destructiue of salvation being but matters of small consideration in their account Secondly That they can not be excused from Schisme who forsooke all Churches for Points not Fundamentall and of so small moment in which they disagree amongst themselves and in diverse of which many of them agree with vs against their pretended Brethren which is to be well observed Thirdly that Chillingwâ— had no reason Pag 11 to say to Charity Maintayned produce any one Protestant that ever did so that is affirme that every errour not Fundamentall is not destructiue of salvation and I will giue you leaue to say It is the only thing in Question seing I haue proved out of many chiefe Protestants that for which he sayth no one can be produced yea and I can yet produce a full confession of Mr. Chillingworth himself that Errours in not Fundamentalls are not destructiue of salvation nor such as may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the Communion of a Church Thus he speakes in his Answer to the Direction N. 39. Though I hold not the Doctrine of all Protestants absolutely true which with reason cannot be required of me while they hold contradictions yet I hold it free from all impiety and from all Errour destructiue of salvation or in itselfe damnable For the Church of England I am perswaded that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no errour in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the communion of it Here I obserue first If the doctrine of Protestanss whom he expressly confesses to hold contradictions and consequently some of them to hold errours at least in Points not Fundamentall be free from all errour destructue of salvation or in itselfe damnable it followes that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not destructiue of salvation nor in themselves damnable which is the thing I intended to proue 2. What he saith of the Errours among Protestants that they are not destructiue of salvation he must also say of our pretended errours both because commonly of disagreeing Protestants one part agrees with vs as also because as I sayd diverse of them stand directly with vs against the common course of the rest and finally because the reason of being or not being damnable is common to all Points not Fundamentall which are supposed to contradict some divine revelation sufficiently propounded which to doe if it be destructiue of salvation must be so for all such Points if not in none at all 3. If the constant doctrine of the Church of England be so pure that whosoever believes it and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no errour in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the communion of it you must say seing Luther and his followers did and do disturbe the peace and renounce the communion of the whole Church of God before his tyme which must be supposed to haue erred only in Points not Fundamentall otherwise it had beene no Church they did and do that for which there was no necessity and for which they had no warrant and therfore cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme For the same reason also that the Church erred only in points not Fundamentall you must grant that whosoever believes as the Church did and lives accordingly vndoubtedly shall be saved For I am sure you belieue the Church of England to haue erred in diverse Points and in particular in her 39. Articles which was her constant doctrine if she had any constant at all In particular your conscience tells you that you belieue not the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity and much less that our Saviour Christ was true God and consubstantiall with his Father to say nothing of other Points of those 39. articles And is it not ridiculous to heare you talke of purity of doctrine of the Church of England which you belieue to be stayned with such Errours But you wrote for Ends If then salvation may be so assured in the Church of England you must grant the same of that Church which Luther and his associates forsooke and that therfore they certainly exclude themselves from salvation by forsaking the communion of them amongst whom salvation was so certaine and remember your words Pag 272. N. 53. 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 vnless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient To which proposition if we subsume but it cannot be necessary to separate for avoyding that errour or attaining that Truth which to avoyde or attaine is not necessary to salvation therfore Luther who separated from the Church for Points not necessary cannot pretend any necessary or sufficient cause for such his separation aÌ„d consequeÌ„tly was guilty of the sin of Schisme 4. But yet you will still be making good that in these matters Protestants and yourself in particular haue no constancy but say and vnsay as may best serue their turne You tell vs the doctrine of all Protestants is free from all Errour in it selfe damnable which agrees not with what you say of Protestants Pag 19. If we faile in vsing such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudence and ordinary discretion shall advise in a matter of such consequence our Errours begin to be malignant and justly imputable as offenses against God and that loue of his truth which he requires in vt And Pag 306. N. 106. For our continuing in the Communion of Protestants notwithstanding their Errours the justification hereof is not so much that their Errours are not damnable as that they require not the belief and profession of these Errours among the conditions of their Communion And Pag 279. N. 64. The visible Church is free indeed from all Errours absolutely destructive and vnpardonable but not from all errour which in itselfe is damnable not from all which will actually bring damnation vpon them that keepe themselves in them by their owne voluntary and avoidable fault If the visible Church be not free from errour which in itselfe is damnable how could you say that the Protestant Church of England is free from all errour damnable in itselfe But why do I cite particular passages You giue a generall Rule concerning all Errours Pag 158. N. 52. in these words If the cause of it an errour be some voluntary and avoidable fault the Errour is it selfe sinfull and consequently in its owne nature damnable as if by negligence in seeking the Truth by vnwillingnes to find it by pride by obstinacy by desiring that Religion shoudl be true which sutes best with my ends by feare of mens â—ll opinion or any other worldly feare or
externall communion in Sacraments Liturgy c. vpon pretence of Errours in the Faith and corruptions in the discipline of the Church and were so farr from repenting themselves of such their proceedings or admitting any votum or desire to be vnited with the Church that they held all such repentance to be a sin wherby they certainly exclude themselves from Gods Grace and Charity and so it appeares that by meere Excommunication one is not separated from the Church as a Schismatike is nor is a Schismatike first separated because he is excomunicated but is excommunicated because he is a Schismatike and had been divided from the Church though he had never been excommunicated or though the excommunication were taken away Besides as I touched already it is ridiculous to say that the Church requires as a condition of her Communion the profession of her errours in Faith and externall Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and other publike worship of God For profession of the same Faith and communion in Sacraments c. is the very thing wherin Communion consists or rather is the Communion itselfe and therfore is not an extrinsecall or accidentall condition voluntarily required by the Church or to be conceived as a thing separable from her communion and so you speake as if one should say Profession of the same Faith is a condition required for Communion in profession of the same Faith It was therfore no condition required by vs that made Protestants leaue our Communion but they first left our Communion by their Voluntary proper Act of leaving vs which essentially is incompatible with our Communion This whole matter will appeare more clearly by the next Reason 95. Fourthly Either there was just cause for your separation from the Communion of the Church or there was not If not then by your owne confession you are Schismatiks seing you define Schisme to be a causeless separation in which case the Church may justly impose vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of your returne and then your Memorandum cannot haue place nor can excuse you from Schisme since such an imposing a necessity would vpon that supposition be both lawfull and necessary If there were just cause for your separation then you had been excused from Schisme though the Church had never imposed vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne errours because you say Schisme is a Causless separation and surely that separation is not causelesse for which there is just cause Wherfore your Memorandum about imposing vpon men a necessity c is both impertinent and incoherent with your first Memordium That not every separation but a causeless separation is the sin of Schisme And yet P. 282. N. 71. you say expressly It is to be observed that the chief part of our defence that you deny your Communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grāt their communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered So still you vtter contradictions Wherfore the confessed chife part of your defense being confuted both by evident reason and out of your owne sayings it remaines that you will never be able to acquit yourselfe of Schisme 66. Fiftly How can you maintayne this your Memorandum and not giue full scope to all other Protestants who belieue not all the 39. Articles of the Church of England to be true of whom I am sure you are one to forsake her communion seing she excommunicates all whosoever shall affirme that the 39 Articles are in any parte superstitious or erroneous Is not this the very thing which you say is the cheef part of your defence for your separation from vs O Approbators Is it conforme to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England to say Her communion may and must be forsaken And with what conscience could you Mr. Chillingworth communicate with English and other Protestants in their publike service corrupted with errours about the Trinity the Creed of S. Athā c as you belieue it is Or why could you not communicate with vs Or how will you excuse Luther who left vs 67. Yet I must not here omitt to obserue some Points First what a thing your Religion is which can so well agree and hold communion with innumerable Sects infinitly differing one from another and yet you conceiue yourselfe to be obliged to parte from vs Catholiks But so it is The false Gods of the Heathens and their Idolaters could handsomly agree amongst themselves but in no wise with the true God and his true worshippers An evident signe that the Catholique Roman Religion is only true and teaches the right worship of God and way to salvation Falshoods may stand togeather but cannot consist with truth 68. Secondly If as you tell vs things necessary be such as are in Scripture plainly deliuered points not Fundamentall of themselves become Fundamentall because they are revealed in Scripture and it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue all Truths sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants Seing then Protestants differ in points which one part verily believes to be plainly delivered in Scripture and consequently in things necessary according to your assertion they cannot grant their communion to those who hold not with them in such necessary points that is in effect in all things wherin they disagree For every one judges his opinions to be plainly delivered in Scripture How then can they be excused from Schisme in their separation from vs while they hold Communion with other Protestants and thinke they may and ought to do so and that in doing otherwise they should be Schismatiks Which Argument still presses them more forcibly if we reflect that many of the most learned Protestants in divers chiefe Articles of Faith stand with vs Catholiks against their pretended Brethren and therfore they must either parte from them or not parte from vs 69. Thirdly it appeares by your express words that they who differ in Points necessary must divide from one another though neither part impose vpon the other a necessity of professing known Errours and since every one thinks his Doctrine to be necessary that is plainly dedelivered in Scripture he cannot communicate with any of a contrary Faith though they do not pretend to impose a necessity c And so your memorandum about imposing a necessity c Which you say is the chiefe part of your defense comes to nothing even by your owne grounds and therfore you haue indeed no defense at all to free yourselves from Schisme 70. Fourthly When we speake of Points of Faith not Fundamentall it is alwayes vnderstood that they be sufficiently proposed and therfore are alwayes Fundamentall per accidens and the contrary Errours certainly damnable and consequently a necessary cause of separation no lesse then Errours against Points Fundamentall of themselves and seing
