 5.96 The Religion of Protestants which is the belief of the Bible a wiser and safer way than that of the Roman Church shewed at large c. 6. from 56. to 72. Inclus All Protestants require Repentance to remission of sins and remission of sins to Justification c. 7.31 No Revelations known to be so may be rejected as not Fundamental c. 4.11 A Divine revelation may be ignorantly disbelieved by a Church and yet it may continue a Church c. 3.20 Things equally revealed may not be so to several persons c. 3.24 Papists cannot have Reverence for the Scripture whilst they advance so many things contrary to it c. 2.1 No argument of their reverence to it that they have preserved it intire c. 2.2 The Roman Church when Luther separated was not the visible Church though a visible Church and part of the Catholick c. 5.26 27. The present Roman Church has lost all Authority to recommend what we are to believe in Religion c. 2.101 The properties of a perfect Rule c. 2.5.6 7. Whether the Popish Rule of Fundamentals or ours is the safest c. 4.63 S. Right administration of Sacraments uncertain in the Roman Church c. 2. from 63. to 68. inclusive In what sense Salvation may be had in the Roman Church Ans Pref. 5 7. Salvation depends upon great uncertainties in the Roman Church c. 2. from 63. to 73. inclus Schisms whence they chiefly arise and what continues them c. 4.17 Schism may be a Division of the Church as well as from it c. 5.22 He may be no Schismatick that forsakes a Church for Errors not damnable Ans Pref. 2. No Schism to leave a corrupted Church when otherwise we must communicate in her corruptions c. 5.25 Not every separation from the external Communion of the Church but a causeless one is the sin of Schism c. 5.30 They may not be Schismaticks that continue the separation from Rome though Luther that began it had been a Schismatick c. 5.4 c. 6.14 The Scripture cannot be duly reverenced by Papists c. 2. n. 1. The Scripture how proved to be the word of God c. 4.53 The Divine Authority of the Scripture may be certain though it be not self-evidently certain that it is Gods word c. 6.51 Books of Scripture now held for Canonical which the Roman Church formerly rejected c. 2.90 91. Whether some Books of Scripture defined for Canonical were not afterward rejected c. 3.29 The Scripture in things necessary is intelligible to learned and unlearned c. 2.104 105 106. Some Books of Scripture questioned by the Fathers as well as by Protestants c. 2.34 The Scripture has great Authority from internal Arguments c. 2.47 The Truth of Scripture inspiration depends not on the authority of the Roman Church Pref. 14. c. 6.45 If the Scriptures contain all necessary truths Popery is confuted Pref. 30. to 38. inclusive The true meaning of Scripture not uncertain in necessary points c. 2.84 A determinate sense of obscure places of Scripture is not needful c. 2.127 150. The sense of plain places of Scripture may be known by the same means by which the Papists know the sence of those places that prove the Church c. 2.150 151. God may give means to the Church to know the true sense of Scripture yet it is not necessary it should have that sense c. 2.93 It
diligence to find the truth do yet miss of it and fall into Error there is no danger in it They that Err and they that do not Err may both be saved So that those places which contain things necessary and wherein Error were dangerous need no Infallible interpreter because they are plain and those that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary neither is Error in them dangerous The Law-maker speaking in the Law I grant it is no more easily understood than the Law it self for his Speech is nothing else but the Law I grant it very necessary that besides the Law-maker speaking in the Law there should be other Judges to determine Civil and Criminal Controversies and to give every man that Justice which the Law allows him But your Argument drawn from hence to shew a necessity of a visible Judge in Controversies of Religion I say is Sophistical and that for many Reasons 14. First Because the variety of Civil cases is infinite and therefore there cannot be possibly Laws enough provided for the determination of them and therefore there must be a Judge to supply out of the Principles of Reason the interpretation of the Law where it is defective But the Scripture we say is a perfect Rule of Faith and therefore needs no supply of the defects of it 15. Secondly To execute the Letter of the Law according to rigour would be many times unjust and therefore there is need of a Judge to moderate it whereof in Religion there is no use at all 16. Thirdly In Civil and Criminal causes the parties have for the most part so much interest and very often so little honesty that they will not submit to a Law though never so plain if it be against them or will not see it to be against them though it be so never so plainly whereas if men were honest and the Law were plain and extended to all cases there would be little need of Judges Now in matters of Religion when the Question is whether every man be a fit Judge and chooser for himself we suppose men honest and such as understand the difference between a Moment and Eternity And such men we conceive will think it highly concerns them to be of the true Religion but nothing at all that this or that Religion should be the true And then we suppose that all the necessary points of Religion are plain and easie and consequently every man in this cause to be a competent Judge for himself because it concerns himself to judge right as much as Eternal happiness is worth And if through his own default he judge amiss he alone shall suffer for it 17. Fourthly in Civil Controversies we are obliged only to external passive obedience and not to an internal and active We are bound to obey the Sentence of the Judge or not to resist it but not always to believe it just But in matters of Religion such a Judge is required whom we should be obliged to believe to have judged right So that in Civil Controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a Judge But in Religion none but he that is infallible 18. Fifthly in Civil Causes there is means and power when the Judge has decreed to compel men to obey his Sentence otherwise I believe Laws alone would be to as much purpose for the ending of differences as Laws and Judges both But all the Power in the World is neither fit to convince nor able to compel a mans Conscience to consent to any thing Worldly terror may prevail so far as to make men profess a Religion which they believe not such men I mean who know not that there is a Heaven provided for Martyrs and a Hell for those that dissemble such truths as are necessary to be professed But to force either any man to believe what he believes not or any honest man to dissemble what he does believe if God commands him to profess it or to profess what he does not believe all the Powers in the World are too weak with all the Powers of Hell to assist them 19. Sixthly in Civil Controversies the case cannot be so put but there may be a Judge to end it who is not a party In Controversies of Religion it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the Judge must be a party For this must be the first whether he be a Judge or no and in that he must be a party Sure I am the Pope in the Controversies of our time is a chief party for it highly concerns him even as much as his Popedom is worth not to yield any one point of his Religion to be Erroneous And he is a man subject to like passions with other men And therefore we may justly decline his Sentence for fear temporal respects should either blind his judgment or make him pronounce against it 20. Seventhly in Civil Controversies it is impossible Titius should hold the land in question and Sempronius too and therefore either the Plantiff must injure the Defendant by disquieting his possession or the Defendant wrong the Plantiff by keeping his right from him But in Controversies of Religion the Case is otherwise I may hold my Opinion and do you no wrong and you yours and do me none Nay we may both of us hold our Opinion and yet do our selves no harm provided the difference be not touching any thing necessary to Salvation and that we love truth so well as to be diligent to inform our Conscience and constant in following it 21. Eightly For the ending of Civil Controversies who does not see it is absolutely necessary that not only Judges should be appointed but that it should be known and unquestioned who they are Thus all the Judges of our Land are known men known to be Judges and no man can doubt or question but these are the Men. Otherwise if it were a disputable thing who were these Judges and they had no certain warrant for their Authority but only some Topical congruities would not any man say such Judges in all likelihood would rather multiply Controversies then end them 22. Ninthly and lastly For the deciding of Civil Controversies men may appoint themselves a judge But in matters of Religion this office may be given to none but whom God hath designed for it who doth not always give us those things which we conceive most expedient for our selves 23. So likewise if our Saviour the King of Heaven had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some Visible Judge finally determined who can doubt but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter He would have said plainly The Bishop of Rome I have appointed to decide all emergent Controversies For that our Saviour designed the Bishop of Rome to this Office and yet would not say so nor cause it to be written ad Rei memoriam by any of the Evangelists or Apostles so much as once but leave it to
