Church upon pretence of her errors haue failed even in fundamentall points and suffered shipwrack of their Salvation ought to deter all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practises as to omit other both ancient and modern heresies we see that divers chiefe Protestants pretending to reform the corruptions of the Church are come to affirm that for many Ages she erred to death and wholy perished which D. Potter cannot deny to be a fundamentall Errour against that Article of our Creed I believe the Catholique Church as he aâ—â—irmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the universall Church within Africa or some other smal tract of soile Least therefore I may fall into some fundamentall errour it is most safe for me to belieue all the Decrees of that Church which cannot errâ— fundamentally especially if we adde That according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines one errour in faith whether it be for the matter it selfe great or small dâ—stroies faith as is shewed in Charity Mistaken and consequently to accuse the Church of any one Errour is to affirm that she lost all faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaues Christ no visible Church on earth 21 To all these arguments I adde this demonstration D. Potter teacheth that there neither â—as nor can be any iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe But if the Church of Christ can erre in some points of faith men not only may but must forsake her in those unlesse D. Potter will haue them to believe one thing and professe another and if such errours and corruptions should fall out to be about the Churches Liturgy publique Service administration of Sacraments and the like they who perceive such errours must of necessity leaue her externall Communion And therefore if once we grant the Church may erre iâ— followeth that men may and ought to forsake her which is against D. Potters own words or else they are inexcusable who left the Communion of the Roman Church under pretence of Errours which they grant not to be fundumentall And if D. Potter think good to answer this argument he must remember his own doctrine to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in points not fundamentall 22 Another argument for the universall Infallibility of the Church I take out of D. Potters own words If saith he we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true unlesse he presuppose that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmeth to erre only in points not fundamentall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundamentall Therefore either he must acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words or else must grant that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall which is what we intended to proue 23 If Words cannot perswade you that in all Controversies you must rely upon the infallibility of the Church at least yeeld your assent to Deeds Hitherto I haue produced Arguments drawn as it were ex naturâ rei from the Wisdome and Goodnesse of God who cannot faile to haue left some infallible meanes to determine Controversies which as we haue proved can be no other except a Visible Church infallible in all her Definitions But because both Catholiques and Protestants receive holy Scripture we may thence also proue the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concern Faith and Religion Our Saviour speaketh clearly The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her And I will aske my Father and he will giue you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever the Spirit of truth And But when he the Spirit of truth commeth he shall teach you all truth The Apostle saith that the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth And He gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the Ministery unto the edifying of the body of Christ untill we meet all into the unity of faith and knowleâ—ge of the Sonne of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the â—ulnesse of Christ that now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every winde of doctrine in the wickednesse of men in craftinesse to the circumvention of Errour All which words seem cleerly enough to proue that the Church is universally infallible without which unity of faith could not be conserved against every winde of Doctrine And yet Doctor Potter limits these promises and priviledges to fundamentall points in which he grants the Church cannot erre I urge the words of Scripture which are universall and doe not mention any such restraint I alleadge that most reasonable and receaved Rule that Scripture is to be understood literally as it soundeth unlesse some manifest absurdity force us to the contrary But all will not serue to accord our different interpretations In the mean time divers of Doctor Potters Brethren step in and reject his limitation as over large and somewhat tasting of Papistry And therefore they restrain the mentioned Texts either to the Infallibility which the Apostles and other sacred Writers had in penning of Scripture or else to the invisible Church of the Elect and to them not absolutely but with a double restriction that they shall not fall damnably and finally and other men haue as much right as these to interpose their opinion and interpretation Behold we are three at debate about the selfe same words of Scripture We conferre divers places and Text We consult the Originalls We examine Translations We endeavour to pray heartily We professe to speak sincerely To seek nothing but truth and salvation of our own soules and that of our Neighbours and finally we use all those meanes which by Protestants themselues are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture Neverthelesse we neither doe or haue any possible meanes to agree as long as we are left to our selues and when we should chance to be agreed the doubt would still remain whether the thing it selfe be a fundamentall point or no And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God the Lover of soules hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion Our remedy therefore in these contentions must be to consult and heare God's Visible Church with submissiue acknowledgment of her Power and Infallibility in whatsoever she proposeth as a revealed truth according to that divine advice of S. Augustine in these words If at length thou seem to be sufficiently tossed and hast a desire to put an end to
the true Church was interrupted by Apostasy from the true Faith Calvin saith It is absurd in the very beginning to breake one from another after we have been forced to make a separation from the whole world It were over-long to alleage the words of Ioannes Regius Daniel Chamierus Beza Ochimus Castalio and others to the same purpose The reason which cast them upon this wicked doctrine was a desperate voluntary necessity because they being resolved not to acknowlâ—dge the Roman Church to be Christs true Church and yet being convinced by all manner of evidence that for divers Ages before Luther there was no other Congregation of Christians which could be the Church of Christ there was no remedy but to affirme that upon earth Christ had no visible Church which they would never have avouched if they had known how to avoid the foresaid inconvenience as they apprehended it of submitting themselves to the Roman Church 10 Against these exterminating spirits D. Potter and other more moderate Protestants professe that Christ alwaies had and alwaies will have upon earth a visible Church otherwise saith he our Lords promise of her stable edification should be of no value And in another place having affirmed that Protestants have not left the Church of Rome but her corruptions and acknowledging her still to be a member of Christs body he seeketh to cleere himselfe and others from Schisme because saith he the property of Schisme is witnesse the Donatists and Luciâ—erianâ— to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates And if any Zelots amongst us have proceeded to heavier ceâ—sures their zeale may be excused but their Charity and wisdome cannot be iustified And elsewhere he acknowledgeth that the Roman Church hath those main and essentiall truths which give her the name and essence of a Church 11 It being therefore granted by D. Potter and the chiefest and best learned English Protestants that Christs visible Church cannot perish it will be needlesse for me in this occasion to prove it S. Augustine doubted not to say The Prophets spoke more obscurely of Christ then of the Church because as I thinke they did foresee in spirit that men were to make parties against the Church and that they were not to have so great strife concerning Christ therefore that was more plainly foretold and more openly prophecyed about which greater contentions were to rise that it might turne to the condemnation of them who have seeâ—e it and yet gone forth And in another place he saith How doe we confide to have received manifestly Christ himselfe from holy Scriptures if we have not also manifestly received the Church from them And indeed to what congregation shall a man have recourse for the affaires of his soule if upon earth there be no visible Church of Christ Besides to imagine a company of men believing one thing in their heart and with their mouth professing the contrary as they must be supposed to doe for if they had professed what they believed they would have become visible is to dream of a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants but not to conceive a right notion of the Church of Christ our Lord. And therefore S. Augustine saith We cannot be saved unlesse labouring also for the salvation of others we professe with our mouthes the same faith which we bear in our hearts And if any man hold it lawfull to dissemble and deny matters of faith we cannor be assured but that they actually dissemble and hide Anabaptisme Arianisme yea Turcisme and even Atheisme or any other false beliefe under the outward profession of Calvinisme Doe not Protestants teach that preaching of the word and administration of Sacraments which cannot but make a Church visible are inseparable notes of the true Church And therefore they must either grant a visible Church or none at all No wonder then if S. Aâ—stine account this Heresy so grosse that he saith against those who in his time defended the like errour But this Church which hath been of all Nations is no â—ore she 〈◊〉 perished so say they that are not in her O impudent speech And afterward 〈…〉 so detestable so full of presumption and falshood which is sustâ—ined with no truth enlightned with no wisdome seasoned with no falt vaine rash beady 〈…〉 c. And Peradventure some one may say there are other sheep I know not where with which I am not dequâ—inted yet God hath care of them But he is too absurd in 〈◊〉 sense that 〈◊〉 imagine such things And these men doe not consider that while they deny the perpeâ—uity of a visible Church they destroy their own present Church according to the argument which S. Augustine urged against the Donatists in these words If the Church were lost in Cyprians we may say in Gregories time from whence did Donatus Luther appeare From what earth did he spring from what sea is he come From what heaven did he drop And in another place How can they â—â—unt to have any Church if he have ceased ever since those times And all Divines by defining Schisme to be a division from the true Church suppose that there must be a known Church from which it is possible for men to depart But enough of this in these few words 12 Let us now come to the fourth and chiefest point which was to examine whether Luther â—â—lvin and the rest did not deparâ— from the externall Communion of Christs visible Church and by that sepaâ—ation became gâ—â—lty of Schisme And that they are properly Schismatiques cleerely followeth from the grounds which we have laid concerning the nature of Schisme which 〈◊〉 in leaving the externall Communion of the visible Church of Christ our Lord and it is cleere by evidence of fact that Luther and his followers forsooke the Communion of that Anciâ—nt Church For they did not so much as pretend to joyne with any Congregation which had a being before their time for they would needs conceive that no visible company was free from errours in doctrine and corruption in practise And therefore they opposed the doctrine they withdrew their obedience from thâ— Prelâ—tes they left participation in Sacraments they châ—nged the Liturgy of publique service of whatsoever Church then extant And these things they preâ—â—nded to doe out of a perswasion that they were bound forsooth in conscience so to doe unlesse they would participâ—te with â—rrors corruptions and superstitions We dare not saith D. Potter communicate with Rome either in her publique Litâ—rgy which is manifestly polluted with grosse superstition c. or in those corrupt and ungrounded opinions which she hath added to the Faith of Catholiques But now 〈◊〉 D. Potter tell me with what visible Church extant before Luther he would have adventured to communicate in her publique Liturgy and Doctrine since he durst not communicate with Rome He will not be able to assigne
any even with any little colour of common sense If then they departed from all visible Communities professing Christ it followeth that they also left the Communion of the true visible Church whichsoever it was whether that of Rome or any other of which Point I doe not for the present dispute Yea this the Lutherans doe not only acknowledge but prove and brag of If faith a learned Lutheran there had 〈◊〉 right â—elievers which went before Luther in his office there had then been no need of a Lutheran Reformation Another affirmeth it to be ridiculous to think that in the time before Luther any had the purity of Doctrine and that Luther should receive it from them and not they from Luther Another speaketh roundly and saith it is impudency to say that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the Doctrine of the Gospell And I adde That farre greater impudency it were to affirme that Germany did not agree with the rest of Europe and other Christian Catholique Nations and consequently that it is the greatest impudency to deny that he departed from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church spread over the whole world We have heard Calvin saying of Protestants in generall We were even forced to make a separation from the whole world And Luther of himselfe in particular In the beginning I was alone Ergo say I by your good leave you were at least a Schismatique divided from the Ancient Church and a member of no new Church For no sole man can constitute a Church and though he could yet such a Church could not be that glorious company of whose number greatnesse and amplitude so much hath been spoken both in the old Testament and in the New 13 D. Potter endeavours to avoid this evident Argument by divers evasions but by the confutation thereof I will with Gods holy assistance take occasion even out of his own Answers and grounds to bring unanswerable reasons to convince them of Schisme 14 His chief Answer is That they have not left the Church but her Corruption 15 I reply This answer may be given either by those furious people who teach that those abuses and corruptions in the Church were so enormous that they could not stand with the nature or being of a true Church of Christ Or else by those other more calme Protestants who affirme that those errors did not destroy the being but only deforme the beauty of the Church Against both these sorts of men I may fitly use that unanswerable Dilemma which S. Augustine brings against the Donatists in these concluding words Tell me whether the Church at that time when you say she entertained those who were guilty of all crimes by the contagion of those sinfull persons perished or perished not Answere whether the Church perished or perished not Make choice of what you think If then she perished what Church brought forth Dâ—natus we may say Luther But if she could not perish because so many were incorporated into her without Baptisme that is without a second baptisme or rebaptization and I may say without Luthers Reformation answer me I pray you what madnesse did moue the Sect of Donâ—tus to separate themselâ—es from her upon pretence to avoid the Communion of â—ad men I beseech the Reader to ponder every one of S. Augustines words and to consider whether any thing could haâ—e been spoken more directly against Luther and his followers of what sort soever 16 And now to answer more in particular I say to those who reach that the visible Church of Christ perished for many Ages that I can easily afford them the curâ—esie to free them from meer Schisme but all men touched with any spark of zeal to vindicate the wisedome and Goodnesse of our Saviour from blasphemous injurie cannot choose but believe and proclaim them to be superlative Arch-heretiques Neverthelesse if they will needs haue the honour of Singularity and desire to be both formall Heretiques and properly Schismatiques I will tell them that while they dream of an invisible Church of men which agree with them in Faith they will upon due reflection find themselves to be Schismatiques from those corporeall Angels or invisible men because they held externall Communion with the visible Church of those times the outward Communion of which visible Church these modern hot-spurs forsaking were thereby divided from the outward Communion of their hidden Brethren and so are Separatists from the externall Communion of them with whom they agree in faith which is Schisme in the most formall and proper signification thereof Moreover according to D. Potter these boysterous Creatures are properly Schismariques For the reason why he thinks himselfe and such as he is to be cleared from Schisme notwithstanding their division from the Roman Church is because according to his Divinity the property of Schisme is witnesse the Donatists and Luciferians to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates But those Protestants of whom we now speak cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which they separated themselues and they doe it directly as the Donatists in whom you exemplify did by affirming that the true Church had perished and therefore they cannot bee cleared from Schisme if you may be their Iudge Consider I pray you how many prime Protestants both domesticall and forraign you haue at one blow struck off from hope of Salvation and condemned to the lowest pit for the grievous sinne of Schisme And withall it imports you to consider thaâ— you also involve your selfe and other moderate Protestants in the selfe same crime and punishment while you communicate with those who according to your own principles are properly formally Schismatiques For if you held your selfe obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errors and Corrâ—ptions which yet you confesse were not fundamentall shall it not be much more damnable for you to live in Communion and Confraternity with those who defend an errour of the fayling of the Church which in the Donatists you confesse to haue been properly hereticall against the Article of our Creed I believe the Church And I desire the Reader here to apply an authority of S. Cyprian epist. 76. which he shall finde alleaged in the next number And this may suffice for confutation of the aforesaid Answer as it might haue relation to the rigid Calvinists 17 For Confutation of these Protestants who hold that the Church of Christ had alwaies a being and cannot erre in points fundamentall and yet teach that she may erre in matters of lesse moment wherein if they forsake her they would be accounted not to leave the Church but onely her corruptions I must say that they change the state of our present Question not distinguishing between internall Faith and externall Communion nor between Schisme and Heresie This I demonstrate out of D. Potter himselfe who in expresse words teacheth that the promises which our Lord hath made unto his Church for
his assistance are intended not to any particular Persons or Churches but only to the Church Catholique and they are to be extended not to every parcel or particularity of truth but only to points of Faith or fundamentall And afterwards speaking of the Vniversall Church he sâ—â—th It 's comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemies but shee may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in heaven Out of which words I observe that according to D. Potter the selfe same Church which is the Vniversall Church remaining the universall true Church of Christ may fall into errors and corruptions from whence it clearly followeth that it is impossible to leave the Externall communion of the Church so corrupted and retain externall communion with the Catholique Church since the Church Catholique and the Church so corrupted is the selfe same one Church or company of men And the contrary imagination talkes in a dream as if the errours and infections of the Catholique Church were not inherent in her but were separate from her like to Accidents without any Subject or rather indeed as if they were not Accidents but Hypostases or Persons subsisting by themselues For men cannot be said to liue in or out of the Communion of any dead creature but with Persons endued with life and reason and much lesse can men be said to live in the Communion of Accidents as errors and corruptions are and therefore it is an absurd thing to affirm that Protestants divided themselues from the corruptions of the Church but not from the Church her selfe seeing the corruptions of the Church were inherent in the Church All this is made more cleer if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Catholique Churches holding contrary Doctrines and divided in externall Communion one of the which two Churches did triumph over all errour and corruption in doctrine and practise but the other was stained with both For to faign this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of histories which are silent of any such matter It is against D. Potters own grounds that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall which were not true if you will imagine a certain visible Catholique Church free from errour even in points not fundamentall It contradicteth the words in which he said the Church may not hope to triumph over all errour till she be in heaven It evacuateth the brag of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church and lastly it maketh Luther a Schismatique for leaving the Communion of all visible Churches seeing upon this supposition there was a visible Church of Christ free from all corruption which therefore could not be forsaken without just imputation of Schisme We must therefore truly affirme that since there was but one visible Church of Christ which was truly Catholique and yet was according to Protestants stained with corruption when Luther left the externall Communion of that corrupted Church he could not remain in the Communion of the Catholique Church no more then it is possible to keep company with D. Christopher Potter and not keep company with the Provost of Queenes Colledge in Oxford if D. Potter and the Provost be one and the selfe same man For so one should be and not be with him at the same time This very argument drawne from the Vnity of God's Church S. Cyprian urgeth to convince that Novatianus was cut off from the Church in these words The Church is One which being One cannot be both within and without If she â—e with Novatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with Cornelius who succeeded Fabianus by lawfull ordination Novatianus is not in the Church I purposely here speak only of externall Communion with the Catholique Church For in this point there is great difference between internall acts of our understanding and will and of externall deeds Our Vnderstanding and Will are faculties as Philosophers speak abstractive and able to distinguish and as it were to part things though in themselves they be really conjoyned But reall externall deeds doe take things in grosse as they find them not separating things which in reality are joyned together Thus one may consider and loue a sinner as he is a man friend benefactor or the like and at the same time not consider him nor loue him as he is a sinner because these are acts of our Vnderstanding and will which may respect their objects under some one formality or consideration without reference to other things contained in the selfe same objects But if one should strike or kill a sinfull man he will not be excused by alleaging that he killed him not as a man but as a sinner because the selfe same person being a man and the sinner the externall act of murder fell joyntly upon the man and the sinner And for the same reason one cannot avoid the company of a sinner and at the same time be really present with that man who is a sinner And this is our case and in this our Adversaries are egregiously many of them affectedly mistaken For one may in some points belieue as the Church believeth and disagree from her in other One may loue the truth which she holds and detest her pretended corruptions But it is impossible that a man should really separate himselfe from her externall Communion as she is corrupted and be really within the same externall Communion as she is sound because she is the selfe same Church which is supposed to be sound in some things and to erre in others Now our question for the present doth concern only this point of externall Communion because Schisme as it is distinguished from Heresie is committed when one divides himselfe from the Externall Communion of that Church with which he agrees in Faith Whereas Heresie doth necessarily imply a difference in matter of Faith and beliefe and therefore to say that they left not the visible Church but her errours can only excuse them from Heresie which shâ—ll be tried in the next Chapter but not from Schisme as long as they are really divided from the Externall Communion of the selfe same visible Church which notwithstanding those errours wherein they doe in judgement dissent from her doth still remain the true Catholique Church of Christ and therefore while they forsake the corrupted Church they forsake the Catholique Church Thus then it remaineth cleer that their chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the Question confoundeth internall acts of the Vnderstanding with externall Deeds doth not distinguish between Schisme and Heresie and leaues this demonstrated against them That they divided themselues from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church because they
c. and tell me if you could excuse such Reformers from Schisme Sedition Rebellion Apostasie c what would you say of such Reformers in your Colledge or tumultuous persons in a kingdome Remember now your owne Tenets and then reflect how fit a similitude you have picked out to prove your self a Schismatique You teach that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall but that for all fundamentall points she is secured from error You teach that no particular person or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamentall You and the whole world can witnesse that when Luther began he being but only One opposed himself to All as well subjects as superiours and that even then when he himself confessed that he had no intention of Reformation You cannot be ignorant but that many chief learned Protestants are forced to confesse the Antiquity of our doctrine and practice and doe in severall and many Controversies acknowledge that the Ancient Fathers stood on our Side Consider I say these points and see whether your similitude doe not condemne your Progenitors of Schisme from God's visible Church yea and of Apostasie also from their Religious Orders if they were vowed Regulars as Luther and divers of them were 32 From the Monastery you are fâ—ed into an Hospitall of persons vniversally infected with some disease where you find to be true what I supposed that after your departure from your Brethren you might fall into greater inconveniences and more infectious diseases then those for which you left them But you are also upon the point to abandon these miserable needy persons in whose behalf for Charities sake let me set before you these considerations If the disease neither were nor could be mortall because in that Company of men God had placed a Tree of life If going thence the sick man might by curious tasting the Tree of Knowledge eate poyson under pretence of bettering his health If he could not hope thereby to avoid other diseases like those for which he had quitted the company of the first infected men If by his departure innumerable mischiefs were to ensue could such a man without sencelesnesse be excused by saying that he sought to free himself from the common disease but not forsooth to separate from the society Now your self compare the Church to a man deformed with superfluous fingers and toes but yet who hath not lost any vitall part you acknowledge that out of her society no man is secured from damnable errour and the world can beare witnesse what unspeakable mischiefs and calamities ensued Luthers revolt from the Church Pronounce then concerning them the same sentence which even now I have shewed them to deserve who in the manner aforesaid should separate from persons universally infected with some disease 33 But alas to what passe hath Heresy brought men who terme themselves Christians and yet blush not to compare the beloved Spouse of our Lord the one Dove the purâ—hase of our Saviours most precious blood the holy Catholique Church I mean that visible Church of Christ which Luther found spread over the whole world to a Monastery so disordered that it must be forsaken to the Gyant in Gath much deformed with superfluous fingers and toes to a society of men universally infected with some disease And yet all these comparisons and much worse are neither injurious nor undeserved if once it be granted or can be proved that the visible Church of Christ may erre in any one point of Faith although not fundamentall 34 Before I part from these similitudes one thing I must observe against the evasion of D. Potter that they left not the Church but her Corruptions For as those Reformers of the Monastery or those other who left the company of men universally infected with some disease would deny themselves to be Schismatiques or any way blame-worthy but could not deny but that they left the said Communities So Luther and the rest cannot so much as pretend not to have left the visible Church which according to them was infected with many diseases but can only pretend that they did not sinne in leaving her And you speak very strangly when you say In a society of men universally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from the Common disease could not be therefore said to separate from the Society For if they doe not separate themselves from the Society of the infected persons how doe they free themselves and depart from the common disease Doe they at the same time remain in the company and yet depart from those infected creatures We must then say that they separate themselves from the persons though it be by occasion of the disease Or if you say they free their owne persons from the common disease yet so that they remain still in the Company infected subject to the Superiours and Governours thereof eating and drinking and keeping publique Assemblies with them you cannot but know that Luther and your Reformers the first pretended free persons from the supposed common infection of the Roman Church did not so for they endeavoured to force the Society whereof they were parts to be healed and reformed as they were and if it refused they did when they had forces drive theÌ„ away even their Superiours both spirituall and temporall as is notorious Or if they had no power to expell that supposed infected Community or Church of that place they departed from them corporally whom mentally they had forsaken before So that you cannot deny but Luther forsook the externall Communion and company of the Catholique Church for which as your self confesse There neither was nor can be any just cause no more then to depart from Christ himself We doe therefore infer that Luther and the rest who forâ—ook that visible Church which they found upon earth were truely and properly Schismatiques 35 Moreover it is evident that there was a division between Luther and that Church which was Visible when he arose but that Church cannot be said to have divided her self from him befoâ—e whose time she was and in comparison of whom she was a Whole and he but a part therefore we must say that he divided himself and went out of her which is to be a Schismatique or Heretique or both By this argument Optatus Milevitanus proveth that not Caecilianus but Par menianus was a Schismatique saying For Caecilianus went not out of Maiorinuâ— thy Granaâ—ather but Maiorinus from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chayre of Peter or Cyprian but Maiorinus in whose Chayre thou sittest which had no beginning beâ—ore Maiorinus Since it manifestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manner it is cleare that you are beyres both of the deliverers up of the holy Bible to be burned and also of Schismatiques The whole argument of this holy Father makes directly both against Luther and all those who continue the division which he begun and proves That going out convinceth
salvation and yet I cannot hope to be saved in that Church or who can conjoyn in one brain not crack't these assertions After due examination I judge the Roman errors not to be in themselues fundamentall or damnable and yet I judge that according to true reason it is damnable to hold them I say according to true reason For if you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedy but that you must rectifie your erring conscience by your other judgement that her errours are not fundamentall nor damnable And this is no more Charity then you daily afford to such other Protestants as you term Brethren whom you cannot deny to be in some errors unlesse you will hold That of contradictory propositions both may be true and yet you doe not judge it damnable to liue in their Communion because you hold their errors not to be fundamentall You ought to know that according to the Doctrine of all Divines there is great difference between a speculatiue perswasion and a practicall dictamen of conscience and therefore although they had in speculation conceived the visible Church to erre in some doctrines of themselves not damnable yet with that speculatiue judgement they might and ought to haue entertained this practicall dictamen that for points not substantiall to faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could break the bond of Charity by breaking unity in Gods Church You say that hay and stubble and such unprofitable stuffe as are corruptions in points not fundamentall laid on the roofe destroyes not the house whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation And you would think him a mad man who to be rid of such stuffe would set his house on fire that so he might walk in the light as you teach that Luther was obliged to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light not without a combustion formidable to the whole Christiā world rather then beare with some errours which did not destroy the foundation of faith And as fo◠others who entred in at the breach first made by Luther they might and ought to haue guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis delivered in these words Indeed it is a matter of great moment and both most profitable to be learned and necessary to be remembred and which we ought again and again to illustrate and inculcate with weighty heapes of examples that almost all Catholiques may know that they ought to receiue the Doctors with the Church and not forsake the faith of the Church with the Doctors And much lesse should they forsake the faith of the Church to follow Luther Calvin and such other Novelists Moreover though your first Reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true yet they might and ought to haue doubted whether they were certain because your selfe affirm that infallibility was not promised to any particular Persons or Churches And since in cases of uncertainties we are not to leave our Superiour nor cast off his obedience or publiquely oppose his decrees your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfie their zealous conscience without a publique breach especially if with this their uncertainty we call to mind the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your own Brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy I wish you would examine the works of your Brethren by the words your selfe sets down to free S. Cyprian from Schisme every syllable of which words convinceth Luther and his Copartners to be guilty of that crime and sheweth in what manner they might with great ease and quietnesse haue rectified their consciences about the pretended errours of the Church S. Cyprian say you was a peaceable and modest man dissented from others in his iudgement but without any breach of Charity condemned no man much lesse any Church for the contrary opinion He believed his own opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others but left them to their liberty Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding Did they censure no man much lesse any Church S. Cyprian believed his own Opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others You belieue the points wherein Luther differs from us not to be fundamentall or necessary and why doe you not thence infer the like THEREFORE he should not haue proceeded to censure others In a word since their disagreement from us concerned only points which were not fundamentall they should haue believed that they might haue been deceived as well as the whole visible Church which you say may erre in such points and therefore their doctrines being not certainly true and certainly not necessary they could not giue sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church 42 In other places you write so much as may serve us to proue that Luther and his followers ought to haue deposed and rectified their consciences As for example when you say When the Church hath declared her selfe in any matter of opinion or of Rites her declaration obliges all her children to peace and externall obedience Nor is it fit or lawfull for any private man to oppose his judgement to the publique as Luther and his fellows did He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he doe it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason and very modestly still containing himself within the dutifull respect which he oweth but if he will factiously advance his own conceits his own conceits yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture despise the Church so far as to cut of her Cōmunion he may be justly branded condemned for a Schismatique yea an Heretique also in some degree in foro exteriori though his opinion were true much more if it be false Could any man even for a Fee haue spoken more home to condemn your Predecessors of Schisme or Heresy Could they haue stronger Motives to oppose the doctrine of the Church and leave her Communion then evidence of Scripture And yet according to your own words they should haue answered rectified their conscience by your doctrine that though their opinion were true and grounded upon evidence of Scripture or reason yet it was not lawfull for any private man to oppose his iudgement to the publique which obligeth all Christians to peace externall obedience and if they cast off the Communion of the Church for maintaining their own Conceits they may be branded for Schismatiques and Heretiques in some degree in foro exteriori that is all other Christians ought so to esteem of them and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you and they also are obliged to behaue themselves
thence collect That there must be a known Church from which it is possible for men to depart I might very justly question your Antecedent and desire you to consider whether Schisme be not rather or at least be not as well a division of the Church as from it A separation not of a part from the whole but of some parts from the other And if you liked not this definition I might desire you to inform me in those many Schismes which haue hapned in the Church of Rome which of the parts was the Church which was divided from it But to let this passe certainly your consequence is most unreasonable For though whensoever there is a Schisme it must necessarily suppose a Church existent there yet sure wee may define a Schisme that is declare what the word signifies for Defining is no more though at this presēt there were neither Schisme nor Church in the world Vnlesse you will say that we cannot tell what a Rose is or what the word Rose signifies but only in the Summer when wee haue Roses or that in the world to come when men shall not marry it is impossible to know what it is to marry or that the Plague is not a disease but only when some body is infected or that Adultery is not a sin unlesse there be Adulterers or that before Adam had a Child hee knew not God could not haue told him what it was to be a Father Certainly Sr you haue forgot your Metaphysicks which you so much glory in if you know not that the connexions of essentiall predicates with their subjects are eternall depend not at all upō the actuall existence of the thing defined This Definition therefore of Schisme concludes not the existence of a Church even when it is defined much lesse the perpetuall continuance of it and least of all the continuance of it in perpetuall visibility and purity which is the only thing that we deny you are to proue By this time you perceive I hope that I had reason to say that it was well for you that D. Potter granted the Churches Perpetuall Visibility for for ought I can perceive this Concession of his is the best stake in your hedge the best piller upon which this Conclusion stands which yet is the only ground-work of your whole Accusation 23 Ad § 12. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. The remainder of this Chapter to convince Luther and all that follow him to be Schismatiques affords us Arguments of two sorts The first drawn from the nature of the thing the second from D. Potters words acknowledgments So that the former if they be good must bee good against all Protestants the latter only against D. Potter I will examine them all doubt not to make i◠appeare even to your selfe if you haue any indifference that there is not any sound concluding reason amongst them but that they are all poore and miserable Sophismes 24 First then to proue us Schismatiques you urge from the nature of Schisme this only Argument Whosoever leaue the externall Communion of the visible Church are Schismatiques But Luther and his followers left the externall Communion of the visible Church of Christ Therefore they are Schismatiques The Major of this Syllogisme you leaue naked without proofe and conceiue it as it should seem able enough to shift for it selfe The Minor or second Proposition of this Argument you prove by two other The first is this They which forsook the externall Communion of all visible Churches must needs forsake the externall Communion of the true visible Church of Christ But Luther and his followers forsook the externall Communion of all visible Churches Therefore they forsook the externall Communion of the true visible Church The Major of this Syllogisme you take for granted as you haue reason The Minor you prosecute with great pomp of words proue with plenty of Reasons built upon the Confessions of D. Potter Luther Calvin and other Protestants and this you doe in the 12 § of this Chapter The second Argument to prove the Assumption of your first Syllogisme stands thus The Roman Church when Luther and his followers made the separation was the true visible Church of Christ But Luther and his followers forsook the externall Communion of the Roman Church Therefore they forsook the externall Communion of the true visible Church of Christ. The Assumption of this Syllogisme needs no proof The Proposition which needs it very much you endeavour to confirme by these Reasons 1 The Roman Church had the notes of the Church assigned by Protestants 1. The true preaching of the Word and due administration of the Sacraments Therefore she was the true Church The Antecedent is proved Because D. Potter confesses shee wanted nothing Fundamentall or necessary to salvation Therefore for the Substance of the matter she had these notes 2 Either the Roman Church was the true visible Church or Protestants can name and proue some other disagreeing from the Roman and agreeing with Protestants in their particular Doctrine or else they must say there was no visible Church But they will not say there was no Church They cannot name and proue any other disagreeing from the Roman and agreeing with Protestants in their particular Doctrines because this cannot be the Greek Church nor that of the Waldenses Wicklifites Hussites nor that of the Muscovites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians which you confirme by severall Arguments Therefore they must grant that the Roman Church was the true visible Church And this is the businesse of your 47. 48. 49. 50. 51 52. 53. 54. and 55. Sections of this Chapter 25 Now to all this I answer very briefly thus That you have played the unwise builder and erected a stately structure upon a false foundation For whereas you take for granted as an undoubted Truth That whosoever leave the externall communion of the visible Church are Schismaticall I tell you Sir you presume too much upon us and would have us grant that which is the main point in Question For either you suppose the externall Communion of the Church corrupted and that there was a necessity for them that would communicate with this Church to communicate in her corruptions Or you suppose her Communion uncorrupted If the former and yet will take for granted that all are Schismatiques that leave her Communion though it bee 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 Vnanimous in the Deniall of both these things Both that the Communion of the Visible Church was then uncorrupted And that they are truly Schismatiques 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 You will say perhaps that you have already proved it impossible that the
Church or her Communion should be corrupted And therefore that they are Schismatiques who leave the externall Communion of the Visible Church because she cannot be corrupted And that hereafter you will prove that corruptions in the Churches communion though the belief and profession of them be made the condition of her communion cannot justify a separation from it And therefore that they are Schismatiques who leave the Churches communion though corrupted I Answer that I have examined your proofes of the former found that a veine of Sophistry runs cleane through them And for the latter it is so plain and palpable a falsehood that I cannot but be confident whatsoever you bring in proofe of it will like the Apples of Sodom fall to Ashes upon the first touch And this is my first and main exception against your former discourse that accusing Protestants of a very great and horrible crime you have proved your accusation only with a fallacy 26 Another is that although it were granted Schisme to leave the externall Communion of the visible Church in what state or case so ever it be and that Luther his followers were Schismatiques for leaving the externall Communion of all visible Churches yet you faile exceedingly of cleering the other necessary point undertaken by you That the Roman Church was then the Visible Church For neither doe 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 Catholique or the whole Church the Latter a Particular Church or a part of the Catholique And therefore suppose out of curtesy we should grant what by argument you can never evince that your Church had these notes yet would it by no meanes follow that your Church were the Visible Church but only a Visible Church not the whole Catholique but only a part of it But then besides where doth D. Potter acknowledge any such matter as you pretend Where doth he say that you had for the substance the true Preaching of the word or due Administration of the Sacraments Or where does he say that from which you collect this you wanted nothing Fundamentall or necessary to Salvation He saies indeed that though your Errors were in themselves damnable and full of great impiety yet he hopes that those amongst you who were invincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy have their errors pardoned and their soules saved And this is all he saies and this you confesse to be all he saies in diverse places of your book which is no more then you your selfe doe and must affirme of Protestants and yet I believe you will not suffer us to inferre from hence that you grant Protestants to have for the substance the true preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments and want nothing fundamentall or necessary to salvation And if we should draw this consequence from your concession certainly we should doe you injury in regard many things may in themselves and in ordinary course be necessary to salvation to those that have meanes to attain them as your Church generally hath which yet by accident to these which were by some impregnable impediment debarred of these meanes may by Gods mercy be made unnecessary 27 Lastly whereas you say that Protestants must either grant that your Church then was the visible Church or name some other disagreeing from yours agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrine 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 confesse 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 gratious acceptance was still a Church We pretend not to name any one Society that was this Church and yet we see no reason that can inforce us to confesse 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 selfe in proving that we cannot pretend that either the Greekes Waldenses Wickliffites Hussites Muscovites Armenians Georgians Abyssines were then the Visible Church For all this dicourse proceeds from a false and vain supposition and beggs another point in Question between us which is that some Church of one denomination and one Communion as the Roman the Greeke c. must be alwaies 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 alwaies some Visible Church of one denomination pure from all error in doctrine might be wrought upon and prevailed with by it to forsake the Church of Protestants yet why it should induce him to goe to yours rather then the Greeke Church or any other which pretends to perpetuall succession as well as yours that I doe not understand Vnlesse it be for the reason which Aeneas Syluius gave why more held the Pope above a Councell then a Councell above the Pope which was because Popes did give Bishopricks and Archbishopricks but Councells 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 meere favour that there must be alwaies some Church of one Denomination and Communion free from all errors in doctrine and that Protestants had not alwaies 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 then this If you will leave England you must of necessity goe to Rome And yet with this wretched fallacy have I been sometimes abused my selfe and known many other poore soules 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 alwaies be held captive under such miserable delusions 28 We see then how unsuccessefull you have been in making good your accusation with reasons drawn from the nature of the thing and which may be urged in common against all Protestants Let us come now to the Arguments of the other kinde which you build upon D. Potters own words out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince Protestants of Schisme 29 But let the understanding Reader take with him but three or foure short remembrances and I dare say he shall find them upon examination not only
answerable but already answered The memorandums I would commend to him are these 30 That not every separation but only a causelesse separation from the externall Communion of any Church is the Sinne of Schisme 31 That imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known errours and practising known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation and that this is the cause which Protestants alleage to justifie their separation from the Church of Rome 32 That to leave the Church and to leave the externall Communion of a Church at least as D. Potter understands the words is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to haue those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as faith and obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publike worship of God This little Armour if it be rightly placed I am perswaded will repell all those Batteries which you threaten shall be so furious 33 Ad § 13. 14. 15. The first is a sentence of S. Austine against Donatus applied to Luther thus If the Church perished what Church brought forth Donatus you say Luther If she could not perish what madnesse moved the sect of Donatus to separate upon pretence to avoid the Communion of bad men Whereunto one faire answer to let passe many others is obvious out of the second observation That this sentence though it were Gospell as it is not is impertinently applied to Luther and Lutherans Whose pretence of separation be it true or be it false was not as that of the Donatists only to avoid the Communion of bad men but to free themselves from a necessity which but by separating was unavoidable of joyning with bad men in their impieties And your not substituting Luther in stead of Donatus in the latter part of the Dilemma as well as in the former would make a suspicious man conjecture that you your selfe took notice of this exception of disparitie between Donatus and Luther 34 Ad § 16. Your second onset drives only at those Protestants who hold the true Church was invisible for many ages Which Doctrine if by the true Church be understood the pure Church as you doe understand it is a certain truth and it is easier for you to declaime as you doe then to dispute against it But these men you say must bee Heretiques because they separated from the Communion of the visible Church and therefore also from the Communion of that which they say was invisible In as much as the invisible Church communicated with the visible 35 Ans. I might very justly desire some proofe of that which so confidently you take for granted That there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the Truth in the daies of our Fore-fathers but only such as dissembled their opinions lived in your Communion And truly if I should say there were many of this condition I suppose I could make my Affirmative much more probable then you can make your Negatiue We read in Scripture that Elias conceived There was none left besides himselfe in the whole kingdome of Israell who had not revolted from God and yet God himselfe assures us that he was deceived And if such a man a Prophet and one of the greatest erred in his judgement touching his own time and his own countrey why may not you who are certainly but a man and subject to the same passions as Elias was mistake in thinking that in former ages in some countrey or other there were not alwaies some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal But this answer I am content you shall take no notice of and thinke it sufficient to tell you that if it bee true that this supposed invisible Church did hypocritically communicate with the visible Church in her corruptions then Protestants had cause nay necessity to forsake their Communion also for otherwise they must haue joyn'd with thē in the practise of impieties and seeing they had such cause to separate they presume their separation cannot be schismaticall 36 Yes you reply to forsake the externall Communion of them with whom they agree in faith is the most formall proper sin of Schisme Ans. Very true but I would fain know wherein I would gladly be informed whether I bee bound for feare of Schisme to communicate with those that believe as I doe only in lawfull things or absolutely in every thing whether I am to joyn with them in superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common profession of the faith wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it This is that which you would haue them do or else forsooth they must be Schismatiques But hereafter I pray remember that there is no necessity of communicating even with true Beleevers in wicked actions Nay that there is a necessity herein to separate from them And then I dare say even you being their judge the reasonablenesse of their cause to separate shall according to my first observation justifie their separation from being schismaticall 37 Arg But the property of Schisme according to D. Potter is to cut off from the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates And these Protestants haue this property Therefore they are Schismatiques 38 Ans. I deny the Syllogisme it is no better then this One Symptome of the Plague is a Feaver But such a man hath a Feaver Therefore he hath the Plague The true conclusiō which issues out of these Premisses should be this Therefore he hath one Symptome of the plague And so likewise in the former therefore they haue one property or one quality of Schismatiques And as in the former instance The man that hath one signe of the plague may by reason of the absence of other requisites not haue the plague So these Protestants may haue something of Schismatiques and yet not be Schismatiques A Tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure and a just judge that condemnes a malefactor doe both sentence a man to death and so for the matter doe both the same thing yet the one does wickedly the other justly What 's the reason because the one hath cause the other hath not In like manner Schismatiques either alwaies or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate The same doe these Protestants yet are not Schismatiques The Reason because Schismatiques doe it and doe it without cause and Protestants haue cause for what they doe The impieties of your Church being generally speaking damnable unlesse where they are excus'd by ignorance and expiated at least by a generall repentance In fine though perhaps it may be true that all Schismatiques doe so yet universall affirmatiues are not converted and therefore it followes not by any good Logick that all that doe so when there is just cause for it must be Schismatiques The cause in this matter of separation is