if it should containe more And yet even in this one point there could be agreement only in words among Protestants themselves or with vs. For in the sense I haue shewed elswere that Protestants disagree about Faith or what to belieue signifies and about the Attributes and perfections of the Deity and his Title of a Rewarder and about our Saviour Christ whether he be true God Whether he be to be adored Whether to be invoked Vid Volkel Lib 4. Cap 11. Whether reverence to be done to his sacred name Jesus And many other such points And then I pray what Communion could there be in a worship of God consisting only in words or in prating like parrots with infinite difference in the meaning of them and such a difference as one part holds the contrary to belieue damnable errours even in that one Point in which they must be supposed to agree as in a Forme common to all in Errours I say damnable as being repugnant to the Testimony of that God whom they pretend to worship Jewes and Turks belieue that God is and that he is a rewarder and Philosophers believed that there is a God and some of them in generall that he is a rewarder What a sight would it be to behold all these in one Church or Quire of Christians as agreeing in this generall Liturgy Of which Jewes Turks and Philosophers might say in your owne words Behold we propose a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold to be lawfull Why then do you not joyne with vs If you answer them because they erre in other points they might reply what is that to the purpose as long as a necessity of professing those Errours is not imposed vpon you Or if it be not lawfull to communicate with men of different Faith and Religion though they do as it were abstract from that in which they differ how can Catholiks communicate with you or Protestants with one another or how can you say If you would propose a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull and then they would not joyne with you in this Liturgy you might haue some colour then to say they renounce your Communion absolutely seing men of different faith cannot communicate togeather even in a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull Or if they may you cannot refuse your Communion to Jewes and Turks in such a common Forme of Liturgy I therfore conclude that either you may communicate with Jewes Turkes c. or els you must confess that men of different faith cannot communicate in one Liturgy and publike worship of God whatsoever imaginary Forme be proposed and that you renounce our Communion absolutely which you deny against all Truth and your owne grounds and the common grounds of Christianity vnless you will make vp one Church of Jewes Turks Philosophers condemned Heretiks and whatsoever different Sects and therfore you cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme 82. Morover we know you disliked diverse Points in the publike Service of the Protestants Church of England as the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity the Creed of S. Athanasius c Now I aske whether you could with a good conscience be present at the English Service or no If you say you could because your intention was carryed only to that which was good and true and not to those particulars which you did belieue to be false and errours why may not Protestants on their part be present at Masse and our publike worship of God And why do they alledg as a cause of their forsaking our externall communion in Liturgy the corruptions thereof Or why do you require a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold lawfull if one may be present at some corrupt worship of God so that he intend to participate and communicate only in what is good And you cannot deny but that in our Liturgy there are many good and holy things out of which the ProtestaÌ„t church of EnglaÌ„d transcribed divers things into their booke of coÌ„mon prayer wherby they proue theÌ„selves true Heretiks or chusers accepting or rejecting what they please aÌ„d deceyving simple people as if there were small differeÌ„ce betwixt English Protestants and Catholiks Or how could you wickedly perswade Catholiks to go to Protestant Service which you know we belieue to containe Errours against our Faith and Religion and yet pretend that Protestants were obliged to forsake our Communion in Liturgy c. Or if they were not obliged to forsake vs how can they be excused from Schisme in doing so If you could not be present at the English Service which was the other part of my demand the reason must be because men of different Faith cannot communicate in one publike worship of God or Liturgy And the further reason of this because such a communicating or Communion were indeed a reall and practicall approbation of such a Communion and of such a Church stayned with Errours and consequently how can one Protestant communicate with an other whom they belieue to erre in points of Faith and yet thinke they are obliged not to communicate with vs Truly they cannot possibly giue any reason for this their proceeding and as I may say acception of persons the merit or demerite of the cause being the same For this Rule it is not lawfull for men of different Faith to communicate in Liturgy and publike worship of God is vniversally true and the contrary is only a ready way to breed confusion stisle all zeale overthrow Religion and is of its owne nature intrinsecè malum though there were no scandall danger of being perverted and the like as really alwayes there are Certainly if in any case a Catholike can be sayed to approue and participate with Heretikes as such it is by communion in the same Liturgy and divine offices and never more than when it happens to be with such Heretiks as did purposely reject the Liturgy of Catholiks as superstitions and corrupted and framed an other as proper to themselves which happened in England in direct opposition to our Liturgy to which proceeding of theirs hee in fact consents and gives approbation who refuseth not to be present at their Service so opposite â—o our Liturgy Whosoever considers the zeale of all Antiquity in abhorring the least shaddow of communion with Heretiks will haue just cause to lament the coldnesse of them who seeke by distinctions and speculations to induce a pernicious participation of justice with Iniquity a society between light and darkness an agreement with â—hrist and Belial a participation of the faithfull with the infidell as we haue heard our adversaryes confess every Errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently propounded to be Infidelity Holy Scripture Num 16.26 speaking of Core Dathan and Abiron saith Depart from the tabernacles of the impious men and touch you not those things which pertaine to them least you be enwrapped in their sin What then shall we say of those who will not depart I say not from the tabernacles
evident he might perhaps haue fayled in some necessary poynt if the text had proved to be evident and yet vnknown to him for want of such examination Neither can it be answered that if a text be evident it will appeare to be such For a thing vpon due examination and study may appeare evident or obscure which at first sight did not seeme to be such And for this same reason every one must learne to reade the bible or at least procure that every text therof be read to him that so he may be sure to know all evident and consequently all necessary texts of scripture it being cleare that he cannot haue sufficient assurance that he knowes every particular text only by hearing sermons or ordinary casvall discourses or the like And this care every one shall be obliged to vse even for those books of scripture which are receyved by some Protestants and rejected by others least if indeed they be Canonicall and he remayne ignorant of any one poynt evidently contayned in them he put himself in danger of wanting the knowledg of some thing necessary to be believed You teach Pag 23. N. 27. that to make a catalogue of fundamentall points had been to no purpose there being as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those truths of scripture which are not fundamentall as thâ—se that are But it is necessary for every one learned or vnlearned to know explicitly all fundamentall truths Therfor it is necessary for every one to know explicitly all truths though not fundamentall Now who sees not that these are ridiculous vnreasonable and intolerable precepts and burthens imposed vpon mens consciences without any ground except an obstinate resolution to defend your opinion that all things necessary are evident in scripture And yet I do not perceiue how Protestants can avoyd these sequeles if they will stand to those principles For whosoeuer is obliged to attaine an End is obliged to vse that meanes which is necessary for that End Your self Pag 194. N. 4. hold it for an absurdity that it should be a damnable sin in any learned man and I may say much more in any vnlearned person actually to disbelieue any one particular Historicall verity contayned in Scripture or to belieue the contradiction of it though be know it not to be there conâ—â—â—ed Now I say according to this your Doctrine every one must know every truth in scripture and not only not contradict it but he must explicitly know it least otherwise he may chance to omitt the belief of some poynt necessary to be expressiy believed Which is a greater absurdity than only to say every one is obliged not to contradict any truth contayned in scripture though he know it not to be there contayned And as for our present purpose you clearly suppose that every man though he be learned is not obliged to know every truth contayned in Scripture and therfor your Doctrine which necessarily infers this obligation must be absurd and contradictory to yourself 27. Fourthly in Holy scripture two things are to be considered The words and sense or meaning of them The words are cleare in scripture as in other bookes to such as vnderstand the language But for the sense it may be affirmed with much truth that abstracting from extrinsecall helpe or autority euen in matters of greatest moment proper to Christian religion it is hard to fynd any one poynt so cleare of it self as to convince that it must needs be vnderstood in this or thar determinate sense For though the words may seeme clearly to signify such a thing in objects proportionate to our naturall reason yet the hardness and height of Christian belief is apt to withdraw our vnderstanding from yeilding a firme assent to points which truly are aboue and in shew seeme to be against reason For this I will alledg your selfe who Pag 215. N. 46. speake thus They which doe captivate their vnderstandings to the belief of those things which to their vnderstanding seeme irreconsiable Contradictions may as well believe reall contraditions Since then no man can belieue reall contradictions appearing such it followes according to your owne assertion that none can belieue those poynts which to his vnderstanding seeme contradictions and then he will be seeking some other by-sense of such words as taken in the obvious common signification may seeme in his way of vnderstanding to imply contradiction Which yet appeares more clearly out of other words of yours Pag 216.217 N. 46. where having sett downe divers contradictions as you vntruly apprehend in our catholique doctrine concerning the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist you conclude that if Char Maintayned cannot compose their repugnance and that after an intelligible manner then we must giue him leaue to belieue that either we do not belieue Transubstantiation or else that it is no contradiction that men should subjugate their vnderstandings to the belief of contradictions Which words declare how willing a mans vnderstanding or reason is to be at peace with it self and to belieue nothing wherin it cannot Compose all repugnance and that after an intelligible manner Seing then all Christians must belieue the words of scripture to be true and yet find difficulty in composing all repugnance to reason after an intelligible manner they are easily drawne to entertayne some interpretation agreeable to their vnderstanding though contrary to the signifitation which the words of themselves do clearly import and perhaps was intended by the Holy Ghost 28. From this fountaine arise so many and so different and contrary heresies concerning the chiefest articles of Christian Faith the difficulty of the objects and disproportion to our naturall reason first diverting and then averting our vnderstanding from that which it sees not cleared after an intelligible manner and the loss of the first evidence and vsuall signification of the words bringing men to a loss in the pursuite of the true sense of them For this cause the particular Grace of the Holy Ghost is necessary to belieue as we ought insomuch as Fulk against Rhem Testam in 2 Petr 3. Pag 821. saith As concerning the Argument and matter of the Scripture we confess that for the most and chiefest matters it is not only hard but impossible to be vnderstood of the naturall man Besides which difficulty arising from the Objects or Mysteryes in themselves there is another proceeding from the subject or Believer when one hath already taken a Point for true and for that cause will be willing to seeke and glad to fynd some sense of Scripture agreeable to his foreconceyved opinion though not without violence to the letter or words 29. And yet to these dissicultyes flowing from the Object and Sabject we may add another ex Adjunctis when one place of Scripture seeming cleare enough of it self growes to be hard by being compared with the obvious sense of that other Text as we haue heard out of Chilling Pag 41. N. 13. that Scripture may with so great