It seems then the Faith and consequently the Salvation of Protestants relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds 63. I HIL 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 Moore 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 be 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 not Distracted at the administration of the Sacrament nor out 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 Moore 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 Priest even until he comes to the very Fountain of Priesthood For take any one in the whole train and succession of Ordainers and suppose him by reason of any defect only a supposed and not a true Priest then according to your Doctrine he could not give a true but only a supposed Priesthood and they that receive it of him and again they that derive it from them can give no better than they received receiving nothing but a name and shadow can give nothing but a name and shadow and so from Age to Age from Generation to Generation being equivocal Fathers beget only equivocal Sons No Principle in Geometry being more certain than this That the unsuppliable defect of any necessary Antecedent must needs cause a nullity of all those Consequences which depend upon it In fine to know this one thing you must first know Ten Thousand others whereof not any one is a thing that can be known there being no necessity that it should be true which only can qualifie any thing for an Object of Science but only at the best a high degree of probability that it is so But then that of Ten Thousand probables no one should be false that of Ten Thousand requisites whereof any one may fail not one should be wanting this to me is extremely improbable and even Cousin-german to Impossible So that the assurance hereof is like a Machine composed of an innumerable multitude of pieces of which it is strangely unlikely but some will be out of order and yet if any one be so the whole Fabrick of necessity falls to the ground And he that shall put together and maturely consider all the possible ways of lapsing and nullifying a Priesthood in the Church of Rome I believe will be very inclinable to think that it is an hundred to one that amongst a hundred seeming Priests there is not one true one Nay that it is not a thing very improbable that amongst those many millions which make up the Romish Hierarchy there are not twenty true But be the truth in this what it will be once this is certain that They which makes mens Salvation as you do depend upon Priestly Absolution and this again as you do upon the Truth and reality of the Priesthood that gives it and this lastly upon a great multitude of apparent uncertainties are not the fittest men in the World to object to others as a horrible crime That they make mens Salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain Foundations And let this be the first retortion of your Argument 68. But suppose this difficulty assoiled and that an Angel from Heaven should ascertain you for other assurances you can have none that the Person you make use of is a true Priest and a competent Minister of the Sacrament of Pennance yet still the doubt will remain whether he will do you that good which he can do whether he will pronounce the absolving words with intent to absolve you For perhaps he may bear you some secret malice and project to himself your damnation for a compleat Italian revenge Parhaps as the tale is of a Priest that was lately burnt in France he may upon some conditions have compacted with the Devil to give no Sacraments with Intention Lastly he may be for ought you can possibly know a secret Jew or Moor or Anti-Trinitarian or perhaps such a one as is so far from intending your forgiveness of sins and Salvation by this Sacrament that in his heart he laughs at all these things and thinks Sin nothing and Salvation a word All these doubts you must have clearly resolved which can hardly be done but by another Revelation before you can upon good grounds assure your self that your true Priest gives you true and effectual absolution So that when you have done as much as God requires for your Salvation yet can you by no means be secure but that you may have the ill luck to be Damned which is to make Salvation a matter of chance and not of choice and which a man may fail of not only by an ill life but by ill Fortune Verily a most comfortable Doctrine for a considering man lying upon Death bed who either feels or fears that his repentance is but attrition only and not contrition and consequently believes that if he be not absolved really by a
Catalogue of Fundamentals And therefore if this be all your reason to demand a particular Catalogue of Fundamentals we cannot but think your demand unreasonable Especially having your self expressed the cause of the difficulty of it and that is Because Scripture doth deliver Divine Truths but seldom qualifies them or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to Salvation Yet not so seldom but that out of it I could give you an abstract of the Essential parts of Christianity if it were necessary but I have shewed it not so by confuting your reason pretended for the necessity of it and at this time I have no leisure to do you courtesies that are so troublesom to my self Yet thus much I will promise that when you deliver a particular Catalogue of your Church Proposals with one hand you shall receive a particular Catalogue of what I conceive Fundamental with the other For as yet I see no such fair proceeding as you talk of nor any performance on your own part of that which so clamorously you require on ours For as for the Catalogue which here you have given us in saying You are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholick visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God it is like a covey of one Patridg or a flock of one sheep or a Fleet composed of one Ship or an Army of one man The Author of Charity Mistaken demands a particular Cataloge of Fundamental points And We say you again and again demand such a Catalogue And surely if this one Proposition which here you think to stop our mouths with be a Catalogue yet at least such a Catalogue it is not and therefore as yet you have not performed what you require For if to set down such a Proposition wherein are comprized all points taught by us to be necessary to Salvation will serve you instead of a Catalogue you shall have Catalogues enough As we are obliged to believe all under pain of damnation which God commands us to believe There 's one Catalogue We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe all whereof we may be sufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church There 's another We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe Gods Word and all contained in it to be true There 's a third If these generalities will not satisfie you but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular what they are which Christ taught his Apostles and his Apostles the Church what points are contained in Gods Word Then I beseech you do us reason and give us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church Proposals without leaving out or adding any such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to and if you receive not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals I for my part will give you leave to proclaim us Banckrupts 54. Besides this deceitful generality of your Catalogue as you call it another main fault we find with it that it is extreamly ambiguous and therefore to draw you out of the Clouds give me leave to propose some Questions to you concerning it I would know therefore whether by believing you mean explicitely or implicitely If you mean implicitely I would know whether your Churches infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely or no Whether any one point or points besides this be under the same penalty to be believed explicitely or no And if any what they be I would know what you esteem the Proposals of the Catholick Visible Church In particular whether the Decree of a Pope ex Cathedra that is with an intent to oblige all Christians by it be a sufficient and an obliging proposal Whether men without danger of damnation may examine such a Decree and if they think they have just cause refuse to obey it Whether the Decree of a Council without the Popes confirmation be such an obliging Proposal or no Whether it be so in case there be no Pope or in case it be doubtful who is Pope Whether the Decree of a general Council confirmed by the Pope be such a Proposal and whether he be an Heretick that thinks otherwise Whether the Decree of a particular Council confirmed by the Pope be such a Proposal Whether the General uncondemned practice of the Church for some Ages be such a sufficient Proposition Whether the consent of the most eminent Fathers of any Age agreeing in the affirmation of any Doctrine not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries be a sufficient Proposition Whether the Fathers testifying such or such a Doctrine or Practice to be Tradition or to be the Doctrine or Practice of the Church be a sufficient assurance that it is so Whether we be bound under pain of damnation to believe every Text of the Vulgar Bible now Authorized by the Roman Church to be the true Translation of the Originals of the Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles without any the least alteration Whether they that lived when the Bible of Sixtus was set forth were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that And if not of that of what Bible they were bound to believe it Whether the Catholick Visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome Whether every Christian that hath ability and opportunity be not bound to endeavour to know Explicitely the Proposals of the Church Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity will not save him that Actually and Explicitely disbelieves some Doctrine of the Church not knowing it to be so and Actually believes some damnable Heresie as that God has the shape of a man Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church when his Priest or Ghostly Father assures him it is so Whether his Ghostly Father may not Err in telling him so and whether any man can be obliged under pain of damnation to believe an Error Whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined when a number of Priests perhaps Ten or Twenty tell him it is so And what assurance he can have that they neither Err nor deceive him in this matter Why Implicite Faith in Christ or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans Salvation as well as implicite Faith in the Church Whether when you say Whatsoever the Church proposeth you mean all that ever she proposed or that only which she now proposeth and whether she now proposeth all that ever she did propose Whether all the Books of Canonical Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so and proposed as such by the Apostles And if not from whom the Church had this declaration afterwards If so whether all men ever since the Apostles time were bound under pain of damnation to believe the Epistle of S. James and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonical at least not to disbelieve it and believe the