all in all and that for ought I see you never think of But if these rigid Protestants haue iust cause to cut off your Church from the hope of salvation How can the milder sort allow hope of salvation to the Members of this Church Ans. Distinguish the quality of the Persons censur'd and this seeming repugance of their censures will vanish into nothing For your Church may be considered either in regard of those in whom either negligence or pride or worldly feare or hopes or some other voluntary sinne is the cause of their ignorance which I feare is the case of the generality of men amongst you or in regard of those who owe their Errours from Truth to want of capacity or default of instruction either in respect of those that might know the truth and will not or of those who would know the truth but all things considered cannot In respect of those that haue eyes to see and will not see or those that would gladly see but want eyes or light Consider the former sort of men which your more rigid censurers seem especially to reflect upon and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy Consider the latter and the mildest will not be too milde So that here is no difference but in words only neither are you flattered by the one nor uncharitably censur'd by the other 39 Your next blow is directed against the milder sort of Protestants who you say involve themselves in the sinne of Schisme by communicating with those as you call them exterminating Spirits whom you conceiue your selfe to have proved Schismatiques And now load them further with the crime of Heresie For say you if you held your selves obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errours which yet you confesse were not fundamentall shall it not be much more damnable to liue in confraternity with these who defend an Errour of the fayling of the Church which in the Donatists you confesse to haue been properly Hereticall 40 Answ You mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you onely or principally by reason of your Errours and Corruption For the true reason according to my third observation is not so much because you maintaine Errours and Corruptions as because you impose them and will allow your Communion to none but to those that will hold them with you and haue so ordered your Communion that either we must communicate with you in these things or nothing And for this very reason though it were granted that these Protestants held this doctrine which you impute to them And though this Errour were as damnable and as much against the Creed as you pretend Yet after all this this disparity between you and them might make it more lawfull for us to communicate with them then you because what they hold they hold to themselues and refuse not as you doe to communicate with them that hold the contrary 41 Thus we may answer your Argument though both your former Suppositions were granted But then for a second answer I am to tell you that there is no necessity of granting either of them For neither doe these Protestants hold the fayling of the Church from its being but only from its visibility which if you conceive all one then must you conceive that the starres fayle every day and the Sunne every night Neither is it certain that the doctrine of the Churches fayling is repugnant to the Creed For as the truth of the Article of the Remission of sinnes depends not upon the actuall remission of any mans sinnes but upon Gods readinesse and resolution to forgive the sins of all that believe and repent so that although unbeleef or impenitence should be universall and the Faithfull should absolutely fayle from the children of men and the sonne of man should finde no faith on the earth yet should the Article still continue true that God would forgive the sinnes of all that repent In like manner it is not certain that the truth of the Article of the Catholique Church depends upon the actuall existence of a Catholique Church but rather upon the right that the Church of Christ or rather to speak properly the Gospell of Christ hath to be universally believed And therefore the Article may bee true though there were no Church in the world In regard this notwithstanding it remaines still true that there ought to be a Church this Church ought to be Catholique For as of these two Propositions There is a Church in America and There should bee a Church in America The truth of the latter depends not upon the truth of the former so neither does it in these two There is a Church diffused all the world over and There should be a Church diffused all the world over 42 Thirdly if you understand by Errours not fundamentall such as are not damnable it is not true as I haue often told you that we confesse your errours not fundamentall 43 Lastly for your desire that I should here apply an authority of S. Cyprian alleaged in your next number I would haue done so very willingly but indeed I know not how to doe it for in my apprehensiō it hath no more to doe with your present businesse of proving it unlawfull to communicate with these men who hold the Church was not alwaies visible then In nova fert animus Besides I am here again to remember you that S. Cyprians words were they never so pertinent yet are by neither of the parts litigant esteemed any rule of faith And therefore the urging of them and such like authorities serves onely to make Books great and Controversies endlesse 44 Ad § 17. The next Section in three long leaues delivers us this short sense That those Protestants which say they have not left the Churches externall Communion but only her corruptions pretend to doe that which is impossible Because these corruptions were inherent in the Churches externall Communion and therefore he that forsakes them cannot but forsake this 45 Ans. But who are they that pretend they forsooke the Churches corruptions and not her externall communion Some there be that say they have not left the Church that is not ceased to be members of the Church but only left her corruptions some that they have not left the communion but the corruptions of it meaning the internall communion of it and conjunction with it by faith and obedience which disagree from the former only in the manner of speaking for he that is in the Church is in this kinde of communion with it and he that is not in this internall communion is not in the Church Some perhaps that they left not your externall communion in all things meaning that they left it not voluntarily being not fugitivi but fugati as being willing to joyne with you in any act of piety but were by you necessitated and constrained to doe so because you
would not suffer them to doe well with you unlesse they would doe ill with you Now to doe ill that you may doe well is against the will of God which to every good man is a high degree of necessity But for such Protestants as pretend that de facto they forsook your corruptions only and not your externall communion that is such as pretend to communicate with you in your confessions and Liturgies and participation of Sacraments I cannot but doubt very much that neither you nor I have ever met with any of this condition And if perhaps you were led into error by thinking that to leave the Church and to leave the externall communion of it was all one in sense signification I hope by this time you are disabus'd and beginne to understand that as a man may leave any fashion or custome of a Colledge and yet remain still a member of the Colledge so a man may possibly leave some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe others and continue still a member of that Church Provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the essence of the Church consists Whereas peradventure this practise may be so involved with the externall communion of this Church that it may be simply impossible for him to leave this practise and not to leave the Churches externall communion 46 You will reply perhaps That the difficulty lies as well against those who pretend to forsake the Churches corruptions not the Church as against those who say they forsook the Churches corruptions and not her externall communion And that the reason is still the same because these supposed corruptions were inherent in the whole Church and therefore by like reason with the former could not be forsaken but if the whole Church were forsaken 47 Ans. A pretty Sophisme and very fit to perswade men that it is impossible for them to forsake any error they hold or any vice they are subject to either peculiar to themselves or in common with others Because forsooth they cannot forsake themselves and Vices and Errors are things inherent in themselves The deceit lies in not distinguishing between a Locall and a Morall forsaking of any thing For as it were an absurdity fit for the maintainers of Transubstantiation to defend that a man may Locally and properly depart from the Accidents of a subject and not from the subject it selfe So is it also against reason to deny that a man may by an usuall phrase of speech forsake any custome or quality good or bad either proper to himself or common to himselfe with any company and yet never truly or properly forsake either his company or himselfe Thus if all the Iesuits in the Society were given to write Sophistically yet you might leave this ill custome and yet not leave your Society If all the Citizens of a City were addicted to any vanity they might either all or some of them forsake it and yet not forsake the city If all the parts of a mans body were dirty or filthy nothing hinders but that all or some of them might clense 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 reforme 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 Certainly it is so obvious sensible a Truth that this thing is possible that no man in his wits will be perswaded out of it with all the Quirks and Metaphysicks in the World Neither is this to say that a man may keep company with Christopher Potter and not keep company with the Provost of Q. Colledge Nor that a man can avoid the company of a sinner and at the same time be really present with the man who is the sinner which we leave to those Protestants of your invention who are so foolish as to pretend that a man may really separate himselfe from the Churches externall communion as she is corrupted and yet continue in that Churches externall Communion which in this externall Communion is corrupted But we that say only the whole Church being corrupted some parts of it might and did reforme themselves and yet might and did continue parts of the Church though separated from the externall communion of the other parts which would not reforme need not trouble our selves to reconcile any such repugnance For the case put by you of keeping D. Potters company and leaving the company of the Provost of Queens Colledge of leaving a sinners company and not the mans are nothing at all like ours But if you would speak to the point you must shew that D. Potter cannot leave being Provost of Q. Colledge without ceasing to be himselfe or that a sinner cannot leave his sinne without ceasing to be a man or that he that is part of any society cannot renounce any Vice of that society but he must relinquish the society If you would shew any of these things then indeed I dare promise you should find us apt enough to believe that the particular parts of the visible Church could not reforme themselves but they must of necessity become no parts of it But untill we see this done you must pardon us if we choose to believe sense rather then Sophistry 48 In this Paragraph you bring in the sentence of S. Cyprian whereto you refer'd us in the former but why in a cōtroversy of faith doe you cite any thing which is confessed on all hands not to be a rule of faith Besides in my apprehension this sentence of S. Cyprian is in this place and to this purpose meerely impertinent S. Cyprians words are The Church he speaks of the particular Church or Diocesse of Rome being one cannot be within and without If she be with Novatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with Cornelius who succeeded Fabianus by lawfull Ordination Novatianus is not in the Church And now having related the words I am only to remember the Reader that your businesse was to prove it impossible For a man to forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church and then to request him to tell me whether as I said In nova fert animus had not been as much to the purpose 49 Toward the conclusion of this Section you number up your Victories and tell us That out of your discourse it remaineth cleere that this our chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the Question confoundeth internall Acts of the under standing with externoll deeds doth not distinguish between Schisme and Heresy and leaves this demonstrated against us that they Protestants divided themselves from the communion of the Visible Catholique Church because they conceived that she needed Reformation To which Triumphs if any reply be needfull then briefly thus We doe not
change the state of the Question but you mistake it For the Question was not whether they might forsake the corruptions of the Church and continue in her externall communion which we confesse impossible because these corruptions were in her communion But the Question was whether they might forsake the corruptions of the Church and not the Church but continue still the Members of it And to this Question there is not in your whole discourse one pertinent syllable 50 We doe not confound internall Acts of understanding with externall deeds but acknowledge as you would have us that we cannot as matters now stand separate from your corruptions but we must depart from your Externall communion For you have so ordered things that whosoever will Communicate with you at all must communicate with you in your corruptions But it is you that will not perceive the difference between being a part of the Church and being in externall Communion with all the other parts of it taking for granted that which is certainly false that no two men or Churches divided in externall communion can be both true parts of the Catholique Church 51 We are not to learn the difference between Schisme Heresy for Heresy we conceive an obstinate defence of any Errour against any necessary Article of the Christian faith And Schisme a causelesse separation of one part of the Church from another But this we say That if we convince you of errors and corruptions professed and practised in your Communion then we cannot be Schismatiques for refusing to joyne with you in the profession of these Errors and the practise of these corruptions And therefore you must free your selves from Error or us from Schisme 52 Lastly whereas you say That you have demonstrated against us that Protestants divided themselves from the externall communion of the Visible Church adde which externall communion was corrupted and we shall confesse the accusation and glory in it But this is not that Quod erat demonstrandum but that we divided our selves from the Church that is made ourselves out-lawes from it and no members of it And moreover in the Reason of your separation from the externall communion of your Church you are mistaken for it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches externall communion was corrupted and needed Reformation 53 That a pretence of Reformation will acquit no man from Schisme we grant very willingly and therefore say that it concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his Salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For unlesse it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient But whether a true Reformation of our selves from Errors superstitions and impieties will not justify our separation in these things our separation I say from them who will not reforme themselves and as much as in them lies hinder others from doing so This is the point you should have spoken to but have not As for the sentences of the Fathers to which you referre us for the determination of this Question I suppose by what I have said above the Reader understands by alleaging them you have gain'd little credit to your cause or person And that if they were competent Iudges of this controversy their sentence is against you much rather then for you 54 Lastly whereas you desire D. Potter to remember his own words There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe and pretend that you have shewed that Luther did so The Doctor remembers his words very well and hath no reason to be ashamed of them Only he desires you to remember that hereafter you doe not confound as hitherto you have done departing from the Church i. e. ceasing to be a member of it with departing from the Churches externall communion and then he is perswaded it will appeare to you that against Luther and his followers you have said many things but shewed nothing 55 But the Church Vniversall remaining the Church Vniversall according to D. Potter may fall into error And from hence it cleerely followes that it is impossible to leave the externall communion of the Church so corrupted and retain externall communion with the Catholique Church Ans. The reason of this consequence which you say is so cleere truly I cannot possibly discern But the conclusion inferr'd methinkes is evident of it selfe and therefore without proofe I grant it I meane that it is impossible to leave the externall communion of the Catholique Church corrupted and to retain externall communion with the Catholique Church But what use you can make of it I doe not understand Vnlesse you will pretend that to say a man may forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church is all one as to say he may forsake the Churches externall Communion and not forsake it If you mean so sure you mistake the meaning of Protestants when they say They forsook not the Church but her corruptions For in saying so they neither affirme nor deny that they forsooke the externall communion of the Church nor speake at all of it But they mean only that they ceased not to be still members of the Church though they ceased to believe and practise some things which the whole Church formerly did believe and practise And as for the externall Communion of the Visible Church we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it that is renounce the practise of some observances in which the whole visible Church before thē did communicate But this we say they did without Schisme because they had cause to do so and no man can have cause to be a Schismatique 56 But your Argument you conceive will bee more convincing if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct Visible true Churches one Pure the other Corrupted but one Church only Ans. The ground of this is no way certain nor here sufficiently proved For whereas you say Histories are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should have read all Histories that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much lesse extant uncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all power in her hands hath been so pernitiously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all Records should remain which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Neither secondly to suppose a Visible Church before Luther which did not erre is it to contradict this ground of D. Potters that the Church may erre Vnlesse you will have us believe that May be and Must be is all one and that all which may be true is true which rule if it were true then sure all men would be honest because all men may be so and you would not
make so bad Arguments unlesse you will pretend you cannot make better Nor thirdly is it to contradict these words The Church may not hope to triumph over all error till she be in Heaven For to triumph over error is to be secure from it to be out of danger of it not to be obnoxious to it Now a Church may be free from error and yet not secure from it and consequently in this sense not triumph over it Fourthly whereas you say it evacuateth the bragge of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church perhaps though I know not who they be that say so by a frequent synecdoche they may mean by the whole the greatest and most illustrious part of it the lustre whereof did much obscure the other though it were not wholly invisible Besides if their bragge be evacuated as you call it let it be so I see no harme will come of it Lastly whereas you say that supposing a visible pure Church Luther must be a Schismatique who separated from all visible Churches I tell you if you will suppose a visible Church extant before and when Luther arose conformable to him in all points of Doctrine necessary and profitable then Luther separated not from this Church but adjoyned himselfe to it Not indeed in place wich was not necessary not in externall communion which was impossible but by the Vnion of faith and charity Vpon these grounds I say that the ground of this Argument is no way made certaine yet because it is not manifestly false I am content to let it passe And for ought I see it is very safe for me to doe so for you build nothing upon it which I may not fairely grant For what doe you conclude from hence but that seeing there was no Visible Church but corrupted Luther forsaking the externall communion of the corrupted Church could not but forsake the externall communion of the Catholique Church Well let this also be granted what will come of it What that Luther must be a Schismatique By no meanes For not every separation but only a causeles separation from the communion of the Church we maintain to be Schismaticall Hereunto may be added that though the whole Church were corrupted yet properly speaking it is not true that Luther his Followers forsook the whole corrupted Church or the externall communion of it But only that he forsook that Part of it which was corrupted and still would be so and forsook not but only reformed another Part which Part they themselves were and I suppose you will not goe about to perswade us that they forsook themselves or their own communion And if you urge that they joyned themselves to no other part therefore they separated from the whole I say it followes not in as much as themselves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore could no more separate from the whole then from themselves Thus though there were no part of the people of Rome to whom the Plebeians joyned themselves when they made their Secession into the Aventine Hill yet they divided themselves from the Patricians only and not from the whole people because themselves were a part of this people and they divided not from themselves 57 Ad § 18. In the 18. § you prove that which no man denies that corruption in manners yeelds no sufficient cause to leave the Church yet sure it yeelds sufficient cause to cast them out of the Church that are after the Churches publique admonition obstinate in notorious impieties Neither doth the cutting off such men from the Church lay any necessity upon us either to goe out of the world or out of the Church but rather puts these men out of the Church into the world where we may converse with them freely without scandall to the Church Our Blessed Saviour foretold you say that there should be in the Church tares with choice corne Look again I pray and you shall see that the field he speaks of is not the Church but the world and therefore neither doe You obey our Saviours command Let both grow up till the harvest who teach it to be lawfull to roote these tares such are Heretiques out of the world neither doe Protestants disobey it if they eject manifest Heresies and notorious sinners out of the Church 58 Ad § 19. in the 19. you are so curteous as to suppose corruptions in your doctrine and yet undertake to prove that neither could they afford us any sufficient cause or colourable necessity to depart from them Your reason is because damnable errors there were none in your Church by D. Potters confession neither can it be damnable in respect of errour to remain in any Churches communion whose errors are not damnable For if the error be not damnable the belief thereof cannot Ans. D. Potter confesseth no such matter but only that he hopes that your errors though in themselves sufficiently damnable yet by accident did not damne all that held them such he meanes and saies as were excusably ignorant of the Truth and amongst the number of their unknown sinnes repented daily of their unknown errors The truth is he thinks as ill of your errors and their desert as you doe of ours only he is not so peremptory and presumptuous in judging your persons as you are in judging ours but leaves them to stand or fall to their own Master who is infinitely mercifull and therefore will not damne them for meere errors who desire to find the truth and cannot and withall infinitely just and therefore is it to be feared will not pardon them who might easily have come to the knowledge of the truth and either through Pride or obstinacy or negligence would not 59 To your minor also I answer almost in your own words § 42. of this Chap. I thank you for your curteous supposall that your Church may erre and in recompence thereof will doe you a charity by putting you in mind into what Labyrinths you cast your selfe by supposing that the Church may erre in some of her Proposalls and yet denying it lawfull for any man though he know this which you suppose to oppose her judgement or leave her communion Will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience or externally deny that which he knowes true No that you will not for them that doe so you your selfe have pronounced A. damned Crâ—w of dissembling Sycophants Or would you have him continue in your Communion and yet professe your Church to erre This you your selves have made to him impossible Or would you have him beleeve those things true which together with him you have supposed to be Errors This in such a one as is assur'd or perswaded of that which you here suppose that your Church doth erre and such only we say are obliged to forsake your communion is as Schoolemen speak Implicatio in terminis a contradiction so plain that one word destroieth another as if one should say a living dead man
that they left them Therefore Luther and his followers cannot deny but that they left the visible Church Where me thinks you prove little but take for granted that which is one of the greatest Questions amongst us that is That the Company which Luther left was the whole Visible Church whereas you know we say it was but a part of it and that corrupted and obstinate in her corruptions Indeed that Luther and his followers left off the Practice of those Corruptions wherein the whole Visible Church did communicate formerly which I meant when I acknowledg'd aboue that they forsook the externall Communion of the Visible Church or that they left that part of the Visible church in her corruptions which would not be reformed These things if you desire I shall be willing to grant and that by a Synecdoche of the whole for the part he might be said to forsake the Visible Church that is a part of it and the greater part But that properly speaking he forsook the whole Visible Church I hope you will excuse me if I grant not this untill you bring better proofe of it then your former similitude And my Reason is his because he and his Followers were a part of this Church and ceased not to be so by their Reformation Now he and his followers certainly forsook not themselves Therefore not every part of the Church therefore not the whole Church But then if you speak of D. Potters cases according as he put them and answer not your owne Arguments when you make shew of answering his me thinks it should not be so unreasonable as you make it for the Persons he speaks of to deny that they left the communities whereof they were Members For example That the Monkes of S. Benets Order make one Body whereof their severall Monasteries are severall members I presume it will be easily granted Suppose now that all these Monasteries being quite out of Order some 20. or 30. of them should reforme themselves the rest persisting still in their irregular couses were it such a mon. strous impudence as you make it for these Monasteries which we suppose reformed to deny that they forsook their Order or Community whereof they were parts In my Opinion it is no such matter Let the world judge Againe whereas the Dr saies that in a Society of men Vniversally infected with some disease they that should free themselues from the common disease could not therefore be said to separate from the Society It is very strange to me that you should say he speaks very strangely Truly Sr I am extreamly deceaved if his words be not plain English and plain sense and containe such a manifest Truth as cannot be denyed with modesty nor gone about to be proved without vanity For whatsoever is proved must be proved by something more evident Now what can be more evident then this That if some whole Families were taken with Agues if the Father of this Family should free himselfe from his that he should not therefore deservedly be thought to abandon and desert his Family But say you if they doe not separate themselves from the Society of the wicked persons how doe they free themselves from the common disease Doe they at the same time remaine in the company and yet depart from those infected creatures Me thinks a Writer of Controversies should not be ignorant how this may be done without any such difficulty But if you doe not know I 'le tell you There is no necessity they should leaue the company of these infected persons at all much lesse that they should at once depart from it and remaine with it which I confesse were very difficult But if they will free themselues from their disease let them stay where they are and take physick Or if you would be better informed how this strange thing may be done learne from your selfe They may free their own persons from the common disease yet so that they remain still in the company infected eating and drinking with them c. Which are your own words within foure or fiue lines after this plainly shewing that your mistaking D. Potters meaning your wondring at his words as at some strange monsters was all this while affected and that you are conscious to your selfe of perverting his Argument that you may seem to say something when indeed you say nothing Whereas therefore you adde we must then say that they separate themselues from the persons though it be by occasion of the disease I assure you good Sir you must not doe so at any hand for then you alter spoile D. Potters case quite and fight not with his reason but your own shadow For the instance of a man freeing himselfe from the disease of his company and not leaving his company is very fit to proue by the parity of reason that it is very possible a man may leaue the corruptions of a Church and not leaue the Church that is not cease to be a member of it But yours of a man leaving his company by occasion of their disease hath no analogy at all with this businesse 95 But Luther his followers did not continue in the cōpany of those from whose diseases they pretend to free themselves Very true neither was it said they did so There is no necessity that that which is compared to another thing should agree with it in all things it is sufficient if it agree in that wherein it is compared A man freeing himselfe from the common disease of a society and yet continuing a part of it is here compared to Luther and his followers freeing themselues from the corruptions of the visible Church continuing a part of the Church As for accompanying the other parts of it in all things it was neither necessary nor without destroying our supposition of their forsaking the corruptions of the Church possible Not necessary for they may be parts of the Church which doe not joyne with other parts of it in all observances Nor possible for had he accompanied them in all things he had not freed himselfe from the common corruptions 96 But they indeavoured to force the society whereof they were parts to be healed and reformed as they were and if it refused they did when they had power driue them away even their superiours both Spirituall and Temporall as is notorious The proofes hereof are wanting and therefore I might deferre my answer untill they were produced yet take this before hand If they did so then herein in my opinion they did amisse for I haue learnt from the ancient Fathers of the Church that nothing is more against Religion then to force Religion of S. Paul the weapons of the Christian warfare are not carnall And great reason For humane violence may make men counterfeit but cannot make them believe is therefore fit for nothing but to breed forme without Atheisme within Besides if this meanes of bringing men to embrace any Religion were
generally used as if it may be justly used in any place by those that haue power and think they haue truth certainly they cannot with reason deny but that it may bee used in every place by those that haue power as well as they and think they haue truth as wel as they what could follow but the maintenance perhaps of truth but perhaps onely of the profession of it in one place the oppression of it in a hundred What will follow from it but the preservation peradventure of unity but peradventure only of uniformity in particular States Churches but the immortalizing the greater and more lamentable divisions of Christendome and the world And therefore what can follow from it but perhaps in the judgement of carnall policie the temporall benefit and tranquillity of temporall States and Kingdomes but the infinit prejudice if not the desolation of the kingdome of Christ And therefore it well becomes thē who haue their portions in this life who serve no higher State then that of England or Spain or France nor this neither any further then they may serue themselves by it who thinke of no other happinesse but the preservation of their own fortunes and tranquillity in this world who think of no other meanes to preserve States but humane power and Machiavillian policie and belieue no other Creed but this Regi aut Civitati imperium habenti nihil iniustum quod utile Such men as these it may become to maintaine by worldly power and violence their State instrument Religion For if all be vain and false as in their judgement it is the present whatsoever is better then any because it is already setled and alteration of it may draw with it change of States and the change of State the subversion of their fortune But they that are indeed servants and lovers of Christ of truth of the Church and of man-kinde ought with all courage to oppose themselves against it as a common enemy of all these They that know there is a King of Kings and Lord of Lords by whose will and pleasure Kings and Kingdomes stand and fall they know that to no King or state any thing can be profitable which is unjust and that nothing can be more evidently unjust then to force weak men by the profession of a religion which they believe not to loose their owne eternall happinesse out of a vain and needlesse feare least they may possibly disturb their temporall quietnesse There is no danger to any state from any mans opinion unlesse it be such an opinion by which disobedience to authority or impiety is taught or licenc'd which sort I confesse may justly be punished as well as other faults or unlesse this sanguinary doctrine bee joyn'd with it that it is lawfull for him by humane violence to enforce others to it Therefore if Protestants did offer violence to other mens consciences and compell them to embrace their Reformation I excuse them not much lesse if they did so to the sacred Persons of Kings and those that were in authority over them who ought to be so secur'd from violence that even their unjust and tyrannous violence though it may be avoided according to that of our Saviour When they persecute you in one Citty fly into another yet may it not be resisted by opposing violence against it Protestants therefore that were guilty of this crime are not to be excused and blessed had they been had they chosen rather to be Martyrs then murderers and to dye for their religion rather then to fight for it But of all the men in the world you are the most unfit to accuse them hereof against whō the soules of the Martyrs from under the Altar cry much lowder then against all their other Persecutors together Who for these many ages together haue daily sacrificed Hecatombes of innocent Christians under the name of Heretiques to your blind zeal and furious superstition Who teach plainly that you may propagate your Religion whensoever you haue power by deposing of Kings and invasion of Kingdomes think when you kill the adversaries of it you doe God good service But for their departing corporally from them whom mentally they had forsaken For their forsaking the externall Cōmunion company of that part of the unreformed part of the Church in their superstitions impieties thus much of your accusation we embrace glory in it And say though some Protestants might offend in the manner or the degree of their separation yet certainly their separation it selfe was not Schismaticall but innocent and not only so but just and necessary And as for your obtruding upon D. Potter that he should say There neither was nor could be iust cause to doe so no more then to depart from Christ himselfe I haue shewed divers times already that you sdeal very injuriously with him confounding together Departing from the Church and Departing from some generall opinions and practises which did not constitute but vitiate not make the Church but marre it For though he saies that which is most true that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church that is to cease being a member of the Church no more then to depart from Christ himself in as much as these are not divers but the same thing yet he no where denies but there might be iust and necessary cause to depart from some opinions and practises of your Church nay of the Catholique Church And therefore you doe vainly to infer that Luther and his followers for so doing were Schismatiques 97 Ad § 35. I answer in a word that neither are Optatus his sayings rules of Faith and therefore not fit to determine Controversies of Faith And then that Majorinus might well be a Schismatique for departing from Ca cilianus and the Chayre of Cyprian Peter without cause and yet Luther and his followers who departed from the Communion of the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of their own Diocesse be none because they had just and necessary cause of their departure For otherwise they must haue continued in the profession of known Errours and the practise of manifest corruptions 98 Ad § 36. In the next Section you tell us that Christ our Lord gaue S. Peter his successors authority over his whole Militant Church And for proof hereof you first referre us to Brerely citing exactly the places of such cheefe Protestants as haue confessed the antiquity of this point Where first you fall into the Fallacy which is called Ignoratio elenchi or mistaking the Question for being to proue this point true you onely prove it ancient Which to what purpose is it when both the parties litigant are agreed that many errors were held by many of the ancient Doctors much more ancient then any of those who are pretended to be confessed by Protestants to haue held with you in this matter and when those whom you haue to doe with and whom it is vain to dispute against but
have been accomplished in and by the Catholicke Roman Religion and the Professors of it and not by Protestant Religion and the Professors of it 6 Because the doctrine of the Church of Rome is conformable and the doctrine of Protestants contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers of the Primitive Church even by the confession of Protestants themselves I meane those fathers who lived within the compasse of the first 600. years to whom Protestants themselves doe very frequently and very confidently appeale 7 Because the first pretended Reformers had neither extraordinary Commission from God nor ordinary Mission from the Church to preach Protestant Doctrine 8 Because Luther to preach against the Masse which containes the most materiall points now in controversy was perswaded by reasons suggested to him by the Divell himselfe disputing with him So himselfe professeth in his Book de Missa Privata That all men might take heed of following him who professeth himselfe to follow the Divell 9 Because the Protestant cause is now and hath been from the begining maintained with grosse falsifications and Calumnies whereof their prime Controversy writers are notoriously and in high degree guilty 10 Because by denying all humane authority either of Pope or Councells or Church to determine Controversies of Faith they have abolished all possible meanes of suppressing Heresy or restoring unity to the Church These are the Motives now my Answers to them follow brieâ—ly and in order 43 To the first God hath neither decreed nor foretold that his true Doctrine should de facto be alwaies visibly prfessed without any mixture of falshood To the second God hath neither decreed nor foretold that there shall be alwaies a visible company of men free from all error in it selfe damnable Neither is it alwaies of necessity Schismaticall to separate from the externall communion of a Church though wanting nothing necessary For if this Church suppos'd to want nothing necessary require me to professe against my conscience that I believe some error though never so small and innocent which I doe not believe and will not allow me her communion but upon this condition In this case the Church for requiring this condition is Schismaticall and not I for separating from the Church To the third If any credit may be given to Records farre more creditable then these the Doctrine of Protestants that is the Bible hath been confirm'd and the Doctrine of Papists which is in many points plainly opposite to it confounded with supernaturall and divine Miracles which for number and glory outshine Popish pretended Miracles as much as the Sunne doth an Ignis fatuus those I mean which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles Now this book by the confession of all sides confirm'd by innumerous Miracles foretels me plainly that in after ages great signes and wonders shall be wrought in confirmation of false doctrine and that I am not to believe any doctrine which seemes to my understanding repugnant to the first though an Angell from Heaven should teach it which were certainly as great a Miracle as any that was ever wrought in attestation of any part of the doctrine of the Church of Rome But that true doctrine should in all ages have the testimony of Miracles that I am no where taught So that I have more reason to suspect and be afraid of pretended Miracles as signes of false doctrine then much to regard them as certain arguments of the truth Besides setting aside the Bible the Tradition of it there is as good story for Miracles wrought by those who lived and died in opposition to the Doctrine of the Roman Church as by S. Cyprian Colmannus Columbanus Aidanus and others as there is for those that are pretended to be wrought by the members of that Church Lastly it seemes to me no strange thing that God in his Iustice should permit some true Miracles to be wrought to delude them who have forged so many as apparently the professors of the Roman Doctrine have to abuse the World To the fourth All those were not Heretiques which by Philastrius Epiphanius or S. Austine were put in the Catalogue of Heretiques To the fift Kings and Nations have been and may be converted by men of contrary Religions To the sixt The Doctrine of Papists is confess'd by Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points To the seaventh The Pastors of a Church cannot but have authority from it to preach against the abuses of it whether in Doctrine or practice if there be any in it Neither can any Christian want an ordinary commission from God to doe a necessary work of Charity after a peaceable manner when there is no body else that can or will doe it In extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed If some Christian Lay-man should come into a country of Infidels had ability to perswade them to Christianity who would say he might not use it for want of Commission To the eighth Luthers conference with the Divell might be for ought I know nothing but a melancholy dreame If it were reall the Divell might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keep him constant to it Or that others would make his diswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists doe and be afraid of following Luther as confessing himselfe to have been perswaded by the Divell To the ninth Illiacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestants Even this very author in this very Pamphlet hath not so many leaves as falsifications and calumnies To the tenth Let all men believe the Scripture and that only and endeavour to believe it in the true sense and require no more of others and they shall finde this not only a better but the only meanes to suppresse Heresy and restore Unity For he that believes the Scripture sincerely and endeavours to believe it in the true sense cannot possibly be an Heretique And if no more then this were requir'd of any man to make him capable of the Churches Communion then all men so qualified though they were different in opinion yet notwithstanding any such difference must be of necessity one in Communion The Preface to the READER GIVE me leave good Reader to informe thee by way of Preface of three points The first concernes D. Potters Answere to Charity Mistaken The second relates to this Reply of mine And the third containes some Premonitions or Prescriptions in case D. Potter or any in his behalfe thinke fit to rejoyne 2. For the first point concerning D. Potters Answere I say in generall reserving particulars to their proper places that in his whole Booke he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question which was Whether both Catholiques and Protestants can be saved in their severall professions And therefore Charity Mistaken judiciously pressing those particulars wherein the difficulty doth precisely consist proves in generall
errours which were not damnable I answere All that we forfake in you is only the beliefe and practice and profession of your Errors Hereupon you cast us out of your Communion And then with a strange and contradictious and ridiculous hypocrisy complain that we forsake it As if a man should thrust his friend out of doores and then be offended at his departure But for us not to forsake the beliefe of your Errors having discovered them to be Errors was impossible and therefore to doe so could not be damnable believing them to be Errors Not to forsake the practice and profession of them had been damnable hypocrisie supposing that which you vainly runne away with and take for graunted those errors in themselves were not damnable Now to doe so and as matters now stand not to forsake your Communion is apparently contradictious seeing the condition of your Communion is that we must professe to believe all your doctrines not only not to be damnable errors which will not content you but also to be certain and necessary and revealed truths So that to demand why we forsake your Communion upon pretence of Errors which were not damnable is in effect to demand why we forsooke it upon our forsaking it For to pretend that there are Errors in your Church though not damnable is ipso facto to forsake your Communion and to doe that which both in your account and as you think in Gods account puts him as does so out of your Communion So that either you must free your Church from requiring the belief of any errour whatsoever damnable and not damnable or whether you will or no you must free us from Schisme For schisme there cannot be in leaving your communion unlesse we were obliged to continue in it Man cannot be obliged by Man but to what either formally or virtually he is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternall truth neither can nor will obliege us to believe any the least and the most innocent falshood to be a divine truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that if you require the belief of any errour among the conditions of your Communion our obligation to communicate with you ceaseth and so the imputation of schisme to us vanisheth into nothing but lies heavy upon you for making our seperation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawfull conditions of your Communion Hereafter therefore I intreat you let not your demand be how could we forsake your Communion without Schisme seeing you err'd not damnably But how we could doe so without Schisme seeing you err'd not at all which if either you doe prove or we cannot disprove it we will I at least will for my part returne to your Communion or subscribe my selfe Schismatique In the mean time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 23 Yet notwitstanding all your Errors we doe not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave Communicating with you in the practise and profession of your Errors The tryall whereof will be to propose some forme of worshipping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to joyn with you then and not till then may you justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandoned your Communion 24 To the sixteenth Your sixt demand I have already satisfied in my answeres to the Second and the Fourth and in my reply Ad § 2. toward the end And though you say your repeating must be excused yet I dare not be so confident and therefore forbear it 25 To the seaventeenth To the seaventh Whether errour against any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by God destroy not the Nature and Vnity of Faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding salvation I answere if you suppose as you seem to doe the proposition so sufficient that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd that it is from God so that the denyall of it involves also with it the denyall of Gods veracity any such errour destroyes both faith and salvation But if the Proposall be only so sufficient not that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd but only that he should and but for his own fault would have been convinc'd of the divine verity of the doctrine proposed The crime then is not so great for the beliefe of Gods veracity may well consist with such an Errour Yet a fault I confesse it is and without Repentance damnable if all circumstances considered the proposall be sufficient But then I must tell you that the proposall of the present Roman Church is only pretended to be sufficient for this purpose but is not so especially all the Rayes of the Divinity which they pretend to shine so conspicuously in her proposalls being so darkned and even extinguished with a cloud of contradiction from Scripture Reason and the Ancient Church 26 To the Eighteenth To the eight How of disagreeing Protestants both parts may hope for salvation seeing some of them must needs erre against some Truth testified by God I answere 1. The most disagreeing Protestants that are yet thus farre agree that these books of Scripture which were never doubted of in the Church are the undoubted word of God and a perfect rule of faith 2. That the sense of them which God intended whatsoever it is is certainly true So that they believe implicitely even those very truths against which they erre and why an implicit faith in Christ and his Word should not suffice as well as an implicit faith in your Church I have desired to be resolved by many of your Side but never could 3. That they are to use their best endeavours to beleive the Scripture in the true sense and to live according to it This if they performe as I hope many on all Sides doe truly and syncerely it is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation that is in all those things which appertain to the Covenant between God and man in Christ for so much is not only plainly but frequently contained in Scripture And believing aright touching the Covenant if they for their parts perform the condition required of them which is syncere obedience why should they not expect that God will performe his promise and give them salvation For as for other things which lye without the Covenant and are therefore lesse necessary if by reason of the seeming conflict which is oftentimes between Scripture and Reason and Authority on the one side and Scripture Reason and Authority on the other if by reason of the variety of tempers abilities educations unavoidable prejudices whereby mens understandings are variously form'd and fashion'd they doe embrace severall Opinions whereof some must be erroneous to say that God will damne them for such errors who are lovers of him and lovers of truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodnesse it is to make Man
faith necessary to be explicitely believed is not pertinent to free from sinne the voluntary deniall of any other point knowen to be defined by Gods Church And this were sufficient to overthrow all that D. Potter alleadgeth concerning the Creed though yet by way of Supererogation we will prove that there are divers important matters of Faith which are not mentioned at all in the Creed 14 From the aforesaid maine principle that God hath alwaies had and alwaies will have on earth a Church Visible within whose Communion Salvation must be hoped and infallible whose definitions we ought to believe we will prove that Luther Calvin and all other who continue the division in Communion or Faith from that Visible Church which at and before Luther's appearance was spread over the world cannot be excused from Schisme and Heresy although they opposed her faith but in one only point whereas it is manifest they dissent from her in many and weighty matters concerning as well beliefe as practise 15 To these reasons drawne from the vertue of Faith we will adde one other taken from Charitas propria the Vertue of Charity as it obligeth us not to expose our soule to hazard of perdition when we can put ourselves in a way much more secure as we will prove that of the Roman Catholiques to be 16 We are then to prove these points First that the infallible means to determine controversies in matters of faith is the visible Church of Christ. Secondly that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall maketh nothing to our present Question Thirdly that to say the Creed containes all fundamentall points of faith is neither pertinent nor true Fourthly that both Luther and all they who after him persist in division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church cannot be excused from Schisme Fiftly nor from Heresy Sixtly and lastly that in regard of the precept of Charity towards ones selfe Protestants be in state of sinne as long as they remaine divided from the Roman Church And these six points shall be severall Arguments for so many ensuing Chapters 17 Only I will here observe that it seemeth very strange that Protestants should charge us so deeply with Want of Charity for only teaching that both they and we cannot be saved seeing themselves must affirme the like of whosoever opposeth any least point delivered in Scripture which they hold to be the sole Rule of Faith Out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former Inferences passe for good For is it not a grievous sinne to deny any one truth contained in holy Writ Is there in such deniall any distinction betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall sufficient to excuse from heresy Is it not impertinent to alleadge the Creed containing all fundamentall points of faith as if believing it alone we were at liberty to deny all other points of Scripture In a word According to Protestants Oppose not Scripture there is no Errour against faith Oppose it in any least point the error if Scripture be sufficiently proposed which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to believe even fundamentall points must be damnable What is this but to say with us Of persons contrary in whatsoever point of beliefe one party only can be saved And D. Potter must not take it ill if Catholiques believe they may be saved in that Religion for which they suffer And if by occasion of this doctrine men will still be charging us with Want of Charity and be resolved to take scandall where none is given we must comfort our selves with that grave and true saying of S. Gregory If scandall be taken from declaring a truth it is better to permit scandall then forsake the truth But the solid grounds of our Assertion and the sincerity of our intention in uttering what wee think yield us confidence that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of Pope Gelasius to Anastasius the Emperour Farre â—e it from the Roman Emperour that he should hold it for a wrong to have truth declared to him Let us therefore begin with that Point which is the first that can be controverted betwixt Protestants and us for as much as concernes the present Question and is contained in the Argument of the next ensuing Chapter THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST CHAPTER Shewing that the Adversary grants the Former Question and proposeth a New one And that there is no reason why among men of different opinions and Communions one Side only can be sav'd 1. TO the first § Your first onset is very violent D. Potter is charg'd with malice and indiscretion for being uncharitable to you while he is accusing you of uncharitablenesse Verily a great fault and folly if the accusation be just if unjust a great calumnie Let us see then how you make good your charge The effect of your discourse if I mistake not is this D. Potter chargeth the Roman Church with many and great errours judgeth reconciliation betweene her Doctrine and ours impossible and that for them who are convicted in Conscience of her Errors not to forsake her in them or to be reconcil'd unto her is damnable Therefore if Roman Catholiques be convicted in conscience of the Errours of Protestants they may and must judge a reconciliation with them damnable consequently to judge so is no more uncharitable in theÌ„ then it is in the Doctor to judge as he does All this I grant nor would any Protestant accuse you of want of Charity if you went no further if you judg'd the Religion of Protestants damnable to them only who professe it being convicted in conscience that it is erroneous For if a man judge some act of vertue to be a sinne in him it is a sinne indeed So you have taught us p. 19. So if you be convinc'd or rather to speake properly perswaded in conscience that our Religion is erroneous the profession of it though in it selfe most true to you would be damnable This therefore I subscribe very willingly and withall that if you said no more D. Potter and my selfe should not be to Papists only but even to Protestants as uncharitable as you are For I shall alwaies professe and glory in this uncharitablenesse of judging hypocrisie a damnable sinne Let Hypocrites then and Dissemblers on both sides passe It is not towards them but good Christians not to Protestant Professors but Believers that we require your Charity What think you of those that believe so verily the truth of our Religion that they are resolv'd to die in it and if occasion were to die for it What Charity have you for them What think yee of those that in the dayes of our Fathers laid down their lives for it are you content that they shall be saved or doe you hope they may be so Will you grant that notwithstanding their Errours there is good hope they might die with repentance and if they did so certainly they are
truth 164 To the Argument wherewith you conclude I Answere That though the visible Church shall alwaies without faile propose so much of Gods revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes adde to this revelation things superfluous nay hurtfull nay in themselves damnable though not unpardonable and sometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable and therefore it is possible without siâ—ne to resist in some things the Visible Church of Christ. But you presse us farther and demand what visible Church was extant when Luther began whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church As if it must of necessity either be Protestant or Roman or Roman of necessity if it were not Protestant yet this is the most usuall fallacy of all your disputers by some specious Arguments to perswade weak men that the Church of Protestants cannot be the true Church and thence to inferre that without doubt it must be the Roman But why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greek Church as well as the Roman there being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your own unlesse it be that she is poor and oppressed by the Turk and you are in glory and splendor 165 Neither is it so easy to be determined as you pretend That Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole visible Church in matters of Faith neither is it so evident that the Visible Church may not fall into such a state wherein she may be justly opposed And lastly for calling the distinction of points into Fundamentall and not Fundamentall an evasion I believe you will find it easier to call it so then to prove it so But that shall be the issue of the Controversy in the next Chapter CHAP. III. That the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall is neither pertinent nor true in our present Controversie And that the Catholike Visible Church cannot erre in either kinde of the said points THIS distinction is abused by Protestants to many purposes of theirs and therefore if it be either untrue or impertinent as they understand and apply it the whole edifice built thereon must be ruinous and false For if you object their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith without any means of agreement they instantly tell you as Charity mistaken plainly shewes that they differ only in pâ—ints not fundamentall If you convince them even by their own Confessions that the ancient Fathers taught divers points held by the Roman Church against Protestants they reply that those Fathers may neverthelesse be saved because those errours were not fundamentall If you will them to remember that Christ must alwaies haue a visible Church on earth with administration of Sacraments and succession of Paâ—stors and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman whose Communion and doctrine Luther then forâ—ook and for that cause must be guilty of Schisme and Herosie they haue an Answer such as it is that the Catholike Church cannot perish yet may erre in points not fundamentall and therefore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors under paine of Damnation as if forsooth it were Damnable to hold an error not Fundamentall nor Damnable If you wonder how they can teach that both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved in their severall professions they salve this contradiction by saying that we both agree in all fundamentall points of faith which is enough for salvation And yet which is prodigiously strange they could never be induced to give a Catalogue what points in particular be fundamentall but only by some generall description or by referring us to the Apostles Creed without determining what points therein be fundamentall or not fundamentall for the matter and in what sense they be or be not such and yet concerning the meaning of divers points contained or reduced to the Creed they differ both from us and among themselves And indeed it being impossible for them to exhibit any such Catalogue the said distinction of points although it were pertinent and true cannot serve them to any purpose but still they must remaine uncertaine whether or not they disagree from one another from the ancient Fathers and from the Catholique Church in points fundamentall which is to say they have no certainty whether they enjoy the substance of Christian Faith without which they cannot hope to be saved But of this more heerafter 2 And to the end that what shall be said concerning this distinction may be better understood wee are to observe that there be two precepts which concerne the vertue of faith or our obligation to believe divine truths The one is by Divines called Affirmative whereby we are obliged to have a positive explicite belief of some chief Articles of Christian faith The other is â—ermed Negative which strictly binds us not not to disbelieve that is not to believe the contrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our understanding as revealed or spoken by Almighty God The said Affirmative Precept according to the nature of such commands injoynes some act to be performed but not at all times nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons in respect of all objects to be believed For objects we grant that some are more necessary to be explicitely and severall believed then other either because they are in themselves more great and weighty or els in regard they instruct us in some necessary Christian duty towards God our selves or our Neighbour For persons no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more then others by reason of their office vocation capacity or the like For times we are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of faith but according as severall occasions permit or require The second kind of precept called Negative doth according to the nature of all such commands oblige universally all persons in respect of all objects and at all times seâ—per pro semper as Divines speak This generall doctrine will be more cleere by examples I am not obliged to be alwaies helping my Neighbour because the Affirmative precept of Charity bindeth only in some particular cases But I am alwaies bound by a Negative precept never to doe him any hurt or wrong I am not alwaies bound to utter what I know to be true yet I am obliged never to speak any one least untruth against my knowledge And to come to our present purpose there is no Affirmative precept commanding us to be at all times actually believing any one or all Articles of faith But we are obliged never to exercise any act against any one truth known to be revealed All sorts of persons are not bound explicitely and distinctly to know all things testified by God either in Scripture or otherwise but