earth Hee I say who with Arians and other old and moderne condemned Heretiques denyes Christ to be the sonne of God and consubstantiall to his Father as also his Merit and satisfaction for mankind wherby he is the Saviour of the world The like I say of his resurrection and that all men shall arise againe at the last day seing Socinians teach as I sayd aboue that we shall have bodyes in Heaven in nature substaÌ„ce and essence different from our bodyes on earth Against whom these words of S. Iohn Chrisostome Hom 65. in Ioannem post medium are very effectuall as they were against some others who sayd Corpora non resurgent our bodyes shall not rise againe Nonne audiunt Paulum c Do they not heare S. Paule saying For this corruptible must do on incorruption 1. Cor 15.53 Neither can he meane the soule seing it is not corrupted and Resurrection must belong to that which is dead which was the body only And Serm de Ascensione Domini To 3. Let vs consider who he is 〈◊〉 whom it was sayd sit on my right hand what nature that is to whom God sayd be partaker of my seate It is that nature which heard thou art earth and shald returne to â—arth And Learne who ascended and what nature was elevated For I willingly stay in this subject that by consideration of mankind we may with all admiration learne the divine clemency which hath bestowed so great honour and glory on our nature which this day is exalted above all things This day Angels behold our nature shining with immortall glory in the divine Throne And S. Austine serm 3. de Ascensione saith to the same purpose an earthly body is seated aboue the highest Heaven bones ere while shut vp in a narrow grave are placed in the company of Angels a mortall nature is placed in the bosome of immortality And in the same place he sayth If our saviour did not rise againe in our body he gave nothing to our condition by rising againe Whosoever sayes this doth not vnderstand the reason of the flesh which he assumed but confounds the order and evacuates the profit therof I acnowledge to be myne that which fell that that may be myne which rose I acknowledg that to be myne which lay in the grave that that may be myne which ascended into Heauen From this Secinian Heresy it also followes that indeed they deny his true Ascension since they give him and vs not his and our nature but another essentially different But indeed is the Resurrection of the dead so cleare in scripture for the sense without any help of Gods Church How then doth Dr. Potter Pag. 122. say in behalf of Hookers and M. Mortons opinion A learned man was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our Bodyes Was he a learned man Then surely he vnderstood the Grammaticall signification of the words and yet he erred in the sense as also many others did who denyed Resurrection as Basilidiani Saturniani Carpocratiani Valentiniani Severiani Hieracitae and others which shewes the necessity of a living judg beside the letter or bare word of scripture Which appeares also by the other example which you alledg as cleare That They which belieue and repent shal be saved That they which do not belieue or repent shal be damned For how is this cleare for the sense of the words if it be not cleare what that Faith and Repentance is without which none can be saved And yet you teach a Faith and a repentance wholy different from that which hitherto both Catholikes and ProtestaÌ„ts haue believed and taught as also Calvinists tell vs of a Faith justifying after a new fashion different both from Catholikes and from Socinians and yet what is more necessary to salvation than true Faith and repentance 34. Neither are you more fortunate in your example that it is clearly against Scripture that the keeping of the Mosaicall Law is necessary to salvation Yea this instance makes against your self and proves the necessity of a living judg For the first determination concerning that poynt was made in the Councell of the Apostles Act. 15. V. 28. and the Scripture only relates what their definition was and so this proves only that the voyce of the Church or Councels may be clear both for the words and sense Or that it may be declared by the Church of succeding ages if it grow in tyme to be obscure which happens in this very Councell For though no doubt but Christians of that tyme vnderstood fully the meaning of the Councell by the declaration of the Apostles yet the contents therof were afterward to be declared to all posterity by the Church how they were to be vnderstood and practised The Councell sayd Act. 15. V. 28. 29. It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to vs to lay no further burden vpon you than these necessary things that you abstayne from the things immolated to Idols and bloud and that which is strangled Doth not this rather seeme contrary than clearly in favour of your affirmation that it is cleare in Scripture that the Mosaicall Law is not necessary For one part and practise and Law obliging the Iewes was to abstaine from bloud and that which is strangled though I grant it was also commanded before but not to last always as the practise of Christs Church declareth and yet in the councell it is sayd to be necessary And for the other point that you abstaine from the things immolated to Idols S. Paule teaches that abstracting from an erroneous conscience it is not necessary to abstayne from them and yet in that Councell it is injoyned as a thing necessary How then is this poynt so cleare if we looke on scripture alone without reference to any declaration or practise of Gods church 35. Besides for Circumcision which as the Apostle sayth brings with it an obligation to obserue the whole Mosaicall Law which observation is you say clearly not necessary although if we take some words or text of Scripture alone without any further reflection or consideration it may seeme cleare that it is not only not necessary but hurtfull S. Paule saying Gal. 5.2 If you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing yet if we also call to mynd the fact of the same Apostle Act 16. V. 3 saying taking him he circumcided him Timothy that other text If you be circumcised Christ will profit you nothing which seemed cleare and vniversall will seeme difficult and to be vnderstood with some explication or restraint For who will imagine that S. Paule would be author of that wherby Timothy should be deprived of all the good he could expect from the Sauiour of the world And the difficulty wil be increased if we add that S. Paule caused Timothy to be circumcised propter Iudaeos c. For the Iewes who were in those places for they knew all of them that his father was
only excused by ignorāce or pardonable by repētance How thē can you say that errours against profitable points are not damnable in themselves and yet that the errours of the Roman Church are such But why do I dispute against you by Argument Heare I pray you your owne words Pag 290. N. 88. where you say Fundamentall errours may signify either such as are repugnant to Gods command and so in their owne nature damnable though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them not vnpardonable or such as are not only meritoriously but remedilessely pernicious and destructiue of salvation c Behold the reason for which errours are in their nature damnable namely because they are repugnant to Gods command which certainly is common to all errours against Divine Revelation sufficiently proposed whether the matter be in it self great or small Besides it is manifest that scarcely in any matter of moment Protestants do so vnanimously disagree from vs as that divers of them do not hold with vs against their pretended Brethren and therfor if our errours as you call them which are indeed Catholique verities be damnable in themselves their 's also must be such if they be considered in themselves which yourselfe do not deny Pag 306. N. 106. saying For our continuing in their Communion you speake of Protestants erring in some Poynt of Faith notwithstanding their errours the justification hereof is not so much that their errours are not damnable as that they require not the belief and profession of these errours among the conditions of their Communion Wherfor I must returne to conclude that in affirming our errours to be damnable in themselves and so worse than those of Protestants you manifestly contradict yourself and truth even though we should falsely suppose our Church to be stayned with errours And heer I aske how you can say Pag 278. N. 61. without impiety and contrariety to yourselfe that Heresyes not fundamentall do of themselves and immediately damne no man seing you very often profess that to oppose a thing revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such is a damnable sinne 81. I will end this Poynt with noting an egregious falsification of yours about a passage of Ch Mayntayned in these your words Pag 306. N. 106. directed to Ch Ma A sift falshood is that we daily doe this favour for Protestants you must meane if you speake consequently to judg they haue no errours because we judg they haue none damnable Which the world knowes to be most vntrue Thus you But Ch Ma never sayd nor dreamed that Protestants did judg that their Brethren had no errours because they had none damnahle but his words are these Part 1. Chap. 5. N. 41. Pag 206. If you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you connot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedy but that you must rectify your erring conscience by your other judgment that her errours are not fundamentall nor damnable And this is no more charity then you daily afford to such other Protestants as you terme Brethren whom you cannot deny to be in some errours vnless you will hold that of contradictory propositions both may be true and yet you do not judg it damnable to liue in their communion because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall Thus Ch. Ma And now doth he not expressly suppose affirme and speak oferring Protestants With what modesty then can you say that Char. Ma. would haue them judged to haue no errours and not to separate from their pretended Brethren for such errours as are supposed not to be fundamentall Yea He spoke so clearly of some Protestants their communicating with other of their Brethren notwithstanding their errours that you answer as aboue I haue cited you saying For our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errours the justification hereof is not so much that their errours are not damnable as that they require not the belief and profession of these errours among the conditions of their communion 82. No less inexcusably do you falsify His words in the same Pag. 306. N. 105. While you alledg as His these words If you erred in thinking that our Church holds errours this errour or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed and deposed by judginge those errours not damnable Which indeed if he had spoken were non-sense but his words are those which I haue cited 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 it no remedy but that you must rectify your erring conscience by your other judgment that her errours are not fundamentall nor damnable Is this to say that Protestants must judg that our Church hath no errours because the errours are not fundamentall Or is it not directly contrary that though they did suppose her to haue errours yet even that supposition standing they might judg that they might be saved in her communion because her errours are supposed not to be damnable 83. In the meane tyme it is no small comfort to Catholiques that Protestants confess they belieue errours damnable in themselves wheras we Catholikes are infallibly certaine that our Church is not subject to any errour in matter of Faith and though she were yet even by their confession we may be saved by the same meanes by which they can hope for salvation that is Repentance or Ignorance as you every where confess And in particular of our learned men who one would think could not pretend to be excused by ignorance you expressly say heer Pag 305. N. 105. To think that all the learned men of your side are actually convinced of errours in your Church and will not forsake the profession of them this is so great an vncharitableness that I verily belieue Dr. Potter abhors it If our learned men may be excused much more vnlearned persons are very safe and sure to be excused and so all sorts of men in our Church may be saved even by the Principles and Confession of our Adversaryes 84. But now although it ought not to be to my purpose in this occasion to answer at large the particular Instances which you brought to proue that our falfly supposed errours in things profitable may be occasion of danger and damnation Yet least perhaps some vnlearned person may apprehend them to contayne some great difficulty I will touch them briefly The Doctrine of Indulengces say you Pag 9. N. 7. may take away the feare of Purgatory and the Doctrine of Purgatory the feare of Hell But first how can you object to vs as an inconvenience that the doctrine of Indulgences takes away the feare of Purgatory since Protestants denying Purgatory do much more take away all feare of it 2. What harme is there in diminishing in our soule the feare of Purgatory by solid and true meanes approved by Gods Church as fasting prayer pennance Indulgences c Doth not the