the Assumption of the Mother of God c. Others again mince and palliate the matter with this pretence that your Church undertakes not to coyn new Articles of Faith but only to declare those that want sufficient declaration But if sufficient declaration be necessary to make any Doctrin an Article of Faith then this Doctrin which before wanted it was not before an Article of Faith and your Church by giving it the Essential form and last complement of an Article of Faith makes it though not a Truth yet certainly an Article of Faith But I would fain know whether Christ and his Apostles knew this Doctrin which you pretend hath the matter but wants the form of an Article of Faith that is sufficient declaration whether they knew it to be a necessary Article of the Faith or no! If they knew it not to be so then either they taught what they knew not which were very strange or else they taught it not and if not I would gladly be informed seeing you pretend to no new Revelations from whom you learnt it If they knew it then either they concealed or declared it To say they concealed any necessary part of the Gospel is to charge them with far greater Sacriledg than what was punished in Ananias and Saphira It is to charge these glorious Stewards and dispensers of the Mysteries of Christ with want of the great vertue requisite in a Steward which is Fidelity It is to charge them with presumption for denouncing Anathema's even to Angels in case they should teach any other doctrin than what they had received from them which sure could not merit an Anathema if they left any necessary part of the Gospel untaught It is in a word in plain terms to give them the lie seeing they profess plainly and frequently that they taught Christians the whole Doctrin of Christ If they did know and declare it then was it a full and formal Article of Faith and the contrary a full and formal Heresie without any need of further declaration and then their Successors either continued the declaration of it or discontinued If they did the latter how are they such faithful depositaries of Apostolick Doctrin as you pretend Or what assurance can you give us that they might not bring in new and false Articles as well as suffer the old and true ones to be lost If they did continue the declaration of it and deliver it to their Successors and they to theirs and so on perpetually then continued it still a full and formal Article of faith and the repugnant doctrin a full and formal Heresie without and before the definition or declaration of a Council So that Councils as they cannot make that a truth or falshood which before was not so so neither can they make or declare that to be an Article of Faith or an Heresie which before was not so The supposition therefore on which this argument stands being false and ruinous whatsoever is built upon it must together with it fall to the ground This explication therefore and restriction of this doctrin whereof you make your advantage was to my understanding unnecessary The Fathers of the Church in after times might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sense of some general Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all Ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some Ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Council though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake 20. Ad § 7.8 9. I come now to shew that you also have requited D. Potter with a mutual courteous acknowledgment of his assertion That the Creed is a sufficient summary of all the necessary Articles of Faith which are meerly Credenda 21. First then § 8. You have these words That it cannot be denied that the Creed is most full and compleat to that purpose for which the holy Apostles inspired by God meant that it should serve and in that manner as they did intend it which was not to comprehend all particular points of Faith but such general heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the Faith of Christ to Jews and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easily learnt and remembred These words I say being fairly examined without putting them on the rack will amount to a full acknowledgment of D. Potters Assertion But before I put them to the question I must crave thus much right of you to grant me this most reasonable postulate that the doctrin of repentance from dead works which S. Paul saith was one of the two only things which he preacht and the doctrin of Charity without which the same S. Paul assures us that the knowledge of all mysteries and all faith is nothing were doctrins more necessary and requisite and therefore more fit to be preacht to Jews and Gentiles than these under what judge our Saviour suffered that he was buried and what time he rose again which you have taught us cap. 3. § 2. for their matter and nature in themselves not to be Fundamental 22. And upon this grant I will ask no leave to conclude that whereas you say the Apostles Creed was intended for a comprehension of such heads of faith as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith of Christ c. You are now for fear of too much debasing those high doctrines as Repentance and Charity to restrain your assertion as D. Potter does his and though you speak indefinitely to say you meant it only of those heads of faith which are meerly Credenda And then the meaning of it if it have any must be this That the Creed is full for the Apostles intent which was to comprehend all such general heads of faith which being points of simple belief were most fit and requisite to be preached to Jews and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easily learned and remembred Neither I nor you I believe can make any other sence of your words than this And upon this ground thus I subsume But all the points of belief which were necessary under pain of damnation for the Apostles to preach and for those to whom the Gospel was preached particularly to know and believe were most fit and requisite nay more than so necessary to be preached to all both Jews and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easie learn'd and remembred therefore the Apostles intent by your confession was in this Creed to comprehend all such points And you say the
Take it which way you will this conclusion will certainly follow That either all that which S. John wrote in his Gospel or less than 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 has in his Book the whole substance all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ But for Saint 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 heen 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 does 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 does 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 principal and most necessary things which Jesus taught 12. And lastly whether many things which S. Luke has 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 choose 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 justify 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 he excludes from the universality here spoken of the denyers 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 And therefore it was a great fault in you either willingly to conceal these words which evacuate your objection or else negligently to oversee them 46. Now for the foul Contradiction wherein I pray does it lie In supposing say you a man may believe all Truths necessary to salvation and yet superinduce a damnable Heresie I answer It is not certain that his words do suppose this neither if they do does he contradict himself I say it is not certain that his words import any such matter For ordinarily men use to speak and write so as here he does when they intend not to limit or restrain but only to repeat and press and illustrate what they have said before S. Athanasius in his Creed tells us The Catholick Faith is this that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance and why now do you not tell him that he contradicts himself and supposes that we may worship a Trinity of Persons and one God in substance and yet confound the Persons or divide the Substance which yet is impossible because Three remaining Three cannot be confounded and One remaining One cannot be divided If a man should say unto you he that keeps all the Commandments of God committing no sin either against the love of God or the love of his neighbour is a perfect man Or thus he that will live in constant health had need be exact in his diet neither eating too much nor too little Or thus he that will come to London must go on straight forward in such a way und neither turn to the right hand or to the left I verily believe you would not find any contradiction in his words but confess them as coherent and consonant as any in your Book And certainly if you would look upon this saying of the Bishop with any indifference you
Creed without the former can be possibly guarded from falling into them and continuing obstinate in them Nay so far is this Creed from guarding them from these mischiefs that it is more likely to ensnare them into them by seeming and yet not being a full comprehension of all necessary points of Faith which is apt as experience shews to misguide men into this pernitious error That believing the Creed they believe all necessary points of faith whereas indeed they do not so Now upon these grounds I thus conclude That Creed which hath great commodities and no danger would certainly be better then that which hath great danger and wants many of these great commodities But the former short Creed proposed by me I believe the Roman Church to be Infallible if your doctrin be true is of the former condition and the latter that is the Apostles Creed is of the latter Therefore the former if your doctrin be true would without controversie be better than the latter 83. Whereas you say If the Apostles had exprest no Article but that of the Catholick Church she must have taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other means This is very true but no way repugnant to the truth of this which follows that the Apostles if your doctrin be true had done better service to the Church though they had never made this Creed of theirs which now we have if instead thereof they had commanded in plain terms that for mens perpetual direction in the faith this short Creed should be taught all men I believe the Roman Church shall be for ever Infallible Yet you must not so mistake me as if I meant that they had done better not to have taught the Church the substance of Christian Religion for then the Church not having learnt it of them could not have taught it us This therefore I do not say but supposing they had written these Scriptures as they have written wherein all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that Doctrin which they did preach and done all other things as they have done besides the composing their Symbol I say if your doctrin were true they had done a work infinitely more beneficial to the Church of Christ if they had never composed their Symbol which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple belief and no distinctive mark as a Symbole should be between those that are good Christians and those that are not so but instead thereof had delivered this one Proposition which would have been certainly effectual for all the aforesaid good intents and purposes The Roman Church shall be forever Infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of Faith 84. Whereas you say If we will believe we have all in the Creed when we have not all it is not the Apostles fault but our own I tell you plainly if it be a fault I know not whose it should be but theirs For sure it can be no fault in me to follow such Guides whether soever they lead me Now I say they have led me into this perswasion because they have given me great reason to believe it and none to the contrary The reason they have given me to believe it is because it