the totall deniall of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church S. Hilary maketh it of equall necessity for Salvation that we believe our Saviour to be true God and true Man saying This manner of Confession we are to hold that we remember him to be the Sonne of God and the Sonne of Man because the one without the other can giue no hope of Salvatioâ— And yet D. Potter saith of the aforesaid doctrine of Hooker and Morton The Reader may be pleased to approue or reject it as he shall finde cause And in another place he sheweth so much good liking of this doctrine that he explicateth and proveth the Churches perpetuall Visibility by it And in the second Edition of his book he is carefull to declare and illustrate it more at large then he had done before howsoever this sufficiently sheweth that they haue no certainty what points be fundamentall As for the Arians in particular the Author whom D. Potter cites for a moderate Catholique but â—s indeed a plain Heretique or rather Atheist Lucian like jesting at all Religion placeth Arianisme among fundamentall Errours But contrarily an English Protestant Divine masked under the name of Irenaeus Philalethes in a little Book in Latine intituled Dissertatio de pace concordia Ecclesiae endeavoureth to proue that even the deniall of the blessed Trinity may stand with salvation Divers Protestants haue taught that the Roman Church erreth in fundamentall points But D. Potter and others teach the contrary which could not happen if they could agree what be fundamentall points You brand the Donatists with the note of an Errour in the matter and the nature of it properly hereticall because they taught that the Church remained only with them in the part of Donatâ—â— And yet many Protestants are so farre from holding that Doctrine to be a fundamentall errour that themselves goe further and say that for divers ages before Luther there was no â—rue Visible Church at all It is then too too apparent that you haue no agreement in specifying what be fundamentall points neither haue you any meanes to determine what they be for if you have any such meanes why doe you not agree You tell us the Creed containes all points fundamentallâ— which although it were true yet you see it serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge agreement in such points And no wonder For besides what I haue said already in the begining of this Chapter and am to deliver more at large in the next after so much labour and spent paper to prove that the Creed containes all fundamentall points you conclude It remaines very probable that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths whereof consists the Vâ—â—ty of faith and of the Catholique Church Very probable Then according to all good Logick the contrary may remain very probable and so all remain as full of uncertainty as before The whole Rule say you the sole Iudge of your faith must be Scripture Scripture doth indeed deliver divine Truths but seldome doth qualify them or declare whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation You fall heavy upon Charity Mistaken because he demands a particular Catalogue of fundamentall points which yet you are obliged in conscience to doe if you be able For without such a Catalogue no man can be assured whether or no he haue faith sufficient to Salvation And therefore take it not in ill part if we againe and againe demand such a Catalogue And that you may see we proceed fairely I will performe on our behalfe what we request of you and doe here deliver a Catalogue wherein are comprized all points by us taught to be necessary to Salvation in these words We are obliged under paine of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God If any be of another minde all Catholiques denounce him to be no Catholique But enough of this And I go forward with the Infallibility of the Church in all points 20 For euen out of your own doctrine that the Church cannot erre in points necessary to salvation any wise man will inferre that it behoves all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her in any one point 1. Because they are assured that although her doctrine proved not to be true in some point yet even according to D. Potter the errour cannot be fundamentall nor destructiue of faith and salvation neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the universall Church Secondly since she is under paine of eternall damnation to be believed and obeyed in some things wherein confessedly she is endued with infallibilitie I cannot in wisedome suspect her credit in matters of lesse moment For who would trust another in matters of highest consequence and be affraid to rely on him in things of lesse moment Thirdly since as I said we are undoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest or fundamentall points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those fundamentall points be I cannot without hazard of my soule leaue her in any one point least perhaps that point or points wherein I forsake her proue indeed to be fundamentall and necessary to salvation Fourthly that visible Church which cannot erre in points fundamentall doth without distinction propound all her Definitions concerning matters of faith to be believed under Anathema's or Curses esteeming all those who resist to be deservedly cast out of her Communion and holding it a point necessary to salvation that we believe she cannot erre wherein if she speak true then to deny any one point in particular which she defineth or to affirm in generall that she may erre puts a man into state of damnation Whereas to belieue her in such points as are not necessary to salvation cannot endanger salvation and likewise to remain in her Communion can bring no great harme because she cannot maintain any damnable errour or practise but to be divided from her she being Christs Catholique Church is most certainly damnable Fifthly the true Church being in lawfull and certain possession of Superiority and Power to command and require Obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grievous sinne withdraw my obedience in any one unlesse I evidently know that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better inform me how far God's Church can proceed then Gods Church her selfe Or to what Doctour can the Children and Schollers with greater reason and more security fly for direction then to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused then incleaving to any particular Sâ—ct or Person teaching or applying Scriptures against her doctrine or interpretation Sixtly the fearfull examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the
men have been very liberall of their Anathema's which yet were never conceived infallible either by others or themselves If any man should now deny Christ to be the Saviour of the world or deny the Resurrection I should make no great scruple of Anathematizing his doctrine and yet am very farre from dreaming of Infallibility 61 And for the Visible Churches holding it a point necessary to Salvation that we believe she cannot erre I know no such tenet unlesse by the Church you mean the Roman Church which you have as much reason to doe as that petty King in Africk hath to think him-himself King of all the world And therefore your telling us if she speak true what danger is it not to believe her and if false that it is not dangerous to believe her Is somewhat like your Popes setting your Lawyers to dispute whether Constantines Donation were valid or no whereas the matter of fact was the farre greater question whether there were any such Donation or rather when without question there was none such That you may not seem to delude us in like manner make it appear that the visible Church doth hold so as you pretend and then whether it be true or false we will consider afterwards But for the present with this invisible tenet of the Visible Church wee will trouble our selves no farther 62 The effect of the next Argument is this I cannot without grievous sinne disobey the Church unlesse I know she commands those things which are not in her power to command and how farre this power extends none can better informe me then the Church Therefore I am to obey so farre as the Church requires my obedience I answer First that neither hath the Catholique Church but only a corrupt part of it declared her selfe nor required our obedience in the points contested among us This therefore is falsely and vainly supposed here by you being one of the greatest questions amongst us Then secondly that God can better informe us what are the limits of the Churches power then the Church her selfe that is then the Roman Clergy who being men subject to the same passions with other men why they should be thought the best Iudges in their own cause I doe not well understand But yet we oppose against them no humane decisive Iudges not any Sect or Person but only God and his Word And therefore it is in vain to say That in following her you shall be sooner excused then in following any Sect or Man applying Scriptures against her Doctrine In as much as we never went about to arrogate to our selves that infallibility or absolute Authority which we take away from you But if you would haue spoken to the purpose you should haue said that in following her you should sooner haue been excusd then in cleaving to the Scripture and to God himselfe 63 Whereas you say The fearfull examples of innumerable persons who for saking the Church upon pretence of her errours have failed even in fundamentall points ought to deterre all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practise This is just as if you should say divers men have fallen into Scylla with going too farre from Charybdis be sure therefore ye keep close to Charybdis divers leaving Prodigality have fallen into covetousnesse therefore be you constant to prodigality Many have fallen from worshipping God perversely and foolishly not to worship him at all from worshipping many Gods to worshipping none this therefore ought to deterre men from leaving superstition or Idolatry for fear of falling into Atheisme and Impiety This is your counsell and Sophistry but God saies clean contrary Take heed you swerve not either to the right hand or to the left you must not doe evill that good may come thereon therefore neither that you may avoid a greater evill you must not be obstinate in a certain error for fear of an uncertain What if some forsaking the Church of Rome have forsaken Fundamentall truths Was this because they forsook the Church of Rome No sure this is causa pro non causa for else all that have forsaken that Church should have done so which we say they have not But because they went too farre from her the golden mean the narrow way is hard to be found and hard to be kept hard but not impossible hard but yet you must not please your selfe out of it though you erre on the right hand though you offend on the milder part for this is the only way that leads to life and few there be that find it It is true if we said there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madnesse to perswade any man to leave it But we protest and proclaime the contrary and that we have very little hope of their Salvation who either out of negligence in seeking the truth or unwillingnesse to find it live and dye in the errors and impieties of that Church and therefore cannot but conceive those feares to be most foolish and ridiculous which perswade men to be constant in one way to hell least happily if they leave it they should fall into another 64 But Not only others but even Protestants themselves whose example ought most to move us pretending to reforme the Church are come to affirme that she perished for many ages which D. Potter cannot deny to be a fundamentall errour against the Article of the Creed I believe the Catholique Church seeing he affirmes the Donatists erred Fundamentally in confining it to Africa To this I Answer First that the errour of the Donatists was not that they held it possible that some or many or most parts of Christendome might fall away from Christianity and that the Church may loose much of her amplitude and be contracted to a narrow compasse in comparison of her former extent which is prov'd not only possible but certain by irrefragable experience For who knowes not that Gentilisme and Mahumetisme mans wickednesse deserving it and Gods providence permitting it have prevail'd to the utter extirpation of Christianity upon farre the greater part of the world And S. Austin when he was out of the heat of Disputation confesses the Militant Church to be like the Moon sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing This therefore was no errour in the Donatists that they held it possible that the Church from a larger extent might be contracted to a lesser nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa For why not to Africk then as well as within these few ages you pretend it was to Europe But their error was that they held de facto this was done when they had no just ground or reason to doe so and so upon a vain pretence which they could not justify seperated themselves from the communion of all other parts of the Church and that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church that he should be of
their communion and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided which was a condition both unnecessary and unlawfull to be required and therefore the exacting of it was directly opposite to the Churches Catholicisme in the very same nature with their Errours who required Circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses as necessary to salvation For whosoever requires harder or heavier conditions of men then God requires of them he it is that is properly an Enemie of the Churches Vniversality by hindering either Men or Countries from adjoyning themselves to it which were it not for these unnecessary and therefore unlawful conditions in probability would haue made thē members of it And seeing the present Church of Rome perswades men they were as good for any hope of Salvation they haue not to be Christians as not to be Roman Catholiques believe nothing at all as not believe all which they impose upon them Be absolutely out of the Churches Communion as be out of their Communion or be in any other whether they be not guilty of the same crime with the Donatists those Zelots of the Mosaicall Law I leave it to the judgement of those that understand reason This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argument But I adde moreover that you neither haue named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many ages who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the church not that the true Church but that the pure Church perished or rather that the Church perished not from its life and existence but from its purity and integrity or perhaps from its splendour and visibility Neither have you proved by any one reason but only affirmed it to be a fundamentall Errour to hold that the Church militant may possibly bee driven out of the world and abolished for a time from the face of the earth 65 But to accuse the Church of any Errour in faith is to say she lost all faith For this is the Doctrine of Catholique Divines that one Errour in faith destroyes faith To which I answer that to accuse the Church of some Errour in faith is not to say she lost all faith For this is not the doctrine of Catholique Divines But that he which is an Heretique in one Article may haue true faith of other Articles And the contrary is only said and not shewed in Charity Mistaken 66 Ad § 21. D. Potter saies We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things and from hence you conclude Therefore we may not depart from it in any thing And this Argument you call a Demonstration But a Fallacy à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid was not used heretofore to be called a Demonstration D. Potter sayes not that you may not depart from any opinion or any practise of the Church for you tell us in this very place that he saies even the Catholique may erre and every man may lawfully depart from Errour He only sayes you may not cease to be of the Church nor depart from those things which make it so to be and from hence you inferre a necessity of forsaking it in nothing Iust as if you should argue thus You may not leaue your friend or brother therefore you may not leave the Vice of your friend or the Errour of your brother What he saies of the Catholique Church p. 75. the same hee extends presently after to every true though never so corrupted part of it And why doe you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgement can fall into any Errour and call this a Demonstration too For as he saies p. 75. That there can be no just cause to depart from the whole Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe So p. 76. He tells you that whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body for sakes the whole So that what he saies of the one hee saies of the other and tells you that neither Vniversall nor Particular Church so long as they continue so may bee forsaken hee meanes Absolutely no more then Christ himselfe may be forsaken absolutely For the Church is the body of Christ and whosoever forsakes either the Body or his coherence to any one part of it must forsake his subordination and relation to the Head Therefore whosoever forsakes the Church or any Christian must forsake Christ himselfe 67 But then he tells you plainly in the same place That it may be lawfull and necessary to depart from a Particular Church in some Doctrines and Practises And this he would haue said even of the Catholike Church if there had been occasion but there was none For there he was to declare and justifie our departure not from the Catholique Church but the Roman which we maintain to be a particular Church But in other places you confesse his doctrine to be that even the Catholique church may erre in points not Fundamentall which you doe not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himselfe And therefore you cannot with any candor interpret his words as if he had said We may not forsake the Church in any thing no more then Christ himselfe but only thus We may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more then Christ himselfe And thus we see sometimes a mountain may travail and the production may be a mouse 68 Ad § 22. But D. Potter either contradicts himselfe or else must grant the Church infallible Because he saies if we did not differ from the Roman we could not agree with the Catholique which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre Answer This Argument to giue it the right name is an obscure and intricate nothing And to make it appeare so let us suppose in contradiction to your supposition either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church doth erre in some few things but that the Roman erres in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches Fallibility a man may truly say unlesse I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid upon D. Potter or doe that which you condemne in him and be driven to say that the same man may hold some errours with the Church of Rome and at the same time with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them For otherwise in neither of these cases is it possible for the same man at the same time to agree both with the Roman and the Catholique 69 In all these Texts of Scripture which are here alleaged in this last Section of this Chapter or in any one of them or in any other doth God say cleerly and plainly The Bishop of Rome and that Society of Christians which adheres to him shall bee ever
Which answer is directly against himselfe and manifestly proues that Baptisme is an Article of faith and yet is not contained in the Apostles Creed neither explicitely nor by any necessary consequence from other Articles expressed therein If to make it an Article of faith be sufficient that it is contained in the Nicene Councell he will finde that Protestants maintain many errours against faith as being repugnant to definitions of Generall Councels as in particular that the very Councell of Nice which saith M. Whitgift is of all wise and learned men reverenced esteemed and imbraced next unto the Scriptures themselues decreed that to those who were chosen to the Ministry unmarried it was not lawfull to take any wife afterward is affirmed by Protestants And your grand Reformer Luther lib. de Conciliis part prima saith that he understand not the Holy Ghost in that Councell For in one Canon it saith that those who haue gelded themselues are not fit to be made Priests in another it forbids them to haue wiues Hath saith he the Holy Ghost nothing to doe in Councells but to binde and load his Ministers with impossible dangerous and unnecessary lawes I forbeare to shew that this very Article I confesse one Baptisme for the Remission of sinnes will be understood by Protestants in a far different sense from Catholiques yea Protestants among themselues doe not agree how Baptisme forgiues sinnes nor what grace it conferres Only concerning the Vnity of Baptisme against rebaptization of such as were once baptized which I noted as a point not contained in the Apostles Creed I cannot omit an excellent place of S. Augustine where speaking of the Donatists he hath these words They are so bold as to rebaptize Catholiques wherein they shew themselues to be the greater Heretiques since it hath pleased the universall Catholique Church not to make Baptisme void even in the very Heretiques themselues In which few words this holy Father delivereth against the Donatists these points which doe also make against Protestants That to make an Heresie or an Heretique known for such it is sufficient to oppose the definition of Gods Church That a proposition may be Hereticall though it be not repugnant to any Texts of Scripture For S. Augustine teacheth that the doctrine of rebaptization is hereticall and yet acknowledgeth it cannot be convinced for such out of Scripture And that neither the Heresie of rebaptization of those who were baptized by Heretiques nor the contrary Catholique truth being expressed in the Apostles Creed it followeth that it doth not contain all points of faith necessary to salvation And so we must conclude that to belieue the Creed is not sufficient for Vnitie of faith and Spirit in the same Church unlesse there be also a totall agreement both in beliefe of other points of faith and in externall profession and Communion also whereof we are to speak in the next Chapter according to the saying of S. Augustine You are with us in Baptisme and in the Creed but in the Spirit of Vnity and bond of peace and lastly in the Catholique Church you are not with us THE ANSVVER TO THE FOVRTH CHAPTER Wherein is shewed that the Creed containes all necessary points of meere belief 1 AD § 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Concerning the Creeds containing the Fundamentalls of Christianity this is D. Potters assertion delivered in the 207. p. of his book The Creed of the Apostles as it is explained in the latter Creeds of the Catholique Church is esteemed a sufficient summary or Catalogue of Fundamentalls by the best learned Romanists and by Antiquity 2 By Fundamentalls he understands not the Fundamentall rules of good life and action though every one of these is to be believed to come from God therefore vertually includes an Article of Faith but the Fundamentall doctrines of Faith such as though they have influence upon our lives as every essentiall doctrine of Christianity hath yet we are commanded to believe them and not to doe them The assent of our understandings is required to them but no obedience from our wills 3 But these speculative Doctrines again he distinguishes out of Aquinas Occham and Canus and others into two kinds of the first are those which are the obiects of Faith in and for themselves which by their own nature and Gods prime intention are essentiall parts of that Gospell such as the teachers in the Church cannot without Mortall sinne omit to teach the learners such as are intrinsecall to the Covenant between God and man and not only plainly revealed by God and so certain truths but also commanded to be preacht to all men and to be believed distinctly by all and so necessary truths Of the second sort are Accidentall Circumstantiall Occasionall objects of faith milliōs whereof there are in holy Scripture such as are to be believed not for themselves but because they are joyned with others that are necessary to be believed and delivered by the same Authority which delivered these Such as we are not bound to know to bee divine Revelations for without any fault we may be ignorant hereof nay believe the contrary such as we are not bound to examine whether or no they be divine Revelations such as Pastors are not bound to teach their Flock nor their Flock bound to know and remember no nor the Pastors themselves to know them or believe them or not to disbelieve them absolutely and alwaies but then only when they doe see and know them to be delivered in Scripture as divine Revelations 4 I say when they doe so and not only when they may doe For to lay an obligation upon us of believing or not disbelieving any Verity sufficient Revelation on Gods part is not sufficient For then seeing all the expresse Verities of Scripture are either to all men or at least to all learned men sufficiently revealed by God it should be a damnable sinne in any learned man actually to disbelieve any one particular Historicall verity contained in Scripture or to believe the contradiction of it though he knew it not to be there contained For though he did not yet he might have known it it being plainly revealed by God and this revelation being extant in such a Book wherein he might have found it recorded if with diligence he had perused it To make therefore any points necessary to be believed it is requisite that either we actually know them to be divine Revelations and these though they be not Articles of faith nor necessary to be believed in and for themselves yet indirectly and by accident and by consequence they are so The necessity of believing them being inforced upon us by a necessity of believing this Essentiall and Fundamentall article of Faith That all Divine Revelations are true which to disbelieve or not to believe is for any Christian not only impious but impossible Or else it is requisite that they be First actually revealed by God Secondly commanded under pain of damnation to
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 â—oever they lead me Now I say they haue led me into this perswasion because they haue given me great reason to belieue it and none to the contrary The reason they haue given me to belieue it is because it is apparent and confest they did propose to themselues in composing it some good end or ends As that Christians might haue a forme by which for matter of faith they might professe themselues Catholiques So Putean out of Th. Aquinas That the faithfull might know what the Christian people is to believe explicitely 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 Cardinall Richlieu Now for all these and for any other good intent I say it will be plainly uneffectuall unlesse it contain at least all points of simple beliefe which are in ordinary course necessary to be explicitely known by all men So that if it be fault in me to belieue this it must be my fault to belieue the Apostles wise and good men which I cannot doe if I belieue not this And therefore what Richardus de sancto Victore sayes of God himselfe 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 errour which I belieue it is you and my reverend esteem of you and your actions that hath led me into it For as for your suspition That we are led into this perswasion out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own It is plainly uncharitable I know no opinion I haue which I would not as willingly forsake as keep if I could see sufficient reason to enduce me to believe that it is the will of God I should forsake it Neither doe I know any opinion I hold against the Church of Rome but I haue more evident grounds then this whereupon to build it For let but these Truths bee granted That the authority of the Scripture is independent on your Church dependent only in respect of us upon universall 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 bee consequent and coherent to them and I am confident Peace would be restored and Truth maintained against you though the Apostles Creed were not in the world CHAP. V. That Luther Calvin their Associates all who began or continue the separation from the externall Communion of the Roman Church are guilty of the proper and formall sinne of Schisme THE Searcher of all Hearts is witnesse with how unwilling minds we Catholiques are drawen to fasten the denomination of Schismatiques or Heretiques on them for whose soules if they imployed their best blood they judge that it could not be better spent If we rejoyce that they are contistated at such titles our joy riseth not from their trouble or griefe but as that of the Apostles did from the fountaine of Charity because they are contâ—â—stated to repentance that so after unpartiall examination they finding themselves to be what we say may by Gods holy grace begin to dislike what themselves are For our part we must remember that our obligation is to keep within the meane betwixt uncharitable bitternesse and pernicious flattery not yeelding to worldly respects nor offending Christian Modesty but uttering the substance of truth in so Charitable manner that not so much we as Truth and Charity may seeme to speak according to the wholesome advise of S. Gregory Nazianzen in these divine words We doe not affect peace with preiudice of the true doctrine that so we may get a name of being gentle and mild and yet we seek to conserue peace fighting in a lawfull manner and containing our selves within our compasse and the rule of Spirit And of these things my iudgment is and for my part I prescribe the same law to all that deale with soules and treat of true doctrine that neither they exasperate meâ—s minds by harshnesse nor make them haughty or insolent by submission but that in the cause of faith they behave themselves prudently and advisedly and doe not in either of these things exceed the meane With whom aÌ„greeth S. Leo saying It behoveth us in such causes to be most carefull that without noise of contentions both Charity be conserved and Truth maintained 2. For better Methode we will handle these points in order First we will set downe the nature and essence or as I may call it the Quality of Schisme In the second place the greatnesse and grievousnesse or so to tearme it the Quantity thereof For the Nature or Quality will tell us who may without injury be iudged Schismatiques and by the greatnesse or quantity such as finde themselves guilty thereof will remaine acquainted with the true state of their soule and and whether they may conceive any hope of salvation or no. And because Schisme will be found to be a division from the Church which could not happen unlesse there were alwaies a visible Church we will Thirdly prove or rather take it as a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath beene such a Visible Congregation of Faithfull People Fourthly we will demonstrate that Luther Calvin and the rest did separate themselves from the Communion of that alwaies visible Church of Christ and therefore were guilty of Schisme And fifthly we will make it evident that the visible true Church of Christ out of which Luther and his followers departed was no other but the Roman Church and consequently that both they and all others who persist in the same division are Schismatiques by reason of their separation from the Church of Rome 3 For the first point touching the Nature or Quality of Schisme As the naturall perfection of man consists in his being the Image of God his Creator by the powers of his soule so his supernaturall perfection is placed in fimilitude with God as his last End and Felicity and by having the said spirituall faculties his Vnderstanding and Will linked to him His Vnderstanding is united to God by Faith his Will by Charity The former relies upon his infallible Truth The latter carrieth us to his infinite Goodnesse Faith hath a deadly opposite Heresie Contrary to the Vnion or Vnity of Charity is Separation and Division Charity is twofold As it respects God his Opposite Vice is Hatred against God as it uniteth us to our Neighbour his contrary is Seperation or division of affections and will from our Neighbour Our Neighbour may be considered either as one private person
conceived that she needed Reformation But whether this pretence of Reformation will acquit them of Schisme I referre to the unpartiall judges heretofore alleaged as to S. Irenaeus who plainly saith They cannot make any so important REFORMATION as the Evill of the Schisme is pernicious To S. Denis of Alexandria saying Certainly all things should be endured rather then to consent to the division of the Church of God those Martyrs being no lesse glorious that expose themselues to hinder the dismembring of the Church then those that suffer rather then they will offer sacrifice to Idols To S. Augustine who tells us That not to heare the Church is a more grievous thing then if he were striken with the sword consumed with flames exposed to wild beasts And to conclude all in few words he giveth this generall prescription There is no just necessity to divide unity And D. Potter may remember his own words There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe But I haue shewed that Luther and the rest departed from the Church of Christ if Christ had any Church upon earth Therefore there could be no just cause of Reformation or what else soever to doe as they did and therefore they must be contented to be held for Schismatiques 18 Moreover I demand whether those corruptions which moved them to forsake the Communion of the visible Church were in manners or doctrine Corruption in manners yeelds no sufficient cause to leave the Church otherwise men must goe not only out of the Church but out of the world as the Apostle saith Our blessed Saviour foretold that there would bee in the Church cares with choice corne and â—inners with just men If then Protestants wax zealous with the Servants to pluck up the weeds let them first harken to the wisdome of the Master Let both grow up And they ought to imitate them who as S. Augustine saith tolerate for the good of Vnity that which they detest for the good of equity And to whom the more frequent foule such scandals are by so much the more is the merit of their perseverance in the Communion of the Church and the Martyrdome of their patience as the same Saint calls it If they were offended with the life of some Ecclesiasticall persons must they therefore deny obedience to their Pastors and finally break with Gods Church The Pastour of Pastours teacheth us another lesson Vpon the Chaire of Moyses haue sitten the Scribes and Pharisees All things threfore whatsoever they shall say to you obserue yee and doe yee but according to their works doe yee not Must people except against lawes and revolt from Magistrats because some are negligent or corrupt in the execution of the same lawes and performance of their office If they intended Reformation of manners they used a strange means for the achieving of such an end by denying the necessity of Confession laughing at aufferity of pennance condemning the vowes of Chastity poverty obedience breaking fasts c. And no lesse unfit were the Men then the Meanes I loue not recrimination But it is well known to how great crimes Luther Calvin Zwinglius Beza and other of the prime Reformers were notoriously obnoxious as might bee easily demonstrated by the onely transcribing of what others haue delivered upon that subject whereby it would appeare that they were very farre from being any such Apostolicall men as God is wont to use in so great a work And whereas they were wont especially in the beginning of their revolt malitiously to exaggerate the faults of some Clergy men Erasmus said well Epist ad fratres inferior is Germaniae Let the riot lust ambition avarice of Priests and what soever other crimes be gathered together Heresie aâ—one doth exceed all this filthy lake of vices Besides nothing at all was omitted by the sacred Councell of Trent which might tend to reformation of manners And finally the vices of others are not hurtfull to any but such as imitate and consent to them according to the saying of S. Augustine We conserve innocency not by knowing the ill deeds of men but by not yeelding consent to such as we know and by not judging rashly of such faults as we know not If you answer that not corruption in manners but the approbation of them doth yeeld sufficient cause to leaue the Church I reply with S. Augustine that the Church doth as the pretended Reformers ought to haue done tolerate or beare with scandals and corruptions but neither doth nor can approue them The Church saith he being placed betwixt much chaffe and cockle doth beare with many things but doth not approue nor dissemble nor act those things which are against faith and good life But because to approue corruption in manners as lawfull were an errour against Faith it belongs to corruption in doctrine which was the second part of my demand 19 Now then that corruptions in doctrine I still speak upon the untrue supposition of our Adversaries could not afford any sufficient cause or colourable necessity to depart from that visible Church which was extant when Luther rose I demonstrate out of D. Potters own confession that the Catholique Church neither hath nor can erre in points fundamentall as wee shewed out of his own expresse words which he also of set purpose delivereth in divers other places and all they are obliged to maintain the same who teach that Christ had alwaies a visible Church upon earth because any one fundamentall error overthrowes the being of a true Church Now as Schoolmen speak it is implicatio in terminis a contradiction so plain that one word destroyeth the other as if one should say a living dead man to affirm that the Church doth not erre in points necessary to salvation or damnably yet that it is damnable to remain in her Communion because she teacheth errors which are confessed not to be damnable For if the error be not damnable nor against any fundamentall Article of Faith the beliefe thereof cannot bee damnable But D. Potter teacheth that the Catholique Church cannot and that the Roman Church hath not erred against any fundamentall Article of Faith Therefore it cannot bee damnable to remaine in her Communion and so the pretended corruptions in her doctrine could not induce any obligation to depart from her Communion nor could excuse them from Schisme who upon pretence of necessity in point of conscience forsook her And D. Potter will never bee able to salve a manifest contradiction in these his words To depart from the Church of Rome in some Doctrine and practises there might be necessary cause though she wanted nothing necessary to salvation For if notwithstanding these Doctrines and practises shee wanted nothing necessary to salvation how could it be necessary to salvation to forsake her And therefore wee must still conclude that to forsake her was properly an act of Schisme 20
From the selfe same ground of the infallibility of the Church in all fundamentall points I argue after this manner The visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnation upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her Communion by reason of corruption in doctrine as long as for the truth of her Faith and beliefe she performeth the duty which she dweth to God and her Neighbour As long as she performeth what our Saviour exacts at her hands as long as she doth as much as lies in her power to doe But even according to D. Potters Assertions the Church performeth all these things as long as she erreth not in points fundamentall although she were supposed to erre in other points not fundamentall Therefore the Communion of the visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnation upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her Communion by reason of corruption in doctrine The Major or first Proposition of it selfe is evident The Minor or second Proposition doâ—h necessarily follow out of D. Potters own doctrine above-rehearsed that the promises of our Lord made to his Church for his assistance are to be extended only to points of faith or fundamentall Let me note here by the way that by his Or he seemes to exclude from Faith all points which are not fundamentall and so we may deny innumerable Texts of Scripture That It is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers c. but she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in heaven For it is evident that the Church for as much as concernes the truth of her doctrines and beliefe owes no more duty to God and her Neighbour neither doth our Saviour exact more at her hands nor is it in her power to doe more then God doth assist her to doe which assistance is promised only for points fundamentall and conâ—equently as long as she teacheth no fundamentall error her communion cannot without damnation be forsaken And we may fitly apply against D. Potter a Concionatory declamation which he makes against us where he saith May the Church of after Ages make the narrow way to heaven narrower then our Saviour left it c since he himselfe obligeth men under pain of damnation to forsake the Church by reason of errours against which our Saviour thought it needlesse to promise his assistance and for which he neither demeth his grace in this life or glory in the next Will D. Potter oblige the Church to doe more then she may even hope for or to performe on earth that which is proper to heaven alone 21 And as from your own doctrine concerning the infallibility of the Church in fundamentall points we have proved that it was a grievous sinne to forsake her so doe we take a strong argâ—ment from the fallibility of any who dare pretend to reforme the Church which any man in his wits will believe to be indued with at least as much infallibility as private men can challeng D. Potter expresly affirmeth that Christs promises of his assistance are not intended to any particular persons or Churches therefore to leave the Church by reason of errours was at best hand bâ—t to flit from one erring company to another without any new hope of triumphing over errours and without necessity or utility to forsake that Communion of which S. Augustine saith There is no just necessity to divide Vnity Which will appear to be much more evident if we consider that though the Church had maintained some false doctrines yet to leave her Communion to remedy the old were but to adde a new increase of errors arising from the innumerable disagreements of Sectaries which must needs bring with it a mighty masse of falshoods because the truth is but one and indivisible And this reason is yet stronger if we still remember that even according to D. Potter the visible Church hath a blessing not to erre in points fundamentall in which any private Reformer may faile and therefore they could not pretend any necessity to forsake that Church out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more and even into damnable errors Remember I pray you what your selfe affirmes pag. 69. where speaking of our Church and yours you say All the difference is from the weeds which remain there and here are taken away Yet neither here perfectly nor every where alike Behold a fair confession of corruptions still remaining in your Church which you can only excuse by saying they are not fundamentall as likewise those in the Roman Church are confessed to be not fundamentall What man of judgement will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupt one 22 I still proceed to impugne you expresly upon your own grounds You say that it is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers but she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in heaven Now if it be comfort enough to be secured from all capitall dangers which can arise only from error in fundamentall points why were not your first reformers content with enough but would needs dismember the Church out of a pernitious greedinesse of more then enough For this enough which according to you is attained by not erring in points fundamentall was enjoyed before Luthers reformation unlesse you will now against your selfe affirme that long before Luther there was no Church free from error in fundamentall points Moreover if as you say no Church may hope to triumph over all errour till she be in heaven You must either grant that errors not fundamentall cannot yeeld sufficient cause to forsake the Church or else you must affirme that all community may and ought to be forsaken so there will be no end of Schismes or rather indeed there can be no such thing as Schisâ—e because according to you all communities are subject to errors not fundamentall for which if they may be lawfully forsaken it followeth cleerely that it is not Schisme to forsake them Lastly since it is not lawfull to leave the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners because such miseries cannot be avoided in this world of temptation and since according to your Assertion no Church may hope to triumph over all sinne and error You must grant that as she ought not to be left by reason of sinne so neither by reason of errors not fundamentall because both sinne and errour are according to you impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven 23 Furthermore I aske whether it be the Qâ—antity or Number or Quality and Greatnesse of doctrinall errors that may yeild sufficient cause to relinquish the Churches Communion I prove that neither Not the Quality which is supposed to be beneath the degree of points fundamentall or necessary to salvation Not the Quantity or Number for
those who goe out to be Schismatiques but not those from whom they depart That to forsake the Chaire of Peter is Schisme yea that it is Schisme to erect a Chaire which had no origen or as it were predecessouâ— before it self That to continue in a division begun by others is to be Heires of Schismatiques and lastly that to depart from the Communion of a particular Church as that of S. â—yprian was is sufficient to make a man incur the guilt of Schisme and consequently that although Protestants who deny the Pope to be supreme Head of the Church doe think by that Heresy to cleere Luther from Schisme in disobeying the Pope Yet that wâ—ll not serve to free him from Schisme as it importeth a division from the obedience or Communion of the particular Bishop Diocesse Church and Country where he lived 36 But it is not the Heresy of Protestants or any other Sectaries that can deprive S. Peter and his Successours of the authority which Christ our Lord conferred upon them over his whole militant Church which is a point confessed by learned Protestants to be of great Antiquity and for which the judgement of divers most ancient holy Fathers is reproved by them as may be seen at large in Brerely exactly citing the places of such chiefe Protestants And we must say with S. Cyprian Heresies have sprung and Schismes been bred from no other cause then for that the Priest of God is not obeyed nor one Priest and Iudge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God Which words doe plainely condemne Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Vniversall or of every particular Church For he withdrew himselfe both from the obedience of the Pope and of all particular Bishops and Churches And no lesse cleere is the said Optatus Milevitanus saying Thou caust not deny but that thou knowest that in the City of Rome there was first an Episcopall Chaire placed for Peter wherein Peter the head of all the Apostles sate whereof also he was called Cephas in which one Chaire Vn was to be kept by all least the other Apostles might attribute to themselves each one his particular chaire and that he should be a Schismatique and sinner who against that one single Chaire should erect another Many other Authorities of Fathers might be alleaged to this purpose which I omit my intention being not to handle particular controversies 37 Now the arguments which hitherto I have brought prove that Luther and his followers were Schismatiques without examining for as much as belongs to this point whether or no the Church can erre in any one thing great or small because it is universally true that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the Visible Church of Christ according to S. Augustine saying It is not possible that any may have just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations upon just cause But since indeed the Church cannot erre in any one point of doctrine nor can approve any corruption in manners they cannot with any colour avoid the just imputation of eminent Schisme according to the verdict of the same holy Father in these words The most manifest sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there was no cause of separation 38 Lastly I prove that Protestants cannot avoid the note of Schisme at least by reason of their mutuall separation from one another For most certain it is that there is very great difference for the outward face of a Church and profession of a different faith between the Lutherans the rigid Calvinists and the Protestants of England So that if Luther were in the right those other Protestants who invented Doctrines far different from his and divided themselues from him must be reputed Schismatiques and the like argument may proportionably be applyed to their further divisions subdivisions Which reason I yet urge more strongly out of D. Potter who affirmes that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the errors of the Roman Church a reconciliation is impossible and damnable And yet he teacheth that their difference from the Roman Church is not in fundamentall points Now since among Protestants there is such diversity of beliefe that one denieth what the other affirmeth they must be convicted in conscience that one part is in errour at least not fundamentall and if D. Potter will speak consequently that a reconciliation between them is impossible daÌ„nable what greater division or Schisme can there be then when one part must judge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible daÌ„nable 39 Out of all which premisses this Conclusion followes That Luther his followers were Schismatiques from the universall visible Church from the Pope Christs Vicar on earth Successour to S. Peter from the particular Diocesse in which they received Baptisme from the Countrey or Nation to which they belonged from the Bishop under whom they lived many of them from the Religious Order in which they were professed from one another And lastly from a mans selfe as much as is possible because the selfe same Protestant to day is convicted in conscience that his yesterday's Opinion was an error as D. Potter knows a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant with whom therefore a reconciliation according to D. Potters grounds is both impossible and damnable 40 It seemes D. Potters last refuge to excuse himselfe and his Brethren from Schisme is because they proceeded according to their conscience dictating an obligation under damnation to forsake the errours maintained by the Church of Rome His words are Although we confesse the Church of Rome to be in some sense a true Church and her errors to some men not damnableâ— yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she erres in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors 41 I answer It is very strange that you judge us extreamly Vncharitable in saying Protestants cannot be saved while your selfe avouch the same of all learned Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse If this your pretence of conscience may serue what Schismatique in the Church what popular seditious brain in a kingdome may not alledge the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from Schisme or Sedition No man wishes them to doe any thing against their conscience but we say that they may and ought to rectifie and depose such a conscience which is easie for them to doe even according to your own affirmation that wee Catholiques want no meanes necessary to salvation Easie to doe Nay not to doe so to any man in his right wits must seem impossible For how can these two apprehensions stand together In the Roman Church I enjoy all meanes necessary to
in the face of all Christian Churches as if indeed they were not Reformers but Schismatiques and Heretiques or as Pagans Publicans I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will doe a deed of Charity by putting you in mind into what labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of faith yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he haue evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience or externally deny a truth known to be coÌ„tained in holy Scripture How much more coherently doe Catholiques proceed who believe the universall infallibility of the Church and from thence are assured that there can be no evidence of Scripture or reason against her definitions nor any just cause to forsake her Communion M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man yeelds as much as we haue alleaged out of you The will of God is saith he to haue them doe whatsoever the sentence of judiciall and finall decision shall determine yea though it seeme in their private opinion to swarve utterly from that which is right Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was which he transgressing must of necessity bee guilty of Schisme And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the universall infallibility of the Church or else driue men into the perplexities and labyrinths of dissembling against their conscience whereof now I speake Not unlike to this is your doctrine delivered elsewhere Before the Nicene Councell say you many good Cotholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists that the Baptisme of Heretiques was ineffectuall and with the Novatians that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners These errours therefore if they had gone no further were not in themselves Hereticall especially in the proper and most heavy or bitter sense of that word neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration Her intention was to silence all disputes and to settle peace and unitie in her government to which all wise and peaceable men submitted whatsoever their opinion was And those factious people for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition were very justly branded for Schismatiques For us the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church c. and therefore hee doth uniustlie charge us either with Schisme or Heresie These wordes manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her declarations Doctrines and Commands imposed upon them for silencing all disputes and setling peace and Vnity in the government and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient are justly charged with Schisme and Heresie And it is to be observed that you grant the Donatists to haue been very justly branded for Schismatiques although their opposition against the Church did concern as you hold a point not fundamentall to the Faith and which according to S. Augustine cannot be proved out of Scripture alone and therefore either doth evidently convince that the Church is universally infallible even in points not fundamentall or else that it is Schisme to oppose her declarations in those very things wherein she may erre and consequently that Luther and his fellowes were Schismatiques by opposing the visible Church for points not fundamentall though it were untruely supposed that she erred in such points But by the way how come you on the suddaine to hold the determination of a Generall Councell of Nice to be the declaration of the Catholique Church seeing you teach That Generall Councels may erre even fundamentally And doe you now say with us that to oppose the declaration of the Church is sufficient that one may be branded with Heresie which is a point so often impugned by you 43 It is therefore most evident that no pretended scruple of conscience could excuse Luther which he might and ought to have rectified by meanes enough if Pride Ambition Obstinacy c. had given him leave I grant he was touched with scruple of conscience but it was because he had forsaken the visible Church of Christ and I beseech all Protestants for the loue they beare to that sacred ransome of their soules the Blood of our blessed Saviour attentiuely to ponder and unpartially to apply to their owne Conscience what this Man spoke concerning the feelings and remorse of his How often saith he did my trembling heart beat within me and reprehending me obiect against me that most strong argument Art thou only wise Doe so many worlds erre Were so many ages ignorant What if thou errest and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee And in another place he saith Dost thou who art but One and of no account take upon thee so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many all to erre why may he not permit thee to erre To this belong those arguments the Church the Church the Fathers the Fathers the Councels the Customes the multitudes and greatnes of wise men Whom doe not these Mountaines of arguments these clouds yea these seas of Examples overthrow And these thoughts wrought so deep in his soule that he often wished and desired that he had never begun this businesse wishing yet further that his Writings were burned and buried in eternall oblivion Behold what remorse Luther felt and how he wanted no strength of malice to crosse his own conscience and therefore it was no scruple or conceived obligation of conscience but some other motives which induced him to oppose the Church And if yet you doubt of his courage to encounter and strength to master all reluctations of conscience heare an example or two for that purpose Of Communion under both kinds thus he saith If the Councell should in any case decree this least of all would we then use both kinds yea rather in despight of the Councell and the Decree we would use either but one kind only or neither or in no case both Was not Luther perswaded in Conscience that to use neither kind was against our Saviours command Is this only to offer his opinion to be considered of as you said all men ought to doe And that you may be sure that he spoke from his heart and if occasion had been offered would have been as good as his word mark what he saith of the Elevation of the Sacrament I did know the Elevation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall yet neverthelesse I did retain it in tâ—e Church at Wittemberg to the end I might vexe the divell Carolostadius Was not this a conscience large and capacious enough that could swallow Idolatry Why would he not tolerate Idolatry in the Church of Rome as these men are wont to blaspheame if he could retain it in his own Church at Wittemberge If Carolostadius