Fundamentall Points but that Particular Churches ād Persons may But in your doctrine there cā be no such distinction The vniversall Church with you is infallible because if she erre Fundamentally she ceases to be a Church as also Particular Churches if they erre Fundamentally cease to be Churches and the same I say of particular Persons and so particular Churches and Persons shall be no less infallible than the vniversall Church which is contrary to the doctrine of other Protestants and to your owne words also Pag 106. N. 140. We yield vnto you that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points because as we conceaue God hath promised so much Now you will not say that God hath promised so much to particular Churches and Persons and therfor you must put a difference between the vniversall and particular Churches which difference cannot stand with this your speculation that the Church is only in fallible in some points because if she erre in them she ceases to be a Church which exoticall kind of infallibility agrees to all particular Churches and persons 87. Hence it is that Protestants ground the Perpetuily of the vniverfall Church not vpon a probable belief or hope that it shall be so or vpon Her actuall not erring Fundamentally as you do but vpon some antecedent Principle namely the Promises of our Saviour Christ and Assistance of the Holy Ghost Dr. Potter in particular whom you vndertooke to defend speakes very clearly to this purpose Pag 105. in these words The whole Militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly erre either in the whole Faith or any necessary Article of it For such an errour must needs disvnite all the Members from Christ the Head and so dissolue the Body and leaue Him no Church which is impossible Mark that he sayth not as you doe The Church cannot erre in any necessary Article because therby she should cease to be a Church but contrarily seing it is impossible that she can cease to be a Church and leaue Christ no Church she cannot possibly erre in the whole Faith or any necessary Article of it With what modesty or conscience do you alledg here Dr. Potter as if he did not disagree from you The contrary wherof will appeare more by his words Pag 153.154.155 The Church saith he Vniversall is ever in such manner assisted by the good spirit that it never totally failes or falls of from Christ For it is so firmely founded on the Rocke Matth 16.18 that is on Christ the only Fundation Cor 3.11 that the gates of Hell whether by temptation or persecution shall not prevaile against it And that you may see how far he was from dreaming of your Chimericall infallibility he cites Bellarmine de Eccles Lib 3. Cap 13. saying That the Church cannot erre is proved out of Scripture Matth 16. vpon this rocke I will build my Church and then goes on in these words The whole Church cannot so erre as to be destroyed For then our Lords promise here Matth 16.18 of Her stable edification should be of no value Obserue this And what he hath afterward in these words The Church vniversall hath not the like assurance from Christ that she shall not erre in vnnecessary additions as she hath for her not erring in taking away from the Faith what is Fundamentall and necessary It is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemyes But she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and error That the Church be never robbed of any truth necessary to the being of the Church the promises of Christ assure vs. Behold First The Church may erre in not Fundamentall but cannot erre in Fundamentall Ponts wheras you say she may erre in both 2. That the reason why she canot erre in Fundamentall Points is because she is firmely founded on the rocke and if she did faile our Lords promise of her stableedification should be of no value And therfore the Lord will even secure her from all capitall dangers and of this the promises of Christ assure vs. And this as I sayd is the common doctrine of Protestants Wherby it appeares that the Church is not sayd to be infallible in Fundamentall Points because she should perish by every such Error but contrarily because she is assisted by the Holy Ghost never to erre in such Points she shall never be destroyed in direct opposition to you who say that she may erre and by erring be destroyed What a kind of Syllogisme must be framed out of this your Doctrine in this manner The Church is infallible or cannot erre in Fundamentall Points because if she did so erre she should cease to be a Church But she may cease to be a Church Therfore she is infallible and cannot erre in Fundamentalls You should in ferr the direct contrary Therfore she may erre and is not infallible I beseech you of what value should our Saviours promises be according to your doctrine That the Church should not erre at least in Fundamentall Poynts of Faith No. You say she can erre in such Points In what then Only in this admirable worke that if she did erre she should be sure to pay for it by perishing For say you To say the Church while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls implyes contradiction and is all one as to say the Church while it is the Church may not be the Church This then is the effect of Gods Promises that that shall be which implyes contradiction to be otherwise that is Gods Power and Promise shall only effect that two contradictions be not true as that if some Living sensible creature be a beast he shall not be a man Is not this to be sacrilegiously impious against God and his holy Promises and Providence Is the Church so built vpon a Rocke assisted by the Holy Ghost that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her only to this effect that if she erre she shall perish that is the Gates of Hell shall in the most prevalent way that can be imagined prevaile against her What foolish impietyes are these Let vs therfore inferr out of these Premises That there must be alwayes a true visible Church knowen and discernable from all false ones and therfore of one denomination That even according to Protestants this true Church must be infallible in all Fundamentall Points That if she be infallible in Fundamentall Points we must belieue Her to be infallible in all even according to your owne grant as I haue shewed out of your owne words And so finally we must conclude that there must be alwayes a visible Church of one denomination and infallible in all Points of Faith as well Fundamentall as not Fundamentall 88. And by what hath bene sayd I confute and retort your saying Pag 150. N. 39. A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to
others might yet in himselfe and to himself be infallible but he could not be a Guide to others A man or a church that were invisible so that none could know how to repayre to it for direction could not be an infallible Guide and yet he might be himself infallible This I say is retorted For whosoever is infallible in him selfe is fit to be an infallible Guide to others per se loquendo and in actu primo and needs only that accidētall impediments bee removed as it happeneth in our case the Church being visible and spred over the whole world So that she can be hidden to no body but is furnished with all meanes of communicating her Doctrine to others Yourself and Protestants grant that the Church is a necessary introduction to Faith which she could not be if she were invisible or that none could know how to repayre to her for direction And then Protestants teaching that she is infallible in Fundamentall points it followes that she may be an infallible Guide in such points and in all other according to your owne inference And so I conclude that your difference of the Churches being infallible and an infallible Guide is vanished into nothing But enough of this Let vs now proceed to other Reasons proving the necessity of an infallible Guide 89. I proue the infallibility of the Church by confuting a Reason or similitude much vrged by our Adversaryes That to him who knowes the way a Guide is not necessary And therfore the Scripture being a plaine Rule for all necessary Articles of Faith no living Guide will be necessary 90. But this Argument is many wayes defectiue 1. We retort it Seing it hath bene proved that Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule a Living Guide must be necessary Certainly if the whole Bible had bene put into severall mens hands without any precedent knowne Tradition Declaration or Ministery of the Church it would haue fallen out that in the most important Mysteryes of Christian Religion which now all are obliged to belieue for example The chiefest Articles of the Creed Sacraments c. scarcely any one would haue agreed with another and much more had it bene impossible for them by the sole evidence of Scripture to joyne in the same Idea or frame of a Church Suppose then the Bible had bene offered to some Vnderstanding Pagan wholy ignorant of Christian Religion and Doctrine do you thinke he would haue bene able to gather from the bare words of Scripture the same meaning or Articles which Christians now belieue by the help of Tradition instruction and preaching I say he would never have fallen vpon the same meaning of the words whether he did belieue them to be true or no as we see Protestants themselves cannot agree Which is a signe that the words only of Scripture do not evidently signify those Mysteryes which Christians belieue them to containe Otherwise every one who vnderstands the words would vnderstand the true sense as ordinarily we vnderstand the meaning of other writings wherin we see men do seldome disagree And the more we consider the force vse and necessity of Tradition the more we shall be constrained to ranke it among those things which are better knowen by wanting than we can apprehend by alwayes enjoying them If men did do things only by the Booke even in mechanicall arts or handy-crafts how different and vnlike works would every one take from the precepts learned only by reading and with how much study and difficulty would that be done and how different would they be both from one another and from those which artificers do now by custome and tradition worke with great ease and vniformity I doubt whether you would trust an apothecary taught only by his booke or pharmacopaeia without any master at all 91. Secondly If one know a way as perfectly as it is capable to be knowen but that indeed it is such as there cannot possibly be given any Rule or Direction how to find or walk in it without danger of errour such a knowledg of such a way would not be sufficient of itself but a guide would be necessary to sind and walke in it without danger Now we haue shewed not only that the Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed for which therfor we stand in need of a guide but also that there is no certaine infallible Rule how to know certainly the meaning of those truths which it containes which we proved out of Protestants themselves and by the many hard and intricate Rules which they give for that purpose and by their perpetuall and irreconciliable differences which could not happen if they had any such cleare and certaine Rules wherin agreeing they must needs agree among themselves Que sunt eadem vni tertio sunt eadem inter se Therfore beside scripture which you compare to a way there must be a living Judg to guide vs in that way 92. Thirdly You teach That Scripture is a plaine way in this sense that although we cannot either by it or any other Meanes know what points in particulat be Fundamentall yet because all such Truths and many more are evident in Scripture whosoever knowes all that is evident shall besure to know all that is necessary or Fundamentall Now this very Doctrine shewes that Scripture alone cannot be a plaine and sufficient way For to know precisely and certainly all evident places of Scripture is impossible to many and of obligation to none as I declared elswhere and therfore the End which is to know all necessary points and can be attayned by this Meanes alone cannot be of obligation which to affirme is absurd as if one should say points necessary to be knowen are not necessary to be knowen By a Living Guide this difficulty is avoyded we being sure that the Church will not faile to propose in due tyme all that shall be necessary without imposing on mens Consciences heavy and vngrounded burthens 93. Fourthly There is a great and plaine disparity betweene the knowing of a way by our corporall eyes and finding out a Truth by our vnderstanding the eye of our soule Our senses are naturally necessarily and immoveably determined to their objects One who is supposed to know his way perfectly may Voluntarily take an other way but cannot therfore be sayd to mistake his owne It passes not so with our vnderstanding except in some prime principles of Reason evident of themselves In other points which either are elevated above the naturall forces of humane capacity or haue an appearance of being contrary to it or crosse our will or cary with them a repugnance to the naturall dictates and inclinations of flesh and bloud our vnderstanding is apt and ready to mistake or be misled as daily experience teaches and therfore stands in need of some assisting help and Authority believed to be infallible to strengthen and settle it against all encounters and temptations It is your owne Assertion Pag 329. N.