is apparent and confest they did propose to themselves in composing it some good end or ends As that Christians might have a form by which for matter of Faith they might profess themselves Catholicks So Putean out of Thomas Aquinas That the faithful might know what the Christian people is to believe explicitly So Vincent Filiucius That being separated into divers parts of the world they might preach the same thing And that that might serve as a mark to distinguish true Christians from Infidels So Cardinal Richlieu Now for all these and for any other good intent I say it will be plainly uneffectual unless it contain at least all points of simple belief which are in ordinary course necessary to be explicitly known by all men So that if it be a fault in me to believe this it must be my fault to believe the Apostles wise and good men which I cannot do if I believe not this And therefore what Richardus de sancto Victore says of God himself I make no scruple at all to apply to the Apostles and to say Si error est quod credo à vobis deceptus sum If it be an Error which I believe it is you and my reverend esteem of you and your actions that hath led me into it For as for your suspicion That we are led into this perswasion out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own It is plainly uncharitable I know no opinion I have which I would not as willingly forsake as keep if I could see sufficient reason to induce me to believe that it is the will of God I should forsake it Neither do I know any opinion I hold against the Church of Rome but I have more evident grounds than this whereupon to build it For let but these Truths be granted That the authority of the Scripture is independent on your Church and dependent only in respect of us upon universal Tradition That Scripture is the only Rule of Faith That all things necessary to salvation are plainly delivered in Scripture Let I say these most certain and divine Truths be laid for foundations and let our superstructions be consequent and coherent to them and I am confident Peace would be restored and Truth maintained against you though the Apostles Creed were not in the world CHAP. V. The ANSWER to the Fifth CHAPTER Shewing that the separation of Protestants from the Roman Church being upon just and necessary causes is not any way guilty of Schism 1. AD § 1.2 3 4 5 6 7. In the seven first Sections of this Chapter there be many things said and many things supposed by you which are untrue and deserve a censure As 2. First That Schism could not be a Division from the Church or that a Division from the Church could not happen unless there always had been and should be a visible Church Which Assertion is a manifest falsehood For although there never had been any Church Visible or Invisible before this age nor should be ever after yet this could not hinder but that a Schism might now be and be a Division from the present Visible Church As though in France there never had been until now a lawful Monarch nor after him ever should be yet this hinders not but that now there might be a Rebellion and that Rebellion might be an Insurrection against Sovereign Authority 3. That it is a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath been a visible Congregation of faithful people Which Proposition howsoever you understand it is not absolutely certain But if you mean by Faithful as it is plain you do free from all error in faith then
you know all Protestants with one consent affirm it to be false and therefore without proof to take it for granted is to beg the Question 4. That supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church were guilty of Schism it is certainly consequent that all who persist in this division must be so likewise Which is not so certain as you pretend For they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state Civil or Ecclesiastical do commit a great fault whereof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former state when continuance of time hath once setled the present Thus have I known some of your own Church condemn the Low-country-men who first revolted from the King of Spain of the sin of Rebellion yet absolve them from it who now being of your Religion there are yet faithful maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the King of Spain 5. That all those which a Christian is to esteem neighbors do concur to make one company which is the Church Which is false for a Christian is to esteem those his neighbors who are not members of the true Church 6. That all the members of the Visible Church are by charity united into one Mystical body Which is manifestly untrue for many of them have no Charity 7. That the Catholick Church signifies one company of faithful people which is repugnant to your own grounds For you require not true faith but only the Profession of it to make men members of the Visible Church 8. That every Heretick is a Schismatick Which you must acknowledge false in those who though they deny or doubt of some point professed by your Church and so are Hereticks yet continue still in the Communion of the Church 9. That all the members of the Catholick Church must of necessity be united in external Communion Which though it were much to be desired it were so yet certainly cannot be perpetually true For a man unjustly excommunicated is not in the Churches Communion yet he is still a member of the Church and divers times it hath happened as in the case of Chrisostom and Epiphanius that particular men and particular Churches have upon an overvalued difference either renounced Communion mutually or one of them separated from the other and yet both have continued members of the Catholick Church These things are in those seven Sections either said or supposed by you untruly without all shew or pretence of proof The rest is an impertinent common place wherein Protestants and the cause in hand are absolutely unconcerned And therefore I pass to the eighth Section 10. Ad. § 8. Here you obtrude upon us a double fallacy One in supposing and taking for granted that whatsoever is affirmed by three Fathers must be true whereas your selves make no scruple of condemning many things of falsehood which yet are maintained by more than thrice three Fathers Another in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases Thus the words of S. Austin cap. 11. lib. 2. cont Parm. That there is no necessity to divide Unity are not spoken absolutely that there never is nor can be any necessity to divide Unity which only were for your purpose but only in such a special case as he there sets down That is When good men tolerate bad men which can do them no spiritual hurt to the intent they may not be separated from those who are spiritually good Then saith he there is no necessity to divide Unity Which very words do clearly give us to understand that it may fall out as it doth in our case that we cannot keep Unity with bad men without spiritual hurt i. e. without partaking with them in their impieties and that then there is a necessity to divide Unity from them I mean to break off conjunction with them in their impieties Which that it was S. Austins mind it is most evident out of the 21. c. of the same book where to Parmenian demanding how can a man remain pure being joyned with those that are corrupted He answers Very true this is not possible if he be joyned with them that is if he commit any evil with them or favour them which do commit it But if he do neither of these he is not joyned with them And presently after these two things retained will keep such men pure and uncorrupted that is neither doing ill nor approving it And therefore seeing you impose upon all men of your Communion a necessity of doing or at least approving many things unlawful certainly there lies upon us an unavoidable necessity of dividing Unity either with you or with God and whether of these is rather to be done be ye judges 11. Iraeneus also says not simply which only would do you service there cannot possibly be any so important Reformation as to justifie a Separation from them who will not reform But only they cannot make any corruption so great as is the pernitiousness of a Schism Now They here is a relative and hath an antecedent expressed in Iraeneus which if you had been pleased to take notice of you would easily have seen that what Irenaeus says falls heavy upon the Church of Rome but toucheth Protestants nothing at all For the men he speaks of are such as Propter modicas quaslibet causas for trifling or small causes divide the body of Christ such as speak of peace and make war such as strain at Gnats and swallow Camels And these saith he can make no reformation of any such importance as to countervail the danger of a division Now seeing the causes of our separation from the Church of Rome are as we pretend and are ready to justify because we will not be partakers with her in Superstition Idolatry Impiety and most cruel Tyranny both upon the bodies and souls of men Who can say that the causes of our separation may be justly esteemed Modicae quaelibet causae On the other side seeing the Bishop of Rome who was contemporary to Irenaeus did as much as in him lay cut off from the Churches unity many great Churches for not conforming to him in an indifferent matter upon a difference Non de Catholico dogmate sed de Ritu vel Ritus potiùs tempore not about any Catholick Doctrin but only a Ceremony or rather about the time of observing it so Petavius values it which was just all one as if the Church of France should excommunicate those of their own Religion in England for not keeping Christmas upon the same day with them And seeing he was reprehended sharply and bitterly for it by most of the Bishops of the World as * Euseb hist l. 5. c. 24. Perron Replic l. 3. c. 2. Eusebius testifies and as Cardinal Perron though mincing the matter yet confesseth by this very Irenaeus himself