that those persons sinned mortally who accompanied without hope of issue Seaventhly they held all things done above the girdle by kissing touching words compression of the breasts c. to be done in Charity and not against Continency Eightly that neither Priest nor civill Magistrate being guilty of mortall sinne did enjoy their dignity or were to be obeyed Ninthly they condemned Princes and Iudges Tenthly they affirmed singing in the Church to be an hellish clamor Eleaventhly they taught that men might dissemble their Religion so accordingly they went to Catholique Churches dissembling their faith and made Offertories confessions and communions after a dissembling manner Waldo was so unlearned that saith Fox he gave rewards to certain learned men to translate the holy Scripture for him and being thus holpen did as the same Fox there reporteth confer the forme of religion in his time to the infallible word of God A goodly example for such as must needs have the Scripture in English to be read by every simple body with such fruit of Godly doctrine as we have seen in the foresaid grosse heresies of Waldo The followers of Waldo were like their Master so unlearned that some of them â—aith Fox expounded the words Ioan. 1. Sui eum non receperunt Swine did not receive him And to conclude they agreed in divers things with Catholiques against Protestants as may be seen in Brerely 51 Neither can it be pretended that these are slanders forged by Catholiques For for besides that the same things are testified by Protestant writers as Iâ—â—yricus Coâ—per and others our Authors cannot be suspected of partiality in disfavour of Protestants unlesse you will say perhaps that they were Prophets and some hundred yeares agoe did both foresee that there were to bee Protestants in the world and that such Protestants were to be like the Waldenses Besides from whence but from our Histories are Protestants come to know that there were any such men as the Waldenses and that in some points they agreed with the Protestants disagreed from them in others And upon what ground can they belieue our Authors for that part wherein the Waldenses were like to Protestants and imagine they lyed in the rest 52 Neither could Wiccliffe continue a Church never interrupted from the time of the Waldenses after whom he lived more then one hundred and fifty yeares to wit the yeare 1371. Hee agreed with Catholiques about the worshipping of Reliques and Images and about the Intercession of our blessed Lady the ever Immaculate Mother of God he went so far as to say It seemes to me impossible that we should be rewarded without the intercession of the Virgin Mary He held seaven Sacraments Purgatory and other points And against both Catholiques and Protestants he maintained sundry damnable doctrines as divers Protestant Writers relate As first If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not indeed either giue Orders Consecrate or Baptize Secondly That Ecclesiasticall Ministers ought not to haue any temporall possessions nor propriety in any thing but should beg and yet he himselfe brake into heresie because he had been deprived by the Archbishop of Canterbury of a certain Benefice as all Schismes and heresies beginne upon passion which they seek to cover with the cloak of Reformation Thirdly he condemned lawfull Oathes like the Anabaptists Fourthly he taught that all things came to passe by absolute necessity Fiftly he defended human merits as the wicked Pelagians did namely as proceeding from naturall forces without the necessary help of God's grace Sixtly that no man is a Civill Magistrate while he is in mortall sinne and that the people may at their pleasure correct Princes when they offend by which doctrine he proues himselfe both an Heretique and a Traytour 53 As for Husse his chiefest Doctrines were That Lay people must receive in both kinders and That Civill Lords Prelates and Bishops loose all right and authority while they are in mortall sinne For other things he wholy agreed with Catholiques against Protestants and the Bohemians his followers being demanded in what points they disagreed from the Church of Rome propounded only these The necessity of Communion under both kinds That all Civill Dominion was forbidden to the Clergy That Preaching of the word was free for all men and in all places That open Crimes were in no wise to be permitted for avoiding of greater evill By these particulars it is apparant that Husse agreed with Protestants against us in one only point of both kindes â—hich according to Luther is a thing indifferent because he teacheth that Christ in this matter commanded nothing as necessary And he saith further If thou come to a place where one only kinde is administred use one kinde only as others doe Melancthon likewise holds it a thing indifferent and the same is the opinion of some other Protestants All which considered it is cleer that Protestants cannot challenge the Waldenses Wickliffe and Husse for members of their Church and although they could yet that would advantage them little towards the finding out a perpetuall visible Church of theirs for the reasons aboue specified 54 If D Potter would goe so farre off as to fetch the Muscovites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians or Abissines into his Church they would proue over deare bought For they either hold the damnable heresy of Euâ—iches or use Circumcision or agree with the Greek or Roman Church And it is most certaine that they have nothing to doe with the doctrine of the Protestants 55 It being therefore granted that Christ had a visible Church in all ages and that there can be none assigned but the Church of Rome it followes that she is the true Cath. Church and that those pretended Corruptions for which they forsook her are indeed divine truths delivered by the visible Catholique Church of Christ And that Luther and his followers departed from her and consequently are guilty of Schisme by dividing themselves from the Communion of the Roman Church Which is cleerly convinced out of D. Potter himself although the Roman Church were but a particular Church For he saith Whosoever professes himself to forsake the Communion of any one member of the body of Christ must confesse himself consequently to forsake the whole Since therefore in the same place he expressely acknowledges the Church of Rome to be a member of the body of Christ and that it is cleere they have forsaken her it evidently followes that they haue forsaken the whole and therefore are most properly Schismatiques 56 And lastly since the crime of Schisme is so grievous that according to the doctrine of holy Fathers rehearsed aboue no multitude of good works no morall honesty of life no cruel death endured even for the profession of some Article of faith can excuse any one who is guilty of that sinne from damnation I leaue it to be considered whether it be not true Charity to speak as wee believe and
to believe as all Antiquity hath taught us That whosoever either beginnes or continues a division for the Roman Church which we haue proved to be Christs true Militant Church on earth cannot without effectuall repentance hope to be a member of his Triumphant Church in heaven And so I conclude with these words of blessed S. Augustine It is common to all Heretiques to be unable to see that thing which in the world is the most manifest and placed in the light of all Nations out of whose Vnity whatsoever they work though they seem to doe it with great care and diligence can no more availe them against the wrath of God then the Spiders web against the extremity of cold But now it is high time that we treat of the other sort of Division from the Church which is by Heresie THE ANSVVER TO THE FIFTH CHAPTER The separation of Protestants from the Roman Church being upon iust and necessary causes is not any way guilty of Schisme 1 AD § 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. In the seaven first Sections of this Chapter there be many things said and many things supposed by you which are untrue deserue a censure As 2 First That Schisme could not be a Division from the Church or that a Division from the Church could not happen unlesse there alwaies had been and should be a visible Church Which Assertion is a manifest falshood For although there never had been any Church Visible or Invisible before this age nor should be ever after yet this could not hinder but that a Schisme might now be and be a Division from the present visible Church As though in France there never had been untill now a lawfull Monarch nor after him ever should be yet this hinders not but that now there might be a Rebellion and that Rebellion might be an Insurrection against Soveraigne authority 3 That it is a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath been a visible Congregation of faithfull people Which Proposition howsoever you understand it is not absolutely certain But if you mean by Faithfull as it is plain you doe free from all errour in faith then you know all Protestants with one consent affirm it to bee false and therefore without proof to take it for granted is to beg the Question 4 That supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church were guilty of Schisme it is certainly consequent that all who persist in this division must be so likewise Which is not so certaine as you pretend For they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state Civill or Ecclesiasticall doe commit a great fault whereof notwithanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former state when continuance of time hath once setled the present Thus haue I known some of your own Church condemn the Low-countrey men who first revolted from the King of Spain of the sin of Rebellion yet absolve them from it who now being of your Religion there are yet faithfull maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the K. of Spaine 5 Fourthly That all those which a Christian is to esteeme neighbours doe concurre to make one company which is the Church Which is false for a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 6 Fiftly That all the members of the Visible Church are by charity united into one Mysticall body Which is manifestly untrue for many of them have no Charity 7 Sixtly That the Catholique Church signifies one company of faithfull people which is repugnant to your own grounds For you require not true faith but only the Profession of it to make men members of the visible Church 8 Seaventhly That every Heretique is a Schismatique Which you must acknowledge false in those who though they deny or doubt of some point professed by your Church and so are Heretiques yet continue still in the Communion of the Church 9 Eightly That all the members of the Catholique Church must of necessity be united in externall Communion Which though it were much to be desired it were so yet certainly cannot be perpetually true For a man unjustly excommunicated is not in the Churches communion yet he is still a member of the Church and divers times it hath happened as in the case of Chrisostome and Epiphanius that particular men and particular Churches have upon an overvalued difference either renounced Communion mutually or one of them separated from the other and yet both have continued members of the Catholique Church These things are in those seven Sections either said or supposed by you untruly without all shewe or pretence of proofe The rest is an impertinent common place wherein Protestants and the cause in hand are absolutely unconcern'd And therefore I passe to the eighth Section 10 Ad § 8. Wherein you obtrude upon us a double Fallacie One in supposing and taking for granted that whatsoever is affirmed by three Fathers must be true whereas your selves make no scruple of condemning many things of falsehood which yet are maintained by more then thrice three Fathers Another in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases For whereas you say S. Austine c. 62. l. 2. cont Parm. infers out of the former premises That there is no necessity to divide Vnity to let passe your want of diligence in quoting the 62. chapter of that Booke which hath but 23. in it to passe by also that these words which are indeed in the 11. Chapt. are not inferred out of any such premises as you pretend this I say is evident that he saies not absolutely that there never is or can be any necessity to divide Vnity which only were for your purpose but only in such a speciall cale as he there sets down That is When good men tolerate bad men which can doe thē no spirituall hurt to the intent they may not be seperated from those who are spiritually good Then saith he there is no necessity to divide Vnity Which very words doe cleerely give us to understand that it may fall out as it doth in our case that we cannot keep Vnity with bad men without spirituall hurt i. e. without partaking with them in their impieties and that then there is a necessity to divide Unity from them I mean to break off conjunction with them in their impieties Which that it was S. Austines mind it is most evident out of the 21. c. of the same book where to Parmenian demanding how can a man remain pure being joyned with those that are corrupted He answers Very true this is not possible if he be ioyned with them that is if he commit any evill with them or favour them which doe commit it But if he doe neither of these he is not ioyned with them
For it is to require that they which believe some part of your Doctrine false should withall believe it all true Seeing therefore for any man to believe your Church in error and professe the contrary is damnable Hypocrisie to believe it and not believe it a manifest repugnancy and thirdly to professe it and to continue in your Communion as matters now stand a plain impossibility what remaines but that whosoever is supposed to have just reason to disbelieve any doctrine of your Church must of necessity forsake her Communion Vnlesse you would remit so farre from your present rigour as to allow them your Churches communion who publiquely professe that they doe not believe every article of her established Doctrine Indeed if you would doe so you might with some coherence suppose your Church in error and yet finde fault with men for abandoning her communion because they might continue in it and suppose her in error But to suppose your Church in error and to excommunicate all those that believe your own supposition and then to complain that they continue not in your communion is the most ridiculous incongruity that can be imagined And therefore though your corruptions in doctrine in themselves which yet is false did not yet your obliging us to professe your doctrine uncorrupted against knowledge and conscience may induce an obligation to depart from your communion As if there were any society of Christians that held there were no Antipodes notwithstanding this error I might communicate with them But if I could not doe so without professing my selfe of their beleefe in this matter then I suppose I should be excus'd from Schisme if I should forsake their communion rather then professe my selfe to believe that which I doe not believe Neither is there any contradiction or shadow of contradiction that it may be necessary for my Salvation to depart from this Churches communion And that this Church though erring in this matter wants nothing necessary to Salvation And yet this is that manifest contradiction which D. Potter you say will never be able to salve viz. That there might be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and practices though she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation 60 And your Reason wherewith you prove that there is in these words such a plain contradiction is very notable For say you if she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation how could it be necessary to Salvation to forsake her Truly Sir if this be a good manner of proving it is a very ready way to prove any thing for what is there that may not be proved if it be proofe enough to aske how it can be otherwise Me thinkes if you would convince D. Potter's words of manifest contradiction you should shew that he affirmes and denies the same of the same From which fault me thinkes he should be very innocent who saies only that that may be damnable to one which is not so to another and that may be necessary for one which is not necessary for another And this is all that D. Potter saies here viz. That the profession of a falsehood to him that believes it may be not damnable and yet damnable to him that believes the contrary Or that not to professe a falsehood in him that knowes it to be so is necessary to Salvation and yet not so in him that by error conceives it to be a truth The words by you cited and charged with unsalvable contradiction are in the 75. pag. But in the progresse of the same particular discourse in the next page but one he gives such evident reason of them which can hardly be done to prove implicancy true that whereas you say he will never be able to salve them from contradiction I believe any indifferent reader having considered the place will be very apt to think that you whatsoever you pretend were very able to have done this curtesy for him if your will had been answerable to your ability I will set down the words and leave the Reader to condemne or absolve them To forsake the errors of that Church and not to joyne with her in those practices which we account erroneous wee are enforced by necessity For though in the issue they are not damnable to them which belieue as they professe yet for us to professe avow by oath as the Church of Rome enioynes what we belieue not were without question damnable And they with their errours by the grace of God might goe to Heaven when we for our hypocrisie and dissimulation he might haue added and Perjury should certainly be condemned to Hell 61 Ad § 20. But a Church not erring in Fundamentalls though erring in other matters doth what our Saviour exacts at her hands doth as much as lies in her power to doe Therefore the Communion of such a Church is not upon pretence of Errour to be forsaken The consequence is manifest The Antecedent is proved because God by D. Potters confession hath promised his assistance no further nor is it in her power to doe more then God doth assist her to doe Ans. The promise of Divine Assistance is two fold Absolute or Conditionall That there shall be by Divine providence preseru'd in the world to the worlds end such a company of Christians who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation and nothing inevitably destructive of it This and no more the Doctor affirmes that God hath promised absolutely Yet he neither doubts nor denies but that a farther assistance is conditionally promised us even such an assistance as shall lead us if we be not wanting to it and our selves into all not only necessary but very profitable truth and guard us from all not only destructive but also hurtfull Errours This I say he neither denies nor questions And should he haue done so hee might haue been confuted by evident and expresse Text of Scripture When therefore you say That a Church not erring in Fundamentalls doth as much as by Gods assistance lies in her power to doe This is manifestly untrue For Gods assistance is alwaies ready to promote her farther It is ready I say but on condition the Church does implore it on condition that when it is offered in the divine directions of Scripture and reason the Church be not negligent to follow it If therefore there be any Church which retaining the foundation builds hay and stubble upon it which believing what is precisely necessary erres shamefully and dangerously in other things very profitable This by no meanes argues defect of divine assistance in God but neglect of this assistance in the Church Neither is there any reason why such a Church should please her selfe too much for retaining Fundamentall truths while shee remaines so regardlesse of others For though the simple defect of some truths profitable onely and not simply necessary may consist with salvation Yet who is there that can giue her sufficient assurance that the neglect
of such truths is not damnable Besides who is there that can put her in sufficient caution that these Errours about profitable matters may not according to the usuall fecunditie of errour bring forth others of a higher qualitie such as are pernicious and pestilent and undermine by secret consequences the very foundations of Religion and piety Lastly who can say that she hath sufficiently discharged her duty to God and man by avoiding only Fundamentall Heresies if in the mean time shee bee negligent of others which though they doe not plainly destroy salvation yet obscure and hinder and only not block up the way to it Which though of themselves and immediatly they damne no man yet are causes and occasions that many men run the race of Christian piety more remisly then they should many defer their repentance many goe on securely in their sinnes so at length are damn'd by means and occasion of these Errours though not for them Such Errours as these though those of the Roman Church be much worse even in themselves damnable and by accident only pardonable yet I say such Errours as these if any Church should tolerate dissemble and suffer them to raign and neglect to reforme them and not permit them to be freely yet peaceably opposed and impugned will any wise man say that she hath sufficiently discharged her duty to God and man That shee hath with due fidelity dispensed the Gospell of Christ That shee hath done what she could and what she ought What shall we say then if these errours be taught by her and commanded to be taught What if she thunder out her curses against those that will not belieue them What if she rave and rage against them and persecute them with fire sword and all kinds of most exquisite torments Truly I doe much feare that frō such a Church though it hold no errour absolutely unconsistent with salvation the candlestick of God either is already removed or will be very shortly and because she is negligent of profitable truths that she will lose those that are Necessary and because she will not be led into all truths that in short time shee shall bee led into none And although this should not happen yet what mortall man can secure us that not only a probable unaffected ignorance nor onely a meere neglect of profitable truths but also a retchlesse supine negligence manifest contempt Dissimulation Opposition Oppression of them may consist with salvation I truly for my part though I hope very well of all such as seeking all truth finde that which is necessary who endeavouring to free themselves from all Errours any way contrary to the purity of Christianity yet fayle of performance remain in some yet if I did not finde in my selfe a loue and desire of all profitable truth If I did not put away idlenesse and prejudice and worldly affections and so examine to the bottome all my opinions of divine matters being prepar'd in minde to follow God and God only which way soever he shall lead me If I did not hope that I either doe or endeavour to doe these things certainly I should haue little hope of obtaining salvation 62 But to oblige any man under pain of damnation to forsake a Church by reason of such errours against which Christ thought it superfluous to promise his assistance and for which he neither denies his grace here nor his glory hereafter what is it but to make the narrow way to heaven narrower then Christ left it Ans. It is not For Christ himselfe hath obliged us hereunto He hath forbad us under pain of damnation to professe what we belieue not consequently under the same penalty to leaue that Communion in which we cannot remain without this hypocriticall profession of those things which we are convinc'd to be erroneous But then besides it is here falsely supposed as hath been shewed already that Christ hath not promised assistance to those that seeke it but only in matters simply necessary Neither is there any reason why any Church even in this world should despair of victory over all errors pernitious or noxious provided she humbly and earnestly implore divine assistance depend wholy upon it and be not wanting to it Though a Triumph over all sinne and error that is security that she neither doth nor can erre be rather to be desired then hoped for on earth being a felicity reserved for heaven 63 Ad § 21. But at least the Roman Church is as infallible as Protestants and Protestants as fallible as the Roman Church therefore to forsake the Roman Church for errors what is it but to flit from one erring Society to another Ans. The inconsequence of this Argument is too apparent Protestants may erre as well as the Church of Rome therefore they did so Boyes in the Schooles know that a Posse ad Esse the Argument followes not He is equally fallible who believes twise two to be foure as he that believes them to be twenty yet in this he is not equally deceived and he may be certain that he is not so One Architect is no more infallible then another and yet he is more secure that his work is right and streight who hath made it by the levell then he which hath made it by guesse and by chance So he that forsakes the errors of the Church of Rome and therefore renounceth her communion that he may renounce the profession of her errors though he knowes himselfe fallible as well as those whom he hath forsaken yet he may be certain as certain as the nature of the thing will beare that he is not herein deceived because he may see the Doctrine forsaken by him repugnant to Scripture and the doctrine embraced by him consonant to it At least this he may know that the doctrine which he hath chosen to him seemes true and the contrary which he hath forsaken seemes false And therefore without remorse of conscience he may professe that but this he cannot 64 But we are to remember that according to D. Potter the visible Church hath a blessing not to erre in Fundamentalls in which any private Reformer may faile therefore there◠was no necessity of forsaking the Church out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more and even into damnable errors Ans. The visible Church is free indeed from all errors absolutely destructive and unpardonable but not from all errour which in it selfe is damnable not from all which will actually bring damnation upon them that keep themselves in them by their own voluntary and avoidable fault From such errors which are thus damnable D. Potter doth no where say that the visible Church hath any priviledge or exemption Nay you your selfe teach that he plainly teacheth the contrary and thereupon will allow him to be no more charitable to Papists then Papists are to Protestants and yet upon this affected mistake your discourse is founded in almost forty places of your
Book Besides any private man who truly believes the Scripture and seriously endeavours to know the will of God and to doe it is as secure as the visible Church more secure then your Church from the danger of erring in fundamentalls for it is impossible that any man so qualified should fall into any error which to him will prove damnable For God requires no more of any man to his Salvation but his true endeavour to be saved Lastly abiding in your Churches Communion is so farre from securing me or any man from damnable error that if I should abide in it I am certain I could not be saved For abide in it I cannot without professing to believe your entire doctrine true professe this I cannot but I must lye perpetually and exulcerate my conscience And though your errors were not in themselves damnable yet to resist the known Truth and to continue in the profession of known errors and false hoods is certainly a capitall sinne and of great affinity with the sinne which shall never be forgiven 95 But neither is the Church of Protestants perfectly free from errors and corruptions so the Doctor confesses p. 69. which he can only excuse by saying they are not fundamentall as likewise those in the Roman Church are confessed not to be fundamentall And what man of Iudgement will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one Ans. And yet you your selfe make large discourses in this very Chapter to perswade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome though supposed to have some corruptions And why I pray may not a man of judgement continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted Especially when this Church supposed to be corrupted requires the beliefe and profession of her supposed corruptions as the condition of her Communion which this Church confessedly corrupted doth not What man of judgement will think it any disparagement to his judgement to preferre the better though not simply the best before that which is starke naught To preferre indifferent good health before a diseased and corrupted state of Body To preferre a field not perfectly weeded before a field that is quite over-runne with weeds and thornes And therefore though Protestants have some Errors yet seeing they are neither so great as yours nor impos'd with such tyranny nor maintained with such obstinacy he that conceives it any disparagement to his judgement to change your Communion for theirs though confessed to have some corruptions it may well be presum'd that he hath but little judgement For as for your pretence that yours are confessed not to be fundamentall it is an affected mistake as already I have often told you 66 Ad § 22. But D. Potter saies it is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers but she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and error till she be in heaven Now if it be comfort enough to be secur'd from all capitall dangers which can arise only from error in fundamentall points Why were not our first Reformers content with enough but would needs dismember the Church out of apernitious greedinesse of more then enough Ans. I have already shewed sufficiently how capitall danger may arise from errors though not fundamentall I adde now that what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough according to that of the Gospell to whom much is given of him much shall be required That the same error may be not capitall to those who want meanes of finding the truth and capitall to others who have meanes and neglect to use them That to continue in the profession of error discovered to be so may be damnable though the error be not so These I presume are reasons enough and enough why the first Reformers might think and justly that not enough for themselves which yet to some of their Predecessors they hope might be enough This very Argument was objected to S. Cyprian upon another occasion and also by the British Quartodecimans to the maintainers of the Doctrine of your Church and by both this very answer was returned and therefore I cannot but hope that for their sakes you will approve it 67 But if as the Doctor saies no Church may hope to triumph over all error ti◠she be in heaven then we must either grant that errors not fundamentall cannot yeeld sufficient cause to forsake the Church or you must affirme that all Communities may and ought to be forsaken Answ. The Doctor does not say that no Church may hope to be free from all error either pernitious or any way noxious But that no Church may hope to be secure from all error simply for this were indeed truly totriumph over all But then we say not that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errors unfundamentall unlesse it exact withall either a dissimulation of the being noxious or a Profession of them against the dictate of conscience if they be meere errors This if the Church does as certainly yours doth then her communion is to be forsaken rather then the sinne of hypocrisy to be committed Whereas to forsake the Churches of Protestants for such errors there is no necessity because they erre to themselves doe not under pain of Excommunication exact the profession of their errors 68 But the Church may not be left by reason of sinne therefore neither by reason of errors not fundamentall in as much as both sinne and error are impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven Ans. The reason of the consequence does not appear to mee But I answer to the Antecedent Neither for sinne nor errors ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and injoyne them but if she doe as the Roman does then we must forsake men rather then God leave the Churches communion rather then commit sinne or professe known errors to be divine truths For the Prophet EZechiel hath assured us that to say the Lord hath said so when the Lord hath not said so is a great sinne and a high presumption be the matter never so small 69 Ad § 23. But neither the Quality nor the number of your Churches errors could warrant our forsaking of it Not the Quality because we suppose them not Fundamentall Not the number because the foundation is strong enough to support them Ans. Here againe you vainely suppose that we conceive your errors in themselves not damnable Though we hope they are not absolutely unpardonable but to say they are pardonable is indeed to suppose them damnable Secondly though the errors of your Church did not warrant our departure yet your Tyrannous imposition of them would be our sufficient justification For this laies necessity on us either to forsake your company or to professe what we know to be false 70 Our Blessed Saviour hath declared his will that we
forgive a private offender seventy seven times that is without limitation of quantity of time or quality of Trespasses and thou how dare we alleage his command that we must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not fundamentall Ans. He that commands us to pardon our Brother sinning against us so often will not allow us for his sake to sinne with him so much as once He will have us doe any thing but sinne rather then offend any man But his will is also that we offend all the World rather then sinne in the least matter And therefore though his will were and it were in our power which yet is false to pardon the errors of an erring Church yet certainly it is not his will that we should erre with the Church or if we doe not that we should against conscience professe the errors of it 71 Ad § 24. But Schismatiques from the Church of England or any other Church with this very Answer that they forsake not the Church but the errors of it may cast off from themselves the imputation of Schisme Ans. True they may make the same Answer and the same defence as we doe as a murtherer can cry not guilty as well as an innocent person but not so truly nor so justly The question is not what may be pretended but what can bee proved by Schismatiques They may object errors to other Churches as well as we doe to yours but that they prove their accusation so strongly as we can that appeares not To the Priests and elders of the Iewes imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Iohn answered they must obey God rather then men The three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer Give me now any factious Hypocrite who makes religion the pretence and cloke of his Rebellion and who sees not that such a one may answer for himselfe in those very formall words which the holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of And yet I presume no Christian will deny but this answer was good in the mouth of the Apostles and Martyrs though it were obnoxious to be abused by Traitors and Rebels Certainly therefore it is no good consequence to say Schismatiques may make use of this Answer therefore all that doe make use of it are Schismatiques But moreover it is to be observed that the chiefe part of our defence that you deny your communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grant their Communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered 72 But the forsaking the Roman Church opens a way to innumerable Sects and Schismes and therefore it must not be forsaken Ans. We must not doe evill to avoid evill neither are all courses presently lawfull by which inconveniences may be avoided If all men would submit themselves to the chiefe Mufty of the Turkes it is apparent there would be no divisions yet unity is not to be purchased at so deare a rate It were a thing much to be desired that there were no divisions yet difference of opinions touching points controverted is rather to be chosen then unanimous concord in damned errors As it is better for men to goe to heaven by diverse waies or rather by divers paths of the same way then in the same path to goe on peaceably to hell Amica Pax magis amica Veritas 73 But there can be no iust cause to forsake the Church so the Doctor grants who notwithstanding teacheth that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall therefore neither is the Roman Church to be forsaken for such errors Ans. There can be no just cause to forsake the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is to cease being a member of the Church This I grant if it will doe you any service But that there can be no just cause to forsake the Church in some things or to speak more properly to forsake some opinions and practices which some true Church retaines and defends this I deny and you mistake the Doctor if you think he affirmes it 74 Ad § 26. 27. What prodigious doctrines say you are these Those Protestants who belieue that your Church erred in points necessary to salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schisme But others c. Prodigious doctrines indeed But who I pray are they that teach them Where does D. Potter accuse those Protestants of damnable Schisme who left your Church because they hold it erroneous in necessary points What Protestant is there that holds not that you taught things contrary to the plaine precepts of Christ both Ceremoniall in mutilating the Communion and Morall in points of superstition Idolatry and most bloody tyranny which is without question to erre in necessary matters Neither does D. Potter accuse any man of Schisme for holding so if he should he should call himselfe a Schismatique Only he saies such if there be any such as affirm that ignorant soules among you who had no means to know the truth cannot possibly be saved that their wisdome and charity cannot be justified Now you your selfe haue plainly affirmed That ignorant Protestants dying with contrition may bee saved and yet would be unwilling to be thought to say that Protestants erre in no points necessary to salvation For that may be in it selfe and in ordinary course where there are meanes of knowledge necessary which to a man invincibly ignorant will proue not necessary Again where doth D. Potter suppose as you make him that there were other Protestants who believed that your Church had no errours Or where does hee say they did well to forsake her upon this ridiculous reason because they judged that she retained all means necessary to salvation Doe you think us so stupid as that wee cannot distinguish between that which D. Potter sayes and that which you make him say He vindicates Protestants from Schisme two waies The one is because they had just and great and necessary cause to separate which Schismatiques never haue because they that haue it are no Schismatiques For schisme is alwaies a causelesse separation The other is because they did not joyn with their separation an uncharitable damning of all those from whom they did divide themselves as the manner of Schismatiques is Now that which he intends for a circumstance of our separation you make him make the cause of it and the motiue to it And whereas he saies though we separate from you in some things yet we acknowledge your Church a member of the body of Christ and therefore are not Schismatiques You make him say most absurdly we did well to forsake you because we iudged you a member of the body of Christ. Iust as if a brother should leaue his Brothers company in some ill courses and should say
to him Herein I forsake you yet I leave you not absolutely for I acknowledge you still to be my brother and shall use you as a brother And you perverting his speech should pretend that he had said I leaue your company in these ill courses and I doe well to doe so because you are my Brother so making that the cause of his leaving him which indeed is the cause that he left him no farther 75 But you say The very reason for which hee acquitteth himselfe from Schisme is because he holds that the Church which they forsook is not cut off from the Body of Christ. Ans. This is true But can you not perceive a difference between justifying his separation from Schisme by this reason and making this the reason of his separation If a man denying obedience in some unlawfull matter to his lawfull Soveraign should say to him herein I disobey you but yet I am no Rebell because I acknowledge you my Soveraign Lord and am ready to obey you in all things lawfull should not he be an egregious sycophant that should accuse him as if he had said I doe well to disobey you because I acknowledge you my lawfull Soveraign Certainly hee that joynes this acknowledgment with his necessitated disobedience does well but he that makes this consideration the reason of his disobedience doth ill Vrge therefore this as you call it most solemn foppery as far as you please For every understanding Reader will easily perceiue that this is no foppery of D. Potters but a calumny of yours from which he is as far as he is from holding yours to bee the true Church whereas it is a sign of a great deal of Charity in him that he allowes you to be a Part of it 76 And whereas you pretend to finde such unspeakable comfort here in that we cannot cleare our selues from Schisme otherwise then by acknowledging that they doe not nor cannot cut off your Church from the hope of salvation I beseech you to take care that this false comfort cost you not too deare For why this good opinion of God Almighty that he will not damne men for errour who were without their owne fault ignorant of the truth should be any consolation to them who having the key of knowledge will neither use it themselves nor permit others to use it who haue eyes to see and will not see who haue cares to heare and will not heare this I assure you passeth my capacity to apprehend Neither is this to make our salvation depend on yours but only ours and yours not desperatly inconsistent Nor to say wee must be damn'd unlesse you may be saved but that we assure our selues if our lives be answerable we shall be saved by our knowledge And that wee hope and I tell you again Spes est reiincertae nomen that some of you may possibly bee the rather saved by occasion of their unaffected Ignorance 77 For our Brethren whom you say we condemn of heresie for denying the Churches perpetuity we know none that doe so unlesse you conceive a corrupted Church to be none at all and if you doe then for ought I know in your account we must be all Heretiques for all of us acknowledge that the Church might be corrupted even with errors in themselves damnable and not only might but hath been 78 But Schisme consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith Now we must professe you agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamentall Articles Therefore we are Schismatiques Ans. Either in your Major by all points of faith you mean all fundamentall points only or all simply and absolutely If the former I deny your Major for I may without all schisme divide from that Church which erres in any point of faith Fundamentall or otherwise if she require the profession of this Errour among the conditions of her Communion Now this is our case If the latter I deny the syllogisme as having manifestly foure termes and being cosen German to this He that obeys God in all things is innocent Titius obeys God in some things Therefore he is innocent 79 But they who judge a reconciliation with the Church of Rome to be damnable they that say there might be iust and necessary cause to depart from it and that they of that Church which haue understanding means to discover their Errour and neglect to use them are not to bee flattered with hope of salvation they doe cut off that Church from the body of Christ and the hope of salvation and so are Schismatiques But D. Potter doth the former therefore is a Schismatique Ans. No he doth not not cut off that whole Church from the hope of salvation not those members of it who were invincibly or excusably ignorant of the truth but those only who having understanding and meanes to discover their errour neglect to use them Now these are not the whole Church therefore he that supposing their impenitence cuts these off from hope of salvation cannot be justly said to cut off that whole Church from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation 80 Ad § 28. 29. Whereas D. Potter saies There is a great difference between a Schisme from them and a Reformation of our selves this you â—ay is a quaint subtilty by which all Schisme and sinne may be as well excused It seems then in your judgement that theeves and adulterers and murtherers and traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants that they did no hurt to others but only reforme themselves But then me thinks it is very strange that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schisme and that to this day never any Theefe or Murtherer should haue been heard of to make use of this Apologie And then for Schismatiques I would know whether Victor Bishop of Rome who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not conforming to his Church in keeping Easter whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius upon pretence that himselfe was elected Bishop of Rome when indeed he was not whether Felicissimus and his Crew that went out of the Church of Carthage and set up altar against altar because having fallen in persecutioÌ„ they might not be restored to the peace of the Church presently upon the intercession of the Confessours whether the Donatists who divided from and damned all the world because all the world would not excommunicate them who were accused onely and not convicted to haue been Traditors of the sacred Books whether they which for the slips infirmity of others which they might and ought to tolerate or upon some difference in matters of Order Ceremony or for some errour in doctrine neither pernitious nor hurtfull to faith or piety separate themselves from others or others from themselves or lastly whether they that put themselves out of the Churches unity and obedience because their opinions are
may be a fault to be in error because many times it proceeds from a fault But sure the forsaking of error cannot be a sinne unlesse to be in error be a vertue And therefore to doe as you doe to damne men for false opinions and to call them Schismatiques for leaving them to make pertinacy in error that is an unwillingnesse to be convicted or a resolution not to be convicted the forme of Heresies and to find fault with men for being convicted in conscience that they are in error is the most incoherent and contradictious injustice that ever was heard of But Sir if this be a strange matter to you that which I shall tell you will be much stranger I know a man that of a moderate Protestant turn'd a Papist and the day that he did so as all things that are done are perfected some day or other was convicted in conscience that his yesterdaies opinion was an error and yet thinks hee was no Schismatique for doing sos and desires to bee informed by you whether or no hee was mistaken The same man afterwards upon better consideration became a doubting Papist and of a doubting Papist a confirm'd Protestant And yet this man thinks himselfe no more to blame for all these changes then a Travailer who using all diligence to find the right way to some remote Citty where he never had been as the party I speak of had never been in Heaven did yet mistake it and after finde his error and amend it Nay he stands upon his justification so farre as to maintain that his alterations not only to you but also from you by Gods mercy were the most satisfactory actions to himselfe that ever he did and the greatest victories that ever he obtained over himselfe and his affections to those things which in this world are most precious as wherein for Gods sake and as he was verily perswaded out of love to the Truth he went upon a certain expectation of those inconveniences which to ingenuous natures are of all most terrible So that though there were much weaknesse in some of these alterations yet certainly there was no wickednesse Neither does he yeeld his weaknesse altogether without apology seeing his deductions were rationall and out of Principles commonly received by Protestants as well as Papists and which by his education had got possession of his understanding 104 Ad § 40. 41. D. Potter p. 81. of his booke to prove our separation from you not only lawfull but necessary hath these words Although we confesse the Church of Rome in some sense to be a true Church and her error to some men not damnable yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she erres in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors He meanes not in the belief of those errors for that is presupposed to be done already for whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that she erres hath for matter of belief forsaken that is ceased to believe those errors This therefore he meant not nor could not meane but that whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that the Church of Rome erres cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of these errors and the reason hereof is manifest because otherwise he must professe what he believes not and practise what he approves not Which is no more then you selfe in thesi have diverse times affirmed For in one place you say It is unlawfull to speak any the least untruth Now he that professeth your Religion and believes it not what else doth he but live in a perpetuall lye Again in another you have called them that professe one thing and believe another a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And therefore in inveighing against Protestants for forsaking the Profession of these errors the beleefe whereof they had already forsaken what doe you but raile at them for not being a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And lastly § 42. of this chap. within three leaves after this whereas D. Potter grants but only a necessity of peaceable externall obedience to the Declaration of the Church though perhaps erroneous provided it be in matter not of faith but of opinions or Rites condemning those men who by occasion of errors of this quality disturbe the Churches peace and cast off her communion Vpon this occasion you come upon him with this bitter sarcasme I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will doe a deed of Charity by putting you in minde into what Labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of faith and yet that it is not lawfull for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he have evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man dissemble against his Conscience or externally deny Truth known to be contained in holy Scripture I Answer for him no It is not he but you that would have men doe so not he who saies plainly that whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that any Church erres is bound under pain of damnation to forsake her in her Profession and practice of these errors but you who finde fault with him and make long discourse against him for thus Affirming Not he who can easily winde himselfe out of your Imaginary Labyrinth by telling you that he no where denies it lawfull for any man to oppose any Church erring in matter of faith for that he speaks not of matters of faith at all but only of Rites and Opinions And in such matters he saies indeed at first It is not lawfull for any man to oppose his judgement to the publique But he presently explaines himselfe by saying not only that he may hold an opinion contrary to the Publique resolution but besides that he may offer it to be considered of so farre is he from requiring any sinfull dissimulation Provided he doe it with great Probability of Reason very modestly and respectfully and without separation from the Churches communion It is not therefore in this case opposing a mans private judgement to the publique simply which the Doctor findes fault with But the degree only and malice of this opposition opposing it factiously And not holding a mans own conceit different from the Church absolutely which here he censures But a factious advancing it and despising the Church so farre as to cast off her Communion because forsooth she erres in some opinion or useth some inconvenient though not impious rites and ceremonies Little reason therefore have you to accuse him there as if he required that men should dissemble against their conscience or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture But certainly a great deale lesse to quarrell with him for saying which is all that here he saies that men under pain of demnation are not to dissemble but if they be convinc'd in conscience that your or any other Church for the
reason is alike for all erres in many things are of necessity to forsake that Church in the Profession and practice of those errors 105 But to consider your exception to this speech of the Doctors somewhat more particularly I say your whole discourse against it is compounded of falsehoods and impertinencies The first falsehood is that he in these words avoucheth that no learned Catholiques can be saved Vnlesse you will suppose that all learned Catholiques are convinc'd in conscience that your Church erres in many things It may well be fear'd that many are so convinc'd and yet professe what they believe not Many more have been and have stifled their consciences by thinking it an act of humility to doe so Many more would have beene had they with liberty and indifference of judgement examined the grounds of the Religion which they professe But to think that all the Learned of your side are actually convinc'd of errors in your Church and yet will not forsake the profession of them this is so great an uncharitablenesse that I verily believe D. Potter abhorres it Your next falsehood is That the Doctor affirmes that you Catholiques want no meanes to Salvation and that he judges the Roman errors not to be in themselves fundamentall or damnable Which calumny I have very often confuted and in this very place it is confuted by D. Potter and confessed by your selfe For in the beginning of this Answer you tell us that the Doctor avouches of all Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse that they cannot be saved Certainly then he must needs esteeme them to want something necessary to Salvation And then in the Doctors saying it is remarkable that he confesses your errors to some men not damnable which cleerely imports that according to his judgement they were damnable in themselves though by accident to them who lived and died in invincible ignorance and with repentance they might prove not damnable A third is that these Assertions the Roman Errors are in themselves not damnable and yet it is damnable for me who know them to be errors to hold and confesse them are absolutely inconsistent which is false for be the matter what it will yet for a man to tell a lye especially in matter of Religion cannot but be damnable How much more then to goe on in a course of lying by professing to believe these things divine Truths which he verily believes to be falsehoods and fables A fourth is that if we erred in thinking that your Church holds errors this error or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed and deposed by judging those errors not damnable For what repugnance is there between these two suppositions that you doe hold some errors and that they are not damnable And if there be no repugnance between them how can the beleefe of the latter remove or destroy or if it be erroneous rectify the belief of the former Nay seeing there is a manifest consent between them how can it be avoided but the belief of the latter will maintaine and preserve the belief of the former For who can conjoyne in one braine not crackt pardon me if I speake to you in your own words these Assertions In the Roman Church there are errors not damnable and in the Roman Church there are no errors at all Or what sober understanding would ever think this a good collection I esteeme the errors of the Roman Church not damnable therefore I doe amisse to think that she erres at all If therefore you would have us alter our judgements that your Church is erroneous your only way is to shew your doctrine consonant at least not evidently repugnant to Scripture and Reason For as for this device this short cut of perswading our selves that you hold no errours because we believe your errors are not damnable assure your selfe it will never hold 106 A fift falsehood is That we daily doe this favour for Protestants you must mean if you speak consequently to judge they have no errors because we judge they have none damnable Which the world knowes to be most untrue And for our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errors the justification hereof is not so much that their errors are not damnable as that they require not the beliefe and profession of these errors among the conditions of their communion Which puts a main difference between them and you because we may continue in their communion without professing to believe their opinions but in yours we cannot A sixt is that according to the Doctrine of all Divines there is any difference between a speculative perswasion of conscience of the unlawfulnesse of any thing and a practicall Dictamen that the same thing is unlawfull For these are but diverse words signifying the same thing neither is such a perswasion wholly speculative but tending to practice nor such a dictamē wholly practicall but grounded upon speculation A Seventh is That Protestants did only conceive in speculation that the Church of Rome erred in some doctrines and had not also a practicall dictamen that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errors An eighth is that it is not lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errors not appertaining to the substance of Faith which is not universally true but with this exception unlesse that Church requires the belief and profession of them The ninth is that D. Potter teacheth that Luther was bound to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light Confuted manifestly by D. Potter in this very place for by the house of God you mean the Roman Church and of her the Doctor saies that a necessity did lye upon him even under pain of damnation to forsake the Church of Rome in her errors This sure is not to say that he was obliged to forsake her for an unnecessary light The tenth is covertly vented in your intimation that Luther and his followers were the proper cause of the Christian worlds combustion Whereas indeed the true cause of this lamentable effect was your violent persecution of them for serving God according to their conscience which if it be done to you you condemne of horrible impiety and therefore may not hope to be excused if you doe it to others 107 The eleaventh is that our first reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain Which is to say that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formall and expresse termes containes many of these opinions And the reason of this assertion is very vaine for though they had not an absolute infallibility promised unto them yet may they be of some things infallibly certaine As Euclide sure was not infallible yet was he certain enough that twice two were foure and that every whole was greater then a part of that whole And so though Calvin Melancthō were not infallible in all things yet they might and did know well enough that your Latine Service was condemned by S.