her communion and by Ecclesiasticall censures oblige them to doe that which otherwise they are by divine Law most strictly obliged to performe And further if the separation be causeless the separatists from the externall communion of the Church do jointly leaue the Church either by professing a different Faith or denying obedience both to the Church and to God who commands vs not to forsake the communion of the Church faith and obedience being those requisites which say you constitute a man a member of a Church And so all is reduced to your Memorandum a causeless separation from the externall communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme Yourselfe say expressly Pag 267. N. 38. The cause in this matter of separation is all in all And why then would you entangle men with I know not what other vnnecessary and vntrue remembrances But necessity hath no Law You cannot giue any reason why you leaue vs aÌ„d yet why Protestants must not leaue one another since it is cleare that they in disagree Points at least not fundameÌ„tall and therfore you fly to other chifts besides the cause which yet you say is all in all though Pag 267. N. 40. you expressly say that the cause or the corruption of our Church is not the only or principall reason of your not communicating with vs. A pretty congruity the cause is all in all and yet is not the principall reason 21. Now to that pretended maine ground of yours It is not lawfull to professe known errours or practise known corruptions I say That either we may consider what is true in it selfe or what in good consequence followes from the principles of Protestants and in particular of Potter and Chillingworth or as the Logicians speake ad hominem which are two very differenr considerations and yet by the assistance of Gods holy grace I will shew that according to both of them Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme 22. For the first It is most true in itselfe that in no case it can ever be lawfull to dissemble Equivocate or Ly in matters of Faith and he shall be denyed in Heaven who in that manner denyes God on earth But as I began to say aboue from this very ground we proue that the Church cannot erre in such matters For seing all Fathers Antiquity and Divines haue hitherto proclaimed with a most vnanimous consent that to forsake the externall communion of Gods Visible Church is the sin of Schisme it followes that there can be no cause sufficient for such a division and consequently that she cannot fall into such errours or corruptions as may force any to leaue her Communion And therfore as we proue a priori that the Church cannot fall into errour because she is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost So as it were a posteriori or ab absurdo we must inferr that she is infallible and not subject to errour because otherwise we might forsake her Communion and men could haue no certainty who be Heretikes or Schismatikes but all would be obliged to leaue all Churches seing none are free from errour and so remaining members of no Church on earth could hope for no salvation in Heaven 23. For this cause in the definition of Schisme our Forfathers never put your limiting particle causless well knowing and taking it as a principle in Christianity that there could be no cause to forsake the Communion of Gods Church as in proportion if one should say it is not lawfull to divide ones selfe from Christ without cause he should insinuate that there might be some cause in some case to do so and yet Potter Pag 75. affirmes That there neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himselfe Durum telum necessitas It could not be denyed that Luther departed from all Churches and so there was no possible way to avoyde the note of open Schisme but by inventing a new definition of that crime and supposing the possibility of a thing impossible that there may be just cause of separating from the Communion of the Church But while they labour to avoide Schisme they broach a most pernicious Heresy that indeed there may be any such just cause verifying what S. Hierome sayth vpon those words of the Apostle which a good conscience some casting off haue suffered shipwracke Though schisme in the beginning may in some sort be vnderstood different from Heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not faine some Heresy to itselfe that so it may seeme to haue departed from the Church vpon good reason That is that their divsion may not seeme to be a causless separation as you speake in your new definition But I pray you heare S. Austine Lib 2. Cont Petil Chap 16. saying I object to thee the sin of Schisme which thou wilt deny but I will straight proue For thou dost not communicate with all Nations To which if you add what he hath Epist 48. It is not possible that any may haue 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 vpon just cause and Lib 2. Cont Parm Cap 11. There is no just necessity to divide vnity And Lib 3. Cap 4. The world doth securely judge that they are not good who separate themselves from the world in what part of land soever If I say you consider these sayings of S Austine the conclusion must be that Luther who divided himselfe from the communion of the whole world and all Nations was a Schismatike seing it is not possible that any may haue just cause to do so as S. Austine affirmes Obserue also what this same glorious Doctour sayth Lib de Vnit Eccl Cap 4. Whosoever belieue that Iesus Christ came in flesh in which he suffered was borne c yet so differ from his Body which is the Church as their communion is not with the whole whersoever it is spread but is found separate in some part it is manifest that they are not in the Catholike Church Was Luthers communion with the whole which was not with any one place or person Dr. Lawd Pag 139. sayth plainly The whole Church cannot vnâ—versally erre in absolute Fundamentall Doctrines And therfore t' is true that there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Which must be vnderstood that absolutely there can be no cause at all For it were ridiculous to say There can be no just cause to make a causeless Schisme or division seing if there be cause it is not causeless And it is to be observed that the Reason he gives why there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church is because she cannot erre in absolute Fundamentall doctrines which supposes both that she may erre in Points not Fundamentall and that errours in such points cannot
do not exclude salvation 37. Thirdly Protestants teach that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall and yet remaine a Church but cannot erre in Fundamentalls without destruction of herselfe Now if sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall be damnable Fundamentall and destructiue of salvation they also destroy the essence of the Church and therfore Protestants must either say that the Church cannot erre in any Point though not Fundamentall as she cannot erre in Fundamentalls or else must affirme that sinfull errours not Fundamentall are not damnable or Fundamentall or destructiue of salvation according to their grounds 38. Fourthly Protestants are wont to say and by this seeke to excuse their Schisme that they left not the Church of Rome but her corruptions and that they departed no farther from her than she departed from herselfe But if every errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed be destructiue of the substance of Faith and hope of salvation the Roman Church which you suppose to be guilty of such errours hath ceased to be a Church and is no corrupted Church but no Church at all nor doth exist with corruptions but by such corruptions hath ceased to exist and so you departed not only from her corruptions but from herselfe or rather she ceasing to haue any being your not communicating with her was totall and not only in part or in her corruptions and if you departed from her as farr as she departed from herselfe seing she departed totally from herselfe you also must be sayd to haue departed totally from her which yet you deny and therfore must affirme that sinfull errours not Fundamentall destroy not the Church nor exclude hope of salvation If therfore Protestants will not destroy their owne assertions v.g. That they left not the Church but her corruptions that they departed no farther from her than she departed from herselfe that they left not the Church but her externall Communion that Protestants agree in substance of Faith because they agree in Fundamentall Points that their Church is the same with the Roman that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall but not in Fundamentalls if I say Protestants will overthrow these and other like assertions they must grant that sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall destroy not the substance of Faith nor exclude salvation and consequently that they left the Church for Points not necessary ād so are guilty of Schisme which you grant to happen of when the cause of separation is not necessary as we haue seene out your owne words Pag 272. N. 53. 39. But yet let vs see whether Protestants do not confesse that sinfull errours not fundamentall are compatible with salvation as we haue proved it to follow out of their deeds and principles You say Pag 307. N. 106. That it is lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith is not vniversally true but with this exception vnless that Church require the beliefe and profession of them And Pag 281. N. 67. We say not that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errours vnfundamentall vnless it exact withall either a dissimulatiom of them being noxious or a profession of them against the dictate of conscience if they be meere errours And N. 68. Neither for sin nor errours ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and enjoyne them Therfore say I we must immedintly inferr that errours not Fundamentall do not destroy Faith Church salvation For if they did ipso facto the Church which holds them should cease to be a Churche and so she must necessarily leaue all Churches ād all Churches must leaue her shee loosing her owne being as a dead man leaves all and is left by all And here let me put you in mynd that while Pag 307. N. 106. aboue cited you seeme to disclose some great secret or subtilty in saying that it is not lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith is not vniversally true but with this exception vnless that Church requires the beliefe and profession of them you do but contradict yourselfe For if the Church erre in the substance of Faith or but does not impose the belief of them why are you in your grounds more obliged to forsake her than a Church that erres in not Fundamentalls and does not impose the belief of them Especially if we call to mynd your doctrine that one may erre sinfully against some Article of Faith and yet retaine true belief in order to other Points in which why may you not communicate with such a Church Also Pag 209. N. 38. you say You must giue me leaue to esteeme it a high degree of presumption to enioyne men to beleeue that there are or can be any other Fundamentall Articles of the Gospell of Christ than what himselfe commanded his Apostles to teach all men or any damnable Heresyes but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verityes Therfore we must inferr that seing errours in Points not Fundamentall are not repugnant to those prime verityes they cannot in your way be esteemed damnable Heresyes and if not damnable Heresyes they cannot be damnable at all since we suppose their malice to consist only in opposition to Divine Revelation which is a damnable sin of Heresy Potter Pag. 39. saith Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolves not the vnity of Faith And P. 40. Vnity in these matters Secondary Points of Religion is very contingent and variable in the Church now greater now lesser never absolute in all particles of truth From whence we must inferr that errours not Fundamentall exclude not salvation nor can yield sufficient cause to forsake a Church or els that men must still be forsaking all Churches because there is never absolute vnity in all particles of truth Whitaker also Controver 2. Quest 5. Cap. 18. saith If an Heretike must be excluded from salvation that is because he overthroweth some foundation For vnlesse he shake or overthrow some foundation he may be saved According to which Doctrine the greatest part of Scripture may be denyed But for my purpose it is sufficient to observe that so learned a Protestant teaches that errours in Points not Fundamentall exclude not from salvation Morton in his imposture Cap 15. saith Neither do Protestants yeild more safty to any of the Members of the Church of Rome in such a case then they doe to whatsoever Heretiks whose beliefe doth not vndermine the fundamentall Doctrine of Faith Therfore he grants some safety even to Heretiks if they oppose not Fundamentall Articles and yet they must be supposed to be in sinfull errour against some revealed truth otherwise they could not be Heretiks Dr. Lawd Pag 355. teaches That to erre in things not absolutly necessary to salvation is no breach vpon the one saving Faith which is necessary And Pag 360. in things not necessary though they be Divine Truths also men