Church to Communicate in her corruptions Or you suppose her Communion uncorrupted If the former and yet will take for granted that all are Schismaticks that leave her Communion though it be corrupted you beg the Question in your proposition If the latter you beg the Question in your supposition for Protestants you know are Peremptory and Unanimous in the Denial of both these things Both that the Communion of the Visible Church was then uncorrupted And that they are truly Schismaticks who leave the Communion of the Visible Church if corrupted especially if the case be so and Luthers was so that they must either leave her Communion or of necessity Communicate with her in her corruptions 26. Besides although it were granted Schism to leave the external Communion of the Visible Church in what state or case so ever it be and that Luther and his followers were Schismaticks for leaving the external Communion of all Visible Churches yet you fail exceedingly of clearing the other necessary point undertaken by you That the Roman Church was then the Visible Church For neither do Protestants as you mistake make the true preaching of the Word and due administration of the Sacraments the notes of the Visible Church but only of a Visible Church now these you know are very different things the former signifying the Church Catholick or the whole Church the latter a Particular Church or a part of the Catholick And therefore suppose out of courtesie we should grant what by argument you can never evince that your Church had these notes yet would it by no means follow that your Church were the Visible Church but only a Visible Church not the whole Catholick but only a part of it 27. Lastly whereas you say that Protestants must either grant that your Church then was the Visible Church or name some other disagreeing from yours and agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrin or acknowledge there was no Visible Church It is all one as if to use S. Pauls similitude the head should say to the foot either you must grant that I am the whole body or name some other member that is so or confess that there is no body To which the foot might answer I acknowledge there is a body and yet that no member beside you is this body nor yet that you are it but only a part of it And in like manner say we We acknowledge a Church there was corrupted indeed universally but yet such a one as we hope by Gods gracious acceptance was still a Church We pretend not to name any one Society that was this Church and yet we see no reason that can enforce us to confess that yours was the Church but only a part of it and that one of the worst then extant in the World In vain therefore have you troubled your self in proving that we cannot pretend that either the Greeks Waldenses Wickliffites Hussites Muscovites Armenians Georgians Abyssines were then the Visible Church For all this discourse proceeds from a false vain supposition and begs another point in Question between us which is that some Church of one denomination and one Communion as the Roman the Greek c. must be always exclusively to all other Communions the whole Visible Church And though perhaps some weak Protestant having this false principle setled in him that there was to be always some Visible Church of one denomination pure from all error in doctrin might be wrought upon and prevailed with by it to forsake the Church of Protestants yet why it should induce him to go to yours rather than the Greek Church or any other which pretends to perpetual succession as well as yours that I do not understand unless it be for the reason which Aeneas Sylvius gave why more held the Pope above a Council than a Council above the Pope which was because Popes did give Bishopricks and Archbishopricks but Councils gave none and therefore suing in Forma Pauperis were not like to have their cause very well maintained For put the case I should grant of meer favour that there must be always some Church of one Denomination and Communion free from all errors in doctrin and that Protestants had not always such a Church it would follow indeed from thence that I must not be a Protestant But that I must be a Papist certainly it would follow by no better consequence than this if you will leave England you must of necessity go to Rome And yet with this wretched fallacy have I been sometimes abused my self and known many other poor souls seduced not only from their own Church and Religion but unto yours I beseech God to open the eyes of all that love the truth that they may not always be held captive under such miserable delusions 28. Let us come now to the Arguments which you build upon D. Potters own words out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince Protestants of Schism 29. But these reasons will easily be answered if the Reader will take along with him these three short Memorandums 30. First That not every separation but only a causeless separation from the external Communion of any Church is the Sin of Schism 31. Secondly That imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known errors and practising known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation and that this is the cause the Protestants alledge to justifie their separation from which Church of Rome 32. Thirdly That to leave the Church and to leave the external Communion of a Church is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to have those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as faith and obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publick worship of God This Armour if it be rightly placed will repel all those Batteries which you threaten us with all 33. Ad § 13.14 15. The first is a sentence of S. Austin against Donatus applied to Luther thus If the Church perished what Church brought forth Donatus you say Luther If she could not perish what madness moved the sect of Donatus to separate upon pretence to avoid the Communion of bad men Whereunto one fair answer to let pass many others is obvious out of the second observation That this sentence though it were Gospel as it is not is impertinently applied to Luther and Lutherans Whose pretence of separation be it true or be it false was not as that of the Donatists only to avoid the Communion of bad men but to free themselves from a necessity which but by separating was unavoidable of joyning with bad men in their impieties 34. Ad § 16. Your second onset drives only at those Protestants who hold the true Church was invisible for many ages Which Doctrin if by the true Church be understood the pure Church as you do understand it is a certain truth it
cleanse themselves and yet continue parts of the Body And what reason then in the World is there if the whole visible Church were overcome with Tares and Weeds of superstitions and corruptions but that some members of it might reform themselves and yet continue still true members of the Body of the Church and not be made no members but the better by their Reformation 50. We acknowledge that we cannot as matters now stand Separate from your corruptions but we must depart from your External Communion For you have so ordered things that whosoever will Communicate with you at all must Communicate with you in your corruptions But it is you that will not perceive the difference between being a part of the Church and being in external Communion with all the other parts of it taking for granted that which is certainly false that no two men or Churches divided in external Communion can be both true parts of the Catholick Church 51. We are not to learn the difference between Schism and Heresie for Heresie we conceive an obstinate defence of any Error against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith And Schism a causless separation of one part of the Church from another But this we say That if we convince you of Errors and corruptions professed and practised in your Communion then we cannot be Schismaticks for refusing to joyn with you in the profession of these Errors and the practice of these corruptions And therefore you must free your selves from Error or us from Schism 52. Lastly whereas you say That you have demonstrated against us that Protestants divided themselves from the external Communion of the Visible Church add which external communion was corrupted and we shall confess the accusation and glory in it But this is not that Quod erat demonstrandum but that we divided our selves from the Church that is made our selves Out-laws from it and no members of it And moreover in the Reason of your separation from the external Communion of your Church you are mistaken for it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches external Communion was corrupted and needed Reformation 53. That a pretence of Reformation will acquit no man from Schism we grant very willingly and therefore say that it concerns every man who separates from any Churches Communion even as much as his Salvation is worth to look most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For unless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient But whether a true Reformation of our selves from Errors superstitions and impieties will not justifie our separation in these things our separation I say from them who will not reform themselves and as much as in them lies hinder others from doing so This is the point you should have spoken to but have not As for the sentences of the Fathers to which you refer us for the determination of this Question I suppose by what I have said above the Reader understands by alledging them you have gained little credit to your cause or person And that if they were competent Judges of this Controversie their sentence is against you much rather than for you 56. But your Argument you conceive will be more convincing if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct Visible true Churches one Pure the other Corrupted but one Church only Ans The ground of this is no way certain nor here sufficiently proved For whereas you say Histories are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should have read all Histories that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much less extant uncorrupted especially considering your Church which had latly all power in her hands hath been so pernitiously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all Records should remain which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Lastly whereas you say that supposing a visible pure Church Luther must be a Schismatick who separated from all visible Churches I tell you if you will suppose a Visible Church extant before and when Luther arose conformable to him in all points of Doctrine necessary and profitable then Luther separated not from this Church but adjoyned himself to it Not indeed in place which was not necessary not in external Communion which was impossible but by the Union of Faith and Charity Upon these grounds I say that the ground of this Argument is no way made certain yet because it is not manifestly false I am content to let it pass And for ought I see it is very safe for me to do so for you build nothing upon it which I may not fairly grant For what do you conclude from hence but that seeing there was no Visible Church but corrupted Luther forsaking the external Communion of the corrupted Church could not but forsake the external Communion of the Catholick Church Well let this also be granted what will come of it What that Luther must be a Schismatick By no means For not every separation but only a causeless separation from the Communion of the Church we maintain to be Schismatical Hereunto may be added that though the whole Church were corrupted yet properly speaking it is not true that Luther and his Followers forsook the whole corrupted Church or the external Communion of it But only that he forsook that Part of it which was corrupted and still would be so and forsook not but only reformed another Part which Part they themselves were and I suppose you will not go about to persuade us that they forsook themselves or their own Communion And if you urge that they joyned themselves to no other part therefore they separated from the whole I say it follows not in as much as themselves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore could no more separate from the whole than from themselves Thus though there were no part of the People of Rome to whom the Plebeians joyned themselves when they made their Secession into the Aventine Hill yet they divided themselves from the Patricians only and not from the whole People because themselves were a part of this People and they divided not from themselves 57. Ad § 18. Here you prove that which no man denies that corruption in manners yields no sufficient cause to leave the Church yet sure it yields sufficient cause to cast them out of the Church that are after the Churches publick admonition obstinate in notorious impieties Neither doth the cutting off such men from the Church lay any necessity upon us either to go out of the World or out of the Church but rather puts these men out of the Church into the World where we may converse with them freely without scandal to the Church Our Blessed Saviour foretold you say that there should be in the Church Tares with choice