yee offend against God by troubling his Church without iust and necessary cause Be it that there are some reasons inducing you to think hardly of our Lawes Are those Reasons demonstrative are they necessary or but meer probabilities only An argument necessary and demonstratiue is such as being proposed to any man and understood the minde cannot choose but inwardly assent Any one such reason dischargeth I grant the conscience and setteth it at ful liberty For the publique approbation given by the body of this whole Church unto those things which are established doth make it but probable that they are good And therefore unto a necessary proofe that they are not good it must giue place This plain declaration of his judgement in this matter this expresse limitation of his former resolution hee makes in the very same Section which affords your former quotation and therefore what Apology can bee made for you and your store-house M. Brerely for dissembling of it I cannot possibly imagine 111 D. Potter p. 131. saies That the errors of the Donatists and Novatians were not in themselves Heresies nor could be made so by the Churches determination But that the Churches intention was only to silence disputes and to settle peace and unity in her government which because they factiously opposed they were justly esteemed Schismatiques From hence you conclude that the same condemnation must passe against the first Reformers seeing they also opposed the commands of the Church imposed on them for silencing all disputes and setling Peace and Vnity in government But this collection is deceitfull and the reason is Because though the first Reformers as well as the Donatists and Novatians opposed herein the Commands of the Visible Church that is of a great part of it yet the Reformers had reason nay necessity to doe so the Church being then corrupted with damnable errors which was not true of the Church when it was opposed by the Novatians and Donatists And therefore though they and the Reformers did the same action yet doing it upon different grounds it might in these merit applause and in them condemnation 112 Ad § 43. The next § hath in it some objections against Luthers person but none against his cause which alone I have undertaken to justify therefore I passe it over Yet this I promise that when you or any of your side shall publish a good defence of all that your Popes have said done especially of them whom Bellarmin beleeves in such a long train to have gone to the Divell then you shall receive an ample Apology for all the actions and words of Luther In the mean time I hope all reasonable and equitable judges will esteeme it not unpardonable in the great and Heroicall spirit of Luther if being opposed and perpetually baited with a world of Furies hee were transported sometimes and made somewhat furious As for you I desire you to be quiet and to demand no more whether God be wont to send such Furies to preach the Gospell Vnlesse you desire to heare of your killing of Kings Massacring of Peoples Blowing up of Parliaments and have a minde to be ask't whether it bee probable that that should bee Gods cause which needs to bee maintained by such Divellish meanes 112 Ad § 44. 45. In the two next Particles which are all of this Chapter that remain unspoken to you spend a great deale of reading wit reason against some men who pretending to honour believe the Doctrine practice of the visible Church you mean your own and condemning their Forefathers who forsook her say they would not have done so yet remain divided from her Communion Which men in my judgement cannot be defended For if they believe the Doctrine of your Church then must they believe this doctrine that they are to returne to your Communion And therefore if they doe not so it cannot be avoided but they must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so I leave them only I am to remember you that these men cannot pretend to be Protestants because they pretend to believe your doctrine which is opposite in Diameter unto the doctrine of Protestants and therefore in a worke which you professe to have written meerly against Protestants all this might have been spared CHAP. VI. That Luther and the rest of Protestants have added Heresie unto Schisme BECAVSE Vice is best knowne by the contrary Vertue we cannot well determine what Heresie is nor who be Heretiques but by the opposite vertue of Faith whose Nature being once understood as farre as belongs to our present purpose we shall passe on with ease to the definition of Heresie and so be able to discerne who be Heretiques And this I intend to doe not by entring into such particular Questions as are controverted between Catholiques and Protestants but only by applying some generall grounds either already proved or else yeelded to on all sides 2 Almighty God having ordained Man to a supernaturall End of Beatitude by supernaturall meanes it was requisite that his Vnderstanding should be enabled to apprehend that End and meanes by a supernaturall knowledge And because if such a knowledge were no more then probable it could not be able sufficiently to overbeare our Will and encounter with human probabilities being backed with the strength of flesh and blood It was further necessary that this supernaturall knowledge should be most certaine and infallible and that Faith should beleeue nothing more certainly then that it self is a most certain Beliefe and so be able to beat downe all gâ—y probabilities of humane Opinion And because the aforesaid Means and end of Beatificall Vision do farre exceed the reach of naturall wit the certainty of faith could not alwaies be joyned with such evidence of reason as is wont to be found in the Principles or Conclusions of humane naturall Sciences that so all flesh might not glory in the arme of flesh but that he who glories should glory in our Lord Moreover it was expedient that our belief or assent to divine truths should not only be unknowne or inevident by any humane discourse but that absolutely also it should be obscure in it self and ordinarily speaking be void even of supernaturall evidence that so we might have occasion to actuate and testifie the obedience which we owe to our God noâ— only by submitting our Will to this Will and Commands but by subjecting also our Vnderstanding to this Wisdome and Words captivating as the Apostle speaks the same Vnderstanding to the Obedience of Faith Which occasion had been wanting if Almighty God had made â—â—â—ere to us the truths which now are certainly but not evidently presented to our minds For where Truth doth manifestly open it self not obedience but necessity commands our assent For this reason Divines teach that the Objects of Faith being not evident to humane reason it is in mans power not only to abstaine from believing by suspending our Iudgments or exercising no act one
communicating with the Bishop of Rome to communicate with whom was ever taken by the Ancient Fathers as an assured signe of being a true Catholique They had also as S. Augustine 〈◊〉 a pretended Church in the house and territory of a Spanish Lady called Lucilla who went flying out of the Catholique Church because she had been justly checked by Caecilianus And the same Saint speaking of the conference he had with Fortunius the Donatist saithâ— Here did he first attempt to affirme that his Communion was spread over the whole Earth c. but because the thing was evidently false they got out of this discourse by confusion of language whereby neverthelesse they sufficiently declared that they did not hold that the true Church ought necessarily to be confined to one place but only by meere necessity were forced to yield that it was so in fact because their Sect which they held to be the only true Church was not spread over the world In which point Fortunius and the rest were more modest then he who should affirme that Luther's reformation in the very beginning was spread over the whole Earth being at that time by many degrees not so farre diffused as the Sect of the Douâ—tists I have no desire to prosecute the similitude of Protestants with Donatists by remembring that the Sect of these men was begun and promoted by the passion of Lucilla and who is ignorant what influence two women the Mother and Daughter ministred to Protestancy in England Nor will I stand to observe their very likenes of phrase with the Donatists who called the Chaire of Rome the Chaire of pestilence and the Roman Church an Harlot which is D. Potter's owne phrase wherein he is lesse excusable then they because he maintaineth her to be a true Church of Christ and therefore let him duely ponder these words of S. Augustine against the Dâ—â—atists If I persecute him iustly who detracts from his Neighbour why should I not persecute him who detracts from the Church of Christ and saith this is not she but this is an Harlot And least of all will I consider whether you may not be well compared to one Ticonius a Donatist who wrote against Pâ—rmenianus likewise a Donatist who blasphemed that the Church of Christ had perished as you doe even in this your Book writ against some of your Protestant Brethren or as you call them Zeloâ—s among you who hold the very same or rather a worse Heresie and yet remained among them even after Parmenianus had excommunicated him as those your Zealous Brethren would proceed against you if it were in their power and yet like Ticonius you remain in their Communion and come not into that Church which is hath been and shall ever be universall For which very cause S. Augustin complaines of Ticonius that although he wrote against the Donatists yet he was of an hart so extreamly absurd as not to forsake them altogether And speaking of the same thing in another place he observes that although Tiâ—onius did manifestly confute them who affirmed that the Church had perished yet he saw not saith this holy Father that which in good consequence he should have seen that those Christians of Africa belonged to the Church spread over the whole world who remained vnited not with them who were divided from the communion and vnity of the same world but with such as did communicate with the whole world But Parmenianus and the rest of the Donatists saw that consequence and resolved rather to settle their mind in obstinacy against the most manifest truth which Ticoâ—us maintained then by yeelding thereto to be overcome by those Churches in Africa which enioyed the Communion of that vnity which Ticonius defended from which they had divided themselves How fitly these words agree to Catholiques in England in respect of the Protestants I desire the Reader to consider But thesâ— and the like resemblances of Protestants to the Donatists I willingly let passe and only vrge the main point That since Luthers Reformed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Luther and yet was because so forsooth they will needs have it in the Apostles time they must of necessity affirme heretically with the Donatists that the true and unspotted Church of Christ perished and that she which remained on earth was O bâ—asphemy◠〈◊〉 Harlot Moreover the same heresy followes out of the doctrine of D. Potter and other Protestants that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall because we have shewed that every errour against any one revealed truth is Heresy and damnable whether the matter bee otherwise of it selfe great or small And how can the Church more truely be said to perish then when she is permitted to maintaine a damnable Heresy Besides we will hereafter prove that by any act of Heresy all divine faith is lost and to imagine a true Church of faithfull persons without any faith is as much as to fancy a living man without life It is therefore cleere that Donatist-like they hold that the Church of Christ perished yea they are worse then the Donatists who saâ—d that the Church remained at least in Africa whereas Protestants must of necessity be forced to grant that for along space before Luther she was no where at all But let us goe forward to other reasons 18 The holy Scripture and Ancient Fathers doe assigne Separation from the Visible Church as a mark of Heresie according to that of S. Iohâ— They went out from us And Some who went out from us And Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things And accordingly Vincentius Lyrinensis saith Who ever began heresies who did not first separate himself from the Vniversality Antiquity and Consent of the Catholique Church But it is manifest that when Luther appeared there was no visible Church distinct from the Roman out of which she could depart as it is likewise well knowne that Luther and his followers departed out of her Therefore she is no way lyable to this Mark of Heresie but Protestants cannot possibly avoid it To this purpose S. Prosper hath these pithy words A Christian communicating with the universall Church is a Catholique and he who is divided from her is an Heretique and Antichrist But Luther in his first Reformation could not communicate with the visible Catholique Church of those times because he began his Reformation by opposing the supposed Errors of the then visible Church we must therefore say with S. Prosper that he was an Heretique c. Which like-likewise is no lesse cleerely proved out of S. Cypriâ—n saying Not we g departed from them but they from us and since Heresies and Schismes are bred afterwards while they make to themselves divers Conventicles they have forsakeâ— the head and origen of Truth 19 And that we might not remain doubtfull what separation it is which is the marke of Heresy the ancient Fathers tell us more in particular that it
found or rather that Company is to be imbraced before all other in which all sides agree that salvation may be found We therefore must inferre that it is safest for you to seeke salvation among us You had good reason to conceal S. Augustins answer to the Donatists 10 You frame another argument in our behalf and make us speake thus If Protestants believe the Religion of Catholiques to be a safe way to Heaven why doe they not follow it which wise argument of your own you answer at large and confirm your answer by this instance The Iesuits and Dominicans hold different Opinions touching Predetermination and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Yet so that the Iesuits hold the Dominicans way safe that is his error not damnable and the Dominicans hold the same of the Iesuits Yet neither of them with good Consequence can presse the other to believe his opinion because by his own Confession it is no damnable error 11 But what Catholique maketh such a wise demaund as you put into our mouths If our Religion be a safe way to heaven that is not damnable why doe you not follow it As if every thing that is good must be of necessity imbraced by every body But what think you of the Argument framed thus Our Religion is safe even by your Confession therefore you ought to grant that all may imbrace it And yet further thus Among different Religions and contrary waies to heaven one only can be safe But ours by your own Confession is safe whereas we hold that in yours there is no hope of salvation Therefore you may and ought to imbrace ours This is our Argument And if the Dominicans and Iesuits did say one to another as we say to you then one of them might with good consequence press the other to believe his opinion You have still the hard for tune to be beaten with your own weapon 12 It remaineth then that both in regard of Faith and Charity Protestants are obliged to unite themselves with the Church of Rome And I may adde also in regard of the Theologicall Vâ—â—tue of Hope without which none can hope to be saved and which you want either by exâ—â—sse of Confidence or defect by Despair not unlike to your Faith which I shewed to be either â—â—â—cient in Certainty or excessive in EvideÌ„ce as likewise according to the rigid Calvinists it is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more then weak and so much nothing that it can never be gotten For the trve Theologicall Hope of Christians is a Hope which keeps a mean between Presumption and Desperation which moves us to work our salvation with feare and trembling which conducts us to make sure our salvation by good works as holy Scripture adviseth But contrarily Protestants doe either exclude Hope by Despaire with the Doctrine that our Saviour died not for all and that such want grace sufficient to salvation or else by vaine Presumption grounded upon a fantasticall persuasion that they are Predestinate which Faith must exclude all feare and trembling Neither can they make their Calling certain by good works who doe certainly beleeve that before any good works they are justified and justified even by Faith alone and that by Faith whereby they certainly believe that they are justified Which points some Protestants doe expresly affirme to be the soule of the Church the principall Origen of salvation Of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest as already I have noted Chap. 3. n. 19. And if some Protestants doe now relent from the rigour of the aforesaid doctrine we must affirme that at least some of them want the Theologicall Vertue of Hope yea that none of them can have trve Hope while they hope to be saved in the Communion of those who defend such doctrines as doe directly overthrow all true Christian Hope And for as much as concernes Faith we must also infer that they want Vnity therein and consequently have none at all by their disagreement about the soule of the Church the principall Origen of salvation of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest And if you want trve Faith you must by consequence want Hope or if you hold that this point is not to be so indivisible on either side but that it hath latitude sufficient to imbrace all parties without prejudice to their salvation notwithstanding that your Brethren hold it to be the soule of the Church c. I must repeat what I have said heretofore that even by this Example it is cleer you cannot agree what points be fundamentall And so to whatsoever answer you fly I presse you in the same manner and say that haue no Certainty whether you agree in fundamentall points or Vnity and substance of Faith which cannot stand with difference in fundamentalls And so upon the whole matter I leave it to be considered whether Want of Charity can be iustly charged on us because we affirme that they cannot without repentance be saved who want of all other the most necessary meanes to salvation which are the three Theologicall Vertues FAITH HOPE and CHARITY 13 And now I end this first part having as I conceive complyed with my first designe in that measure which Time Commodity scarcity of Books and my own small Abilities could afford which was to shew that Amongst men of different Religions one side only can be saved For since there must be some infallible Meanes to decide all Controversies concerning Religion and to propound truth revealed by Almighty God and this Meanes can be no other but the Visible Church of Christ which at the time of Luthers appearance was only the Church of Rome and such as agreed with her We must conclude that whosoever opposeth himself to her definitions or forsaketh her Communion doth resist God himself whose Spouse she is and whose divine truth she propounds and therefore becoms guilty of Schisme and Heresie which since Luther his Associates and Protestants have done and still continue to doe it is not Want of Charity but abundance of evident cause that forceth us to declare this necessary Truth PROTESTANCIE VNREPENTED DESTROIES SALVATION THE ANSVVER TO THE SEAVENTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves to re-unite themselves to the Roman Church THE first foure Paragraphs of this Chapter are wholly spent in an un-necessary introduction unto a truth which I presume never was nor will be by any man in his right wits either denied or question'd and that is That every man in wisdome and charity to himselfe is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation 2 The fift and sixt are nothing in a manner but references to discourses already answered by me and confuted in their proper places 3 The seaventh eight ninth tenth and eleventh have no other foundation but this false pretence That we confesse the Roman Church free from damnable error 4 In the
twelfth there is something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions or others to leave their communion but to prove Protestants in state of sinne while they remain separate from the Roman Church there is not one word or syllable and besides whatsoever argument there is in it for any purpose it may be as forcibly return'd upon Papists as it is urg'd against Protestants in as much as all Papists either hold the doctrine of Predetermination and absolute Election or communicate with those that doe hold it Now from this doctrine what is more prone and obvious then for every naturall man without Gods especiall prevēting grace to make this practicall collection Either I am elected or not elected If I be no impiety possible can ever damne me If not no possible industry can ever save me Now whether this disiunctive perswasion be not as likely as any doctrine of any Protestants to extinguish Christian hope and filiall feare and to lead some men to despaire others to presumption all to a wretchlesse and impious life I desire you ingenuously to informe me and if you deny it assure your selfe you shall be contradicted and confuted by men of your own Religion and your own Society and taught at length this charitable Doctrine that though mens opinions may be charg'd with the absurd consequences which naturally flow from them yet the men themselves are not I meane if they perceive not the consequence of these absurdities nor doe not own and acknowledge but disclaim and detest them And this is all the answer which I should make to this discourse if I should deale rigidly and strictly with you Yet that you may not think your selfe contemn'd nor have occasion to pretend that your arguments are evaded I will entreat leave of my Reader to bring to the test every particle of it and to censure what deserves a censure and to answer what may any way seeme to require an answer and then I doubt not but what I have affirm'd in generall will appear in particular Ad § 1. To the First then I say 1. It was needlesse to prove that due Order is to be observed in any thing much more in Charity which being one of the best things may be spoil'd by being disordered Yet if it stood in need of proofe I fear this place of the Canticles He hath ordered Charity in me would be no enforcing demonstration of it 2. The reason alleaged by you why we ought to love one object more then another because one thing participates the Divine Goodnesse more than another is phantasticall and repugnant to what you say presently after For by this rule no man should love himselfe more then all the world unlesse he were first vainely perswaded that he doth more participate the Divine Goodnesse then all the world But the true reason why one thing ought to be lov'd more then another is because one thing is better then another or because it is better to us or because God commands us to doe so or because God himselfe does so and we are to conforme our affections to the will of God 3. It is not true that all objects which we believe doe equally participate the Divine Testimony or Revelation For some are testified more evidently and some more obscurely and therefore whatsoever you have built upon this ground must of necessity fall together with it And thus much for the first number 6 Ad § 2. In the Second many passages deserve a censure For 1. it is not true that we are to wish or desire to God a nature infinite independent immense For it is impossible I should desire to any person that which he hath already if I know that he hath it nor the perpetuity of it if I know it impossible but he must have it for perpetuity And therefore rejoycing only and not welwishing is here the proper work of love 2. Whereas you say That in things necessary to salvation no man ought in any case or in any respect whatsoever to preferre the spirituall good of the whole world before his own soule In saying this you seeme to me to condemne one of the greatest acts of Charity of one of the greatest Saints that ever was I mean S. Paul who for his brethren desir'd to be an Anathema from Christ. And as for the Text alleaged by you in confirmation of your saying what doth it availe a man if he gaine the whole world and sustaine the damage of his owne soule it is nothing to the purpose For without all question it is not profitable for a man to doe so but the question is whether it be not lawfull for a man to forgoe and part with his own particular profit to procure the universall spirituall and eternall benefit of others 3. Whereas you say it is directly against Charity to our selves to adventure the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation this is true But so is this also that it is directly against the same Charity to adventure the omitting any thing that may any way helpe or conduce to my salvation that may make the way to it more secure or lesse dangerous And therefore if the errors of the Roman Church doe but hinder me in this way or any way endanger it I am in Charity to my selfe bound to forsake them though they be not destructive of it 4. Whereas you conclude That if by living out of the Roman Church we put our selves in hazard to want something necessary to Salvation we commit a grievous sinne against the vertue of Charity as it respects our selves This consequence may be good in those which are thus perswaded of the Roman Church and yet live out of it But the supposition is certainly false We may live and dye out of the Roman Church without putting our selves in any such hazard Nay to live and dye in it is as dangerous as to shoote a gulfe which though some good ignorant soules may doe and escape yet it may well be feared that not one in a hundred but miscarries 7 Ad § 3. I proceed now to the third Section herein first I observe this acknowledgement of yours That in things necessary only because commanded a probable ignorance of the commandement excuses the Party from all fault and doth not exclude Salvation From which Doctrine it seemes to me to follow that seeing obedience to the Roman Church cannot be pretended to be necessary but only because it is commanded therefore not only an invincible but even a probable ignorance of this pretended command must excuse us from all faulty breach of it and cannot exclude Salvation Now seeing this command is not pretended to be expresly delivered but only to be deduced from the word of God and that not by the most cleere and evident consequences that may be and seeing an infinity of great objections lies against it which seeme strongly to prove that there is no such command with what Charity
wee may doe God and his Church more service by exactly discussing and fully clearing the truth in these few then by handling many after a sleight and perfunctory manner Secondly because the additioÌ„ of the Second Part whether for your purpose or mine is clearly unnecessary there being no understanding man Papist or Proâ—estant but will confesse that for as much as concernes the main Question now in agitation about the saveablenesse of Protestants if the first Part of your Book be answered there needes no reply to the Second as on the other side I shall willingly grant if I have not answered the First I cannot answer a great part of the Second Thirdly because the addition of the Second not only is unnecessary but in effect by your self confess'd to bee so For in your preamble to your Second Part you tell us That the substance of the present Controversie is handled in the first and therein also you pretend to have answered the chief grounds of D. Potters book So that in replying to your Second Part I shall doe litle else but pursue shadowes Fourthly because your Second Part setting aside Repetitions and References is in a manner made up of disputes about particular matters which you are very importunate to have forborn as suspecting at least pretending to suspect that they were brought in purposely by D. Potter to dazle the Reader 's eyes and distract his mind that hee might not see the clearnesse of the reasons brought in defence of the Generall Doctrine delivered in Charity Mistaken All which you are likely enough if there bee occasion to say again to mee and therefore I am resolv'd for once even to humour you so farre as to keepe my discourse within those very lists and limits which your self have prescrib'd and to deal with you upon no other arguments but only those wherein you conceive your chief advantage and principall strength and as it were your Sampson's lock to lye wherein if I gain the cause clearly from you as I verily hope by Gods help I shall doe it cannot but redound much to the honour of the truth maintain'd by me which by so weak a Champion can overcome such an Achilles for error even in his strongest holds For these reasons although I have made ready an answer to your Second Part and therein have made it sufficiently evident That for shifting evasions from D. Potters arguments for impertinent cavills and frivolous exceptions and injurious calumnies against him for misalleaging of Authors For proceeding upon false and ungrounded princiciples for making inconsequent and sophisticall deductions and in a word for all the vertues of an ill answer your Second Part is no way second to the First Yet notwithstanding all this anvantage I am resolv'd if you will give me leave either wholly to suppresse it or at least to deferre the publication of it untill I see what exceptions upon a twelve-months examinatioÌ„ for so long I am well assur'd you have had it in your hands you can take at this which is now published that so if my grounds bee discovered false I may give over building on them or if it shall be thought fit build on more securely when it shall appeare that nothing materiall and of moment is or can bee objected against them This I say upon a supposition that your self will allow these reasons for satisfying and sufficient and not repent of the motion which your self has made of reducing the Controversy between us to this short Issue But in case your mind be altered upon the least intimation you shall give mee that you doe not desire to have it out your desire shall prevail with me above all other reasons and you shall not fail to receive it with all convenient speed Only that my Answer may be compleat and that I may have all my work together and not be troubled my self nor enforc'd to trouble you with after-reckonings I would first entreat you to make good your Promise of not omitting to answer all the particles of D. Potters book which may any way import and now at least to take notice of some as it seemes to me not unconsiderable passages of it which between your first and second Part as it were betweene two stooles have beene suffer'd hitherto to fall to the ground and not beene vouchsaf'd any answer at all For after this neglectfull fashion you have passed by in silence First his discourse wherein he proves briefly but very effectually that Protestants may be sav'd and that the RomaÌ„ Church especially the Iesuits are very uncharitable S. 1. p. 6. 7. 8. 9. Secondly the authorities whereby he justifies That the ancient Fathers by the Roman understood alwaies a particular and never the Catholique Church to which purpose he alleageth the words of Ignatius Ambrose Innocentius Celestine Nicolaus S. 1. p. 10 Whereunto you say nothing neither doe you infringe his observation with any one instance to the contrary Thirdly the greatest and most substantiall part of his answers to the Arguments of Charity Mistaken built upon Deut. 17. Numb 16. Mat. 28. 20. Mat. 18. 17. and in particular many pregnant and convincing Texts of Scripture quoted in the margent of his book p. 25. to prove that the Iudges of the Synagogue whose Infallibility yet you make an Argument of yours and therefore must be more credible then yours are vainly pretended to have been infallible but as they were oblig'd to judg according to the Law so were obnoxious to deviations from it S. 2. p. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Fourthly his discourse wherein hee shewes the difference betweene the Prayers for the Dead used by the Ancients and those now in use in the Roman Church Fiftly the Authority of three Ancient and above twenty moderne Doctors of your own Church alleag'd by him to shew that in their opinion even Pagans and therefore much more erring Christians if their lives were morally honest by Gods extraordinary mercy and Christs merit may be saved S. 2. p. 45. Sixtly a great part of his discourse whereby he declares that actuall and externall communion with the Church is not of absolute necessity to Salvation nay that those might be saved whom the Church utterly refus'd to admit to her Communion S. 2. p. 46. 47. 48. 49. Seaventhly his discourse concerning the Churches latitude which hath in it a cleare determination of the maine Controversy against you For therein he proves plainly that all appertain to the Church who believe that Iesus is the Christ the sonne of God and Saviour of the world with submission to his Doctrine in mind and will which hee irrefragably demonstrates by many evident Texts of Scripture containing the substance of his Assertion even in termes S. 4. p. 114. 115. 116. 117. Eightly that wherein he shewes by many pertinent examples that grosse error and true Faith may bee lodged together in the same mind And that men are not chargeable with the damnable consequences of their erroneous opinions S. 4.
neere his time denied the Divinity of the Sonne and the Holy Ghost Is it not the same great Cardinall in his Book of the Eucharist against M. du Plessis l. 2. c. 7 Who is it that pretends that Irenaeus hath said those things which he that should now hold would be esteem'd an Arrian Is it not the same Perron in his Reply to K. Iames in the fift Chap. of his fourth observation And does he not in the same place peach Tertullian also in a manner give him away to the Arrians And pronounce generally of the Fathers before the Councell of Nice That the Arrians would gladly be tryed by them And are not your fellow Iesuits also even the prime men of your Order prevaricators in this point as well as others Doth not your friend M. Fisher or M. Flued in his book of the Nine Questions proposed to him by K. Iames speak dangerously to the same purpose in his discourse of the Resolution of Faith towards the end Giving us to understand That the new Reformed Arrians bring very many testimonies of the ancient Fathers to prove that in this Point they did contradict themselves and were contrary one to another which places whosoever shall read will cleerely see that to common people they are unanswerable yea that common people are not capable of the answers that learned men yeeld unto such obscure passages And hath not your great Antiquary Petavius in his Notes upon Epiphanius in Haer. 69. been very liberall to the Adversaries of the Doctrine of the Trinity and in a manner given them for Patrons and Advocates first Iustin Martyr and then almost all the Fathers before the Councell of Nice whose speeches he saies touching this point cum Orthodoxae fidei regula minime consentiunt Hereunto I might adde that the Dominicans and Iesuits between them in another matter of great importance viz. Gods Prescience of future contingents give the Socinians the premises out of which their conclusion doth unavoidably follow For the Dominiâ—ans maintain on the one Side that God can foresee nothing but what he Decrees The Iesuits on the other Side that he doth not Decree all things And from hence the Socinians conclude as it is obvious for them to doe that he doth not foresee all things Lastly I might adjoyn this that you agree with one consent and settle for a rule unquestionable that no part of Religion can be repugnant to reason whereunto you in particular subscribe unawares in saying From truth no man can by good consequence inferre Falshood which is to say in effect that Reason can never lead any man to error And after you have done so you proclaime to all the world as you in this Pamphlet doe very frequently that if men follow their Reason and discourse they will if they understand themselves be led to Socinianisme And thus you see with what probable matter I might furnish out and justify my accusation if I should charge you with leading men to Socinianisme Yet I doe not conceive that I have ground enough for this odious imputation And much lesse should you have charg'd Protestants with it whom you confesse to abhorre and detest it and who fight against it not with the broken reeds and out of the paper fortresses of an imaginary Infallibility which were only to make sport for their Adversaries but with the sword of the Spirit the Word of God of which we may say most truly what David said of Goliah's sword offered him by Abilech non est sicut iste There is none comparable to it 19 Thus Protestants in generall I hope are sufficiently vindicated from your calumny I proceed now to doe the same service for the Divines of England whom you question first in point of learning and sufficiency and then in point of conscience and honesty as prevaricating in the Religion which they professe and inclining to Popery Their Learning you say consists only in some superficiall talent of preaching languages and elocution and not in any deep knowledge of Philosophy especially of Metaphysicks and much lesse of that most solid profitable subtile O reÌ„ ridiculaÌ„ Cato jocosaÌ„ succinct method of School-Divinity Wherein you have discovered in your self the true Genius and spirit of detraction For taking advantage from that wherein envy it self cannot deny but they are very eminent and which requires great sufficiency of substantiall learning you disparage them as insufficient in all things else As if forsooth because they dispute not eternally VtruÌ„ Chimaera bombinans in vacuo possit comedere secundas Intentiones Whether a Million of Angels may not sit upon a needles point Becuase they fill not their brains with notions that signify nothing to the utter extermination of all reason and common sence and spend not an Age in weaving and un-weaving subtile cobwebs fitter to catch flyes then Souls therefore they have no deepe knowledge in the Acroamaticall part of learning But I have too much honour'd the poornesse of this detraction to take notice of it 20 The other Part of your accusation strikes deeper and is more coÌ„siderable And that tels us that Protestantisme waxeth weary of it self that the Professors of it they especially of greatest worth learning and authority love temper and moderation and are at this time more unresolved where to fasten then at the infancy of their Church That their Churches begin to look with a new face Their wâ—lls to speak a new language Their Doctrine to be altered in many things for which their Progenitors forsook the then Visible Church of Christ For example the Pope not Antichrist Prayer for the dead Limbus Patrum Pictures That the Church hath Authority in determining Controversies of Faith and to interpret Scripture about Freewill Predestination Vniversall grace That all our works are not sinnes Merit of good works Inherent Iustice Faith alone doth not justify Charity to be preferr'd before knowledge Traditions Commandements possible to be kept That their thirty nine Articles are patient nay ambitious of some sence wherein they may seem Catholique That to alleage the necessity of wife and children in these dayes is but a weak plea for a married minister to compasse a Benefice That Calvinisme is at length accounted Heresy and little lesse then treason That men in talk and writing use willingly the once fearfull names of Priests and Altars That they are now put in mind that for exposition of Scripture they are by Canon bound to follow the Fathers which if they doe with syncerity it is easy to tell what doome will passe against Protestants seeing by the confession of Protestants the Fathers are on the Papists side which the Answerer to some so clearly demonstrated that they remain'd convinc'd In fine as the Samaritans saw in the Disciples countenances that they meant to goe to Hierusalem so you pretend it is even legible in the fore-heads of these men that they are even going nay making hast to Rome Which scurrilous libell void of all
rather to commend the vertue of an enemy then to flatter the vice and imbecility of a friend And so much for this matter 24 Again what if the names of Priests and Altars so frequent in the ancient Fathers though not in the now Popish sense be now resum'd and more commonly used in England then of late times they were that so the colourable argument of their conformity which is but nominall with the ancient Church and our inconformity which the Governors of the Church would not have so much as nominall may be taken away from them and the Church of England may be put in a state in this regard more justifiable against the Roman then formerly it was being hereby enabled to say to Papists whensoever these names are objected we also use the names of Priests and Altars and yet believe neither the corporall Presence nor any Proper and propitiatory Sacrifice 25 What if Protestants be now put in mind that for exposition of Scripture they are bound by a Canon to follow the ancient Fathers which whosoever doth with syncerity it is utterly impossible he should be a Papist And it is most falsely said by you that you know that to some Protestants I cleerly demonstrated or ever so much as undertook or went about to demonstrate the contrary What if the Centurists be censur'd somewhat roundly by a Protestant Divine for affrming that the keeping of the Lords day was a thing indifferent for two hundred yeares Is there in all this or any part of it any kind of proofe of this scandalous calumny Certainly if you can make no better arguments then these and have so little judgement as to think these any you have great reason to decline conferences and Signior Con to prohibite you from writing books any more 26 As for the points of Doctrine wherein you pretend that these Divines begin of late to falter and to comply with the Church of Rome upon a due examination of particulars it will presently appear First that part of them alwaies have been and now are held constantly one way by them as the Authority of the Church in determining Controversies of faith though not the infallibility of it That there is Inherent Iustice though so imperfect that it cannot justify That there are Traditions though none necessary That charity is to be preferr'd before knowledge That good Works are not properly meritorious And lastly that faith alone justifies though that faith justifies not which is alone And secondly for the remainder that they every one of them have been anciently without breach of charity disputed among Protestants such for example were the Questions about the Popes being the Antichrist The lawfulnesse of some kind of prayers for the dead the Estate of the Fathers souls before Christs ascention Freewill Predestination Vniversall grace The Possibility of keeping Gods commandements The use of Pictures in the Church Wherein that there hath been anciently diversity of opinion amongst Protestants it is justifyed to my hand by a witnesse with you beyond exception even your great friend M. Brerely whose care exactnesse and fidelity you say in your Preface is so extraordinary great Consult him therefore Tract 3. Sect. 7. of his Apology And in the 9. 10. 11. 14. 24. 26. 27. 37. Subdivisions of that Section you shall see as in a mirror your selfe prov'd an egregious calumniator for charging Protestants with innovation and inclining to Popery under pretence forsooth that their Doctrine beginnes of late to be altered in these points Whereas M. Brerely will informe you they have been anciently and even from the begining of the Reformation controverted amongst them though perhaps the stream and current of their Doctors runne one way and only some brooke or rivulet of them the other 27 And thus my Friends I suppose are cleerely vindicated from your scandalls and calumnies It remaines now that in the last place I bring my selfe fairely off from your foule aspersions that so my person may not be as indeed howsoever it should not be any disadvantage or disparagement to the cause nor any scandall to weake Christians 28 Your injuries then to me no way deserved by me but by differing in opinion from you wherein yet you surely differ from me as much as I from you are especially three For first upon heereâ—ay refusing to give me oportunity of begetting in you a better understanding of me you charge me with a great number of false and impious doctrines which I will not name in particular because I will not assist you so farre in the spreading of my own undeserved defamation but whosoever teaches or holds them let him be Anathema The summe of them all cast up by your selfe in your first chap. is this Nothing ought or can be certainly believed farther then it may be proved by evidence of Naturall reason where I conceive Naturall reason is oppos'd to supernaturall Revelation and whosoever holds so let him be Anathema And moreover to clear my selfe once for all from all imputations of this nature which charge me injuriously with deniall of Supernaturall Verities I professe syncerely that I believe all those Books of Scripture which the Church of England accounts Canonicall to be the Infallible word of God I believe all things evidently contained in them all things evidently or even probably deducible from them I acknowledge all that to be Heresy which by the Act of Parliament primo of Q. ELIZ. is declar'd to be so only to be so And though in such points which may he held diversly of divers men salvâ Fidei compage I would not take any mans liberty from him and humbly beseech all men that they would not take mine from me Yet thus much I can say which I hope will satisfy any man of reason that whatsoever hath been held necessary to salvation either by the Catholique Church of all ages or by the consent of Fathers measur'd by Vincentius Lyrinensis his rule or is held necessary either by the Catholique Church of this age or by the consent of Protestants or even by the Church of England that against the Socinians and all others whatsoever I doe verily believe and embrace 29 Another great and manifest injury you have done me in charging me to have forsaken your Religion because it condus'd not to my temporall ends and suted not with my desires and designes Which certainly is a horrible crime whereof if you could convince me by just and strong presumptions I should then acknowledge my selfe to deserve that opinion which you would faine induce your credents unto that I chang'd not your Religion for any other but for none at all But of this great fault my conscience acquits me and God who only knowes the hearts of all men knowes that I am innocent Neither doubt I but all they who know me and amongst them many Persons of place and quality will say they have reason in this matter to be my compurgators And for you though you are very
you shew in quarrelling with him for descending to the particular disputes here mentioned by you For to say nothing that many of these Questions are immediatly and directly pertinent to the businesse in hand as the 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. and all of them fall in of themselves into the stream of his discourse and are not drawn in by him and besides are touched for the most part rather then handled to say nothing of all this you know right well if he conclude you erroneous in any one of all these be it but in the Communion in one kind or the Language of your service the infallibility of your Church is evidently overthrown And this being done I hope there will be no such necessity of hearkning to her in all things It will be very possible to seperate from her communion in some things without schisme and from her doctrine so farre as it is erroneous without heresy Then all that she proposes will not be eo ipso fundamentall because shee proposes it and so presently all Charity Mistaken will vanish into smoak and clouds and nothing 5 You say he was loath to affirme plainly that generally both Catholiques Protestants may be saved which yet is manifest he doth affirme plainly of Protestants throughout his book of erring Papists that have syncerely sought the Truth and failed of it and dye with a generall repentance p. 77. 78. And yet you deceive your selfe if you conceive he had any other necessity to doe so but only that he thought it true For we may and doe pretend that before Luther there were many true Churches besides the Roman which agreed not with her in particular The greek Church So that what you say is evidently true is indeed evidently false Besides if he had had any necessity to make use of you in this matter he needed not for this end to say that now in your Church Salvation may be had but onely that before Luthers time it might be Then when your meanes of knowing the Truth were not so great and when your ignorance might be more invincible and therefore more excusable So that you may see if you please it is not for ends but for the loue of truth that we are thus charitable to you 6 Neither is it materiall that these particulars he speakes against are not fundamentall errours for though they be not destructiue of salvation yet the convincing of them may be and is destructiue enough of his Adversaries assertion and if you be the man I take you for you will not deny they are so For certainly no Consequence can be more palpable then this The Church of Rome doth erre in this or that therefore it is not infallible And this perhaps you perceiu'd your selfe therefore demanded not Since they be not fundamentall what imports it whether we hold them or no simply But for as much as concernes our possibility to be saved As if we were not bound by the loue of God the loue of truth to be zealous in the defence of all Truths that are any way profitable though not simply necessary to salvation Or as if any good man could satisfie his conscience without being so affected and resolv'd Our Saviour himselfe having assur'd us That hee that shall breake one of his least Commandements some whereof you pretend are concerning veniall sinnes and consequently the keeping of them not necessary to salvation and shall so teach men shall be called the least in the kingdome of Heaven 7 But then it imports very much though not for the possibilitie that you may be saved yet for the probabilitie that you will be so because the holding of these errours though it did not merit might yet occasion damnation As the doctrine of Indulgences may take away the feare of Purgatory and the doctrine of Purgatorie the feare of Hell as you well knowe it does too frequently So that though a godly man might be saved with these errours yet by meanes of them many are made vicious and so damn'd By them I say though not for them No godly Lay-man who is verily perswaded that there is neither impietie nor superstition in the use of your Latine service shall be damn'd I hope for being present at it yet the want of that devotion which the frequent hearing the Offices understood might happily beget in them the want of that instruction and edification which it might afford them may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue been saved Besides though the matter of an Errour may bee onely something profitable not necessary yet the neglect of it may be a damnable sinne As not to regard veniall sinnes is in the doctrine of your Schooles mortall Lastly as veniall sinnes you say dispose men to mortall so the erring from some profitable though lesser truth may dispose a man to errour in greater matters As for example The Beleife of the Popes infallibility is I hope not unpardonably damnable to every one that holds it yet if it be a falsehood as most certainely it is it puts a man into a very congruous disposition to beleiue Antichrist if he should chance to get into that See 8 To the Third In his distinctions of points fundamentall and not fundamentall he may seeme you say to haue touched the point but does not so indeed Because though he saies there are some points so fundamentall as that all are oblig'd to belieue them explicitely yet he tells you not whether a man may disbeleiue any other points of faith which are sufficiently presented to his understanding as Truths revealed by Almighty God Touching which matter of Sufficient Proposall I beseech you to come out of the Clouds and tell us roundly and plainely what you meane by Points of faith sufficiently propounded to a mans understanding as Truths revealed by God Perhaps you meane such as the person to whom they are propos'd understands sufficiently to be truths revealed by God But how then can he possibly choose but belieue them Or how is it not an apparent contradiction that a man should disbelieue what himselfe understands to be a Truth or any Christian what he understands or but belieues to be testified by God Dr Potter might well thinke it superfluous to tell you This is damnable because indeed it is impossible And yet one may very well think by your saying as you doe hereafter That the impietie of heresie consists in calling Gods truth in question that this should be your meaning Or doe you esteeme all those things sufficiently presented to his understanding as Divine truths which by you or any other man or any company of men whatsoever are declared to him to be so I hope you will not say so For this were to oblige a man to belieue all the Churches and all the men in the world whensoever they pretend to propose divine Revelations D. Potter I assure you from him would never haue told you this neither Or doe you meane by
connection between these Propositions I belieue will be able to finde good coherence between the deafe Plaintiffe's accusation in the Greek Epigram and the deafe Defendants Answer and the deafe Iudges sentence And to contriue them all into a formall Categoricall Syllogisme 11 Indeed if the matter in agitation were plainely decided by this infallible meanes of deciding Controversies and the Parties in variance knew it to be so and yet would stand out in their dissention this were in one of them direct opposition to the Testimonie of God and undoubtedly a damnable sinne But if you take the liberty to suppose what you please you may very easily conclude what you list For who is so foolish as to grant you these unreasonable Postulates that every emergent Controversie of Faith is plainly decided by the means of decision which God hath appointed and that of the Parties lititigant one is alwaies such a convicted Recusant as you pretend Certainly if you say so having no better warrant then you haue or can haue for it this is more proper and formall uncharitablenesse then ever was charg'd upon you Me thinks with much more Reason and much more Charity you might suppose that many of these Controversies which are now disputed among Christians all which professe themselues lovers of Christ and truly desirous to knowe his will and doe it are either not decidable by that meanes which God hath provided and so not necessary to be decided Or if they be yet not so plainly and evidently as to oblige all men to hold one way or Lastly if decidable and evidently decided yet you may hope that the erring part by reason of some veile before his eyes some excusable ignorance or unavoidable preiudice does not see the Question to be decided against him and so opposes not that which He doth know to be the word of God but only that which You know to be so and which hee might know were he void of prejudice Which is a fault I confesse but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often and not of such a gigantique disposition as you make it to fly directly upon God Almighty and to giue him the lye to his face 12 Ad § 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. In all this long discourse you only tell us what you will doe but doe nothing Many Positions there are but proofes of them you offer none but reserue them to the Chapters following and there in their proper places they shall be examined The summe of all your Assumpts collected by your selfe § 16 is this That the infallible meanes of determining Controversies is the visible Church That he distinction of points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall maketh nothing to the present Question That to say the Creed containeth all Fundamentals is neither pertinent nor true That whosoever persist in Division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church are guilty of Schisme and Heresie That in regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones selfe Protestants are in state of sinne while they remaine divided from the Romane Church To all these Assertions I will content my selfe for the present to oppose this one That not one of them all is true Only I may not omit to tell you that if the first of them were as true as the Pope himselfe desires it should be yet the corollary which you deduce from it would be utterly inconsequent That whosoever denies any point propos'd by the Church is iniurious to Gods Divine Maiestie as if He could deceiue or be deceived For though your Church were indeed as Infallible a Propounder of Divine Truths as it pretends to be yet if it appear'd not to me to be so I might very well belieue God most true your Church most false As though the Gospell of S. Mathew be the word of God yet if I neither knew it to be so nor believed it I might belieue in God and yet think that Gospell a Fable Hereafter therefore I must entreat you to remember that our being guilty of this impiety depends not only upon your being but upon our knowing that you are so Neither must you argue thus The Church of Rome is the Infallible Propounder of Divine Verities therefore he that opposes Her calls Gods Truth in Question But thus rather The Church of Rome is so and Protestants know it to be so therefore in opposing her they impute to God that either he deceiues them or is deceived himselfe For as I may deny something which you upō your knowledge have affirm'd yet never disparage your honesty if I never knew that you affirm'd it So I may bee undoubtedly certaine of Gods Omniscience and Veracitie yet doubt of something which he hath revealed provided I doe not knowe nor belieue that he hath revealed it So that though your Church be the appointed witnesse of Gods Revelations yet untill you know that we know she is so you cannot without foule calumnie impute to us That we charge God blasphemously with deceiving or being deceived You will say perhaps That this is directly consequent from our Doctrine That the Church may erre which is directed by God in all her proposalls True if we knew it to be directed by him otherwise not much lesse if we belieue and know the contrary But then if it were consequent from our opinion haue you so little Charitie as to say that men are iustly chargeable with all the consequences of their Opinions Such Consequences I mean as they doe not owne but disclaim and if there were a necessity of doing either would much rather forsake their Opinion then imbrace these Consequences What opinion is there that draws after it such a train of portentous blasphemies as that of the Dominicans by the judgement of the best Writers of your own Order And will you say now that the Dominicans are justly chargable with all these blasphemies If not seeing our case take it at the worst is but the same why should not your judgement of us be the same I appeale to all those Protestants that haue gone over to your side whether when they were most averse from it they did ever deny or doubt of Gods omniscience or Veracitie whether they did ever belieue or were taught that God did deceiue them or was deceiued himselfe Nay I provoke to you your selfe desire you to deale truly to tell Us whether you doe in your heart belieue that we doe indeed not belieue the eternall Veracitie of the eternall Verity And if you judge so strangely of us having no better ground for it then you haue or can haue wee shall not need any farther proofe of your uncharitablenes towards us this being the extremity of true uncharitablenesse If not then I hope having no other ground but this which sure is none at all to pronounce us damnable Heretiques you will cease to doe so and hereafter as if your ground be true you may doe with more truth
back reiected it as the Protestant Writers Hospinianus and Lavatherus witnesse The translation set forth by Oecolampadius and the Divines of Basil is reproved by Beza who affirmeth that the Basil Translation is in many places wicked and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy Ghost The translation of Castalio is condemned by Beza as being sacrilegious wicked and Ethnicall As concerning Calvins translation that learned Protestant Writer Carolus Molineus saith thereof Calvin in his Harmony maketh the text of the Gospell to leap up and down he useth violence to the letter of the Gospell and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Bezas translation to omit the dislike had thereof by Selneccerus the German Protestant of the Vniversity of Iena the foresaid Molinaeus saith of him de facto mutat textum he actually changeth the text and giveth farther sundry instances of his corruptions as also Castalio that learned Calvinist and most learned in the tongues reprehendeth Beza in a whole book of this matter and saith that to note all his errours in translation would require a great volume And M. Parkes saith As for the Geneva Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors which are both in the text and in the margent or else utterly prohibited All which confirmeth your Maiesties grave and learned Censure in your thinking the Geneva translation to be worst of all and that in the Marginall notes annexed to the Geneva translation some are very partiall untrue seditious c. Lastly concerning the English Translation the Puritans say Our translation of the Psalmes comprized in our Book of Common Prayer doth in addition subtraction and alteration differ from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least In so much as they doe therefore professe to rest doubtfull whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereunto And M. Carlile saith of the English Translators that they have depraved the sense obscured the truth and deceived the ignorant that in many places they doe detort the Scriptures from the right sense And that they shew themselves to love darknesse more then light falshood more then truth And the Ministers of Lincolne Diocesse give their publike testimony terming the English Translation A Translation that taketh away from the Text that addeth to the Text and that sometime to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost Not without cause therefore did your Majesty affirme that you could never yet see a Bible well translated into English Thus farre the Author of the Protestants Apology c. And I cannot forbear to mention in particular that famous corruption of Luther who in the Text where it is said Rom. 3. v. 28. We accompt a man to be justified by faith without the works of the Law in favour of Iustification by faith alone translateth Iustified by faith ALONE As likewise the falsification of Zuinglius is no lesse notorious who in the Gospels of S. Matthew Mark and Luke and in S. Paul in place of This is my Body This is my Blood translates This signifies my Body This signifies my bloâ—d And here let Prorestants consider duely of these points Salvation cannot be hoped for without true faith Faith according to them relies upon Scripture alone Scripture must be delivered to most of them by the Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certain then a most certain possibility to erre and no greater evidence of truth then that it is evident some of them imbrace falshood by reason of their contrary translations What then remaineth but that truth faith salvation and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground How many poore soules are lamentably seduced while from preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of Texts of divine Scripture but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therefore if they will be assured of true Scriptures fly to the alwaies visible Catholique Church against which the gates of hell can never so farre prevaile as that she shall be permitted to deceive the Christian world with false Scriptures And Luther himselfe by unfortunate experience was at length forced to confesse thus much saying If the world last longer it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of Councels and to have recourse to them by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now raigne On the contrary side the Translation approved by the Roman Church is commended even by our adversaries and D. Covel in particular saith that it was used in the Church one thousand three hundred yeares agoe and doubteth not to prefer that Translation before others In so much that whereas the English translations be many and among themselves disagreeing he concludeth that of all those the approved translation authorized by the Church of England is that which commeth nearest to the vulgar and is commonly called the Bishops Bible So that the truth of that translation which we use must be the rule to judge of the goodnesse of their Bibles and therefore they are obliged to maintain our Translation if it were but for their own sake 17 But doth indeed the source of their manifold uncertainties stop here No The chiefest difficulty remaines concerning the true meaning of Scripture for attaining whereof if Protestants had any certainty they could not disagree so hugely as they doe Hence M. Hooker saith We are right sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience have all taught the world to seek for the ending of contentions by submitting it selfe unto some iudiciall and definitive sentence whereunto neither part that contendeth may under any pretence refuse to stand D. Fields words are remarkable to this purpose Seeing saith he the controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in nature so intricate that few have time and leasure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societies in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her iudgement 18 And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture ought to be received from the Church it is also proved by what we have already demonstrated that she it is who must declare what Bookes be true Scripture wherein if she be assisted by the Holy Ghost why should we not believe her to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them Let Protestants therefore either bring some proofe out of Scripture that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost in discerning true Scripture and not in delivering the true sense thereof Or else give us leave to apply against