may differ and yet preserue the one necessary Faith And Pag 299. he saith I do indeed for my part acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church but so as that which I grāt to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they belieue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the grosse superstitions of the Roman Church Behold a cleare confession that the pretended errours of the Roman Church do not exclude salvation and yet they are supposed to be against some revealed Truths Therfore errours in Points not Fundamentall are not repugnant to salvation 40. But what conclusion can we deduce from these Premises that errours in Points not necessary or Fundamentall are not damnable but that one may be saved in them Dr. Lawd hath done it for vs Pag 133. in these words The whole Church cannot vniversally erre in absoute Fundamentall Doctrines and therfore there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church And Pag 196. he teaches that by the manifest places in Scripture there may be setled Vnity and Certainty of Beliefe in Necessaryes to Salvation and in Non necessarijs in and about things not necessary there ought not to be a Contention to a Separation And Pag 129. That the whole Church cannot vniversally erre in the Doctrine of Faith is most true so you will but vnderstand it s not erring in Absolute Fundamentall Doctrines And therfore t is true also that there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Certainly Luther did not follow this advise who began and maintayned a Contention to Separation from the whole World from which Dr. Lawd expressly saith there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme But this is not all For Pag 226. he sayth Suppose a Generall Councell actually Erring in some Point of Divine truth I hope it will not follow that this Errour must be so gross as that forthwith it must needs be knowne to private men And doubtless till they know it Obedience must be yielded Nay when they know it if the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamentall Verity in which case a Generall Councell cannot easily erre I would haue all wise men consider whether externall Obedience be not even then to be yeelded For if Controversyes arise in the Church some end they must haue or theyil teare all in sunder And I am sure no wisdom can think that fit Why then say a Generall Councell Erre and a Erring Decree be ipso jure by the very Law itself invalid I would haue it wisely considered againe whether it be not fit to allow a Generall Councell that Honour and Priviledge which all other Great Courts haue Namely that there be a Declaration of the invalidity of its Decrees as well as of the Lawes of other Courts before priuate men take Liberty to refuse Obedience For till such a Declaration if the Councell stand not in force A. C. Sets vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which is the thing he so much cryes out against in the Protestants Therfore it may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome that a Generall Councell thus erring should stand in force till Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration make the Errour to appeare as that another Councell of equall Authority reverse it For as for Morall Certainty that 's not strong enough in Points of Faith How many Points do these words containe in favour of Catholikes against Protestants 41. 1. That knowne Errours in Points not Fundamentall are not only to be tolerated but that Obedience is to be yeelded to the Church or Councell even concerning such Points and Errours How then can Luther be excused from Schisme who was so farr from yielding Obedience to the Church that he opposed himselfe to and made a publike Separation from all Churches And how can Protestants be now excused from Schisme who follow his example defend his doctrine and persist in the Separation and breach which he made 42. Secondly That to profess externally errours in Points not Fundamentall excludes not salvation For to do any thing repugnant to salvation I am sure no wisdom can thinke fit to vse his owne Words And then it cannot be necessary to forsake the Church for avoyding the profession of Errours not Fundamentall and yet this is the reason for which Protestants pretend to be excused from Schisme 43. Thirdly He doth not only affirme but endeavours to proue that externall Obedience must be yielded to the Decrees of Councells because if Controversyes arise in the Church some end they must haue or theyil teare all in sunder Which he sayth no wisdom can thinke fit Which proues very well that some Living Judge of Controversyes is necessary and is directly opposite to Chillingworth who affirmes that there is no necessity of such a Judg because it is not necessary that all Controversyes be ended But then 44. Fourthly It followeth evidently in true Divinity that if such a Judge be necessary He must be infallible in all things belonging to Faith and Religion For seing to dissemble in matters of Faith or profess one thing and belieue the contrary is a grievous sin and a most pernicious ly no man can yield externall Obedience against the judgment and dictamen of his Conscience and yet it being also true that we are obliged to obey the Decrees of Generall Councells we must of necessity affirme that they are infallible and cannot Decree any Errour in Faith Otherwise I must either disobey or speake against my Conscience in matters of Faith which is intrinsecè malum and can never be excused from a damnable sin To these straights Protestants are brought by denying the infallibility of Gods Church May Councells be disobeyed Then there will be no meanes to end Controversyes and theyil teare all in sunder Must they be obeyed Then in case they decree an Errour against Faith as they may doe if they be fallible men must proceed against their Conscience What then remaynes but to belieue that they are infallible and so we securely may and necessarily must obey their Decrees because I am sure that they haue both infallibility not to erre and Authority to command Thus our beliefe and proceeding is cleare smooth and most consequent wheras our Adversaryes denying the said infallibility are forced to great impietyes against God and manifest contradictions with themselves Besides seing he confesses that Morall Certainty is not strong enough in Points of Faith the Judge of Controversyes in such Points must be absolutely infallible otherwise we cannot receiue from him Certaintyes strong enough for Points of Faith And if Controversyes must be ended by Generall Councells as he affirmes their Decrees must be of more than Morall Certainty 45. Fiftly Wheras he sayes that Obedience is not to be yielded if the Errour be manifestly against Fundamentall Verity he ought to consider
of Luther Cardinall Caietan being sent to Germany for that very purpose a safe conduct being assured to them And for Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and Obedience to Prelats they did separate from them as well as from profession of the same Faith one of their Errours being that our worship of God being corrupted they could not communicate with vs in Liturgy publike prayers c. Therfore they first did separate themselves Fugitivi non fugati the contrary wherof they are wont to affirme And not only they ceased to communicate with vs nor were content to hold their peace bearing with patience the corruptions of the tymes as they falsely styled them but also drew men to conventicles of their owne pretended to erect new Churches and set vp aultar against aultar and the like and this against the commands of Bishops and Princes both Ecclesiasticall and Temporall You profess hightly to esteeme Hugo Grotius If in this you beleeue not me beleeve him in voto pro pace Ecclesiastica Pa 5. Intelligebam saith he ex seniorum relatu ex perscriptis Historiis extitisse postea homines qui illā in qua majores nostri fuerant Ecclesiam deserendā omnino dicerent neque tantum ipsi desererent nonnulli etiam priusquam excommunicati essent sed novos caetus facerent quos vocabant ipsi Ecclesias nova ibi facerent presbyteria docerent Sacramenta administrarent idque multis in locis contra edicta Regum Episcoporum dicerentque vt haec defenderent planè quasi de caelo mandatum haberent quale Apostoli habuerant obediendum Deo magis esse quà m hominibus Which refractary proceeding how much he disliked is declared by him Pag 31. Novum caetum vt nunc loqui mos est Ecclefiam colligere mihi etiamsi liceret non liberet video quà m malè id aliis cesserit Multiplicarunt numerum non laetitiam If you ponder the words of Grotius you cannot chuse but see how perfectly they agree to Luther and his followers and clearely confute this your Memorandum And indeed whosoever considers this Point will find it to be no better then non-sense and a contradiction to alledg this cause for justifying your separation since before any Excommunication men leaue the Church by professing a contrary Faith and in vertue of that new Faith forsake Her Communion and yet say that they leaue it because we require as a condition of our Communion that they leaue not that which necessarily and as I may say essentially and antecedently they of themselves do leaue whether we require it or no and therfore our requiring it cannot be the cause of that Effect which is preexistent before that which you say is the cause therof and would be the same whether we required it or no and we may say that Heretiks are the first as it were to excommunicate and divide themselves before the Church can excommunicate them Therfore this allegation of imposing vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity c is plainly impertinent and all must be reduced to the cause it selfe whether our doctrines be sufficiently and clearly convinced to be Errours and then whether such Errours being not Fundamentall can be sufficient to cause a separation And so I retort this ground and say that since you confess our Errours alone not to be a sufficient cause to excuse your separation from vs and for this reason you