others I hope had Chairs besides S. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatick who against that one single Chair erects another viz. in that place making another Bishop of that Diocess besides him who was lawfully elected to it 100. Obj. But he stiles S. Peter Head of the Apostles and says that from thence he was called Cephas Answ Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a head whereas it is a Syriack word and signifies a Stone Besides S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not have supream Authority over them And indeed that S. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles and yet exercise no one Act of Authority over any one of them and that they should shew to him no sign of subjection methinks is as strange as that a King of England for twenty five years should do no Act of Regality nor receive any one acknowledgment of it As strange methinks it is that you so many Ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to do and that the Apostles after that those words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof S. Peter is pretended to have been made their Head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their Error by telling them S. Peter was the man but rather confirm it by saying the Kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them but it should not be so among them No less a wonder was it that S. Paul should so far forget S. Peter and himself as that first mentioning him often he should do it without any Title of Honour Secondly speaking of the several degrees of men in the Church he should not give S. Peter the highest but place him in equipage with the rest of the Apostles and say God hath appointed not first Peter then the rest of the Apostles but first Apostles secondly Prophets Certainly if the Apostles were all first to me it is very probable that no one of them was before the rest For by First all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sense the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must have been before every one of the rest And therefore they must be First in the other sense And therefore No man and therefore not S. Peter must be before any of them Thirdly and Lastly that speaking of himself in particular and perhaps comparing himself with S. Peter in particular rather than any other he should say in plain terms I am in nothing inferior to the very Chiefest Apostles But besides all this though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but in your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very far from shewing that in the judgment of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much less by Divine right successor to S. Peter in this his Headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say that he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the Government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in his Government of the Church Universal Especially seeing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the Foundations of the Church were to be the Foundations of it and accordingly are so called in Scripture And therefore as in a building it is incongruous that Foundations should succeed Foundations So it may be in the Church that any other Apostle should succeed the first 101. Ad § 37. Obj. What you here cite out of S. Austin if it be applied to Luther's Separation is impertinent For it is one thing to separate from the Communion of the whole World another to separate from 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 manner which was a very great Argument that they could not have just cause to leave them according to that of Tertullian Variasse debuerat 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 Catholicks was divided and subdivided long before he divided from it and by their divisions had much weakened 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. Obj. If Luther were in the right most certain those Protestants that differed from him were in the wrong Answ But that either he or they were Schismaticks it follows not Or if it does then either the Jesuits are Schismaticks from the Dominicans or they from the Jesuites 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 Doctrine there is 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 Schismaticks But the answer to it is that it begs this very false and vain supposition That whosoever Errs in any point of Doctrine is a Schismatick 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 Schismaticks from the Visible Church the Pope the Diocess wherein they were baptized from the Bishop under whom they lived from the Country 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 yesterdays 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 Schismaticks that was the only thing you should have proved and to that you have not urged one reason of any moment All of them for weight and strength were cousin-germans to this pretty device wherewith you will prove them Schismaticks from themselves because the self same Protestant to
or ill Opinion do gather otherwise than they ought For to this Church for a more powerful Principality it is necessary that all Churches resort that is all faithful People undique of what place soever In which Roman Church the Tradition from the Apostles hath always been conserved from those who are undique every where Answ Though at the first hearing the Glorious Attributes here given and that justly to the Church of Rome the confounding Hereticks with her Tradition and saying it is necessary for all Churches to resort to her may sound like Arguments for you yet he that is attentive I hope will easily discover that it might be good and rational in Irenaeus having to do with Hereticks who somewhat like those who would be the only Catholicks declining a tryal by Scripture as not containing the Truth of Christ perfectly and not fit to decide Controversies without recourse to Tradition I say he will easily perceive that it might be rational in Irenaeus to urge them with any Tradition of more credit than their own especially a Tradition consonant to Scripture and even contained in it and yet that it may be irrational in you to urge us who do not decline Scripture but appeal to it as a perfect rule of Faith with a Tradition which we pretend is many ways repugnant to Scripture and repugnant to a Tradition far more general than it self which gives testimony to Scripture and lastly repugnant to it self as giving attestation both to Scripture and to Doctrines plainly contrary to Scripture Secondly that the Authority of the Roman Church was then a far greater Argument of the Truth of her Tradition when it was United with all other Apostolick Churches than now when it is divided from them according to that of Tertullian Had the Churches Erred they would have varied but that which is the same in all cannot be Error but Tradition and therefore though Irenaeus his Argument may be very probable yet yours may be worth nothing Thirdly that fourteen hundred years may have made a great deal of alteration in the Roman Church as Rivers though near the Fountain they may retain their native and unmixt sincerity yet in long Progress cannot but take in much mixture that came not from the Fountain And therefore the Roman Tradition though then pure may now be corrupt and impure and so this Argument being one of those things which are the worse for wearing might in Irenaeus his time be strong and vigorous and after declining and decaying may long since have fallen to nothing Especially considering that Irenaeus plays the Historian only and not the Prophet and says only that the Apostolick Tradition had been always there as in other Apostolick Churches conserved or observed choose you whether but that it should be always so he says not neither had he any warrant He knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the Churches of Christ to Antichrist that the Roman Church in particular was forewarned that she also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles might fall if they look not to their standing and therefore to secure her that she should stand for ever he had no reason nor Authority Fourthly that it appears manifestly out of this Book of Irenaeus quoted by you that the Doctrine of the Chiliasts was in his Judgment Apostolick Tradition as also it was esteemed for ought appears to the contrary by all the Doctors and Saints and Martyrs of or about his time for all that speak of it or whose judgments in the point are any way recorded are for it and Justin Martyr professeth that all good and Orthodox Christians of his time believed it and those that did not he reckons amongst Hereticks Now I demand was this Tradition one of those that was conserved and observed in the Church of Rome or was it not If not had Iraeneus known so much he must have retracted this commendation of that Church If it was then the Tradition of the present Church of Rome contradicts the Ancient and accounts it Heretical and then sure it can be no certain note of Heresie to depart from them who have departed from themselves and prove themselves subject unto error by holding contradictions Fifthly and lastly that out of the Story of the Church it is as manifest as the light at noon that though Iraeneus did esteem the Roman Tradition a great Argument of the Doctrin which he there delivers and defends against the Hereticks of his time viz. that there was one God yet he was very far from thinking that Church was and ever should be a safe keeper and an infallible witness of Tradition in general Inasmuch as in his own life his action proclaimed the contrary For when Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunication and damnation