and Scripture and experience so you tell us out of M. Hooker to seek for the ending of them by submitting unto some Iudiciall sentence whereunto neither part may refuse to stand This is very true Neither should you need to persuade us to seek such a meanes of ending all our Controversies if we could tell where to finde it But this wee know that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a judiciall definitiue obliging sentence in Controversies of Religion but only such a Man or such a society of Men as is authoriz'd thereto by God And besides we are able to demonstrate that it hath not been the pleasure of God to giue to any Man or Society of Men any such authority And therefore though we wish heartily that all Controversies were ended as we doe that all sinne were abolisht yet we haue little hope of the one or the other till the World be ended And in the mean while think it best to content our selues with and to persuade others unto an Vnity of Charity and mutuall toleration seeing God hath authoriz'd no man to force all men to Vnity of Opinion Neither doe we think it fit to argue thus To us it seemes convenient there should be one Iudge of all Controversies for the whole world therefore God has appointed one But more modest and more reasonable to collect thus God hath appointed no such judge of Controversies therefore though it seemes to us convenient there should be one yet it is not so Or though it were convenient for us to haue one yet it hath pleased God for Reasons best known to himselfe not to allow us this convenience 86 D. Fields words which follow I confesse are somewhat more pressing and if he had been infallible and the words had not slipt unadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Book But yet it is evident out of his Book so acknowledg'd by some of your own That he never thought of any one company of Christians invested with such authority from God that all men were bound to receiue their Decrees without examination though they seem contrary to Scripture and Reason which the Church of Rome requires And therefore if he haue in his Preface strained too high in cōmendation of the subject he writes of as Writers very often doe in their Prefaces and Dedicatory Epistles what is that to us Besides by all the Societies of the World it is not impossible nor very improbable hee might meane all that are or haue been in the world and so include even the Primitiue Church and her Communion we shall embrace her Direction we shall follow her Iudgement we shall rest in if wee belieue the Scripture endeavour to finde the true sense of it and liue according to it 87 Ad 18. § That the true Interpretation of the Scripture ought to be receaved from the Church you need not prove for it is very easily granted by them who professe themselves very ready to receiue all Truths much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but from any societie of men nay from any man whatsoever 88 That the Churches Interpretation of Scripture is alwaies true that is it which you would haue said and that in some sense may bee also admitted viz. if your speake of that Church which before you spake of in the 14. § that is of the Church of all Ages since the Apostles Vpon the Tradition of which Church you there told us We were to receiue the Scripture and to belieue it to bee the Word of God For there you teach us that our Faith of Scripture depends on a Principle which requires no other proofe And that such is Tradition which from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the Times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe commeth to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true Wherefore the Ancient Fathers avouch that wee must receiue the sacred Scripture upon the Tradition of this Church The Tradition then of this Church you say must teach us what is Scripture and we are willing to belieue it And now if you make it good unto us that the same Tradition down from the Apostles hath delivered from age to age and from hand to hand any interpretation of any Scripture we are ready to embrace that also But now if you will argue thus The Church in one sense tells us what is Scripture we belieue therefore if the Church taken in another sense tell us this or that is the meaning of the Scripture we are to belieue that also this is too transparent Sophistrie to take any but those that are willing to be taken 89 If there be any Traditiue Interpretation of Scripture produce it and proue it to be so and we embrace it But the Tradition of all ages is one thing and the authority of the present Church much more of the Roman Church which is but a Part and a corrupted Part of the Catholique Church is another And therefore though we are ready to receiue both Scripture and the sense of Scripture upon the authority of Originall Tradition yet we receiue neither the one nor the other upon the Authority of your Church 90 First for the Scripture how can wee receiue them upon the Authority of your Church who hold now those Books to be Canonicall which formerly you rejected from the Canon I instance in the Book of Macchabees and the Epistle to the Hebrews The first of these you held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregories time or else hee was no member of your Church for it is apparent He held otherwise The second you rejected from the Canon in S. Hieroms time as it is evident out of many places of his Works 91 If you say which is all you can say that Hierom spake this of the particular Roman Church not of the Roman Catholique Church I answer there was none such in his time None that was called so Secondly what he spake of the Roman Church must be true of all other Churches if your Doctrine of the necessity of the Conformity of all other Churches to that Church were then Catholique Doctrine Now then choose whether you will either that the particular Roman Church was not then beleived to be the Mistresse of all other Churches notwithstanding Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est omnes qui sunt undique fideles which Card. Perron and his Translatresse so often translates false Or if you say shee was you will runne into a greater inconvenience and be forced to say that all the Churches of that time rejected from the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews together with the Roman Church And consequently that the Catholique Church may erre in rejecting from the Canon Scriptures truly Canonicall 92 Secondly How can we receive the Scripture upon the authority of the Roman
because it is written The Priests lips shall preserve knowledg The Scribes and Pharises sit in Moses chaire c. To any Preacher of the Gospell to any Pastor or Doctor for to every one of them Christ hath promised he will be with them alwaies even to the end of the world of every one of them it is said He that heareth you heareth me c. To any Bishop or Prelate for it is written Obey your Prelates and againe he hath given Pastors and Doctors c. least we should be carried about with every wind of doctrine To any particular Church of Christians seeing it is a particular Church which is called The house of God a Pillar ground of Truth and seeing of any Particular Church it is written He that heareth not the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publicâ—d We might referre it to any man that prayes for Gods spirit for it is written Every one that asketh receiveth and again If any man want wisdome let him aske of God who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not Lastly we might referre it to the Iewes for without all doubt of them it is written my spirit that is in thee c. All these meanes of agreement whereof not any one but hath as much probability from Scripture as that which you obtrude upon us offer themselves upon a suddain to me happily many more might be thought on if we had time but these are enough to shew that would we make use of voluntary and devised meanes to determine differences we had them in great abundance And if you say these would faile us and contradict themselves so as we pretend have yours There have been Popes against Popes Councells against Councells Councells confirmed by Popes against Councells confirmed by Popes Lastly the Church of some Ages against the Church of other Ages 9 Lastly whereas you find fault That Protestants upbraided with their discords answer that they differ only in points not Fundamentall I desire you tell me whether they doe so or doe not so If they doe so I hope you will not find fault with the Answer If you say they doe not so but in points Fundamentall also then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more then with you And therefore why should you object to any of them their differences from each other any more then to your selves their more and greater differences from you 10 But they are convinc'd sometimes even by their own confessions that the Ancient Fathers taught divers points of Popery and then they reply those Fathers may neverthelesse be saved because those errors were not Fundamentall And may not you also be convinc'd by the confessions of your own men that the Fathers taught divers points held by Protestants against the Church of Rome and divers against Protestants and the Church of Rome Doe not your Purging Indexes clip the tongues and seal up the lips of a great many for such confessions And is not the above cited confession of your Doway Divines plain and full to the same purpose And doe not you also as freely as we charge the Fathers with errors yet say they were saved Now what else doe we understand by an unfundamentall error but such a one with which a man may possibly be saved So that still you proceed in condemning others for your own faults and urging arguments against us which returne more strongly upon your selves 11 But your will is we should remember that Christ must alwaies have a visible Church Ans. Your pleasure shall be obeyed on condition you will not forget that there is a difference between perpetuall Visibility and perpetuall Purity As for the answere which you make for us true it is we believe the Catholique Church cannot perish yet that she may and did erre in points not Fundamentall and that Protestants were oblig'd to forsake these errors of the Church as they did though not the Church for her errors for that they did not but continued still members of the Church For it is not all one though you perpetually confound them to forsake the errors of the Church and to forsake the Church or to forsake the Church in her Errors and simply to forsake the Church No more then it is for me to renounce my Brothers or my Friends Vices or Errors and to renounce my Brother or my Friend The Former then was done by Protestants the latter was not done Nay not only not from the Catholique but not so much as from the Roman did they seperate per omnia but only in those practises which they conceived superstitious or impious If you would at this time propose a forme of Liturgy which both Sides hold lawfull and then they would not joyne with you in this Liturgy you might have some colour then to say they renounce your communion absolutely But as things are now ordered they cannot joyne with you in prayers but they must partake with you in unlawfull practises and for this reason they not absolutely but thus farre separate from your communion And this I say they were obliged to doe under pain of damnation Not as if it were damnable to hold an error not damnable but because it is damnable outwardly to professe maintaine it and to joyn with others in the practise of it when inwardly they did not hold it Now had they continued in your communion that they must have done vid. have professed to believe and externally practis'd your Errors whereof they were convinced that they were Errors which though the matters of the Errors had been not necessary but only profitable whether it had not been damnable dissimulation and hypocrisy I leave it to you to judge You your selfe tell us within two pages after this that you are obliged never to speak any one least lye against your knowledge § 2. now what is this but to live in a perpetuall lye 12 As for that which in the next place you seeme so to wonder at That both Catholiques and Protestants according to the opinion of Protestants may bee saved in their severall professions because forsooth we both agree in all Fundamentall points I Anwere this proposition so crudely set down as you have here set it down I know no Protestant will justify For you seeme to make them teach that it is an indifferent thing for the attainment of salvation whether a man believe the Truth or the Falshood and that they care not in whether of these Religions a man live or dye so he dye in either of them whereas all that they say is this That those amongst you which want meanes to find the Truth and so dye in error or use the best meanes they can with industry and without partiality to find the truth and yet dye in error these men thus qualified notwithstanding these errors may be saved Secondly for those that have meanes to find the
§ 20. At the first entrance into this Parag. from our own Doctrine That the Church cannot erre in Points necessary it is concluded if we are wise we must for sake it is nothing least we should for sake it in something necessary To which I answer First that the supposition as you understand it is falsely impos'd upon us and as we understand it will doe you no service For when we say that there shall be a Church alwaies some where or other unerring in Fundamentalls our meaning is but this that there shall be alwaies a Church to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should erre in fundamentals for if it should doe so it would want the very essence of a Church and therefore cease to be a Church But we never annexed this privilege to any one Church of any one Denomination as the Greek or the Roman Church which if we had done and set up some setled certain Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our Guide in fundamentals then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty haue concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any point for feare of forsaking it in a necessary point But now that we say not this of any one determinate Church which alone can perform the office of Guide or Director but indefinitely of the Church meaning no more but this That there shall be alwaies in some place or other some Church that erres not in Fundamentalls will you conclude from hence that we cannot in wisdome forsake this or that the Roman or the Greek Church for feare of erring in Fundamentalls 56 Yea but you may say for I will make the best I can of all your Arguments That this Church thus unerring in Fundamentalls when Luther arose was by our confession the Roman and therefore wee ought not in wisdome to haue departed from it in any thing I answer First that we confesse no such thing that the Church of Rome was then this Church but only a Part of it and that the most corrupted and most incorrigible Secondly that if by adhering to the church we could haue been thus far secured this Argument had some shew of reason But seeing wee are not warranted thus much by any privilege of that Church that She cannot erre fundamentally but only from Scripture which assures us that she doth erre very haynously collect our hope that the Truths she retaines the practise of them may proue an Antidote to her against the Errors which she maintaines in such Persons as in simplicity of heart follow this Absalom wee should then doe against the light of our conscience and so sinne damnably if we should not abandon the profession of her Errours though not Fundamentall Neither can we thus conclude we may safely hold with the church of Rome in all her points for she cannot erre damnably For this is false she may though perhaps she does not But rather thus These points of Christianity which have in thē the nature of Antidotes against the poyson of all sinnes and errours the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted still retaines therefore wee hope shee erres not fundamentally but still remaines a Part of the Church But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things seeing the very same Scripture which puts us in hope she erres not fundamentally assures us that in many things and those of great moment she erres very grievously And these Errours though to them that believe them wee hope they will not be pernicious yet the professing of them against conscience could not but bring to us certain damnation As for the feare of departing from some fundamentall truths withall while we depart from her errours Happily it might work upon us if adhering to her might secure us from it and if nothing else could But both these are false For first adhering to her in all things cannot secure us from erring in Fundamentals Because though de facto we hope shee does not erre yet we know no privileges she has but she may erre in them herselfe and therefore we had need haue better security hereof then her bare Authority Then secondly without dependance on her at all we may be secured that we doe not erre fundamentally I meane by believing al those things plainly set down in Scripture wherein all things necessary and most things profitable are plainly delivered Suppose I were travelling to London and knew two waies thither the one very safe and convenient the other very inconvenient and dangerous but yet a way to London and that I overtook a Passenger on the way who himselfe believed and would fain perswade me there was no other way but the worse and would perswade me to accompany him in it because I confessed his way though very inconvenient yet a way so that going that way we could not faile of our journies end by the consent of both parties but he believed my way to be none at all therefore I might justly feare least out of a desire of leaving the worst way I left the true and the only way If now I should not bee more secure upon my own knowledge then frighted by this fallacy would you not beg me for a fool Iust so might you think of us if we would bee frighted out of our own knowledge by this bugbeare For the only the main reason why we believe you not to erre in Fundamentalls is your holding the Doctrines of faith in Christ and Repentance which knowing we hold as well as you notwithstanding our departure from you we must needs know that we doe not erre in Fundamentalls as well as we know that you doe not erre in some Fundamentals therefore cannot possibly feare the contrary Yet let us be more liberall to you and grant that which can never be proved that God had said in plain tearmes The Church of Rome shall never destroy the Foundation but with all had said that it might and would lay much hay and stubble upon it That you should never hold any Errour destructive of salvation but yet many that were prejudiciall to Edification I demand might we haue dispensed with our selves in the believing and professing these Errours in regard of the smalnesse of them Or had it not been a damnable sinne to doe so though the Errours in themselves were not damnable Had we not had as plain direction to depart frō you in some things profitable as to adhere to you in things necessary In the beginning of your Book when it was for your purpose to haue it so the greatnesse or smalnesse of the matter was not considerable the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all But here wee must erre with you in small things for feare of loosing your direction in greater and for feare of departing too far from you not goe from you at all even where we
Reason then you foresee that you should be forced to grant that these are fit meanes to decide this Controversie and therefore may be as fit to decide others Therefore to avoid this you runne into a most ridiculous absurdity and tell us that this difference also whether the Church be infallible as well as others must be agreed by a submissiue acknowledgment of the Churches infallibility As if you should haue said My Brethren I perceiue this is a great contention amongst you whether the Roman Church be infallible If you will follow my advice I will shew you a ready meanes to end it you must first agree that the Roman Church is infallible and then your contention whether the Roman Church be infallible will quickly be at an end Verily a most excellent advice and most compendious way of ending all Controversies even without troubling the Church to determine them For why may not you say in all other differences as you haue done in this Agree that the Pope is supream head of the Church That the substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is turned into the body bloud of Christ That the Communion is to be given to Lay-men but in one kind That Pictures may be worshipped That Saints are to bee invocated and so in the rest and then your differences about the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation and all the rest will speedily be ended If you say the advice is good in this but not in other cases I must request you not to expect alwaies to be believed upon your word but to shew us some reason why any one thing namely the Churches infallibility is fit to prove it selfe and any other thing by name the Popes Supremacy or Transubstantiation is not as fit Or if for shame you will at length confesse that the Churches infallibility is not fit to decide this difference whether the Church be infallible then you must confesse it is not fit to decide all Vnlesse you will say it may be fit to decide all and yet not fit to decide this or pretend that this is not comprehended under all Besides if you grant that your Churches infallibilitie cannot possibly be well grounded upon or decided by it selfe then having professed before that there is no possible meanes besides this for us to agree hereupon I hope you will giue mee leaue to conclude that it is impossible upon good ground for us to agree that the Roman Church is infallible For certainly light it selfe is not more cleere then the evidence of this syllogisme If there be no other meanes to make men agree upon your Churches infallibility but only this and this be no meanes then it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is infallible But there is as you haue granted no other possible meanes to make men agree hereupon but only a submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility And this is apparently no meanes Therefore it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is infallible 90 Lastly to the place of S. Austine wherein we are advis'd to follow the way of Catholique discipline which from Christ himselfe by the Apostles hath come down even to us and from us shall descend to all posterity I answer That the way which S. Austine spake of the way which you commend being divers waies in many things cleane contrary we cannot possibly follow them both and therefore for you to apply the same words to them is a vaine equivocation Shew us any way doe not say but proue it to haue come from Christ his Apostles down to us and we are ready to follow it Neither doe wee expect demonstration hereof but such reasons as may make this more probable then the contrary But if you bring in things into your now Catholique Discipline which Chistians in S. Austins time held abominable as the picturing of God which you must confesse to haue come into the Church seven hundred yeares after Christ if you will bring in things as you haue done the halfe Communion with a non obstante notwithstanding Christs Institution and the practise of the Primitive Church were to the contrary If you will doe such things as these and yet would haue us believe that your whole Religion came from Christ and his Apostles this we conceive a request too unreasonable for modest men to make or for wise men to grant CHAP. IIII. To say that the Creed containes all points necessarily to be believed is neither pertinent to the Question in hand nor in it selfe true I SAY neither pertinent nor true Not pertinent Because our Question is not what points are necessary to be explicitely believed but what points may be lawfully disbelieved or rejected after sufficient Proposition that they are divine Truths You say the Creed containes all points necessary to be believed Be it so But doth it likewise containe all points not to be disbelieved Certainly it doth not For how many truths are there in holy Scripture not contained in the Creed which we are not obliged distinctly and particularly to know and believe but are bound under paine of damnation not to reject as soone as we come to know that they are found in holy Scripture And we having already shewed that whatsoever is proposed by Gods Church as a point of faith is infallibly a truth revealed by God it followeth that whosoever denieth any such point opposeth Gods sacred testimony whether that point be contained in the Creed or no. In vaine then was your care imployed to prove that all points of faith necessary to be explicitely believed are contained in the Creed Neither was that the Catalogue which Charity Mistaken demanded His demand was and it was most reasonable that you would once give us a list of all fundamentals the deniall whereof destroyes Salvation whereas the deniall of other points not fundamentall may stand with salvation although both these kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by God For if they be not equally proposed the difference will arise from diversity of the Proposall and not of the Matter fundamentall or not fundamentall This Catalogue only can shew how farre Protestants may disagree without breach of Vnity in faith and upon this many other matters depend according to the ground of Protestants But you will never adventure to publish such a Catalogue I say more You cannot assigne any one point so great or fundamentall that the deniall thereof will make a man an Heretique if it be not sufficiently propounded as a divine Truth Nor can you assigne any one point so small that it can without heresie be rejected if once it be sufficiently represented as revealed by God 2. Nay this your instance in the Creed is not only impertinent but directly against you For all points in the Creed are not of their own nature fundamentall as I shewed before And yet it is damnable to deny any one point contained in
the main Question in this businesse is not what divine Revelations are necessary to be believed or not rejected when they are sufficiently proposed for all without exception all without question are so But what Revelations are simply and absolutely necessary to be proposed to the beliefe of Christians so that that Society which does propose and indeed believe them hath for matter of Faith the essence of a true Church that which does not has not Now to this question though not to yours D. Potter's assertion if it be true is apparently very pertinent And though not a full and totall satisfaction to it yet very effectuall and of great moment towards it For the main question being what points are necessary to Salvation and points necessary to Salvation being of two sorts some of simple belief some of Practise and obedience he that gives you a sufficient summary of the first sort of necessary points hath brought you halfe way towards your journies end And therefore that which he does is no more to be slighted as vain and impertinent then an Architects work is to be thought impertinent towards the making of a house because he does it not all himselfe Sure I am if his assertion be true as I believe it is a corollary may presently be deduced from it which if it were imbraced cannot in all reason but doe infinite service both to the truth of Christ and the peace of Christendome For seeing falsehood and errour could not long stand against the power of truth were they not supported by tyranny and worldly advantages he that could assert Christians to that liberty which Christ and his Apostles left them must needs doe Truth a most Heroicall service And seeing the over-valuing of the differences among Christians is one of the greatest maintainers of the Schisme of Christendome he that could demonstrate that only these points of Beliefe are simply necessary to salvation wherein Christians generally agree should he not lay a very faire and firme foundation of the peace of Christendome Now the Corollary which I conceive would produce these good effects and which flowes naturally from D. Potters Assertion is this That what Man or Church soever beleeves the Creed and all the evident consequences of it sincerely and heartily cannot possibly if also he beleeve the Scripture be in any Errour of simple beleife which is offensiue to God nor therefore deserve for any such Errour to be deprived of his life or to be cut off from the Churches Communion and the hope of Salvation And the production of this againe would be this which highly concernes the Church of Rome to think of That whatsoever Man or Church does for any errour of simple beleife depriue any man so qualified as aboue either of his temporall life or liuelyhood or liberty or of the Churches Communion and hope of salvation is for the first uniust cruell and tyrannous Schismaticall presumptuous and uncharitable for the second 13 Neither yet is this as you pretend to take away the necessity of beleeving those verities of Scripture which are not contained in the Creed when once we come to know that they are written in Scripture but rather to lay a necessity upon men of beleeving all things written in Scripture when once they know them to be there written For he that beleeves not all knowne Divine Revelations to be true how does he believe in God Vnlesse you will say that the same man at the same time may not believe God and yet believe in him The greater difficulty is how it will not take away the necessity of beleeving Scripture to be the word of God But that it will not neither For though the Creed be granted a sufficient summary of Articles of meere Faith yet no man pretends that it containes the Rules of obedience but for them all men are referred to Scripture Besides he that pretends to believe in God obligeth himselfe to beleeve it necessary to obey that which reason assures him to be the Will of God Now reason will assure him that beleeves the Creed that it is the Will of God he should beleeve the Scripture even the very same Reason which moves him to beleeve the Creed Vniversall and never failing Tradition having given this Testimony both to Creed and Scripture that they both by the works of God were sealed testified to be the words of God And thus much be spoken in Answere to your first Argument the length whereof will be the more excusable If I oblige my self to say but little to the Rest. 14 I come then to your second And in Answer to it denie flatly as a thing destructive of it self that any Errour can be damnable unlesse it be repugnant immediatly or mediatly directly or indirectly of it self or by accident to some Truth for the matter of it fundamentall And to your example of Pontius Pilat's being Iudge of Christ I say the deniall of it in him that knowes it to be revealed by God is manifestly destructive of this fundamentall truth that all Divine Revelations are true Neither will you find any errour so much as by accident damnable but the rejecting of it will be necessarily laid upon us by a reall beleif of all Fundamentals and simply necessary Truths And I desire you would reconcile with this that which you have said § 15. Every Fundamentall Errour must have a contrary Fundamentall Truth because of two Contradictory propositions in the same degree the one is false the other must be true c. 15 To the Third I Answer That the certainty I have of the Creed That it was from the Apostles and containes the principles of Faith I ground it not upon Scripture and yet not upon the Infallibility of any present much lesse of your Church but upon the Authority of the Ancient Church and written Tradition which as D. Potter hath proved gave this constant Testimony unto it Besides I tell you it is guilty of the same fault which D. Potter's Assertion is here accused of having perhaps some colour toward the proving it false but none at all to shew it impertinent 16 To the Fourth I Answer plainly thus That you finde fault with D. Potter for his Vertues you are offended with him for not usurping the Authority which he hath not in a word for not playing the Pope Certainly if Protestants be faulty in this matter it is for doing it too much and not too little This presumptuous imposing of the senses of men upon the words of God the speciall senses of men upon the generall words of God and laying them upon mens consciences together under the equall penaltie of death and damnation this Vaine conceit that we can speak of the things of God better then in the word of God This Deifying our owne Interpretations and Tyrannous inforcing them upon others This restraining of the word of God from that latitude and generality and the understandings of men from that liberty wherein Christ and Apostles
that alwaies hath been so ever since the publication of the Gospell of Christ. The doctrine of your Church may like a snow-ball increase with rowling and again if you please melt away and decrease But as Christ Iesus so his Gospell is yesterday and to day and the same for ever 38 Our Saviour sending his Apostles to preach gave them no other commission then this Goe teach all nations Baptizing them in the name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy-Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you These were the bounds of their commission If your Church have any larger or if she have a commission at large to teach what she pleases and call it the Gospell of Christ let her produce her Letters-patents from heaven for it But if this be all you have then must you give me leave to esteeme it both great sacriledge in you to forbid any thing be it never so small or ceremonious which Christ hath commanded as the receiving of the Communion in both kindes and as high a degree of presumption to enjoyne men to believe that there are or can be any other fundamentall Articles of the Gospell of Christ then what Christ himselfe commanded his Apostles to teach all men or any damnable Heresies but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verities 39 Ad § 16. 17. The saying of the most learned Prelate and excellent man the Arch-Bishop of Armach is only related by D. Potter p. 155. and not applauded though the truth is both the Man deserves as much applause as any man and his saying as much as any saying it being as great and as good a truth and as necessary for these miserable times as possibly can be uttered For this is most certain and I believe you will easily grant it that to reduce Christians to unity of Communion there are but two waies that may be conceived probable The one by taking away diversity of opinions touching matters of Religion The other by shewing that the diversity of opinions which is among the severall Sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their Vnity in Communion 40 Now the former of these is not to be hoped for without a miracle unlesse that could be done which is impossible to be performed though it be often pretended that is unlesse it could be made evident to all men that God hath appointed some visible Iudge of Controversies to whose judgement all men are to submit themselves What then remaines but that the other way must be taken and Christians must be taught to ser a higher value upon these high points of faith and obedience wherein they agree then upon these matters of lesse moment wherein they differ and understand that agreement in those ought to be more effectuall to joyne them in one Communion then their difference in other things of lesse moment to divide them When I say in one Communion I mean in a common Profession of those articles of faith wherein all consent A joynt worship of God after such a way as all esteem lawfull and a mutuall performance of all those works of charity which Christians own one to another And to such a Communion what better inducement could be thought of then to demonstrate that what was universally believed of all Christians if it were joyned with a love of truth and with holy obedience was sufficient to bring men to heaven For why should men be more rigid then God Why should any errour exclude any man from the Churches Communion which will not deprive him of eternall salvation Now that Christians doe generally agree in all those points of doctrine which are necessary to Salvation it is apparent because they agree with one accord in believing all those Bookes of the Old and New Testament which in the Church were never doubted of to be the undoubted word of God And it is so certain that in all these Bookes all necessary doctrines are evidently contained that of all the four Evangelists this is very probable but of S. Luke most apparent that in every one of their Bookes they have comprehended the whole substance of the Gospell of Christ. For what reason can be imagined that any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary and yet as apparently all of them have done put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary What wise and honest man that were now to write the Gospell of Christ would doe so great a work of God after such a negligent â—ashon Suppose Xaverius had been to write the Gospell of Christ for the Indians think you he would have left out any Fundamentall doctrine of it If not I must beseech you to conceive as well of S. Mathew and S. Marke and S. Luke and S. Iohn as you doe of Xaverius Besides if every one of them have not in them all necessary doctrines how have they complied with their own designe which was as the titles of their Bookes shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it Or how have thy not deceived us in giving them such titles By the whole Gospell of Christ I understand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes up the Covenant between God and man Now if this be wholly contained in the Gospell of S. Marke and S. Iohn I believe every considering man will bee inclinable to believe that then without doubt it is contained with the advantage of many other very profitable things in the larger Gospells of S. Matthew and S. Luke And that S. Markes Gospell wants no necessary Article of this Covenant I presume you will not deny if you believe Irenaeus when he saies Mathew to the Hebrewes in their tongue published the Scripture of the Gospell When Peter and Paul did preach the Gospell and found the Church or a Church at Rome or of Rome and after their departure Mark the scholler of Peter delivered to us in writing those things which had been preached by Peter and Luke the follwer of Paul compiled in a book the Gospell which was preached by him And afterwards Iohn residing in Asia in the Citty of Ephesus did himselfe also set forth a Gospell 41 In which words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretiques that pretended as you know who doe now adaies that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were unwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must mean sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not Tradition Against whom to say that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Marke and some other necessary parts of it omitted had been to speak impertinently and rather to confirme then confute their errour It is plain therefore that he must mean as I pretend that all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell which was preached by S. Peter was written by S. Marke Now you will
be what can it be but curiosity to desire to know it Neither may you think to mend your selfe herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call Papists for they are as farre to seek as wee in this point which of the Articles of the Creed are for their nature and matter fundamentall and which are not Particularly you will scarce meet with any amongst their Doctors so adventurous as to tell you for a certain whether or no the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost his being born of a Virgin his Buriall his descent into Hell and the Communion of Saints be points of their own nature and matter fundamentall Such I mean as without the distinct and explicite knowledge of them no man can be saved 63 But you will say at least they give this certain rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of faith in such sense as to deny any such cannot stand with Salvation So also Protestants give you this more certain rule That whosoever believes heartily those books of Scripture which all the Christian Churches in the world acknowledge to be Canonicall and submits himselfe indeed to this as to the rule of his belief must of necessity believe all things fundamentall and if he live according to his faith cannot fail of Salvation But besides what certainty have you that that rule of Papists is so certain By the visible Church it is plain they mean only their own and why their own only should be the Visible Church I doe not understand and as little why all points defined by this Church should belong to the foundation of faith These things you had need see well and substantially proved before you rely upon them otherwise you expose your selfe to danger of imbracing damnable errors instead of Fundamentall truth's But you will say D. Potter himselfe acknowledges that we doe not erre in Fundamentalls If he did so yet me thinkes you have no reason to rest upon his acknowledgement with any security whom you condemne of errour in many other matters Perhaps excesse of Charity to your persons may make him censure your errors more favourably then he should doe But the truth is and so I have often told you though the Doctor hope that your errors are not so unpardonably destructive but that some men who ignorantly hold them may be saved yet in themselves he professes and proclaimes them damnable and such as he feares will be certainly destructive to such as you are that is to all those who have eyes to see and will not see them 64 Ad § 20. 21. 22. 23. In the Remainder of this Chapter you promise to answer D. Potters Arguments against that which you said before But presently forgetting your selfe in stead of answering his Arguments you fall a confuting his Answers to your own The arguments objected by you which here you vindicate were two 1. The Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed therefore the Creed containes not all things necessary to be believed 2. Baptisme is not contained in the Creed therefore not all things necessary To both which Arguments my Answer shortly is this that they prove something but it is that which no man here denies For D. Potter as you have also confessed never said not undertook to shew that the Apostles intended to comprize in the Creed all points absolutely which we are bound to believe or after sufficient proposall not to disbelieve which yet here and every where you are obtruding upon him But only that they purposed to comprize in it all such doctrines purely speculative all such matters of simple belief as are in ordinary course necessary to be distinctly and explicitly believed by all men Neither of these objections doe any way infringe or impeach the truth of this Assertion Not the first because according to your own doctrine all men are not bound to know explicitely what books of Scripture are Canonicall Nor the second because Baptisme is not a matter of Faith but practise not so much to be believed as to be given and received And against these Answers whether you have brought any considerable new matter let the indifferent Reader judge As for the other things which D. Potter rather glanceth at then builâ—s upon in answering these objections as the Creed's being collected out of Scripture and supposing the Authority of it which Gregory of Valentia in the place above cited seemes to me to confesse to have been the Iudgement of the Ancient Fathers and the Nicene Creed's intimating the authority of Canonicall Scripture and making mention of Baptisme These things were said ex abundanti and therefore I conceive it superfluous to examine your exceptions against them Prove that D. Potter did affirme that the Creed containes all things necessary to be believed of all sorts and then these objections will be pertinent and deserve an answer Or produce some point of simple belief necessary to be explicitly believed which is not contained either in termes or by consequence in the Creed and then I will either answer your Reasons or confesse I cannot But all this while you doe but trifle and are so farre from hitting the marke that you rove quite beside the But. 65 Ad § 23. 24. 25. Potterâ—emands â—emands How it can be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their times You Answer That he trifles not distinguishing between the Apostles belief and that abridgement of some Articles of faith which we call the Apostles Creed I reply that it is you which trifle affectedly confounding what D. Potter hath plainly distinguished the Apostles belief of the whole Religion of Christ as it comprehends both what we are to doe and what we are to believe with their belief of that part of it which containes not duties of obedience but only the necessary Articles of siâ—ple â—aith Now though the Apostles Beleife be in the former sense a larger thing then that which we call the Apostles Creed yet in the latter sense of the word the Creed I say is a full comprehension of their belief which you your selfe have formerly confessed though somewhat fearfully and inconstantly and here again unwillingnesse to speak the truth makes you speak that which is hardly sense and call it an abridgement of some Articles of Faith For I demand these some Articles which you speak of which are they Those that are out of the Creed or those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therefore it is not an abridgement of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therefore it is not an abridgement of them If you would call it now an abridgement of the Faith this would be sense and signify thus much That all the necessary Articles of the Christian faith are compriz'd in it For this is the proper duty of abridgements to leave out nothing
hath a single relation to another or as all concur to make one Company or Congregation which we call the Church and this is the most principall reference and Vnion of one man with another because the chiefest Vnity is that of the Whole to which the particular Vnity of Parts is subordinate This Vnity or Onenesse if so I may call it is effected by Charity uniting all the members of the Church in one Mysticall Body contrary to which is Schisme from the Greeke word signifying Scissure or Division Wherefore vpon the whole matter wee find that Schisme as the Angellicall Doctor S. Thomas defines it is A voluntary separation from the Vnity of that Charity whereby all the members of the Church are united From hence he deduceth that Schisme is a speciall and particular vice distinct from Heresy because they are opposite to two different Vertues Heresy to Faith Schisme to Charity To which purpose hee fitly alleageth S. Hierome upon these words Tit. 3. A man that is an Heretique after the first and second admonition avoide saying I conceive that there is this difference betwixt Schisme and Heresy that Heresy involves some perverse assertion Schisme for Episcopall dissention doth seperate men from the Church The same doctrine is delivered by S. Austine in these words Heretiques and Schismatiques call their Congregations Churches but Heretiques corrupt the Faith by believing of God false things but Schismatiques by wicked divisions breake from fraternall Charity although they believe what we believe Therefore the Heretique belongs not to the Church because she loves God nor the Schismatique because she loves her Neighbour And in another place he saith It is wont to be demanded How Schismatiques be distinguished from Heretiques and this difference is found that not a divers faith but the divided Society of Communion doth make Schismatiques It is then evident that Schisme is different from Heresie Neverthelesse saith S. Thomas as he who is deprived of faith must needs want Charity so every Heretique is a Schismatique but not conversively every Schismatique is an Heretique though because want of Charity disposes and makes way to the destruction of faith according to those words of the Apostle Which a good conscience some casting off have suffered shipwrack in their faith Schisme speedily degenerates to Heresy as S. Hierome after the rebearsed words teacheth saying Though Schisme in the beginning may in some sort be understood different from Heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not faigne some heresy to it selfe that so it may seeme to have departed from the Church upon good reason Neverthelesse when Schisme proceeds originally from Heresy Heresy as being in that case the predominant quality in these two peccant humours giveth the denomination of an Heretique as on the other side we are wont especially in the beginning or for a while to call Schismatiques those men who first began with only Schisme though in processe of time they fell into some Heresy and by that meanes are indeed both Schismatiques and Heretiques 4. The reason why both Heresy and Schisme are repugnant to the being of a good Catholique is Because the Catholique or Vniversall Church signifies One Congregation or Company of faithfull people and therefore implies not only Faith to make them Faithfull believers but also Communion or Common Vnion to make them One in Charity which excludes Seperation and Division and therefore in the Apostles Creed Communion of Saints is immediatly joyned to the Catholique Church 5. From this definition of Schisme may be inferred that the guilt thereof is contracted not only by division from the Vniversall Church but also by a Separation from a particular Church or Diocesse which agrees with the Vniversall In this manner Meletius was a Schismatique but not an Heretique because as we read in S. Epiphanius he was of the right Faith for his faith was not altered at any time from the holy Catholique Church c. He made a Sect but departed not from Faith Yet because he made to himselfe a particular Congregation against S. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria his lawfull superiour and by that meanes brought in a division in that particular Church he was a Schismatique And it is well worth the noting that the Meletians building new Churches put this title upon them The Church of Martyrs and upon the antient Churches of those vvho succeeded Peter was inscribed The Catholique Church For so it is A new Sect must have a new name which though it be never so gay and specious as the Church of Martyrs the Reformed Church c. yet the Novelty sheweth that it is not the Catholique nor a true Church And that Schisme may be committed by division from a particular Church wee read in Optatus Milevitanus these remarkeable words which doe well declare who bee schismatiques brought by him to prove that not câ—cilianus but parmenianas was a Schismatique For Caecilianus went not out from Majorinus thy Grand-Father he meanes his next predecesâ—our but one in the Bishopâ—icke but Majorinus from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chaire of Peter or of Cyprian who was but a particular Bishop but Majorinus in whose Chaire thou sittest which had no beginning before Majorinus himselfe Seeing it is manifestly knowne that these things were so done it evidently appeareth that you are heires both of Traditors that is of those who delivered up the holy Bible to be burned and of Schismatiques And it seemeth that this kinde of Schisme must principally be admitted by Protestants who acknowledge no one visible Head of the whole Church but hold that every particular Diocesse Church or Countrey is governed by it selfe independently of any one Person or Generall Councell to which all Christians have obligation to submit their judgements and wills 6. As for the grievousnesse or quantity of Schisme which was the second point proposed S. Thomas teacheth that amongst sinnes against our Neighbour Schisme is the most grievous because it is against the spirituall good of the multitude or Community And therefore as in a Kingdome or Common-wealth there is as great difference betweene the crime of rebellion or sedition and debates among priuate men as there is inequality betwixt one man and a whole kingdome so in the Church Schisme is as much more grievous then sedition in a Kingdome as the spirituall good of soules surpasseth the civill and politicall weale And S. Thomas addes further and they loose the spirituall Power of Iurisdiction and if they goe about to absolve from sinnes or to excommunicate their actions are invalid which he proves out of the Canon Novatianus Causa 7. quest 1. which saith He that keepeth neither the Vnity of spirit nor the peace of agreement and separates himselfe from the bond of the Church and the Colleage of Priests can neither have the Power nor dignity of a Bishop The Power also of Order for example to consecrate the Eucharist to ordaine Priests c.
the foundation is strong enough to support all such unnecâ—ssary additions as you terme them And if they once weighed so heavy as to overthrow the foundation they should grow to fundamentall errors into which your selfe teach the Church cannot fall Hay and stubble say you and such unprofitable stâ—ff laid on the roofe destroies not the house whilest the main pillars are standing on the foundatioâ— And tell us I pray you the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated I know you cannot doe it and therefore being uncertain whether or no you have cause to leave the Church you are certainly obliged not to forsake her Our blessed Saviour hath declared his will that we forgive a private offender seaventy seaven times that is without limitation of quantity of time or quality of trespasses and why then dare you alleadge his command that you must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not fundamentall What excuse can you faine to your selves who for points not necessary to salvation have been occasions causes and authors of so many mischiefes as could not but unavoidably accompany so huge a breach in kingdomes in commonwealths in private persons in publique Magistrates in body in soul in goods in life in Church in the state by Schismes by rebellions by war by famine by plague by bloudshed by all sorts of imaginable calamities upon the whole face of the earth wherein as in a map of Desolation the heavinesse of your crime appeares under which the world doth pant 24 To say for your excuse that you left not the Church but her errors doth not extenuate but aggravate your sinne For by this devise you sow seeds of endles Schismes and put into the mouth of all Separatists a ready answere how to avoid the note of Schisme from your Protestant Church of England or from any other Church whatsoever They will I say answer as you doe prompt that your Church may be forsaken if she fall into errors though they be not fundamentall and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errors which two grounds being once laid it will not be hard to infer the consequence that she may be forsaken 25 From some other words of D. Potter I likewise prove that for Errors not fundamentall the Church ought not to be forsaken There neither was saith he nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe To depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation Marke his doctrine that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ and yet he teacheth that the Church of Christ may erre in points not fundamentall Therefore say I we cannot forsake the Roman Church for points not fundamentall for then we might also forsake the Church of Christ which your selfe deny and I pray you consider whether you doe not plainly contradict your selfe while in the words aboue recited you say there can be no iust cause to forsake the Catholique Church and yet that there may be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome since you grant that the Church of Christ may erre in points not fundamentall and that the Roman Church hath erred only in such points as by and by we shall see more in particular And thus much be said to disprove their chiefest Answer that they left not the Church but her corruptions 26 Another evasion D. Potter bringeth to avoid the imputation of Schisme and it is because they still acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Member of the body of Christ and not cut off from the hope of salvation And this saith he cleeres us from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates 27 This is an Answere which perhaps you may get some one to approve if first you can put him out of his wits For what prodigious doctrines are these Those Protestants who believe that the Church erred in points necessary to salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schisme But others who believed that she had no damnable errors did very well yea were obliged to forsake her and which is more miraculous or rather monstrous they did well to forsake her formally and precisely because they iudged that she retained all meanes necessary to salvation I say because they so iudged For the very reason for which he acquitteth himselfe and condemneth those others as Schismatiques is because he holdeth that the Church which both of them forsooke is not cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvations whereas those other Zelots deny her to be a member of Christs body or capable of salvation wherein alone they disagree from D. Potter for in the effect of separation they agree only they doe it upon a different motive or reason were it not a strange excuse if a man would think to cloak his rebellion by alledging that he held the person against whom he rebelled to be his lawfull Soveraign And yet D. Potter thinks himselfe free from Schisme because he forsook the Church of Rome but yet so as that still he held her to be the true Church and to have all necessary meanes to Salvation But I will no further urge this most solemne foppery and doe much more willingly put all Catholiques in mind what an unspeakeable comfort it is that our Adversaries are forced to confesse that they cannot cleere themselves from Schisme otherwise then by acknowledging that they doe not nor cannot cut off from the hope of Salvation our Church Which is as much as if they should in plain termes say They must be damned unlesse we may be saved Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemne your zealous brethren of Heresy for denying the Churches perpetuity but doth not cleere your selfe from Schisme which consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith as you must professe your selfe to agree with the Church of Rome in all fundamentall Articles For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation and so condemne your selfe of Schisme And lastly even according to this your own definition of Schisme you cannot cleere your selfe from that crime unlesse you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own Assertions For if you doe not cut us off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation how come you to say in another place that you judge a reconciliation with us to be damnable That to depart from the Church of Rome there might be iust and necessary canse That they that have the understanding and meanes to discover their error and neglect to use them we dare
not flatter them say you with so easy a censure of hope of salvation If then it be as you say a property of Schisme to cut off from the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates how will you cleere your selfe from Schisme who dare not flatter us with so easy a censure and who affirme that a reconciliation with us is damnable But the truth is there is no constancy in your Assertions by reason of difficulties which presse you on all sides For you are loath to affirme cleerely that we may be saved least such a grant might be occasion as in all reason it ought to be of the conversion of Protestants to the Roman Church And on the other side if your affirme that our Church erred in points fundamentall or necessary to salvation you knew not how not where not among what company of men to find a perpetuall visible Church of Christ before Luther And therefore your best shift is to say and unsay as your occasion command I doe not examine your Assertion that it is the property of Schisme to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates wherein you are mightily mistaken as appears by your own example of the Donatists who were most formall and proper Heretiques and not Schismatiques as Schisme is a vice distinct from Heresy Besides although the Donatists and Luciferians whom you also alledge had been meere Schismatiques yet it were against all good Logick from a particular to inferre a generall Rule to determine what is the property of Schisme 28 A third device I find in D. Potter to cleere his brethren from Schisme There is saith he great difference between a Schisme from them and a Reformation of our selves 29 This I confesse is a quaint subtilty by which all Schisme Sinne may be as well excused For what divell incarnate could meerely pretend a separtion and not rather some other motive of vertue truth profit or pleasure But now since their pretended Reformation consisted as they gaâ—e out in forsaking the corruptions of the Church the Reformation of themselves and their division from us falls out to be one and the selfe same thing Nay we see that although they infinitely disagree in the particulars of their reformation yet they symbolize and consent in the generall point of forsaking our pretended corruptions An evident signe that the thing upon which their thoughts first pitched was not any particular Modell or Idea of Religion but a setled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome Wherefore this Metaphysicall speculation that they intended only to reforme themselves cannot possible excuse them from Schisme unlesse first they be able to prove that they were obliged to depart from us Yet for as much as concernes the fact it selfe it is cleere that Luthers revolt did not proceed from any zeale of reformation The motives which put him upon so wretched and unfortunate a work were Covetousnesse Ambition Lust Pride Envy and grudging that the promulgation of Indulgences was not committed to himself or such as he desired He himself taketh God to witnesse that he fell into these troubles casually and against his will not upon any intention of Reformation not so much as dreaming or suspecting any change which might happen And he began to preach against Indulgences when he knew not what the matter meant For saith he I scarcely understood then what the name of Indulgences meant In so much as afterwards Luther did much mistake of his owne undertaken course oftentimes saith he wishing that I had never begunne that businesse And Fox saith It is apparent that Luther promised Cardinall Caietan to keep silence provided also his adversaries would doe the like M. Cowper reporteth further that Luther by his letter submitted himself to the Pope so that he might not be compelled to recant With much more which may be seen in Brereley But this is sufficient to shew that Luther was farre enough from intending any Reformation And if he judged a Reformation to be necessary what a huge wickednesse was it in him to promise silence if his adversaries would doe the like Or to submit himself to the Pope so that he might not be compelled to recant Or if the Reformation were not indeed intended by him nor judged to be necessary how can he be excused froÌ„ damnable Schisme And this is the true manner of Luthers revolt taken from his owne acknowledgments and the words of the more ancient Protestants themselves whereby D. Potters faltring and mincing the matter is cleerely discovered and confuted Vpon what motives our Country was divided from the Roman Church by king Henry the Eight and how the Schisme was continued by Queene Elizabeth I have no heare to rip up The world knoweth it was not upon any zeale of Reformation 30 But you will prove your former evasion by a couple of similitudes If a Monastery should reforme it selfe and should reduce into practise ancient good discipline when others would not in this case could it is reason bee charged with Schisme from others or with Apostacy from its rule and order Or as in a society of men universally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from the common disease could not be therefore said to separate from the society so neither can the reformed Churches be truely accused for making a Schisme from the Church seeing all they did was to reforme themselves 31 I was very glad to find you in a Monastery but sorry when I perceived that you were inventing wayes how to forsake your Vocation and to maintaine the lawfulnesse of Schisme from the Church and Apostasie from a Religious Order Yet before you make your finall resolution heare a word of advise Put case That a Monastery did confessedly observe their substantiall vowes and all principall Statutes or Constitutions of the Order though with some neglect of lesser Monasticall Observances And that a Reformation were undertaken not by authority of lawfull Superiours but by some One or very few in comparison of the rest And those few knowne to be led not with any spirit of Reformation but by some other sinister intention And that the Statutes of the house were even by those busie fellowes confessed to have been time out of mind understood and practised as now they were And further that the pretended Reformers acknowledged that themselves as soone as they were gone out of their Monastery must not hope to be free from those or the like errors and corruptions for which they left their Brethren And which is more that they might fall into more enormous crimes then they did or could doe in their Monastery which we suppose to be secured from all substantiall corruptions for the avoyding of which they have an infallible assistance Put I say together all these my And 's and then come with your If 's If a Monastery should reforme it self