say Protestants are not obliged to separate themselves from one another you must also acknowledg that indeed they had no sufficient cause to divide themselves from all Churches 63. Secondly Yourselfe contradict this Memorandum For Pag 276. N. 59. You say Though your corruptions in doctrine in themselves which yet is false did not yet your obliging vs to profess your doctrine vncorrupted against knowledg and Conscience may induce an obligation to depart from your Communion Now if our corruptions in themselves induce an obligation to depart from our Communion this obligation is induced before the imposing vpon men vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne Errours and why then do you say that imposing vpon men vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne Errours is the cause which Protestants alledg to justify their separation Since there is another cause precedent to that and such a cause as without it this other of imposing vpon men c cannot subsist For if our Errours in themselves do not impose vpon you an obligation to forsake vs it is a signe that they are not damnable in themselves nor necessarily to be avoided and consequently you may and ought to remaine with vs notwithstanding such Errours and if you ought to do so the Church may justly command it vnder payne of Excommunication as a punishment of precedent obstinacy and a medicine to prevent it for tyme to come and so yourselfe overthrow this memorandum wherby you would excuse your division from the Church Yet on the other side if our pretended errours do in themselves induce an obligation to forsake our Church different Sects of Protestants must for the same reason forsake one another because you deny not their Errours to be in themselves damnable and therfore you put a difference between them and vs only because they exact not of others a profession of their errours and we do and so you reduce all to this exacting or not exacting a profession of known errours and not to the errours in themselves and yet we haue heard you say that our Errours in diverse of which chiefe learned Protestants agree with vs against their Brethren in themselves induce an obligation vpon you to forsake vs. What is here but contradicting saying and vnsaying the same thing Which shewes that with you nothing is certaine except that you are certaine of nothing And consequently could haue no necessary and certaine reason to forsake all Churches 64. Thirdly To bring you out of the cloudes and to vnderstand things as they are The separation we meane when there is speech of division by Schisme and Heresy is not that separation which is caused by the Ecclesiasticall censure of Excommunication which deprives men of the publike suffrages of Gods Church of vse of Sacraments and conversation with faithfull people and may consist with the Grace of God and Charity not only when it is vnjust but also when the party censured repents himselfe by perfect contrition of the sin for which the Censure was imposed though he be not actually absolved from it in regard of some cause or invincible impediment which is not in his power to alter or remooue but hartily desires to be absolved and so is vnited to the Church in voto And this Censure of Excommunication is wont to be inflicted not only for Schisme or Heresy but for other offences also against God or our neighbour But Luther and his fellowes voluntarily put themselves vpon another kind of separation to wit from the profession of the same Faith and
those Protestants who affirme the Roman Church to haue lost the Nature and Being of a true Church do by inevitable consequence grant that for diverse Ages Christ had no Visible Church an earth From which Errour because Dr. Potter disclaimeth he must of necessity maintaine that the Roman Church is free from Fundamētall ād damnable Errours and that she is not cut off from the Body of Christ and Hope of salvation And if saith he ibidem any Zealops amongst vs haue proceeded to heavyer Censures their zeale may be excused but their Charity and wisdome cannot be justifyed Thus Charity Maintayned in that place and then immediatly proves clearly that the Grecians Waldenses Wicklef Huss Muscovites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians or Abissines either held damnable Heresyes confessed to be such both by Catholiks and Protestants or els that they agree with vs Catholiks in the particular doctrines wherin Protestants haue for saken vs. This being so who can deny but that if Luther and his followers were Schismatiks for leaving the externall communion of all visible Churches which for the present you are content to suppose the Roman Church taken in this sense which you haue heard Charity Maintayned declare was that visible Church seing there was no true Church of Christ but the Roman in that sense in which she is not a particular but the vniversall Church including all true Churches And yet by way of supererogation Charity Maintayned said N. 55. Pag 229. that Luther and his followers had been Schismatiks though the Roman were but a particular Church because Potter Pag 76. saith Whosoever professes himselfe to forsake the communion of any one member of the Body of Christ must confesse himselfe consequently to forsake the whole Since therfore in the same place he expressly acknowledges the Church of Rome to be a member of the Body of Christ and that it is cleare they forsooke Her and professe to haue done so it followes evidently that they forsooke the whole and therfore are most properly Schismatiks for leaving the Roman Church whether you take it for a particular or for the vniversall Church that is for all Churches which agreed with Her and so your instance P. 263. N. 27. that the foote might say to the head I acknowledg there is a Body and yet that no member besides you is this Body nor yet that you are it but only a part of it hath indeed neither head nor foote Because when we say the Roman Church is the vniversall Church we speake not of Her as a particular Church or part of the whole but taken with all other Churches and consequently as a Whole and then you are not to aske whether the foote be the whole Body but whether head foote and all other parts taken together be not the whole Body which if you cannot deny you must confess that your owne instance is against yourself and for vs. 85. By this also is answered what you say that Protestants make not the true preaching of the word and due adminstration of the Sacraments the Notes of the visible Church but only of a visibble Church Not of the Church Catholique or the whole Church but of a particular Church or a part of the Catholique But out of what we haue sayd this appeares to be a plaine contradiction For if they be Notes of every particular Church or of every part of the whole they must also be Notes of the whole which is nothing but every part as joyned with all the rest or the parts taken collectiuè that is the whole number of parts which is nothing but the whole Body consisting of such parts As if vitall actions be a Note or signe of the presence of our soule or life in every part of our Body it must also be a signe of life in the whole Body consisting of all its parts Will you haue the whole an Idaea Platonica separate from all parts how then can the true preaching of the word be a signe of every part of the Church and not of the whole Or will you haue the whole or vniversall Church want an essentiall note of a true Church But as every where so here you take more vpon you in behalfe of Protestants than you haue commission from them to doe The English Protestant Church Artic 19. saith The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithfull men in the which the pure word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly ministred Where you see the visible Church is called a congregation and therfore no such necessary difference passes between the Church and a Congregation or Church as you confidently affirme Will you say that the Church which you will haue to signify the vniversall or whole Church is a congregation that is a particular Church And yet the sayd 19. Article saith The Church of Christ is a congregation that is according to your Divinity a particular Church Or by what Logick can you say that the Subjectum in a proposition can be of a larger extent than the Praedicatum and the vniversall Church affirmed to be a particular Church Also if preaching of the word be not a Note of the visible Church how comes it to be put in the very definition of it Willet in his Synopsis Pag 71. saith These markes eannor be absent from the Church it is no longer A true Church than it hath these markes And Pag 69. The only absence of them doth make a nullity of the Church Behold Preaching of the word c Markes both of the and a Church And these markes are sayd to be essentiall to both yea both the and a are applied to the same Church And as I sayd it is strang in you to imagine that what is essentiall to every part must not necessarily be essentiall to the whole or that the whole must participate of the parts and not of that which is essentiall to them or that the parts by being vnited to compound one whole must loose that which was essentiall to them before such an vnion or composition that is that they must loose themselves by loosing that which was essentiall to them But if these cleare reasons will not serve at least be content to be convinced by your owne words Pag 294. N. 93. Where you must suppose that it is a good Argument to make an inference from every one of the parts to the whole What is say you this Catholique Church but the society of men wherof every particular and by consequence the whole company is or may be guilty of many sins dayly committed against knowledg and conscience Now I would fame vnderstand why one Errour in Faith especially if not Fundamentall should not consist with the holyness of the Church as well as many and great sins committed against knowledg and conscience And why then do you not make the like consequence and say the visible Church is but a society of men consisting of diverse Churches wherof every particular and by consequence the