Iraeneus and all the other Western Bishops though agreeing with him in his observation yet sharply reprehended him for Excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their disagreeing plainly shewing that they esteemed that not a necessary doctrin and a sufficient ground of excommunication which the Bishop of Rome and his adherents did so account of For otherwise how could they have reprehended him for excommunicating them had they conceived the cause of his excommunication just and sufficient And besides evidently declaring that they esteemed not separation from the Roman Church a certain mark of Heresie seeing they esteemed not them Hereticks though separated and cut off from the Roman Church 31. Obj. S. Austin saith in Psalm cont partem Donati It grieves us to see you so to lie cut off Number the Priests even from the Sea of Peter and consider in that order of Fathers who succeeded to whom she is the Rock which the proud gates of Hell do not overcome Where he seems to say that the Succession in the Sea of Peter was the Rock which our Saviour means when he said upon this Rock will I build my Church Ans I answer First We have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof because S. Austin himself was not but retracts it as uncertain and leaves to the Reader whether he will think that or another more probable Retr l. 1. c. 26. Secondly what he says of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place he says it elsewhere of all the Successions in all other Apostolick Churches Thirdly that as in this place he urgeth the Donatists with separation from the Roman Church as an argument of their Error So elsewhere he presseth them with their Separation from other Apostolick Churches nay more from these than from that because in Rome the Donatists had a Bishop though not a perpetual Succession of them but in other Apostolick Churches they wanted both These scattered men saith he of the Donatists Epist 165. read in the holy Books the Churches to which the Apostles wrote and have no Bishop in them But what is more perverse and
Erring persons that lead good lives should be judged of charitably c. 7.33 A man may learn of the Church to confute its Errors c. 3.40 We did well to forsake the Roman Church for her Errors though we afterwards may err out of it c. 5.63 64 65 67 87 92. We must not adhere to a Church in professing the least Errors lest we should not profess with her necessary Doctrin c. 3.56 The Examples of those that forsaking Popish Errors have denied necessary Truths no Argument against Protestants c. 3.63 External Communion of a Church may be left without leaving a Church c. 5.32 45 47. F. Whether Faith be destroyed by denying a Truth testified by God Ans Pref. 25. c. 6.49 c. 7.19 The Objects of Faith of two sorts essential and occasional c. 4.3 Certainty of Faith less than the highest degree may please God and save a man c. 1.8 6.3 4 5. Faith less than infallibly certain may resist temptations difficulties c. 6.5 There may be Faith where the Church and its infallibility begets it not c. 2.49 Faith does not go before Scripture but follows its efficacy c. 2.48 Protestants have sufficient means to know the certainty of their Faith c. 2.152 In the Roman Church the last resolution of Faith is into Motives of Credibility c. 2.154 The Fathers declared their Judgment of Articles but did not require their declarations to be received under Anathema c. 4.18 Protestants did not forsake the Church though they forksook its errors c. 3.11 Sufficient Foundation for faith without infallible certainty c. 6.6 45. What Protestants mean by Fundamental Doctrins c. 4.52 In what sense the Church of Rome errs not Fundamentally Ans Pref. 20. To be unerring in Fundamentals can be said of no Church of one denomination c. 3.55 To say that there shall be always a Church not erring in Fundamentals is to say that there shall be always a Church c. 3.55 A Church is not safe though retaining Fundamentals when it builds hay and stubble on the foundation and neglects to reform her Errors c. 5.61 Ignorance of what points in particular are fundamental does not make it uncertain whether we do not err fundamentally or differ in fundamentals among our selves c. 7.14 G. The four Gospels contain all necessary Doctrins c. 4.40 41 42 43. An Infallible Guide not necessary for avoiding Heresie c. 2.127 The Apostolick Church an Infallible Guide to which we may resort c. 3.69 The Church may not be an Infallible Guide in fundamentals though it be infallible in fundamentals c. 3.39 That the Roman Church should be the only infallible Guide of Faith and the Scriptures say nothing concerning it is incredible c. 6.20 H. The difference betwixt Heresie and Schism c. 5.51 There are no New Heresies no more than new Articles of Faith c. 4.18 37 38. Separation from the Church of Rome no mark of Heresie by the Fathers whose Citations are answered c. 6.22 23 24 25 26 27 2â— 30 31 33 34. No mark of Heresie to want succession of Bishops holding the same Doctrin c. 6.18 41. We are not Hereticks for opposing things propounded by the Church of Rome for divine Truth c. 6.11 12. Whether Protestants Schismatically cut off the Roman Church from hopes of salvation c. 5.38 I. The Jewish Church had no Infallibility annexed to it and if it had there is no necessity that the Christian Church should have it c. 2.141 The Imposing a necessity of professing known errors and practising known corruptions is a just cause of separating from a Church c. 5.31 36 40 50 59 60 68 69. Indifferency to all Religions falsely charged upon Protestants Ans Pref. 3. c. 3.12 The belief of the Churches Infallibility makes way for Heresie Pref. 10. An Infallible Guide not needful for avoiding Heresies c. 2.127 The Churches Infallibility has not the same Evidence as there is for the Scriptures c. 3.30 31. The Churches Infallibility can no way be better assured to us than the Scriptures incorruption c. 2.25 c. 3.27 The Churches Infallibility is not proved from the promise that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it c. 3.70 Nor from the promise of the Spirits leading into all Truth which was made onely to the Apostles c. 3.71 72. The Churches infallibility not proved from Ephes c. 11 12 13. He gave some Apostles c. till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith c. c. 3.79 80. That God has appointed an Infallible Judge of Controversies because such a one is desirable and useful is a weak conclusion c. 2. from 128. to 136. inclusive Infallibility in fundamentals no warrant to adhere to a Church in all that she proposes c. 3.57 Infallible interpretations of Scripture vainly boasted of by the Roman Church c. 2.93 94 95. Whether the denial of the Churches Infallibility leaves men to their private spirit reason and discourse and what is the harm of it Pref. 12.13 c. 2.110 Traditional Interpretations of Scripture how ill preserved c. 2.10 Interprecations of Scripture which private men make for themselves not pretending to prescribe their sense to others though false or seditious endanger only themselves c. 2.122 Allow the Pope or Roman Church to be a decisive Interpreter of Christs Laws and she can evacuate them and make what Laws she pleases Pref. 10.11 c. 2.1 S. Irenaeus's account of Tradition favours not Popery c. 2.144 145 146. His saying that no Reformation can countervail the danger of a Schism explained c. 5.11 A living Judge to end Controversies about the sense of Scripture not necessary c. 2.12 13. If Christ had intended such a Judge in Religion he would have named him which he has not done c. 2.23 c. 3.69 c. 6.20 Though a living Judge be necessary to determin Civil causes yet not necessary for Religious causes c. 2. from 14. to 22. inclus If there be a Judge of Controversies no necessity it should be the Roman Church c. 3.69 Roman Catholicks set up as many Judges in Religion as Protestants c. 2.116 118 153. A Judgment of discretion must be allowed to every man for himself about Religion c. 2.11 The Protestant Doctrin of Justification taken altogether not a licentious doctrin c. 7.30 When they say they are justified by faith alone yet they make good works necessary to salvation c. 7.30 K. Our obligation to know any divine truth arises from Gods manifest revealing it c. 3.19 L. How we are assured in what Language the Scripture is uncorrupted c. 2.55 56 57. To leave a Church and to leave the external Communion of a Church is not the same thing c. 5.32 45 47. Luthers separation not like that of the Donatists and why c. 5.33.101 Luther and his followers did not divide from the whole Church being a part of it but onely reformed themselves forsaking the corrupt part c. 5.56 Luthers opposing himself to all in his reformation no objection against him c. 5.89 90. We are not bound to justifie all that Luther said
Protestant might name the Roman for the Catholick so I say also to your discourse that a Protestant ceasing to be a Protestant might name a Greek to be the Catholick Church and if there were any necessity to find out one Church of one denomination as the Greek the Roman the Abyssine which one must be the Catholick I see no reason but he might pitch upon the Greek Church as well as the Roman I am sure your discourse proves nothing to the contrary In short thus I say if a Grecian should go about to prove to a Protestant that his Church is the Catholick by saying as you do for the Roman some one was so before Luther and you can name no other therefore ours is so Whatsoever may be answered to him may be answered to you For as you say a Protestant ceasing to be a Protestant may name to him the Roman so I say a Protestant ceasing to be a Protestant may name to you the Grecian If you say a Protestant remaining a Protestant can name no other but the Roman for the Catholick I may very ridiculously I confess but yet as truly say he can name no other but the Grecian If you say he cannot name the Greek Church neither remaining a Protestant I say likewise neither remaining a Protestant can he name the Roman for the Catholick So the Argument is equal in all respects on both sides and therefore either concludes for both parts which is impossible for then contradictions should be both true or else which is certain it concludes for neither And therefore I say your ground you build on That before Luther some Church of one denomination was the Catholick if it were true as it is most false would not prove your intent It would destroy perhaps our Church but it would not build yours It would prove peradventure that we must not be Protestants but it will be far from proving that we must be Papists For after we have left being Protestants I tell you again that you may not mistake there is yet no necessity of being Papists no more than if I go out of England there is a necessity of going to Rome And thus much to shew the poorness of your ground if it were true Now in the second place I say it is false neither have you proved any thing to the contrary Ad § 