malice If these mens conceits were true the Church might come to be wholly divided by wicked Schismes and yet after some space of time none could be accused of Schisme nor be obliged to returne to the visible Church of Christ and so there should remaine no One true visible Church Let therefore these men who pretend to honour reverence and believe the Doctrine and practise of the visible Church and to condemne their forefathers who forsooke her and say they would not have done so if they had lived in the daies of their Fathers and yet follow their example in remaining divided from her Communion consider how truly these words of our Saviour fall upon them Woe be to you because you build the Prophets sepulchers and garnish the monuments of just men and say If we had been in our Fathers daies we had not been their fellowes in the blood of the Prophets Therefore you are a testimony to your own selves that you are the sonnes of them that killed the Prophets and fill up the measure of your Fathers 46 And thus having demonstrated that Luther his Associates and all that continue in the Schisme by them begun are guilty of Schisme by departing from the visible true Church of Christ it remaineth that we examine what in particular was that Visible true Church from which they departed that so they may know to what Church in particular they ought to returne and then we shall have performed what was proposed to be handled in the fift Point 47 That the Roman Church I speak not for the present of the particular Diocesse of Rome but of all visible Churches dispersed throughout the whole world agreeing in Faith with the Chaire of Peter whether that Sea were supposed to be in the City of Rome or in any other place That I say the Church of Rome in this sense was the visible Catholique Church out of which Luther departed is proved by your own confession who assigne for notes of the Church the true Preaching of Gods word and due administration of Sacraments both which for the substance you cannot deny to the Roman Church since you confesse that she wanted nothing fundamentall or necessary to salvation and for that very cause you think to cleare your selfe from Schisme whose property as you say is to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates Now that Luther and his fellowes were born and baptized in the Roman Church and that she was the Church out of which they departed is notoriously known and therefore you cannot cut her off from the Body of Christ and hope of Salvation unlesse you will acknowledge your selfe to deserve the just imputation of Schisme Neither can you deny her to be truly Catholique by reason of pretended corruptions not fundamentall For your selfe avouch and endeavour to prove that the true Catholique Church may erre in such points Moreover I hope you will not so much as goe about to prove that when Luther rose there was any other true visible Church disagreeing from the Roman and agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrines and you cannot deny but that England in those daies agreed with Rome and other Nations with England And therefore either Christ had no visible Church upon Earth or else you must grant that it was the Church of Rome A truth so manifest that those Protestants who affirme the Roman Church to have lost the nature and being of a true Church doe by inevitable consequence grant that for divers ages Christ had no visible Church on earth from which error because D. Potter disclaimeth he must of necessity maintaine that the Roman Church is free from fundamentall and damnable error and that she is not cut off from the Body of Christ and the Hope of Salvation And if saith he any Zelots amongst us haue proceeded to heavier censures their zeale may be excused but their Charity and wisdome cannot be justified 48 And to touch particulars which perhaps some may object No man is ignorant that the Grecians even the Schismaticall Grecians doe in most points agree with Roman Catholiques and disagree from the Protestant Reformation They teach Transubstantiation which point D. Potter also confesseth Invocation of Saints and Angels veneration of Reliques and Images Auricular Confession enjoyned Satisfaction Confirmation with Chrisme Extream unction All the seaven Sacraments Prayer Sacrifice Almes for the dead Monachisme That Priests may not marry after their Ordination In which points that the Grecians agree with the Roman Church appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines of Wittemberg intituled Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium Iâ—remiae Patriarchae Constantinop de Augustana confessione c. Wittembergae anno 1584. by the Protestant Crispinus and by Sir Edwin Sands in the Relation of the State of Religion of the West And I wonder with what colour of truth to say no worse D. Potter could affirme that the Doctrines debated between the Protestants and Rome are only the partiall and particular fancies of the Roman Church unlesse happily the opinion of Transubstantiation may be excepted wherein the latter Grecians seem to agree with the Romanists Beside the Protestant Authors already cited Petrus Arcudiâ—s a Grecian and a learned Catholique Writer hath published a large Volume the Argument and Title whereof is Of the agreement of the Roman and Greek Church in the seven Sacraments As for the Heresy of the Grecians that the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Some I suppose that Protestants dissvow them in that error as we doe 49 D. Potter will not I think so much wrong his reputation as to tell us that the Waldenses Wiccliffe Husse or the like were Protestants because in some things they disagreed from Catholiques For he well knowes that the example of such men is subject to these manifest exceptions They were not of all Ages not in all Countries But confined to certain places and were interrupted in Time against the notion and nature of the word Catholique They had no Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy nor Succession of Bishops Priests and Pastors They differed among themselues and from Protestants also They agreed in divers things with us against Protestants They held doctrines manifestly absurd and damnable heresies 50 The Waldenses began not before the year 1218 so farre were they from Vniversality of all Ages For their doctrine first they denied all Iudgements which extended to the drawing of bloud and the Sabbath for which cause they were called In-sabbatists Secondly they taught that Lay men and women might consecrate the Sacrament and preach no doubt but by this meanes to make their Master Waldo a meere lay man capable of such functions Thirdly that Clergy men ought to have no possessions or proprieties Fourthly that there should be no division of Parishes nor Churches for a walled Church they reputed as a barne Fiftly that men ought not to take an oath in any case Sixtly
not approved there but reprehended and confuted or because being of impious conversation they are impatient of their Churches censure I would know I say whether all or any of these may with any face or without extreme impudency put in this plea of Protestants and pretend with as much likelihood as they that they did not separate from others but only reforme themselves But suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own defence falsely doth it follow by any good Logick that therefore this Apology is not to be imployed by Protestants who may say so truly We make say they no Schisme from you but only a reformation of our selves This you reply is no good justification because it may be pretended by any Schismatique Very true any Schismatique that can speak may say the same words as any Rebell that makes conscience the cloake of his impious disobedience may say with S. Peter and S. Iohn we must obey God rather then men But then the question is whether any Schismatique may say so truly And to this question you say just nothing but conclude because this defence may be abused by some it must be used by none As if you should haue said S. Peter and S. Iohn did ill to make such an answer as they made because impious Hypocrites might make use of the same to palliate their disobedience and Rebellion against the lawfull commands of lawfull Authority 81 But seeing their pretended Reformation consisted in forsaking the Churches corruptions their Reformation of themselves and their dividivision from you falls out to be one and the same thing Iust as if two men having been a long while companions in drunkenesse one of them should turne sober this Reformation of himselfe and disertion of his companion in this ill custome would be one and the same thing and yet there is no necessity that he should leave his love to him at all or his society in other things So Protestants forsaking their own former corruptions which were common to them with you could not choose but withall forsake you in the practice of these corruptions yet this they might and would have done without breach of Charity towards you and without a renunciation of your company in any act of piety and devotion confessedly lawfull And therefore though both these were by accident joyned together yet this hinders not but that the end they aimed at was not a separation from you but a reformation of themselves 82 Neither doth their disagreement in the particulars of the Reformation which yet when you measure it without partiality you will find to be farre short of infinite nor their symbolizing in the generall of forsaking your corruptions prove any thing to the contrary or any way advantage your designe or make for your purpose For it is not any signe at all much lesse an evident signe that they had no setled designe but only to forsake the Church of Rome for nothing but malice can deny that their intent at least was to reduce Religion to that originall purity from which it was fallen The declination from which some conceiving to have begunne though secretly in the Apostles times the mystery of iniquity being then in worke and after their departure to have shewed it selfe more openly others again believing that the Church continued pure for some Ages after the Apostles then declined And consequently some aiming at an exact conformity with the Apostolique times Others thinking they should doe God and men good service could they reduce the Church to the condicion of the fourth fifth ages Some taking their direction in this work of Reformation only from Scripture others from the writings of Fathers and the Decrees of Councells of the first five Ages certainly it is no great marveile that there was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise Yet let me tell you the difference between them especially in comparison of your Church and Religion is not the difference between good and bad but between good and better And they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholique written Tradition which rule the reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow 83 Ad § 30. 31. 32. To this effect D. Potter p. 81. 82. of his book speaks thus If a Monastery should reforme it selfe and should reduce into practice ancient good discipline when others would not In this case could it be charged with Schisme from others or with Apostacy from its rule and order So in a society of men universally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from it could they be therefore said to separate from the society He presumes they could not and from hence concludes that neither can the Reformed Churches be truly accused for making a Schisme that is separating from the Church and making themselves no members of it if all they did was as indeed it was to reforme themselves Which cases I believe any understanding man will plainly see to have in them an exact parity of Reason and that therefore the Argument drawn from them is pressing and un-answerable And it may well be suspected that you were partly of this mind otherwise you would not have so presum'd upon the simplicity of your Reader as pretending to answer it to put another of your own making in place of it and then to answer that 84 This you doe § 31. 32. of this Chapter in these words I was very glad to find you in a Monastery c. Where I beseech the Reader to observe these things to detect the cunning of your tergiversation First That you have no Reason to say That you found D. Potter in a Monastery and as little that you find him inventing waies how to forsake his vocation and to maintaine the lawfulnesse of Schisme from the Church and Apostacy from a Religious Order Certainly the innocent case put by the Doctor of a Monastery reforming it selfe hath not deserved such grievous accusations Vnlesse Reformation with you be all one with Apostacy and to forsake sinne and disorder be to forsake ones vocation And surely if it be so your vocations are not very lawfull and your Religious orders not very religious Secondly that you quite pervert and change D. Potters cases and in stead of the case of a whole Monastery reforming it selfe when other Monasteries of their Order would not and of some men freeing themselves from the common disease of their society when others would not you substitute two others which you thinke you can better deale with of some particular Monkes upon pretence of the neglect of lesser monasticall observances going out of their Monastery which Monastery yet did confessedly observe their substantiall Vowes and all Principall Statutes And of a diseased Person quitting the company of those that were infected with the same disease though in their company there was no danger from his
disease it being impossible that should be mortall and out of it no hope of escaping others like that for which he forsook the first infected Company I appeale now to any indifferent judge whether these cases be the same or neere the same with D. Potters Whether this be faire and ingenuous dealing in stead of his two instances which plainly shewed it possible in other societies and consequently in that of the Church to leave the faults of a society and not leave being of it to foist in two others clean crosse to the Doctors purpose of men under colour of faults abandoning the society wherein they lived I know not what others may think of this dealing but to me this declining D. Potters cases and conveying others into their place is a great assurance that as they were put by him you could say nothing to them 85 But that no suspicion of tergiversation may be fastned upon me I am content to deale with you a little at your own weapons Put the case then though not just as you would have it yet with as much â—avour to you as in reason you can expect That a Monastery did observe her substantiall vowes and all Principall statutes but yet did generally practise and also enjoyne the violation of some lesser yet obliging observances and had done so time out of mind And that some inferiour Monkes more conscientious then the rest discovering this abuse should first with all earnestnesse sollicite their Superiours for a generall and orderly reformation of these though small and veniall corruptions yet corruptions But finding they hop'd and labour'd in vain to effect this should reforme these faults in themselves and refuse to joyne in the practice of them with the rest of their Conâ—raternity and persisting resolutely in such a refusall should by their Superiours be cast out of their Monastery and being not to be re-admitted without a promise of remitting from their stiffenesse in these things and of condescending to others in the practice of their small faults should choose rather to continue exiles then to re-enter upon such conditions I would know whether you would condemne such men of Apostacy from the Order Without doubt if you should you would finde the streame of your Casuists against you and besides involve S. Paul in the same condemnation who plainly tels that we may not doe the least evill that we may doe the greatest good Put case again you should be part of a Society universally infected with some disease and discovering a certain remedy for this disease should perswade the whole company to make use of it but finde the greatest part of them so farre in love with their disease that they were resolved to keepe it and besides should make a decree that whosoever would leave it should leave their company Suppose now that your selfe and some few others should notwithstanding their injunction to the contrary free your selves from this disease and thereupon they should absolutely forsake and reject you I would know in this case who deserves to be condemned whether you of uncharitable desertion of your company or they of a tyrannicall peevishnesse And if in these cases you will as I verily believe you will acquit the inferiors and condemne the superiors absolve the minor part and condemne the major then can you with no reason condemne Proteâ—tants for choosing rather to be ejected from the communion of the Roman Church then with her to persist as of necessity they were to doe if they would continue in her communion in the profession of Errors though not destructive of salvation yet hindering edification and in the Practice or at least approbation of many suppose not mortall but veniall corruptions 86 Thirdly that you censure too partially the corrupt estate of your Church in comparing it to a Monastery which did confessedly observe their substantiall vowes and all Principall Statutes of their order and moreover was secured by an infallible assistance for the avoiding of all substantiall corruptions for of your Church we confesse no such matter but say plainly That she not only might fall into substantiall corruptions but did so that she did not only generally violate but of all the members of her communion either in act or approbation require and exact the violation of many substantiall lawes of Christ both Ceremoniall and Morall which though we hope it was pardonable in them who had not meanes to know their errour yet of its own nature and to them who did or might have known their errour was certainly damnable And that it was not the tything of Mint and Annise and Cummin the neglect whereof we impute unto you but the neglect of judgement justice and the weightier matters of the Law 87 Fourthly I am to represent unto you that you use Protestants very strangely in comparing them to a company who all were known to be led to their pretended reformation not with an intent of Reformation but with some other sinister intention which is impossible to be known of you and therefore to judge so is against Christian Charity and common equity and to such a Company as acknowledge that themselves as soone as they were gone out from the Monastery that deferred to reforme must not hope to be free from those or the like Errors and Corruptions for which they left their Brethren seeing this very hope and nothing else moved them to leave your Communion and this speech of yours so farre as it concernes the same errors plainly destroies itselfe For how can they possibly fall into the same errors by forsaking your Communion which that they may forsake they doe forsake your Communion And then for other errors of the like nature and quality or more enormous then yours though they deny it not possible but by their negligence and wickednesse they may fall into them yet they are so farre from acknowledging that they have no hope to avoid this mischiefe that they proclaime to all the world that it is most prone and easy to doe so to all those that feare God and love the truth and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise without supine negligence and extream impiety 88 To fit the reddition of your perverted Simile to the Proposition of it you tell us that we teach that for all fundamentall points the Church is secured from errour I Answer Fundamentall errors may signify either such as are repugnant to Gods command and so in their own nature damnable though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them not unpardonable or such as are not only meritoriously but remedilessely pernitious and destructive of Salvation We hope that yours and the Greeke other Churches before the Reformation had not so farre apostated from Christ as to be guilty of errors of the latter sort We say that not only the Catholique Church but every Particular true Church so long as it continues a Church is secur'd from Fundamentall errors of this kind but secur'd not absolutely by any
promise of divine assistance which being not ordinarily irresistible but temper'd to the nature of the Receivers may be neglected and therefore withdrawn but by the Repugnance of any errour in this sense fundamentall to the essence and nature of a Church So that to speak properly not any set known company of men is secur'd that though they neglect the meanes of avoiding error yet certainly they shall not erre which were necessary for the constitution of an infallible guide of faith But rather they which know what is meant by a Church are secur'd or rather certain that a Church remaining a Church cannot fall into fundamentall error because when it does so it is no longer a Church As they are certain that men cannot become unreasonable creatures because when they doe so they are no longer men But for fundamentall errors of the former sort which yet I hope will warrant our departure from any Communion infected with them and requiring the Profession of them from such fundamentall errors we doe not teach so much as that the Church Catholique much lesse which only were for your purpose that your Church hath any protection or security but know for a certain that many errors of this nature had prevailed against you and that a vain presumption of an absolute divine assistance which yet is promised but upon conditions made both your present errors incurable and exposed you to the imminent danger of more greater This therefore is either to abuse what we say or to impose falsely upon us what we say not And to this you presently adde another manifest falsehood viz. that we say that no particular person or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamentall Whereas crosse to this in diameter there is no Protestant but holds and must hold that there is no particular Church no nor person but hath promise of divine assistance to lead them into all necessary truth if they seeke it as they should by the meanes which God hath appointed And should we say otherwise we should contrary plain Scripture which assures us plainly that every one that seeketh findeth and every one that asketh receiveth and that if we being evill can give good gifts to our children much more shall our heavenly Father give his spirit to them that aske it and that if any man want wisdome especially spirituall wisdome he is to aske of God who giveth to all men and upbraideth not 89 You obtrude upon us thirdly That when Luther began he being but one opposed himselfe to all as well Subjects as Superiors Ans. If he did so in the cause of God it was heroically done of him This had been without hyperbolizing Mundus contra Athanasium and Athanasius contra Mundum neither is it impossible that the whole world should so farre lye in wickednesse as S. Iohn speakes that it may be lawfull and noble for one man to oppose the world But yet were we put to our oathes we should surely not testify any such thing for you for how can we say properly and without streining that he opposed himselfe to All unlesse we could say also that All opposed themselves to him And how can we say so seeing the world can witnesse that so many thousands nay millions followed his standard as soone as it was advanced 90 But none that lived immediatly before him thought or spake as he did This is first nothing to the purpose The Church was then corrupted and sure it was no dishonour to him to beginne the Reformation In the Christian warfare every man ought to strive to be foremost Secondly it is more then you can justify For though no man before him lifted up his voice like a trumpet as Luther did yet who can assure us but that many before him both thought and spake in lower voice of petitions and remonstrances in many points as he did 91 Fourthly and lastly whereas you say that many chiefe learned Protestants are forced to confesse the Antiquity of your Doctrine and Practise I Answer of many Doctrines and Practises of yours this is not true not pretended to be true by those that have dealt in this Argument Search your storehouse M. Brerely who hath travailed as farre in this Northwest discovery as it was possible for humane industry and when you have done so I pray informe me what confessions of Protestants have you for the Antiquity of the Doctrine of the Communion in one kinde the lawfulnesse and expedience of the Latine service For the present use of Indulgences For the Popes power in Temporalties over Princes For the picturing of the Trinity For the lawfulnesse of the worship of Pictures For your Beades and Rosary and Ladies Psalter and in a word for your whole worship of the B. Virgin For your oblations by way of consumption therefore in the quality of Sacrifices to the Virgin Mary other Saints For your saying of Pater-nosters Creeds to the honour of Saints and of Ave-Maries to the honour of other Saints besides the Blessed Virgin For infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome For your prohibiting the Scripture to be read publikely in the Church in such languages as all may understand For your Doctrine of the Blessed Virgins immunity from actuall sinne and for your doctrine and worship of her immaculate conception For the necessity of Auricular Confession For the necessity of the Priests Intention to obtain benefit by any of your Sacraments And lastly not to trouble my selfe with finding out more for this very doctrine of Licentiousnesse That though a man live and dye without the practise of Christian vertues and with the habits of many damnable sinnes unmortified yet if he in the last moment of life have any sorrow for his sinnes and joyne confession with it certainly he shall be saved Secondly they that confesse some of your doctrines to have been the Doctrine of the Fathers may be mistaken being abused by may words and phrases of the Fathers which have the Roman sound when they are farre from the sense Some of them I am sure are so I will name Goulartius who in his Commentaries on S. Cyprian's 35. Ep. grants that the sentence Heresies haue sprung c. quoted by you § 36. of this Chapter was meant of Cornelius whereas it will be very plain to any attentive reader that S. Cyprian speaks there of himselfe Thirdly though some Protestants confesse some of your doctrine to be Ancient yet this is nothing so long as it is evident even by the confession of all sides that many errors I instance in that of the Millenaries and the communicating of Infants were more ancient Not any antiquity therefore unlesse it be absolute and primitive is a certain signe of true Doctrine For if the Church were obnoxious to corruption as we pretend it was who can possibly warrant us that part of this corruption might not get in and prevaile in the 5. or 4. or 3. or 2. age Especially seeing the A-Apostles
assure us that the mystery of iniquity was working though more secretly eveÌ„ in their times If any man aske how could it become universall in so short a time Let him tell me how the Error of the Millenaries and the communicating of Infants became so soone universall and then he shall acknowledge what was done in some was possible in others Lastly to cry quittance with you As there are Protestants who confesse the antiquity but alwaies post-naâ—e to Apostolique of some points of your Doctrine so there want not Papists who acknowledge as freely the novelty of many of them and the Antiquity of ours A collection of whose testimony we have without thankes to you in your Indices expurgatorij The divine Providence blessedly abusing for the readier manifestation of the Truth this engine intended by you for the subversion and suppression of it Here is no place to stand upon particulars onely one generall ingenuous confession of that great Erasmus may not be pass'd over in silence Non de sunt magni Theologi qui non verentur affirmare nihil esse in Luthero quin per probatos authores defendi possit There want not great Divines which stick not to affirme that there is nothing in Luther which may not be defended by good and allowed authors Whereas therefore you close up this Simile with consider these points and see whether your similitude doe not condemne your Progenitors of Schisme from Gods visible Church I assure you I have well considered them and doe plainly see that this is not D. Potters similitude but your owne and besides that it is wholly made up of mistakes and falsehoods and is at no hand a sufficient proofe of this great Accusation 92 Let us come now to the second similitude of your making in the entrance whereunto you tell us that from the Monastery D. Potter is fled to an Hospitall of persons Vniversally infected with some disease where he findes to be true what you supposed that after his departure from his Brethren he might fall into greater inconveniences and more infectious diseases then those for which he left them Thus you But to deale truly with you I finde nothing of all this nor how it is consequent from any thing said by you or done by D. Potter But this I finde that you haue composed this your similitude as you did the former of a heap of vaine suppositions pretended to be grounded on our confessions As first that your diseases which we for sook neither were nor could be mortall whereas we assure our selves and are ready to justifie that they are and were mortall in themselves and would haue been so to us if when light came to us we had loved darknesse more then light And D. Potter though he hope your Church wanted no necessary vitall part that is that some in your Church by ignorance might bee saved yet he nothing doubts but that it is full of ulcers without and diseases within and is so far from extenuating your errours as to make them only like the superfluous fingers of the gyant of Gath. Secondly that we had no hope to avoid other diseases like those for which wee forsook your company nor to be secure out of it from damnable errors whereas the hope hereof was the only motive our departure and we assure our selves that the meanes to be secured from damnable errour is not to be secure as you are but carefully to use those means of avoiding it to which God hath promised and will never fayle to giue a blessing Thirdly that those innumerable mischiefes which followed upon the departure of Protestants were caused by it as by a proper cause whereas their doctrine was no otherwise the occasion of them then the Gospell of Christ of the division of the world The only fountaine of all these mischiefes being indeed no other then your powring out a flood of persecutions against Protestants only because they would not sin be damn'd with you for company Vnlesse wee may adde the impatience of some Protestants who not enduring to be torne in peeces like sheep by a company of wolves without resistance chose rather to dye like souldiers then Martyrs 93 But you proceed and falling into a fit of admiration cry out say thus To what passe hath Heresie brought men who blush not to compare the beloved Spouse of the Lord the only Doue c. to a Monastery that must be forsaken to the gyant in Gath with superfluous fingers but this Spouse of Christ this onely Doue this purchase of our Saviours blood this Catholique Church which you thus almost deifie what is it but a Society of men whereof every particular and by consequence the whole company is or may be guilty of many sinnes daily committed against knowledge conscience Now I would faine understand why one errour in faith especially if not fundamentall should not consist with the holinesse of this Spouse this Dove this Church as well as many and great sinnes committed against knowledge and conscience If this be not to strain at gnats and swallow camels I would fain understand what it is And hereby the way I desire you to consider whether as it were with one stroke of a sponge you doe not wipe out all that you haue said to proue Protestants Schismatiques for separating from your Church though supposed to bee in some errours not fundamentall For if any such errour may make her deserue to be compared to a Monastery so disordered that it must be forsaken then if you suppose as here you doe your Church in such errours your Church is so disordered that it must and therefore without question may be forsaken I mean in those her disorders and corruptions and no farther 94 And yet you haue not done with those similitudes But must observe you say one thing and that is that as these Reformers of the Monastery and others who left the diseased company could not deny but that they left the said communities So Luther and the rest cannot pretend not to haue left the visible Church And that D. Potter speaks very strangely wheÌ„ he saies In a society of men vniversally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from the common disease could not be therefore said to separate from the society For if they doe not separate themselues from the society of the infected persons how doe they free themselues from the common disease To which I answer That indeed if you speak of the Reformers of a Monastery and of the Deserors of the diseased company as you put the cases that is of those which left these communities then is it as true as Gospell that they cannot deny but that they left the said communities But it appeares not to me how it will ensue hereupon that Luther and the rest cannot pretend not to haue left the visible Church For to my apprehension this Argument is very weak They which left some communities cannot truly deny but
out of Principles received by them are all peremptory that though novelty be a certain note of falshood yet no antiquity lesse then Apostolicall is a certain note of truth Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend that Protestants did confesse the Fathers against them in this point For the point here issuable is not whether S. Peter were head of the Church Nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church Nor whether he had authority over it given him by the Church But whether by Divine right and by Christs appointment he were Head of the Catholique Church Now having perused Brerely I cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with you in this point And the Reader hath reason to suspect that you also out of all the Fathers could not finde any one authority pertinent to this purpose for otherwise you were much to blame citing so few to make choice of such as are impertinent For let the understanding Reader peruse the 55. Epist. of S. Cyprian with any ordinary attention out of which you take your first place and I am confident hee shall finde that he meanes nothing else by the words quoted by you But that in one particular Church at one time there ought to bee but one Bishop and that he should be obeyed in all things lawfull The non-performance whereof was one of the most ordinary causes of heresies against the Faith and Schisme from the Communion of the Church Vniversall He shall finde secondly and that by many convincing Arguments that though he write to Cornelius Bishop of Rome yet hee speaks not of him but of himselfe then Bishop of Carthage against whom a faction of Schismatiques had then set up another And therefore here your ingenuitie is to bee commended aboue many of your side For whereas they ordinarily abuse this place to prove that in the whole Church there ought to be but one Priest and one Iudge you seem somewhat diffident hereof and thereupon say that these words plainly condemne Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Vniversall or of every particular Church But whether they condemne Luther is another Question The question here is whether they plainly proue the Popes Supremacy over al other Bishops which certainly they are as far from proving as from proving the supremacy of any other Bishop seeing it is evident they were intended not of one Bishop over the whole Catholique Church but of one Bishop in one particular Church 99 And no lesse impertinent is your saying out of Optatus if it be well lookt into though at the first sight it may seem otherwise because Optatus his scene happened to be Rome whereas S. Cyprians was Carthage The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular Now Optatus going upon S. Cyprians aboue mentioned ground of one Bishop in one Church proves them Schismatiques for so doing and he proves it by this Argument S. Peter was first Bishop of Rome neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chaire understand in that Citty for in other places others I hope had Chaires besides S. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatique who against that one single Chaire erects another understand as before in that place making another Bishop of that Diocesse besides him who was lawfully elected to it 100 But yet by the way he stiles S. Peter head of the Apostles and saies that from thence he was called Cephas Ans. Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a head whereas it is a Syriack word and signifies a stone Besides S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not have supreme Authority over them And indeed that S. Peter should have authority overall the Apostles and yet exercise no one act of Authority over any one of them and that they should shew to him no signe of subjection me thinkes is as strange as that a King of England for twenty five yeares should doe no Act of Regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it As strange me thinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to doe and that the Apostles after that those words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof S. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them S. Peter was the man but rather confirme it by saying the Kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them but it should not be so among them No lesse a wonder was it that S. Paul should so farre forget S. Peter and himselfe as that first mentioning him often he should doe it without any title of Honour Secondly speaking of the severall degrees of men in the Church he should not give S. Peter the highest but place him in equipage with the rest of the Apostles and say God hath appointed not first Peter then the rest of the Apostles but first Apostles secondly Prophets Certainly if the Apostles were all first to me it is very probable that no one of them was before the rest For by First all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sense the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must have been before every one of the rest And therefore they must be First in the other sense And therefore No man and therefore not S. Peter must be before any of them Thirdly and Lastly that speaking of himselfe in particular and perhaps comparing himselfe with S. Peter in particular rather then any other he should say in plain termes I am in nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles But besides all this Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but in your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farre from shewing that in the judgement of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much lesse by divine right successor to S. Peter in this his Headship Authority For what incōgruity is there if we say that he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church Vniversall Especially seeing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundations of the
Paule and that the communion in both kindes was taught by our Saviour The twelfth and last is this that your Church was in peaceable possession you must mean of her doctrine and the Professors of it and enjoyed prescription for many ages For besides that doctrine is not a thing that may be possessed And the professors of it were the Church it selfe and in nature of possessors If we may speak improperly rather then the thing possessed with whom no man hath reason to be offended if they think fit to quit their own possession I say that the possession which the governors of your Church held for some ages of the party governed was not peaceable but got by fraude and held by violence 108 These are the Falshoods which in this answer offer themselves to any attentive Reader and that which remaines is meere impertinence As first that a pretence of conscience will not serve to iustifie separation from being Schismaticall Which is true but little to the purpose seeing it was not an erroneous perswasion much lesse an Hypocriticall pretence but a true and well grounded conviction of conscience which D. Potter alleaged to justifie Protestants from being Schismaticall And therefore though seditious men in Church and State may pretend conscience for a cloak of their rebellion yet this I hope hinders not but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience rather then the unjust commands of his tyrannous Superiours Otherwise with what colour can you defend either your own refusing the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy Or the ancient Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets who oftentimes disobeyed the commands of men in authority and for their disobedience made no other but this Apologie Wee must obey God rather then men It is therefore most apparent that this answer must be meerly impertinent seeing it will serve against the Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets even against your selues as well as against Protestants To as little purpose is your rule out of Lyrinensis against them that followed Lâ—ther seeing they pretend and are ready to justify that they forsook not with the Doctors the faith but only the corruption of the Church As vain altogether is that which follows That in cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our Superiour or cast off his obedience nor publiquely oppose his decrees From whence it will follow very evidently that seeing it is not a matter of faith but a disputed question among you whether the Oath of Allegiance be lawfull that either you acknowledge not the King your Superiour or doe against conscience in opposing his and the kingdomes decree requiring the taking of this Oath This good use I say may very fairely bee made of it and is by men of your own religion But then it is so far from being a confutation that it is rather a confirmation of D. Potters assertion For hee that useth these words doth he not plainly import and such was the case of Protestants that we are to leaue our Superiours to cast off obedience to them and publiquely to oppose their Decrees when we are certain as Protestants were that what they command God doth countermand Lastly S. Cyprians example is against Protestants impertinently and even ridiculously alleaged For what if S. Cyprian holding his opinion true but not necessary condemned no man much lesse any Church for holding the contrary Yet me thinks this should lay no obligation upon Luther to doe so likewise seeing he held his own opinions not onely true but also necessary the doctrine of the Roman Church not only false but damnable And therefore seeing the condition and state of the parties censured by S. Cyprian and Luther was so different no marvell though their censures also were different according to the supposed merit of the parties delinquent For as for your obtruding again upon us that we believe the points of difference not Fundamentall or nenessary you have been often told that it is a calumny We hold your errors as damnable in themselves as you doe ours only by accident through invincible ignorance we hope they are not unpardonable and you also professe to think the same of ours 109 Ad § 42. The former part of this discourse grounded on D. Potters words p. 105. I haue already in passing examined confuted I adde in this place 1. That though the Doctor say It is not fit for any private man to oppose his iudgement to the publique That is his own judgement and bare authority yet he denies not but occasions may happen wherein it may be very warrantable to oppose his reason or the authority of Scripture against it And is not then to be esteem'd to oppose his own judgement to the publique but the judgment of God to the judgement of men Which his following words seem to import He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason Secondly I am to tell you that you haue no ground from him to enterline his words with that interrogatory His own conceits and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture For these things are in his words opposed and not confounded and the latter not intended for a repetition as you mistake it but for an Antithesis of the former He may offer saith he his opinion to be considered of so he doe it with evidence of Scripture But if hee will factiously advance his own conceits that is say I clean contrary to your glosse Such as have not evident nor very probable ground in Scripture for these conceits are properly his own he may iustly bee branded c. Now that this of the two is the better glosse it is proved by your own interrogation For that imputes absurdity to D. Potter for calling them a mans own conceits which were grounded upon evidence of Scripture And therefore you have shewed little candour or equity in fastning upon them this absurd construction They not only bearing but even requiring another more faire and more sensible Every man ought to be presum'd to speak sense rather then non-sense coherently rather then contradictiously if his words be fairely capable of a better construction For M. Hooker if writing against Puritans he had said something unawares that might give advantage to Papists it were not inexcusable seeing it is a matter of such extreme difficulty to hold such a temper in opposing one extreme opinion as not to seem to favour the other Yet if his words be rightly consider'd there is nothing in them that will doe you any service For though he saies that men are bound to doe whatsoever the sentence of finall decision shall determine as it is plain men are bound to yeeld such an obedience to all Courts of civill judicature yet he saies not they are bound to think that determination lawfull and that sentence just Nay it is plain hee saies that they must doe according to the Iudges sentence though in their private opinion
is from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of Peter And therefore D. Potter need not to be so hot with us because we say and write that the Church of Rome in that sense as she is the Mother Church of all others and with which all the rest agree is truly called the Catholique Church S. Hierome writing to Pope Damasus saith I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter I know that the Church is built upon that Rock Whosoever shall eat the Lambe out of this house he is prophane If any shall not be in the Arke of Noe he shall perish in the time of the deluge Whosoever doth not gather with thee doth scatter that is he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist And elsewhere Which doth he call his faith That of the Roman Church Or that which is contained in the Bookes of Origen If he answer the Roman then we are Catholiques who have translated nothing of the error of Origen And yet farther Know thou that the Roman faith commended by the voice of the Apostle doth not receive these delusions though an Angell should denounce otherwise then it hath once been preached S Ambrose recounting how his Brother Satyrus inquiring for a Church wherein to give thankes for his delivery from shipwrack saith he called unto him the Bishop neither did he esteeme any favour to be true except that of the true faith and he asked of him whether he agreed with the Catholique Bishops that is with the Roman Church And having understood that he was a Schismatique that is separated from the Roman Church he abstained from communicating with him Where we see the priviledge of the Roman Church confirmed both by word and deed by doctrine and practice And the same Saint saith of the Roman Church From thence the Rights of Venerable Communion doe flow to all S. Cyprian saith They are bold to saile to the Chaire of Peter and to the principall Church from whence Priestly Vnity hath sprung Neither doe they consider that they are Romans whose faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot have accesse Where we see this holy Father joynes together the principall Church and the Chaire of Peter and affirmeth that falsehood not only hath not had but cannot have accesse to that Sea And elsewhere Thou wrotest that I should send a Coppy of the same letters to Cornelius our Collegue that laying aside all solicitude he might now be assured that thou didst Communicate with him that is with the Catholique Church What think you M. Doctor of these words Is it so strange a thing to take for one and the same thing to communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome and to communicate with the Catholique Church S. Ireneus saith Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches we declaring the Tradition and faith preached to men and comming to us by Tradition of the most great most ancient and most known Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which Tradition it hath from the Apostles comming to us by succession of Bishops we confound all those who any way either by evill complacence of theÌ„selves or vain glory or by blindnes or ill Opinion doe gather otherwise thâ— they ought For to this Church for a more powerfull Principality it is necessary that all Churches resort that is all faithfull people of what place soever in which Roman Ch. the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes been conserved from those who are every where S. Augustine saith 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 doe not overcome And in another place speaking of Caecilianus he saith He might contemne the conspiring multitude of his Enemies because he knew himselfe to be vnited by Communicatory letters both to the Roman Church in which the Principality of the Sea Apostolique did alwayes florish and to other Countries from whence the Gospell came first into Africa Ancient Tertullian saith If thou be neere Italy thou hast Rome whose Authority is neere at hand to us a happy Church into which the Apostles haue powred all Doctrine together with their blood S. Basill in a letter to the Bishop of Rome â—aith In very deed that which was given by our Lord to thy Piety is worthy of that most excellent voice which proclaimed thee Blessed to wit that thou maist discern betwixt that which is counterfeit and that which is lawfull and pure and without any diminution mayest preach the Faith of our Ancestors Maximinianus Bishop of Constantinâ—ple about twelue hundred yeares agoe said All the bounds of the earth who haue sincerely acknowledged our Lord and Catholiques through the whole world professing the true Faith look upon the power of the Bishop of Rome as upon the sunne c. For the Creator of the world amongst all men of the world elected him he speaks of S. Peter to whom he granted the Chaire of Doctour to be principally possessed by a perpetuall right of Priviledge that whosoever is desirous to know any Divine and profound thing may hauâ— recourse to the Oracle and Doctrine of this instruction Iohn Patriarck of Constantinople more then eleven hundred yeares agoe in an Epistle to Pope Hormisda writeth thus Because the beginning of salvation is to conserue the rule of right Faith and in no wise to swarue from the tradition of our fore-Fathers because the words of our Lord cannot faile saying Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church the proofes of deeds haue made good those words because in the Sea Apostolicall the Catholique Religion is alwaies conserved inviolable And again We promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred Mysteries the names of them who are excluded from the Communion of the Catholique Church that is to say who consent not fully with the Sea Apostolique Many other Authorities of the ancient Fathers might be produced to this purpose but these may serue to shew that both the Latin and Greek Fathers held for a Note of being a Catholique or an Heretique to haue been united or divided from the Sea of Rome And I haue purposely alleaged only such Authorities of Fathers as speak of the privileges of the Sea of Rome as of things permanent and depending on our Saviours promise to S Peter from which a generall rule and ground ought to be taken for all Ages because Heaven and Earth shall passe but the word of our Lord shall remain for ever So that I here conclude that seeing it is manifest that Luther and his followers divided themselues from the Sea of Rome they beare the inseparable Mark of Heresie 20 And though my meaning be not to treat the point of
Ordination or Succession in the Protestants Church because the Fathers alleaged in the last reason assigne Succession as one mark of the true Church I must not omit to say that according to the grounds of Protestants themselves they can neither pretend personall Succession of Bishops nor Succession of doctrine For whereas Succession of Bishops signifies a never-interrupted line of Persons endued with an indelible Quality which Divines call a Character which cannot be taken away by deposition degradation or other meanes whatsoever and endued also with Iurisdiction and Authority to teach to preach to govern the Church by lawes precepts censures c. Protestants cannot pretend Succession in either of these For besides that there was never Protestant Bishop before Luther and that there can be no continuance of Succession where there was no beginning to succeed they commonly acknowledge no Character and consequently must affirme that when their pretended Bishops or Priests are deprived of Iurisdiction or degraded they remain meer lay Persons as before their Ordination fulfilling what Tertullian objects as a mark of Heresie To â—ay a Priest to morrow a Lay-man For if here be no immoveable Character their power of Order must consist only in Iurisdiction and authoritie or in a kinde of morall deputation to some function which therefore may be taken away by the same power by which it was given Neither can they pretend Succession in Authority or Iurisdiction For all the Authority or Iurisdiction which they had was conferred by the Church of Rome that is by the Pope Because the whole Church collectively doth not meet to ordain Bishops or Priests or to giue them Authority But according to their own doctrine they believe that the Pope neither hath or ought to haue any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiassicall or Spirituall within this Realme which they sweare even when they are ordained Bishops Priests and Deacons How then can the Pope giue Iurisdiction where they sweare he neither hath nor OVGHT to haue any Or if yet he had how could they without Schisme withdraw themselves from his obedience Besides the Roman Church never gaue them Authority to oppose Her by whom it was given But grant their first Bishops had such Authority from the Church of Rome after the decease of those men who gaue Authority to their pretended Successours The Primate of England But from whom had he such Authority And after his decease who shall confer Authority upon his Successours The temporall Magistrate King Henry neither a Catholique nor a Protestant King Edward a Child Queen Elizabeth a Woman An Infant of one houres Age is true King in case of his Predecessours decease But shall your Church lye fallow till that Infant-King and green Head of the Church come to yeares of discretion Doe your Bishops your Hierarchy your Succession your Sacraments your being or not being Heretiques for want of Succession depend on this new-found Supremacy-doctrine brought in by such a man meerly upon base occasions and for shameful ends impugned by Calvin and his followers derided by the Christian world and even by chiefe Protestants as D. Andrewes Wotton c. not held for any necessary point of faith And from whoÌ„ I pray you had Bishops their Authority when there were no Christian Kings Must the Greeke Patriarchs receiue spirituall Iurisdiction from the Greek Turk Did the Pope by the Baptisme of Princes loose the spirituall Power he formerly had of conferring spirituall Iurisdiction upon Bishops Hath the temporall Magistrate authority to preach to assoile from sinnes to inflict excommunications and other Censures Why hath he not Power to excommunicate as well as to dispense in Irregularity as our late Soveraign Lord King Iames either dispensed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury or else gaue commission to some Bishops to doe it and since they were subject to their Primate and not he to them it is cleer that they had no Power to dispense with him but that power must proceed from the Prince as Superiour to them all and head of the Protestants Church in England If he haue no such authority how can he giue to others what himselfe hath not Your Ordination or Consecration of Bishops and Priests imprinting no Character can only consist in giving a Power Authority Iurisdiction or as I said before some kind of Deputation to exercise Episcopall or Priestly functions If then the temporall Magistrate conferres this Power c. he can nay he cannot chuse but Ordain and consecrate Bishops Priests as often as he confers Authority or Iurisdiction and your Bishops as soone as they are designed confirmed by the King must ip so facto be Ordained and Consecrated by him without intervention of Bishops or Matter and Form of Ordination Which absurdities you will bee more unwilling to grant then well able to avoid if you will be true to your own doctrines The Pope from whom originally you must beg your Succession of Bishops never received nor will nor can acknowledge to receiue any Spiriâ—uall Iurisdiction from any Temporall Prince and therefore if Iurisdiction must be derived from Princes he hath none at all and yet either you must acknowledge that hee hath true spirituall Iurisdiction or that yourselves can receiue none from him 21 Moreover this new Reformation or Reformed Church of Protestants will by them be pretended to be Catholique or Vniversall and not confined to England alone as the Sect of the Donatists was to Africa and therefore it must comprehend all the Reformed Churches in Germany Holland Scotland France c. In which number they of Germany Holland and France are not governed by Bishops nor regard any personall succession unlesse of such fat-benefiâ—ed Bishops as Nicolaus Amsfordius who was consecrated by Luther though Luther himselfe was never Bishop as witnesseth Dresserus And though Scotland hath of late admitted some Bishops I much doubt whether they hold them to be necessary or of divine Institution and so their enforced admitting of them doth not so much furnish that kingdome with personall Succession of Bishops as it doth convince them to want Succession of Doctrine since in this their neglect of Bishops they disagree both from the milder Protestants of England and the true Catholique Church And by this want of a continued personall Succession of Bishops they retaine the note of Schisme and Heresy So that the Church of Protestants must either not be Vniversall as being confined to England Or if you will needs comprehend all those Churches which want succession you must confesse that your Church doth not only communicate with Schismaticall and Hereticall Churches but is also compounded of such Churches and your selves cannot avoid the note of Schismatiques or Heretiques if it were but for participating with such hereticall Churches For it is impossible to retain Communion with the true Catholique Church and yet agree with them who are divided from her by Schisme or Heresy because that were to affirme that for the
formall Heresie Or to this To say the Visible Church is not Vniversall is properly an Heresie But the preaching of the Gospell at the beginning was not Vniversall therefore it cannot be excused from formall Heresie For as he whose Reformation is but particular may yet not denie the Resurrection so may he also not denie the Churches Vniversality And as the Apostles who preached the Gospell in the beginning did beleeve the Church Vniversall though their preaching at the beginning was not so So Luther also might and did beleeve the Church Universall though his Reformation were but particular I say he did beleeve it Vniversall even in your own sense that is Universall de iure though not defacto And as for Vniversality in fact he beleeved the Church much more Vniversall then his reformation For he did conceive as appeares by your own Allegations out of him that not only the Part reformed was the true Church but also that they were Part of it who needed reformation Neither did he ever pretend to make a new Church but to reform the old one Thirdly and lastly to the first proposition of this unsyllogisticall syllogisme I answer That to say the true Church is not alwaies defacto universall is so far from being an Heresy that it is a certaine truth knowne to all those that know the world and what Religions possesse farre the greater part of it Donatus therefore was not to blame for saying that the Church might possibly be confin'd to Africk but for saying without ground that then it was so And S. Austine as he was in the right in thinking that the Church was then extended farther then Africk so was he in the wrong if he thought that of necessity it alwaies must be so but most palpably mistakē in conceiving that it was then spread over the whole earth known to all nations which if passion did not trouble you make you forget how lately almost halfe the world was discovered and in what estate it was then found you would very easily see and confesse 15 Ad § 17. In the next Section you pretend that you have no desire to prosecute the similitude of Protestants with the Donatists and yet you doe it with as much spight and malice as could well bee devised but in vaine For Lucilla might doe ill in promoting the Sect of the Donatists and yet the Mother and the Daughter whom you glance at might doe well in ministring influence as you phrase it to Protestants in England Vnlesse you will conclude because one woman did one thing ill therefore no woman can doe any thing well or because it was ill done to promote one Sect therefore it must bee ill done to maintaine any 16 The Donatists might doe ill in calling the Chaire of Rome the Chaire of Pestilence and the Roman Church an Harlot and yet the state of the Church being altered Protestants might doe well to doe so and therefore though S. Austine might perhaps have reason to persecute the Donatists for detracting from the Church and calling her harlot when she was not so yet you may have none to threaten D. Potter that you would persecute him as the Application of this place intimates you would if it were in your power plainly shewing that you are a curst cow though your hornes be short seeing the Roman Church is not now what it was in S. Austines time And hereof the conclusion of your own book affords us a very pregnant testimony where you tell us out of Saint Austine that one grand-impediment which among many kept the seduced followers of the faction of Donatus from the Churches Communion was a vile calumny raised against the Catholiques that they did set some strange thing upon their Altar To how many saith S. Austine did the reports of ill tongues shut up the way to enter who said that we put I know not what upon the Altar Our of detestation of the calumny and just indignation against it he would not so much as name the impiety wherewith they were charged and therefore by a Rhetoricall figure calls it I know not what But compare with him Optatus writing of the same matter and you shall plainly perceive that this I know not what pretended to be set upon the Altar was indeed a picture which the Donatists knowing how detestable a thing it was to all Christians at that time to set up any Pictures in a Church to worship them as your new fashion is bruited abroad to be done in the Churches of the Catholique Church But what answer doe S. Austine and Optatus make to this accusation Doe they confesse and maintaine it Doe they say as you would now It is true we doe set Pictures upon our Altar and that not only for ornament or memory but for worship also but we doe well to doe so and this ought not to trouble you or affright you from our Communion What other answer your Church could now make to such an objection is very hard to imagine And therefore were your Doctrine the same with the Doctrine of the Fathers in this point they must have answered so likewise But they to the cōtrary not only deny the crime but abhorre and detest it To litle purpose therefore doe you hunt after these poore shadowes of resemblances between us and the Donatists unlesse you could shew an exact resemblance between the present Church of Rome and the Ancient which seeing by this and many other particulars it is demonstrated to bee impossible that Church which was then a Virgin may be now a Harlot and that which was detraction in the Donatists may be in Protestants a just accusation 17 As ill successe have you in comparing D. Potter with Tyconius whom as S. Austin findes fault with for continuing in the Donatists separation having forsaken the ground of it the Doctrine of the Churches perishing so you condemne the Doctor for continuing in their Communion who hold as you say the very same Heresy But if this were indeed the Doctrine of the Donatists how is it that you say presently after that the Protestants who hold the Church of Christ perished were worse then Donatists who said that the Church remained at least in Africa These things me thinkes hang not well together But to let this passe The truth is this difference for which you would faine raise such a horrible dissention between D. Potter and his Brethren if it be well considered is only in words and the manner of expression They affirming only that the Church perished from its integrity and fell into many corruptions which he derlies not And the Doctor denying only that it fell from its essence and became no Church at all which they affirme not 18 These therefore are but velitations and you would seeme to make but small account of them But the main point you say is that since Luthers Reformed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Luther and yet was in the Apostles time