2. You say the Authorities you have produced shew to any that consider them well That the Church could never be divided into more Societies than one and you mean I hope one in external Communion or else you dally in ambiguities and then I say I have well considered the alledged authorities and they appear to me to say no such thing but only that the Societies of Hereticks and Schismaticks are no true members of the Church Whereas I put the case of two such Societies which were divided in external Communion by reason of some overvalued difference between them and yet were neither of them Heretical or Schismatical To this I know you could not answer but only by saying That this supposition was impossible viz. That of two Societies divided in external Communion neither should be Heretical nor Schismatical and therefore I desired you to prove by one convincing Argument that this is impossible This you have not done nor I believe can do and therefore all your places fall short of your intended conclusion and if you would put them into Syllogistical form you should presently see you conclude from them Sophistically in that fallacy which is called A dicto secundum quid ad dictum Simpliciter Thus No two divided Societies whereof one is Heretical or Schismatical can be both members of the Catholick Church therefore simply no two divided Societies can be so the Antecedent I grant which is all that your places say as you shall see anon but the consequence is Sophistical and therefore that I deny It is no better nor worse than if you should argue thus No true divided Societies whereof one is Out-lawed and in Rebellion are both members of the same Commonwealth therefore simply no two divided Societies But against this you pretend That the alledged places say not only that the Societies of Hereticks and Schismaticks are no parts of the Church but that the Church cannot be divided into more Societies than one And they account Societies divided which are either of a diverse Faith or of a diverse Communion This is that which I would have proved but as yet I cannot see it done There be Eleven Quotations in all seven of them speak expresly and formally of division made by Hereticks and Schismaticks viz. 1.3 4. 7.9 10 11. Three other of them viz. 5 6.8 though they use not the word yet Mr. Lewgar knows they speak of the Donatists which were Schismaticks and that by the relative particles you and them are meant the Donatists And lastly the second Mr. Lewgar knows says nothing but this That an Hereticks cannot be accounted of that one Flock which is the Church But to make the most of them that can be The first saith the Unity of the Church cannot be separated at all nor divided This I grant but then I say every difference does not in the sight of God divide this Unity for then diversity of Opinions should do it and so the Jesuits and Dominicans should be no longer members of the same Church Or if every difference will not do it why must it of necessity be always done by difference in Communion upon an insufficient ground yet mistaken for sufficient for such only I speak of Sure I am this place says no such matter The next place saies the Flock is but one and all the rest that the Church is but one and that Hereticks and Schismaticks are not of it which certainly was not the thing to be proved but that of this one Flock of this one Church two Societies divided without just cause in Communion might not be true and lively members both in one Body Mystical in the sight of God though divided in Unity in the sight of men It is true indeed whosoever is shut out from the Church on Earth is likewise cut off from it before God in Heaven but you know it must be Clave non errante when the cause of abscission is true and sufficient Ad § 3. If you say so you say no more than the Fathers but what evasions and tergiversations are these Why do you put us off with ifs and ands I beseech you tell me or at least him that desires to reap some benefit by our Conference directly and Categorically Do you say so or do you say it is not so Were the Excommunicated Churches of Asia still members of the Catholick Church I mean in Gods account or were they not but all damned for that horrible Heresie of celebrating the Feast of Easter upon a diverse day from the Western Churches If you mean honestly and fairly answer directly to this Question and then you
shall see what will come of it Assure your self you have a Wolf by the Ears If you say they were you overthrow your own conclusions and say that Churches divided in Communion may both be members of the Catholick If they were not then shall we have Saints and Martyrs in Heaven which were no members of the Catholick Roman Church As for Irenaeus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ruffinus his Abscindere ab unitate corporis they imply no more but this at the most That Victor quantum in se fuit did cut them off from the External Communion of the Catholick Church supposing that for their Obstinacy in their Tradition they had cut themselves off from the internal Communion of it but that this sentence of Victors was ratified in Heaven and that they were indeed cut off from the mystical Body of Christ so far was Irenaeus from thinking that he and in a manner all the other Bishops reprehended Victor for pronouncing this Sentence on them upon a cause so insufficient which how they could say or possibly think of a Sentence ratified by God in Heaven and not reprehend God himself I desire you to inform me and if they did not intend to reprehend the Sentence of God himself together with Victors then I believe it will follow unavoidably that they did not conceive nor believe Victors Sentence to be ratified by God and consequently did not believe that these excommunicated Churches were not in Gods account true members of the Body of Christ Ad § 4. And here again we have another subterfuge by a Verbal distinction between Excommunication and voluntary separation As if the separation which the Church of Rome made in Victors time from the Asian Churches were not a voluntary separation or as if the Churches of Asia did not voluntarily do that which was the cause of their separation or as if though they sepated not themselves indeed conceiving the cause to be insufficient they did not yet remain voluntarily separated rather than conform themselves to the Church of Rome Or lastly as if the Grecians of Old or the Protestants of Late might not pretend as justly as the Asian Churches that their Separation too was not voluntarily but of necessity for that the Church of Rome required of them under pain of Excommunication such conditions of her Communion as were neither necessary nor lawful to be performed Ad § 5. And here again the matter is streightned by another limitation Both sides say you must claim to be the Church but what then if one of them only claim though vainly to be the Church and the other content it self with being a part of it These then it seems for any thing you have said to the contrary may be both members of the Catholick Church And certainly this is the case now between the Church of England and the Church of Rome and for ought I know was between the Church of Rome and the Church of Greece For I believe it will hardly be proved that the Excommunication between them was mutual nor that the Church of Greece esteems it self the whole Church and the Church of Rome no Church but it self a sound member of the Church and that a corrupted one Again whereas you say the Fathers speak of a voluntary separation certainly they speak of any Separation by Hereticks and such were in Victors judgment the Churches of Asia for holding an opinion contrary to the Faith as he esteemed Or if he did not why did he cut them from the Communion of the Church But the true difference is The Fathers speak of those which by your Church are esteemed Hereticks and are so whereas the Asian Churches were by Victor esteemed Hereticks but were not so Ad § 6. But their Authorities produced shew no more than what I have shewed that the Church is â—ut one in exclusion of Hereticks and Schismaticks and not that two particular Churches divided by mistake upon some overvalued difference may not be both parts of the Catholick Ad § 7. But I desire you to tell me whether you will do this if the Doctrines produced and confirmed by such a consent of Fathers happen to be in the judgment of the Church of Rome either not Catholick or absolutely Heretical If you will undertake this you shall hear farther from me But if when their places are produced you will pretend as some of your side do that surely they are corrupted having neither reason nor shew of reason for it unless this may pass for one as perhaps it may where reasons are scarce that they are against your Doctrine or if you will say they are to be interpreted according to the pleasure of your Church whether their words will bear it or no then I shall but lose my Labour for this is not to try your Church by the Fathers but the Fathers by your Church The Doctrines which I undertake to justifie by a greater consent of Fathers than here you produce for instance shall be these 1. That Gods Election supposeth prescience of mans Faith and perseverance 2. That God doth not predetermine men to all their Actions 3. That the Pope hath no power in temporalties over Kings either directly or indirectly 4. That the Bishop of Rome may Err in his publick determinations of matters of Faith 5. That the B. Virgin was guilty of Original sin 6. That the B. Virgin was guilty of actual sin 7. That the Communion was to be administred to the Laity in both kinds 8. That the reading of the Scripture was to be denied to no man 9. That the Opinion of the Millenaries is true 10. That the Eucharist is to be administred to Infants 11. That the substance of Bread and Wine remains in the Euchâ—â—â—st of her Consecration 12. That the Souls of the Saints departed enjoy not the Vision of God before the Last day 13. That at the day of judgment all the Saints shall past through a purging fire All these propositions are held by your Church either Heretical or at least not Catholical and yet in this promise of yours you have undertaken to believe them as firmly as you now do this That two divided Societies cannot be both members of the Catholick Church Ad § 8. Is it not then the Answerers part to shew that the proofs pretended are indeed no proofs and doth not he prove no proofs at least in your mouth who undertakes to shew that an equal or greater number of the very same witnesses is rejected by your selves in many other things Either the consent of the Fathers in any Age or Ages is infallible and then you are to reject it in nothing or it is not so and then you are not to urge it in any thing As if the Fathers Testimonies against us were Swords and Spears and against you bulrushes Ad § 9. In effect as if you should say If you answer not as I please I will dispute no longer But you remember the proverb will think