faith had they known it necessary S. Luke especially who plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary Me thinks S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their Priviledge to them Me thinks instead of saying Your faith is spoken of all the world over which you haue no reason to be very proud of for he saies the very same thing to the Thessalonians he could not haue fayl'd to haue told them once at least in plaine termes that their faith was the Rule for all the World for ever But then sure he would haue forborn to put them in feare of an impossibility as hee doth in his eleventh Chap. that they also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not look to their standing might fall away to infidelity as the Iews had done Me thinks in all his other Epistles at least in some at least in one of them he could not have fayled to haue given the world this direction had he known it to be a true one that all men were to be guided by the Church of Rome and none to separate from it under pain of damnation Me thinks writing so often of Heretiques and Antichrist hee should haue given the world this as you pretend onely sure preservative from them How was it possible that S. Peter writing two Catholique Epistles mentioning his own departure writing to preserve Christians in the faith should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended Successours the Bishops of Route How was it possible that S. Iames and S. Iude in their Catholique Epistles should not giue this Catholique direction Me thinks S. Iohn instead of saying he that believeth that Iesus is the Christ is born of God The force of which direction your glosses doe quite enervate and make unavailable to discern who are the sonnes of God should haue said Hee that adheres to the doctrine of the Roman Church and lives according to it he is a good Christian and by this Mark yee shall know him What man not quite out of his witts if he consider as he should the pretended necessity of this doctrine that without the beliefe hereof no man ordinarily can be saved can possibly force himselfe to conceive that all these good and holy men so desirous of mens salvation and so well assured of it as it is pretended should be so deeply and affectedly silent in it and not One say it plainly so much as once but leaue it to be collected from uncertain Principles by many more uncertain consequences Certainly he that can judge so uncharitably of them it is no marvell if he censure other inferiour servants of Christs Atheists and Hypocrites and what he pleases Plain places therefore I did and had reason to look for when I heard you say the holy Scripture assignes Separation from the visible Church as a Mark of Heresie But instead hereof what haue you brought us but meer impertinencies S. Iohn saith of some who pretended to be Christians and were not so and therefore when it was for their advantage forsook their Profession They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us Of some who before the decree of the Councell to the contrary were perswaded and accordingly taught that the convert Gentiles were to keep the Law of Moses it is said in the Acts Some who went out from us And again S. Paul in the same book forewarnes the Ephesians that out of them should arise men speaking perverse things And from these places which it seems are the plainest you have you collect that separation from the Visible Church is assigned by Scripture as a Mark of Heresie Which is certainly a strang and unheard of strain of Logick Vnlesse you will say that every Text wherein it is said that some body goes out from some body affords an Argument for this purpose For the first place there is no certainty that it speaks of Heretiques but no Christians of Antichrists of such as denied Iesus to be the Christ See the place and you shall confesse as much The second place it is certain you must not say it speaks of Heretiques for it speaks only of some who beleeved and taught an Errour while it was yet a question and not evident and therefore according to your doctrine no formall Heresy The third saies indeed that of the Professours of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresy But not one of them all that saies or intimates that whosoever separates from the Visible Church in what state soever is certainly an Heretique Heretiques I confesse doe alwayes doe so But they that doe so are not alwayes Heretiques for perhaps the state of the Church may make it necessary for them to doe so as Rebels alwayes disobey the command of their King yet they which disobey a Kings command which perhaps may be unjust are not presently Rebels 21 Your Allegations out of Vincentius Prosper and Cyprian are lyable to these exceptions 1. That they are the sayings of men not assisted by the Spirit of God and whose Authoritie your selves will not submit to in all things 2. That the first and last are meerly impertinent neither of them affirming or intimating that separation from the present Visible Church is a mark of Heresy and the former speaking plainly of separation from Vniversality Consent and Antiquity which if you will presume without proof that we did and you did not you beg the Question For you know we pretend that we separated only from that present Church which had separated from the doctrine of the Ancient and because she had done so and so farre forth as she had done so and no farther And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true according to your own grounds For you say a man may be divided from the Church upon meer Schisme without any mixture of Heresy And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresy Lastly a man may be divided by an unjust excommunication and be both before and after a very good Catholique and therefore you cannot maintain it Vniversally true That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretique and Antichrist 22 In the 19. § we have the Authority of eight Fathers urg'd to prove that the separation from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of S. Peter I conceive you mean as it is the Particular Church is the mark of Heresy Which kind of argument I might well refuse to answer unlesse you would first promise me that whensoever I should produce as plain sentences of as great a number of Fathers as ancient for any doctrine whatsoever that you will subscribe to it though it fall out to be cōtrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church For I conceive nothing in the world more unequall or unreasonable then that you should presse us with
such Authorities as these and think you selves at liberty from them and that you should account them Fathers when they are for you and Children when they are against you Yet I would not you should interpret this as if I had not great assurance that it is not possible for you ever to gain this cause at the tribunall of the Fathers nay not of the Fathers whose sentences are here alleaged Let us consider them in order and I doubt not to make it appear that farre the greater part of them nay all of them that are any way considerable fall short of your purpose 23 S. Hierome you say writing to Pope Damasus saith I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter c. But then I pray consider he saith it to Pope Damasus and this will much weaken the Authority with them who know how great over-truths men usually write to one another in letters Consider againe that he saies only that he was then in Communion with the Chaire of Peter Nott hat he alwayes would or of necessity must be so for his resolution to the contrary is too evident out of that which he saith elswhere which shall be produced hereafter He saies that the Church at that present was built upon that Rock but not that only Nor that alwayes Nay his judgment as shall appeare is expresse to the contrary And so likewise the rest of his expressions if we meane to reconcile Hierome with Hierome must bee conceived as intended by him of that Bishop and Sea of Rome at that present time and in the present State and in respect of that doctrine which he there intreats of For otherwise had he conceiu'd it necessary for him and all men to conform their judgments in matters of faith to the judgment of the Bishop Church of Rome how came it to passe that he chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall upō the Authority of the Easterne Church then to reject it from the Canon upon the Authority of the Roman How comes it to passe that he dissented from the Authority of that Church touching the Canon of the Old Testament For if you say that the Church then consented with S. Hierome I feare you will loose your Fort by maintaining your Out-works and by avoyding this runne into a greater danger of being forc'd to confesse the present Roman Church opposite herein to the Ancient How was it possible that he should ever beleeue that Liberius Bishop of Rome either was or could haue been wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia and brought after two years banishment to subscribe Heresie Which Act of Liberius though some fondly question being so vain as to expect we should rather believe them that lived but yesterday thirteen hundred years almost after the thing is said to be done and speaking for themselves in their own Cause rather then the dis-interessed time-fellowes or immediate Successors of Liberius himselfe yet I hope they will not proceed to such a degree of immodesty as once to question whether S. Hierome thought so And if this cannot be denyed I demand then if he had lived in Liberius his time could he or would he have written so to Liberius as he does to Damasus would he have said to him I am in the Communion of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built upon this Rock Whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth Would he then have said the Roman faith and the Catholique were the same or that the Roman faith received no delusions no not from an Angell I suppose he could not have said so with any coherence to his own beleif and therefore conceive it undeniable that what he said then to Damasus he said it though perhaps he streyned too high only of Damasus and never conceiv'd that his words would have been extended to all his Predecessors and all his Successors 24 The same Answer I make to the first place of S. Ambrose viz. that no more can be certainly concluded from it but that the Catholique Bishops and the Roman Church were then at unity so that whosoever agreed with the latter could not then but agree with the former But that this Rule was perpetuall and that no man could ever agree with the Catholique Bishops but he must agree with the Roman Church this he saies not nor gives you any ground to conclude from him Athanasius when he was excommunicated by Liberius agreed very ill with the Roman Church and yet you will not gainsay but he agreed well enough with the Catholique Bishops The second I am uncertain what the sense of it is and what truth is in it but most certain that it makes nothing to your present purpose For it neither affirmes nor imports that separation from the Roman Church is a certain marke of Heresy For the Rights of Communion whatsoever it signifies might be said to flow from it if that Church were by Ecclesiasticall Law the head of all other Churches But unlesse it were made so by divine Authority and that absolutely Separation from it could not be a marke of Heresy 25 For S. Cyprian all the world knowes that he resolutely opposed a Decree of the Roman Bishop and all that adhered to him in the point of Re. baptizing which that Church at that time delivered as a necessary Tradition So necessary that by the Bishop of Rome Firmilianus and other Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia and generally all who persisted in the contrary opinion were therefore deprived of the Churches Communion which excōmunication could not but involve S. Cyprian who defended the same opinion as resolutely as Firmilianus though Cardinall Perron magisterially and without all colour of proofe affirme the contrary and Cyprian in particular so farre cast off as for it to be pronounc'd by Stephen a false Christ. Again so necessary that the Bishops which were sent by Cyprian from Africk to Rome were not admitted to the Communion of ordinary conference But all men who were subject to the Bishop of Romes Authority were cōmanded by him not only to deny them the Churches peace Communion but even lodging and entertainment manifestly declaring that they reckoned them among those whom S. Iohn forbids to receive to house or to say God speed to them All these terrors notwithstanding S. Cyprian holdes still his former opinion though out of respect to the Churches peace he judged no man nor cut off any man from the right of Communion for thinking otherwise then he held yet he conceived Stephen his adherents to hold a pernitious error And S. Austin though disputing with the Donatists he useth some Tergiversatiō in the point yet confesseth elsewhere that it is not found that Cyprian did ever change his opinion And so farre was he from conceiving any necessity of doing so in submitting to the judgement of the Bishop and Church of Rome that he plainly professeth that
not afraid of Giants His words are these The first instance then that Calvin alleageth against the Popes censures is taken from Eusebius a an Arrian author and from Ruffinus b enemie to the Roman Church his translator who writ c that S. IRENEVS reprehended Pope Victor for having excommunicated the Churches of Asia for the question of the day of Pasche which they observed according to a particular tradition that S. IOHN had introduced d for a time in their Provinces because of the neighbourhood of the Iewes and to bury the Synagogue with honour and not according to the universall tradition of the Apostles Irenaeus saith Calvin reprehended Pope Victor bitterly because for a light cause he had moved a great and perillous contention in the Church There is this in the text that Calvin produceth He reprehended him that he had not done well to cut off from the body of unity so many and so great Churches But against whom maketh this but e against those that obiect it for who sees not that S. IRENEVS doth not there reprehend the Pope for the f want of power but for the ill use of his power and doth not reproach to the Pope that he could not excommunicate the Asians but admonisheth him that for g so small a cause he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church Iraeneus saith Eusebius did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he should not cut off all the Churches of God which held this ancient tradition And Ruffinus translating and envenoming Eusebius saith He questioned Victor that he had not done well in cutting off from the body of unity so many and so great Churches of God And in truth how could S. IRENEUS have reprehended the Pope for want of power he that cries To the Roman Church because of a more powerfull principality that is to say as aboue appeareth h because of a principality more powerfull then the temporall or as wee have expounded other where because of a more powerful Original i it is necessary that every Church should agree And k therefore also S. IRENEVS alleageth not to Pope Victor the example of him and of the other Bishops of the Gaules assembled in a councell holden expressely for this effect who had not excommunicated the Asians nor the example of Narcissus Bishop of Ierusalem and of the Bishops of Palestina assembled in an other Councell holden expressely for the same effect who had not excommunicated them nor the example of Palmas and of the other Bishops of Pontus assembled in the same manner and for the same cause in the Region of Pontus who had not excommunicated them but only alleadges to him the example of the Popes his predecessors The Prelates saith he who have presided before Soter in the Church where thou presidest Anisius Pius Hyginus Telesphorus and Sixtus have not observed this custome c. and neverthelesse none of those that observed it have been excommunicated And yet O admirable providence of God the l successe of the after ages shewed that even in the use of his power the Popes proceeding was iust For after the death of Victor the Councels of Nicea of Constantinople and of Ephesus excommunicated again those that held the same custome with the provinces that the Pope had excommunicated and placed them in the Catalogue of heretiques under the titles of heretiques Quarto decumans But to this instance Calvins Sect doe annex two new observations the first that the Pope having threatned the Bishops of Asia to excommunicate them Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of Asia despised the Popes threats as it appeares by the answer of the same Polycrates to Pope Victor which is inserted in the writings of Eusebius and of S. IEROM and which S. IEROM seemeth to approve when he saith he reports it to shew the spirit and authority of the man And the second that when the Pope pronounced anciently his excommunications he did no other thing but separate himself from the communion of those that he excommunicated and did not thereby separate them from the universall communion of the Church To the first then we say that so farre is this Epistle of Polycrates from abating and deminishing the Popes authority that contrary wise it greatly magnifies and exalts it For although Polycrates blinded with the love of the custome of his nation which he beleeved to be grounded upon the word of God who had assigned the fourteenth of the Moneth of March for the observation of the Pasche and upon the example of S. IOHNS tradition maintaines it obstinately Neverthelesse this that he answeres speaking in his own name and in the name of the Councell of the Bishops of Asia to whom he presided I feare not those that threaten us for my elders have said it is better to obey God then man Doth it not shew that had it not been that he beleeved the Popes threat was against the expresse word of God there had been cause to feare it and he had been obliged to obey him for m who knowes not that this answer it is better to obey God then men is not to be made but to those whom we were obliged to obey if their commandements were not contrary to the commandements of God And that he adds that he had called the Bishops of Asia to a Nationall Councell being n summoned to it by the Pope doth it not insinuate that the other Councels whereof Eusebius speaks that were holden about this matter through all the provinces of the Earth and particularly that of Palestina which if you beleeve the act that Beda said came to his hands Theophilus Archbishop of Cesarea had called by the auctority of Victor were holden at the instance of the Pope and consequently that the Pope was the first mover of the universall Church And that the Councels of Nicea of Constantinople of Ephesus embraced the censure of Victor and excommunicated those that observed the custome of Polycrates doth it not prove that it was not the Pope but o Polycrates that was deceived in beleeving that the Popes cōmandement was against Gods commandement And that S. IEROM himselfe celebrates the Paschall Homelies of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria which followed the order of Nicea concerning the Pasche Doth it not iustifie that when S. IEROM saith that he reports the Epistle of Polycrates to shew the spirit and authority of the man he intends by authority not authority of right but of fact that is to say the credit that Polycrates had amongst the Asians and other Quarto decimans These are the Cardinall words The most materiall and considerable passages whereof to save the trouble of repetition I have noted with letters of reference whereunto my answers noted respectively with the same letters follow now in order a If Eusebius were an Arrian author It is nothing to the purpose what he writes there is no Arrianisme
the Popes proceedings just but rather the contrary For though they setled an uniformity in this matter yet they setled it as a matter formerly indifferent not as a matter of faith or necessity as it is evident out of Athanasius consequently they rather declare Victors proceeding unjust who excommunicated so many Churches for differing from him in an indifferent matter m It seemes then Polycrates might be a Saint and a Martyr and yet think the commands of the Roman Church enjoyned upon pain of damnation contrary to the commandements of God Besides S. Peter himselfe the head of the Church the Vicar of Christ as you pretend made this very answer to the High Priest yet I hope you will not say he was his inferior and obliged to obey him Lastly who sees not that when the Pope commandes us any thing unjust as to communicate Lay men in one kinde to use the Latine service we may very fitly say to him it is better to obey God then men and yet never think of any authority he hath over us n Between requesting and summoning methinkes there should be some difference and Polycrates saies no more but that hee was requested by the Church of Rome to call them and did so Here then as very often the Cardinall is faine to help the dice with a false translation and his pretence being false every one must see that that which he pretends to be insinuated by it is cleerely inconsequent o Polycrates was deceived if he believed it to be against Gods commandement and the Pope deceived as much in thinking it to be Gods commandement for it was neither the one nor the other but an indifferent matter wherein God had not interposed his Authority Neither did the Councell of Nice embrace the censure of Victor by acknowledging his Excommunication to be just and well grounded for which the Cardinall neither doth pretend nor can produce any proofe any way comparable to the fore-alleaged words of Athanasius testifying the contrary though peradventure having setled the observation and reduced it to an uniformity they might excommunicate those who afterward should trouble the Churches peace for an indifferent matter And thus much for Irenaeus 31 I come now to S. Austine and to the first place out of him where he seemes to say that the Succession in the Sea of Peter was the Rock which our Saviour meant when he said upon this Rock c. I answer first we have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof because S. Austine himselfe was not but retracts it as uncertain leaves to the Reader whether he will think that or another more probable Retr l. 1. c. 26. Secondly what he saies of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place he saies it else where of all the Successions in all other Apostolique Churches Thirdly that as in this place he urgeth the Donatists with separation from the Roman Church as an argument of their Error So elsewhere he presseth them with their Separation from other Apostolique Churches nay more from these then from that because in Rome the Donatists had a Bishop though not a perpetuall Succession of them but in other Apostolique Churches they wanted both These scatter'd men saith he of the Donatists Epist. 165. read in the holy bookes the Churches to which the Apostles wrote and have no Bishop in them But what is more perverse and mad then to the Lectors reading these Epistles to say Peace with you and to separate from the peace of these Churches to which these Epistles were written So Optatus having done you as it might seeme great service in upbraiding the Donatists as Schismatiques because they had not Communion with the Church of Rome overthrowes and undoes it all againe and as it were with a spunge wipes out all that he had said for you by adding after that they were Schismatiques because They had not the fellowship of Cōmunion with the seven Churches of Asia to which S. Iohn writes whereof he pronounces confidently though I know not upon what ground 〈◊〉 septem Ecclesias quicquid for is est alienum est Now I pray tell me doe you esteeme the Authority of these Fathers a sufficient assurance that separation from these other Apostolique Churches was a certain marke of Heresy or not If so then your Church hath been for many Ages hereticall If not how is their authority a greater argument for the Roman then for the other Churches If you say they conceived separation from these Churches a note of Schisme only when they were united to the Roman so also they might conceive of the Roman only when it was united to them If you say they urg'd this only as a probable and not as a certain Argument so also they might doe that In a word whatsoever answer you can devise to shew that these Fathers made not separation from these other Churches a mark of Heresy apply that to your own Argument and it will be satisfied 32 The other place is evidently impertinent to the present question nor is there in it any thing but this That Caecilian might contemne the multitude of his adversaries because those that were united with him were more and of more account then those that were against him Had he preferr'd the Roman Church alone before Caecilians enemies this had been litle but something but when other Countries from which the Gospell came first into Africa are joyned in this Patent with the Church of Rome how she can build any singular priviledge upon it I am yet to learne Neither doe I see what can be concluded from it but that in the Roman Church was the Principality of an Apostolique Sea which no man doubts or that the Roman Church was not the Mother Church because the Gospell came first into Africa not from her but from other Churches 33 Thus you see his wordes make very litle or indeed nothing for you But now his Action which according to Cardinall Perrons rule is much more to be regarded then his words as not being so obnoxious to misinterpretatiō I mean his famous opposition of three Bishops of Rome in succession touching the great question of Appeales wherein he and the rest of the African Bishops proceeded so farre in the first or second Milevitan Councell as to decree any African Excommunicate that should appeale to any man out of Africk and therein continued resolute unto death I say this famous Action of his makes cleerely and evidently and infinitely against you For had Boniface and the rest of the African Bishops a great part whereof were Saints and Martyrs believed as an Article of faith that Vnion and Conformity with the doctrine of the Roman Church in all things which she held necessary was a certain note of a good Catholique and by Gods command necessary to Salvation how was it possible they should have opposed it in this Vnlesse you will say they were all so foolish as to believe at once
is still to believe them and as he did hold so he is still to hold them Thus he subioyning more to the same purpose in the next and again in the 26. Chapter and in his third book De Bapt. contr Donat. cap. ult and upon Psal. 64. But now this reason seems to perswade the contrary Because the formall obiect of faith seemes to be the first verity as it is manifested by the Churches Doctrine as the Divine and infallible Rule wherefore whosoever adheres not to this Rule although he assent to some matters of faith yet he embraces them not with faith but with some other kinde of assent as if a man assent to a conclusion not knowing the reason by which it is demonstrated he hath not true knowledge but an opinion only of the same conclusion Now that an Heretique adheres not to the râ—le aforesaid it is manifest Because if he did adhere to it as divine and infallible he would receive all without exception which the Church teacheth and so would not be an Heretique After this manner discourseth S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 5. art 3. From whom yet Dur and dissents upon this distinction thinking there may be in an Heretique true faith in respect of the Articles in which he doth not erre Others as Scotus and Bonaventure define not the matter plainly but seeme to choose a middle way To the authority of S. Austine and these Schoolemeâ— this may be adjoyned That it is usuall with good Christians to say that Heretiques have not the entire faith Whereby it seemes to be intimated that some part of it they doe retaine Whereof this may be another reason That if the truths which a Iew or a Heretique holds he should not hold them by faith but after some other manner to wit by his own proper will and judgement it will follow that all that excellent knowledge of God and divine things which is found in them is to be attributed not to the grace of God but the strength of Free will which is against S. Austine both elsewhere and especially in the end of his book De potentia As for the reason alleaged to the contrary We answer It is impertinent to faith by what meanes we believe the prime Verity that is by what meanes God useth to conferre upon men the gift of Faith For although now the ordinary meanes be the Testimony and teaching of the Church yet it is certain that by other meanes faith hath been given heretofore and is given still For many of the Ancients as Adam Abraham Melchisedeck Iob received faith by speciall revelation the Apostles by the Miracles and Preaching of Christ others again by the Preaching and miracles of the Apostles and Lastly others by other meanes when as yet they had heard nothing of the infallibility of the Church to little Children by Baptisme without any other help faith is infus'd And therefore it is possible that a man not adhering to the Churches doctrine as a Rule infallible yet may receive some things for the word of God which doe indeed truly belong to the faith either because they are now or heretofore have been confirm'd by miracles Or because he manifestly sees that the ancient Church taught so or upon some other inducement And yet neverthelesse we must not say that Heretiques and Iewes doe hold the Faith but only some part of the Faith For the Faith signifies an entire thing and compleat in all parts whereupon an Heretique is said to be simply an Infidell to have lost the Faith and according to the Apostle 1. Tim. 1. to have made shipwrack of it although he holds some things with the same strength of assent and readinesse of will wherewith by others are held all those points which appertaine to the Faith And thus farre Estius Whose discourse I presume may passe for a sufficient refutation of your argumeÌ„t out of Aquinas And therefore your Corollaries drawn from it That every error against faith involves opposition against Gods testimony That Protestants have no Faith no certainty and that you have all Faith must together with it fall to the ground 50 But if Protestants have certainty they want obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing This argument you prosecute in the next Paragraph But I can find nothing in it to convince or perswade me that Protestants cannot have as much certainty as is required to faith of an object not so evident as to beget science If obscurity will not consist with certainty in the highest degree then you are to blame for requiring to faith contradicting conditions If certainty and obscurity will stand together what reason can be imagin'd that a Protestant may not entertain them both as well as a Papist Your bodies souls your understandings and wills are I think of the same condition with ours And why then may not we be certain of an obscure thing as well as you And as you made this long discourse against Protestants why may not wee putting Church instead of Scripture send it back again to you And say If Papists have certainty they want obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or not necessitating our understanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the faith of Papists is setled on these two principles These particular propositions are the propositions of the Church And the sense and meaning of them is clear and evident at least in all points necessary to salvation Now these principles being one suppos'd it clearly followeth that what Papists beleeve as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true by this argument It is certain and evident that whatsoever is the word of God or Divine Revelation is true But it is certain and evident that these propositions of the Church in particular are the word of God and Divine Revelations therefore it is certain and evident that all propositions of the Church are true Which Conclusion I take for a Major in a second argument and say thus It is certain and evident that all propositions of the Church are true But it is certain and evident that such particulars for example The lawfulnesse of the halfe Communion The lawfulnesse and expedience of Latine Service the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Indulgences c. are the Propositions of the Church therefore it is certain and evident that these particular objects are true Neither will it avail you to say that the said principles are not evident by naturall discourse but only by the eye of reason clear'd by grace For supernaturall evidence no lesse yea rather more drowns and excludes obscurity then naturall evidence doth Neither can the Partie so enlightned be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light but rather his understanding is by necessity made captive and forc'd not to disbeleeve what is presented by so clear a light And therefore your imaginary faith is not the
wisdome to forsake ancient errours for more ancient Truths One God is rather to be follow'd then innumerable worlds of men And therefore it might be great wisdome either for the whole Visible Church nay for all the men in the world having wandred from the way of Truth to return unto it or for a part of it nay for one man to doe so although all the world besides were madly resolute to doe the contrary It might be great wisdome to forsake the errors though of the only Visible Church much more the Roman which in conceiving her self the whole Uisible Church does somewhat like the Frog in the Fable which thought the ditch he liv'd in to be all the world 54 You demand again What wisdome was it to forsake a Church acknowledg'd to want nothing necessary to Salvation indued with Succession of Bishops c usque ad Election or Choice I answer Yet might it be great wisdome to forsake a Church not acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation but accused and convicted of many damnable errors certainly damnable to them who were convicted of them had they still persisted in them after their conviction though perhaps pardonable which is all that is acknowledg'd to such as ignorantly continued in them A Church vainly arrogating without possibility of proof a perpetuall Succession of Bishops holding alwaies the same doctrine and with a ridiculous impudence pretending perpetuall possession of all the world whereas the world knows that a litle before Luthers arising your Church was confined to a part of a part of it Lastly a Church vainly glorying in the dependance of other Churches upon her which yet she supports no more then those crouching Anticks which seeme in great buildings to labour under the weight they beare doe indeed support the Fabrick For a corrupted and false Church may give authority to preach the truth and consequently against her own falshoods and corruptions Besides a false Church may preserve the Scripture true as now the Old Testament is preserved by the Iewes either not being arriv'd to that height of impiety as to attempt the corruption of it or not able to effect it or not perceiving or not regarding the opposition of it to her corruptions And so we might receive from you lawfull Ordination and true Scriptures though you were a false Church and receiving the Scriptures from you though not from you alone I hope you cannot hinder us neither need wee aske your leave to believe and obey them And this though you be a false Church is enough to make us a true one As for a Succession of men that held with us in all points of Doctrine it is a thing we need not and you have as litle as we So that if we acknowledge that your Church before Luther was a true Church it is not for any ends for any dependance that we have upon you but because we conceive that in a charitable construction you may passe for a true Church Such a Church and no better as you doe sometimes acknowledge Protestants to be that is a Company of men wherein some ignorant soules may be saved So that in this ballancing of Religion against Religion and Church against Church it seemes you have nothing of weight and moment to put into your scale nothing but smoak and winde vaine shadowes and phantasticall pretences Yet if Protestants on the other side had nothing to put in their Scale but those negative commendations which you are pleas'd to afford them nothing but no unity nor meanes to procure it no farther extent when Luther arose then Luthers body no Vniversality of time or place no visibility or being except only in your Church no Succession of persons or doctrine no leader but Luther in a quarrell begun upon no ground but passion no Church no Ordination no Scriptures but such as they receiv'd from you if all this were true and this were all that could be pleaded for Protestants possibly with an allowance of three graines of partiality your Scale might seem to turne But then if it may appear that part of these objections are falsely made against them the rest vainely that whatsoever of truth is in these imputations is impertinent to this triall and whatsoever is pertinent is untrue and besides that plenty of good matter may be alleaged for Protestants which is here dissembled Then I hope our cause may be good notwithstanding these pretences 55 I say then that want of Vniversality of time place The invisibility or not existence of the professors of Protestant Doctrine before Luther Luthers being alone when he first opposed your Church Our having our Church Ordination Scriptures personall and yet not doctrinall Succession from you are vain and impertinent allegations against the truth of our Doctrine and Church That the entire truth of Christ without any mixture of error should be professed or believed in all places at any time or in any place at all times is not a thing evident in reason neither have we any Revelation for it And therefore in relying so confidently on it you build your house upon the sand And what obligation we had either to be so peevish as to take nothing of yours or so foolish as to take all I doe not understand For whereas you say that this is to be choosers and therefore Heretiques I tell you that though all Heretiques are choosers yet all choosers are not Heretiques otherwise they also which choose your Religion must be Heretiques As for our wanting Vnity and Meanes of proving it Luthers opposing your Church upon meere passion our following private men rather then the Catholique Church the first and last are meere untruths for we want not Vnity nor Meanes to procure it in things necessary Plain places of Scripture and such as need no interpreter are our meanes to obtaine it Neither doe we follow any private men but only the Scripture the word of God as our rule and reason which is also the gift of God given to direct us in all our actions in the use of this rule And then for Luthers opposing your Church upon meere passion it is a thing I will not deny because I know not his heart and for the same reason you should not have affirmed it Sure I am whether he opposed your Church upon reason or no he had reason enough to oppose it And therefore if he did it upon passion we will follow him only in his action and not in his passion in his opposion not in the manner of it and then I presume you will have no reason to condemne us unlesse you will say that a good action cannot be done with reason because some body before us hath done it upon passion You see then how imprudent you have been in the choice of your arguments to prove Protestants unwise in the choice of their Religion 56 It remaines now that I should shew that many reasons of moment may bee alleaged for the justification of
Pictures to picture the Trinity to invocate Saints and Angels to deny Law-men the Cup in the Sacrament to adore the Sacrament to prohibite certain Orders of men and woemen to marry to celebrate the publique service of God in a language which the assistants generally understand not and you will not choose but confesse that in all these you are on the more dangerous side for the committing of sin and we on that which is more secure For in all these things if we say true you doe that which is impious on the other side if you were in the right yet we might be secure enough for we should only not doe something which you confesse not necessary to be done We pretend and are ready to justifie out of principles agreed upon between us that in all these things you violate the manifest commandements of God and alleage such texts of Scripture against you as if you would weigh them with any indifference would put the matter out of question but certainly you cannot with any modesty deny but that at least they make it questionable On the other side you cannot with any face pretend and if you should know not how to goe about to proue that there is any necessity of doing any of these things that it is unlawfull not to worship pictures not to picture the Trinity not to invocate Saints Angels not to giue all men the entire Sacrament not to adore the Eucharist not to prohibite marriage not to celebrate divine service in an unknown tongue I say you neither doe nor can pretend that there is any law of God which enjoynes us no nor so much as an Evangelicall Counsell that advises us to doe any of these things Now where no law is there can be no sin for sin is the transgression of the law It remaines therefore that our forbearing to doe these things must be free from all danger suspicion of sin whereas your acting of them must be if not certainly impious without all contradiction questionable and dangerous I conclude therefore that which was to be concluded that if the safer way for avoiding sin be also as most certainly it is the safer way for avoiding damnation then certainly the way of Protestants must bee more safe and the Roman way more dangerous You will say I know that these things being by your Church concluded lawfull we are obliged by God though not to doe yet to approue them at least in your iudgement we are so and therefore our condition is as questionable as yours I answer The Authority of your Church is no common principle agreed upon between us and therefore upon that you are not to dispute against us We might presse you with our judgement as well and as justly as you doe us with yours Besides this very thing that your Church hath determin'd these things lawfull and commanded the approbation of them is that whereof she is accused by us and we maintain you haue done wickedly or at least very dangerously in so determining because in these very determinations you haue forsaken that way which was secure from sinne and haue chosen that which you cannot but know to be very questionable and doubtfull consequently haue forsaken the safe way to heaven and taken a way which is full of danger And therefore although if your obedience to your Church were questioned you might fly for shelter to your Churches determinations yet when these very determinations are accused me thinks they should not be alleag'd in defence of themselues But you will say your Church is infallible therefore her determinations not unlawfull Ans. They that accuse your Church of error you may be sure doe question her infallibility shew therefore where it is written that your Church is infallible and the dispute will be ended But till you doe so give mee leaue rather to conclude thus your Church in many of her determinations chooses not that way which is more secure from sin and therefore not the safest way to salvation then vainly to imagine her infallible and there upon to belieue though she teach not the securest way to avoid sin yet shee teaches the certainst way to obtain salvation 10 In the close of this Number you say as followes If it may appeare though not certain yet at least probable that Protestancy unrepented destroies salvation and withall that there is a safer way it will follow that they are obliged by the law of Charity to that safe way Ans. Make this appear and I will never perswade any man to continue a Protestant for if I should I should perswade him to continue a fool But after all these prolix discourses still we see you are at If it may appeare From whence without all Ifs and An ds that appeares sufficiently which I said in the beginning of the Chapter that the foure first Paragraphs of this Chap. are wholly spent in an unnecessary introduction unto that which never by any man in his right wits was denied That men in wisdome and charity to themselves are to take the safest way to eternall salvation 11 Ad § 5. In the fift you begin to make some shew of arguing tells us that Protestants haue reason to doubt in what case they stand from what you have said about the Churches universall infallibility of her being Iudge of Controversies c. Ans. From all that which you haue said they have reason only to conclude that you haue nothing to say They haue as much reason to doubt whether there can bee any Motion from what Zeno saies in Aristotles Physicks as to doubt from what you haue said whether the Roman Church may possibly erre For this I dare say that not the weakest of Zeno's arguments but is stronger then the strongest of yours and that you would be more perplext in answering any one of them then I haue been in answering all yours You are pleas'd to repeat two or three of them in this Section and in all probability so wise a man as you are if he would repeat any would repeat the best and therefore if I desire the Reader by these to judge of the rest I shall desire but ordinary justice 12 The first of them being put into form stands thus Every least errour in faith destroies the nature of faith It is certain that some Protestants doe erre and therefore they want the substance of Faith The Major of which Syllogisme I haue formerly confuted by unanswerable argumēts out of one of your own best Authors who shewes plainly that he hath amongst you as strange as you make it many other abettors Besides if it were true it would conclude that either you or the Dominicans haue no faith in as much as you oppose one another as much as Arminians and Calvinists 13 The second Argument stands thus Since all Protestants pretend the like certainty it is clear that none of them haue any certainty at all Which argument if it were good then what
it and call it an argument of his own a wise argument a wise demand and then aske of him what he thinkes of it being fram'd thus Our Religion is safe even by your confession and therefore you ought to grant that all may embrace it And yet farther thus Among different Religions one only can be safe But yours by our own confession is safe where as you hold that in ours there is no hope of salvation therefore we ought to embrace yours Ans. I have advised with him am to tell you froÌ„ him that he thinks reasonable well of the arguments but very ill of him that makes them as affirming so often without shame and conscience what he cannot but know to be plainly false and his reason is because he is so farre from confessing or giving you any ground to pretend he does confesse that your Religion is safe for all that are of it from whence only it will follow that all may safely embrace it that in this very place from which you take these words he professeth plainly that it is extreamly dangerous if not certainly damnable to all such as professe it when either they doe or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinat might believe the contrary and that for us whâ— are convinc'd in conscience that she the Româ—â— Church erres in many things it lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors And though here you take upon you a shew of great rigour and will seem to hold that in our way there is no hope of Salvation yet formerly you have been more liberall of your charity towards us and will needs vye and contend with D. Potter which of the two shall be more Charitable assuring us that you allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter spares you for whom he makes Ignorance the best hope of Salvation And now I appeale to any indifferent reader whether our disavowing to confesse you free from damnable error were not as I pretend a full confutation of all that you say in these five foregoing Paragraphs And as for you I wonder what answer what evasion what shift you can devise to cleere your selfe from dishonesty for imputing to him almost a hundred times this acknowledgment which he never makes but very often and that so plainly that you take notice of it professeth the contrary 29 The best defence that possibly can be made for you I conceive is this that you were led into this error by mistaking a supposition of a confession for a confession a Rhetoricall concession of the Doctors for a positive assertion He saies indeed of your errors Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which believe as they professe yet for us to professe what we believe not were without question damnable But to say Though your errors be not damnable we may not professe them is not to say your errors are not damnable but only though they be not As if you shoul say though the Church erre in points not fundamentall yet you may not separate from it Or though we doe erre in believing Christ really present yet our error frees us from Idolatry Or as if a Protestant should say Though you doe not commit Idolatry in adoring the Host yet being uncertain of the Priests Intention to consecrate at least you expose yourselfe to the danger of it I presume you would not think it fairely done if any man should interpret either this last speech as an acknowledgemeÌ„t that you doe not commit Idolâ—try or the former as confessions that you doe erre in points not fundamentall that you doe erre in believing the reall presence And therefore you ought not so to have mistaken D. Potters words as if he had confessed the errors of your Church not damnable when he saies no more but this Though they be so or suppose or put the case they be so yet being errors we that know them may not professe them to be divine truths Yet this mistake might have been pardonable had not D. Potter in many places of his book by declaring his judgement touching the quality and malignity of your errors taken away from you all occasion of error But now that he saies plainly That your Church hath many waies played the Harlot and in that regard deserv'd a Bill of divorce from Christ and the detestation of Christians p. 11. That for that Masse of Errors and abuses in judgement and practice which is proper to her and wherein she differs from us we judge a reconciliation impossible and to us who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions damnable pag. 20. That Popery is the contagion or plague of the Church p. 60. That we cannot we dare not communicate with her in her publique Liturgy which is manifestly polluted with drosse of Superstition p. 68. That they who in former ages dyed in the Church of Rome died in many sinfull errors p. 78. That they that have understanding and means to discover their errors and neglect to use them he dares not flatter them with so easy a censure as to give them hope of salvation p. 79. That the way of the Roman Religion is not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as professe it when they believe or if their hearts were upright and not perversely obstinate might believe the contrary p. 79. That your Church is but in some sense a true Church and your errors only to some men not damnable that we who are convinc'd in conscience that she erres in many things are under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors Seeing I say he saies all this so plainly and so frequently certainly your charging him falsely with this acknowledgement and building a great part not only of your discourse in this Chapter but of your whole book upon it possibly it may be palliated with some excuse but it can no way be defended with any just apology Especially seeing you your selfe more then once or twice take notice of these his severer censures of your Church and the errors of it and make your advantage of them In the first number of your first Chapter you set down three of the former places and from thence inferre That as you affirme Protestancy unrepented destroies Salvation so D. Potter pronounces the like heavy doome against Roman Catholiques and again § 4. of the same Chap. We allow Protestants as much charity as D. Potter spareâ— us for whom he makes ignorance the best hope of salvation And c. 5. § 41. you have these words It is very strange that you iudge us extreamly uncharitable in saying Protestants cannot be saved while your selfe avouch the same of all Learned Catholiques whom Ignorance cannot excuse Thus out of the same mouth you blow hot and cold and one while when it is for your purpose you professe D. Potter censures your errors as heavily as you doe ours which is very true for he gives hope
Doctrine of these Protestants taken altogether is not a Doctrine of Liberty not a Doctrine that turnes hope into presumptioÌ„ and carnall security though it may justly be feared that many licentious persons taking it by halfes have made this wicked use of it For my part I doe heartily wish that by publique Authority it were so ordered that no man should ever preach or print this Doctrine that Faith alone justifies unlesse he joynes this together with it that universall obedience is necessary to salvation And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by faith without the works of the Law were never read in the Church but when the 13. Chap. of the 1. Epist. to the Corinth concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read together with them 33 Whereas you say that some Protestants doe expresly affirme the former point to be the soule of the Church c. and that therefore they must want the Theologicall vertue of Hope and that none can have true hope while they hope to be saved in their Communion I Ans. They have great reason to believe the Doctrine of Iustification by faith only a Point of great weight and importance if it be rightly understood that is they have reason to esteeme it a principall and necessary duty of a Christian to place his hope of justification and salvation not in the perfection of his own righteousnesse which if it be imperfect will not justify but only in the mercies of God through Christs satisfaction and yet notwithstanding this nay the rather for this may preserve themselves in the right temper of good Christians which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and feare If this Doctrine be otherwise expounded then I have here expounded I will not undertake the justification of it only I will say that which I may doe truly that I never knew any Protestant such a soli-fidian but that he did believe these divine truths That he must make his calling certain by good workes That he must work out his salvation with Fear and Trembling and that while he does not so he can have no well-grounded hope of Salvation I say I never met with any who did not believe these divine Truths and that with a more firme and a more unshaken assent then he does that himselfe is predestinate and that he is justified by believing himselfe justified I never met with any such who if he saw there were a necessity 〈◊〉 doe either would not rather forgoe his beliefe of these Doctrines then the former these which he sees disputed and contradicted and opposed with a great multitude of very potent Arguments then those which being the expresse words of Scripture whosoever should call into question could not with any modesty pretend to the title of Christian. And therefore there is no reason but we may believe that their full assurance of the former Doctrines doth very well qualify their perswasion of the latter and that the former as also the lives of many of them doe sufficiently testify are more effectuall to temper their hope and to keep it at a stay of a filiall and modest assurance of Gods favour built upon the conscience of his love and fear then the latter can be to swell and puffe them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption This reason joyn'd with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men of this opinion is a sufficient ground for Charity to hope well of their hope and to assure our selves that it cannot be offensive but rather most acceptable to God if notwithstanding this diversity of opinion we embrace each other with the strict embraces of love communion To you and your Church we leave it to separate Christians from the Church and to proscribe them from heaven upon triviall and trifling causes As for our selves we conceive a charitable judgement of our Brethren and their errors though untrue much more pleasing to God then a true judgement if it be uncharitable and and therefore shall alwaies choose if we doe erre to erre on the milder and more mercifull part and rather to retain those in our Communion which deserve to be ejected then eject those that deserve to be retain'd 34 Lastly whereas you say that seeing Protestants differ about the point of Iustification you must needs inferre that they want Vnity in faith and consequently all faith and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamentall I Answer to the first of these inferences that as well might you inferre it upon Victor Bishop of Rome and Poliâ—rates upon Stephen Bishop of Rome and S. Cyprian in as much as it is indeniably evident that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation the other esteemed not so But points of Doctrine as all other things are as they are and not as they are esteemed neither can a necessary point be made unnecessary by being so accounted nor an unnecessary point be made necessary by being overvalued But as the ancient Philosophers whose different opinions about the soule of man you may read in Aristotle de Anima and Cicero's Tusculan Questions notwithstanding their divers opinions touching the nature of the soule yet all of them had soules and soules of the same nature Or as those Physitians who dispute whether the braine or heart be the principall part of a man yet all of them have braines and have hearts and herein agree sufficiently So likewise though some Protestants esteeme that Doctrine the soule of the Church which others doe not so highly value yet this hinders not but that which is indeed the soule of the Church may be in both 〈◊〉 of them and though one account that a necessary truth which 〈◊〉 account neither necessary nor perhaps true yet this notwithstanding in those truths which are truly really necessary they may all agree For no Argument can be more sophisticall then this They differ in some points which they esteeme necessary Therefore they differ in some that indeed and in truth are so â—35 Now as concerning the other inference That they cannot agree what points are fundamentall I have said and prov'd formerly that there is no such necessity as you imagin or pretend that men should certainly know what is and what is not fundamentall They that believe all things plainly delivered in Scripture believe all things fundamentall and are at sufficient Vnity in matters of faith though they cannot precisely and exactly distinguish between what is fundamentall and what is profitable nay though by error they mistake some vaine or perhaps hurtfull opinions for necessary and fundamentall Truths Besides I have shewed above that as Protestants doe not agree for you overreach in saying they cannot touching what points are fundamentall so neither doe you agree what points are defin'd so to be accounted and what are not nay nor concerning the subject in which God hath placed this pretended
true faith defined by the Apostle but an invention of your own 51 And having thus cryed quittance with you I must intreat you to devise for truly I cannot some answer to this argument which will not serve in proportion to your own For I hope you will not pretend that I have done you injurie in setling your faith upon principles which you disclaim And if you alleage this disparity That you are more certain of your principles then we of ours and yet you doe not pretend that your principles are so evident as we doe that ours are what is this to say but that you are more confident then we but confesse you have lesse reason for it For the evidence of the thing assented to be it more or lesse is the reason and cause of the assent in the understanding But then besides I am to tell you that you are here as every where extremely if not affectedly mistaken in the Doctrine of Protestants who though they acknowledge that the things which they beleeve are in themselves as certain as any demonstrable or sensible verities yet pretend not that their certainty of adherence is most perfect and absolute but such as may be perfected and increas'd as long as they walke by faith and not by sight And consonant hereunto is their doctrine touching the evidence of the objects whereunto they adhere For you abuse the world them if you pretend that they hold the first of your two principles That these particular Books are the word of God for so I think you mean either to be in it self evidently certain or of it self and being devested of the motives of credibility evidently credible For they are not so fond as to be ignorant nor so vain as to pretend that all men doe assent to it which they would if it were evidently certain nor so ridiculous as to imagine that if an Indian that never heard of Christ or Scripture should by chance find a Bible in his own Language and were able to read it that upon the reading it hee would certainly without a miracle beleeve it to bee the word of God which he could not chuse if it were evidently credible What then doe they affirm of it Certainly no more then this that whatsoever man that is not of a perverse mind shall weigh with serious and mature deliberation those great moments of reason which may incline him to beleeve the Divine authority of Scripture and compare them with the light objections that in prudence can be made against it he shall not chuse but find sufficient nay abundant inducements to yeeld unto it firme faith and syncere obedience Let that learned man Hugo Grotius speake for all the Rest in his Booke of the truth of Christian Religion which Book whosoever attentively peruses shall find that a man may have great reason to be a Christian without dependance upon your Church for any part of it and that your Religion is no foundation but rather a scandall and an objection against Christianity He then in the last Chapter of his second book hath these excellent words If any be not satisfied with these arguments above-said but desires more forcible reasons for confirmation of the excellency of Christian Religion let such know that as there are variety of things which be true so are there divers waies of proving or manifesting the truth Thus is there one way in Mathematicks another in Physicks a third in Ethicks and lastly another kind when a matter of fact is in question wherein verily we must rest content with such testimonies as are free from all suspition of untruth otherwise down goes all the frame and use of history and a great part of the art of Physick together with all dutifulnesse that ought to be between parents and children for matters of practice can no way else be known but by such testimonies Now it is the pleasure of Almighty God that those things which he would have us to beleeve so that the very beleef thereof may be imputed to us for obedience should not so evidently appear as those things which are apprehended by sense and plaine demonstration but only be so farre forth revealed as may beget faith and a perswasion thereof in the hearts and minds of such as are not obstinate That so the Gospell may be as a touchstone for triall of mens judgments whether they be sound or unsound For seeing these arguments whereof we have spoken have induced so many honest godly and wise men to approve of this Religion it is thereby plain enough that the fault of other mens infidelity is not for want of sufficient testimony but because they would not have that to be had and embraced for truth which is contrary to their wilfull desires it being a hard matter for them to relinquish their honours and set at naught other commodities which thing they know they ought to doe if they admit of Christs doctrine and obey what he hath commanded And this is the rather to be noted of them for that many other historicall narrations are approved by them to be true which notwithstanding are only manifest by authority and not by any such strong proofs and perswasions or tokens as doe declare the history of Christ to be true which are evident partly by the confession of those Iewes that are yet alive and partly in those companies and congregations of Christians which are any where to be found whereof doubtlesse there was some cause Lastly seeing the long duration or continuance of Christian Religion and the large extent thereof can be ascribed to no humane power therefore the same must be attributed to miracles or if any deny that it came to passe through a miraculous manner this very getting so great strength and power without a miracle may be thought to surpasse any miracle 52 And now you see I hope that Protestants neither doe nor need to pretend to any such evidence in the doctrine they beleeve as cannot well consist both with the essence and the obedience of faith Let us come now to the last nullity which you impute to the faith of Protestants and that it is want of Prudence Touching which point as I have already demonstrated that wisdome is not essentiall to faith but that a man may truly beleeve truth though upon insufficient motives So I doubt not but I shall make good that if prudence were necessary to faith we have better title to it then you and that if a wiser then Solomon were here he should have better reason to beleeve the Religion of Protestants then Papists the Bible rather then the Councell of Trent But let us hear what you can say 53 Ad § 31. You demand then first of all What wisdome was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient and besides which there could be demonstrated no other Visible Church of Christ upon earth I answer Against God and truth there lyes no presoription and therefore certainly it might be great