tyme and then disappeared as if it had never been And by this is answered what you object in the sayd Page 260. against the saying of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 165. N. 11. That all Devines by defining Schisme to be a division from the Church suppose that there must be a knowne Church from which it is possible for men to depart 95. Object 4. Pag 254. N. 4. you cite Charity Maintayned as saying thus 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 the division must be so likewise which say you is not so certaine as you pretend But the word certainly which you set downe as the word of Charity maintayned and vpon which you ground your Objection is not to be found in his words Pag 151. which you pretend to alledge Yet because the thing in it selfe is certainly true let vs heare what you can object to the contrary You say they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state Civill or Ecclesiasticall do committ a great fault wherof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and no the vtmost of their power oppose a chang though to the former state when continuance of tyme hath once setled the present 96. Answer It is no less then great prophaness in you to make a parity between a Schisme from Gods Church which is intrinsecè and essentially vnlawfull and alterations in a Civill or Ecclesiasticall state for things accidentall and of their nature indifferent For if you suppose those alterations to be of their owne nature vnlawfull and sinfull they can never be innocent who continue them nor can any continuance of tyme establish them Luther and his followers separated themselves from the Church by sinfull profession of Faith contrary in many Points to the beliefe of all Churches for you suppose for the present that their separation was causeless and sinfull which is to be noted and will you say it is lawfull to continue in a false profession of Faith against ones conscience because others haue begun it How oftē do you profess that it is alwayes damnable to dissemble or speake against ones conscience in matters of Faith Well then if vpon supposition he be obliged to profess the whole Catholique Faith he must among other Points belieue that it is absolutely vnlawfull to communicate with Heretiks in their Sacraments and that there can be no just cause to liue out of the Communion of the Church and that it is vnlawfull either to begin or continue a division from Her and that they are obliged to returne to Her Communion And this I proue out of your owne words Pag 312. N. 112. it should be 113. where you speake to Charity Maintayned in this manner You spend a great deale of reading and witt and reason against some men who pretending to honour and belieue the Doctrine and Practise of the visible Church you meane your owne and condemning their forefathers who forsooke her say they would not haue done so yet remaine divided from Her Communion VVhich men in my judgment cannot be defended For if they belieue the doctrine of your Church then must they belieue this doctrine that they are to returne to your Communion And therfore if they do not so it cannot be avoyded but that they must be a'vtocatacritoi Behold whosoever believes as we do must also belieue that they cannot continue this Schisme begun by others I wish all would reflect vpon this grant which evidence of truth hath drawne from you though it hath cost you a contradiction against your saying that a Schisme with vs might be begun with sin and yet they be innocent who continue it Your captious Words that Charity Maintayned should not haue written against these kind of men in a worke which he professes to haue written meerly against Protestants shall be answered in their proper place 97. Object 5. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 152. N. 3. said Charity vniteth all the members of the Church in one Mysticall Body VVhich you say Pag 255. N. 6. is manifestly vntrue for many of them haue no Charity 98. Answer Some would say that it is hard to determine whether this objection hath more of the insolent or proud or malicious But I abstaine from censures What Charity Maintayned saied was not his alone but the Doctrine of all Divines and in particular of the Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas whose express words he cited wherin 2.2 Quest 39. Art 1. in Corp he defines Schisme A voluntary separation from the vnity of that Charity wherby all the members of the Church are vnited Peccatum saith he Schismatis propriè est speciale peccatum ex eo quod intenditse ab vnitate separare quam Charitas facit In which words of this holy Doctour you haue both the affirmation of Charity Maintayned and the reason therof That as Heresy is opposite to Faith so Schisme to Charity and for that cause Heresy and Schisme are two distinct vices Otherwise how will you distinguish them In the same place as also N. 7. Charity Maintayned alledges S. Austine Lib. 1. de Fid ad Simp Cap 10. saying Heretiks corrupt the Faith by believing of God false things but Schismatiks by wicked divisions breake from fraternall Charity although they belieue what we belieue And Lib 1. de Serm Dom in Mon Cap. 5. Many Heretiks vnder the name of Christians deceaving mens soules do suffer many such things but where there is not sound Faith there cannot be justice Neither can Schismatiks promise to themselves any part of this reward Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice because likewise where there is no Charity there cannot be justice The loue of our neighbour doth not worke evill which if they had they would not teare in peeces the Body of Christ which is the Church Do you not see that this Saint still opposes Heresy to Faith and Schisme to that Charity which vnites the members of Gods Church in one mysticall Body which Schisme divides Also the same Saint sayes Ep 204. Being out of the Church and divided from the heape of vnity and the bond of Charity thou shouldest be punished with eternall death though thou shouldest be burned aliue for the name of Christ Now if many of the members of the Church haue no Charity as you say they must be Schismatiks or if they be not they haue that Charity which Schismatiks want and consequently it is vntrue that they haue no Charity Will you haue them be members of the Church because they are not divided from her by Schisme and yet not be members of the Church in regard they haue no Charity Potter Pag 42. saith Though faith be kept entire yet if Charity be wanting the vnity of the Church is disturbed her vnton dissolved Schisme is no lesse damnable than Heresy Why do you not object against your client That many members of
member whether we suppose that former Mysticall Body to be still existent or to haue perished which consideration of existing or not existing of the Community from which one departs is only materiall and accidentall to Schisme consisting formally in division from the Communion of the Church whether only preexistent or existent also for the present If it be sayd Genes 1. V. 5. Divisit Lucem a tenebris he divided the light from the darkness by taking away phisically or as I may say destroying one of the extremes seing light and darkness cannot stand together much more may we say that morally one may be divided from a Church and from himselfe though that Church cease to be or still remayne and he shall cease to be a member of it even by that Division though he cease nor to exist or be a man or himselfe 113. And now appeares that what Charity Maintayned Part 1. P 204. N. 39. sayd That a Protestant may be a Schismatike from himselfe because the selfsame Protestant to day is convicted in Conscience that his yesterdays opiniō was an errour with whō therfore a reconciliatiō according to Dr. Potters Ground Pag 20. is both impossible ād damnable is no strāg saying in itselfe though yet to make it appeare so you Pag 303. N. 103. do egregiously falsify his words which are From a mans selfe c. as much as is possible which words as much as is possible you leaue out And by the way I wonder with what conscience you can pretend to inferr out of the words of Cha Ma That they that hold errours must hold them fast and take speciall care of being convicted in conscience that they are in errour for feare of being Schismatiks For Ch Ma said only with whom therfore a reconciliation according to Potters grounds is impossible and dānable which is a cleare inference out of Potter to shew that a man may be irreconciliable with himselfe and divided frō himselfe in regard of his owne repugnant opinions ād consequently a Schismatike from himselfe if other conditions of Schisme do concurre as for Exāple that he leaue a revealed Doctrine by falling into Heresy or forsake the Communion of that true Church of which he was once a member and so morally divide himselfe from himselfe 114. Fourthly Your speculation is directly against the holy Fathers Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 153. N. 3. cites S. Hierome vpon these words ad Titum 3. A man that is an Heretike after the first and second admonition avoyde saying Schisme doth separate from the Church which you must say is not true because they who separate are Part of the Church and they separate not from themselves And N. 7. the alledges S. Austine de gest cum Emerit saying Out of the Catholique Church one may haue Faith orders and in summe all things except salvation This you will controle and tell S. Austine that none can be out of the Catholique Church because they themselves are Part of that Church and they cannot be divided from themselves And N. 11. the same Saint is alledged saying in Psalm 30. Conc 2. The Prophets spoke more obscurely of Christ than of the Church because as I thinke they did for see in spirit that men were to make partyes against the Church and that they were not to haue so great strife concerning Christ Therfore that was more plainly fortold and more openly prophecyed about which greater contentions were to rise that it might turne to the condemnation of them who haue seene it and yet gone forth If your Doctrine were true none can go forth of the Church because they cannot go from themselves S. Fulgentius cited N. 7. saith de Fid ad Pet Belieue this stedfastly without doubting that every Heretike or Schismatike baptized in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost if before the end of his life he be not reconciled to the Catholique Church what almes soever he giue yea though he should shed his bloud for the Name of Christ he cannot obtaine salvation But how can any be reconciled to the Catholique Church if he cannot be divided from her Because he neither was nor could be divided from himselfe And that you may be convinced by all kind of witnesses how could Calvin say Epist 141. we were forced to make a separation from the whole world since he could not separate from himselfe We must therfore say that whosoever divides himselfe from the Church by Schisme separates from the whole Church because by that separation he ceaseth to be a member of the Church and so the Church which before was a Whole of which he then was a Part remaines in Herselfe a Whole but he no Part by reason of his voluntary Division from Her which for the effect of his being or not being denominated a Part of the Church is all one with corporall death vnlesse you will covertly haue men belieue that there can be no such imaginable thing as Schisme from the whole or vniversall Church because the party separating himself from the Church is still a Part of Her in regard he is not divided from himselfe And no wonder if you make small account of Schisme or Division from the Church who think and speak so contemptibly of the Church as we haue heard you Pag 294. N. 93. speak even of the Catholique Church in these words What is it but a society of men wherof every particular and by consequence the whole company is or may be guilty of many sinnes daily committed against knowledg and conscience Now I would faine vnderstand why one errour in faith especially if not Fundamentall should not consist with the holyness of this Church as well as many and great sins committed against knowledg and conscience Which saying of yours hath bene confuted aboue 115. Object 11. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 196. N. 31. saith Luther being but only one opposed himselfe to All as well subjects as superiours Against this Pag 291. N. 89. you object How can we say properly and without straining that he opposed himselfe to All vnless we could say also that All opposed themselves to him And how can we say so seing the world can witness that so many thousands nay millions followed his standard as soone as it was advanced 116. Answer This is no good dealing to impugne Charity Maintayned for that very thing concerning Luther for which Part. 1. Pag 161 N. 9. he cited Luther himselfe expressly saying in Praefat Operum suorum Primò solus eram At the first I was alone Now will you say to your Patriark Alone And yet so many thousands nay millions followed you But surely if so many millions followed him so very early they made much more hast than they could make good speed in a matter so vncouth strange incredible of so high concerment and so visibly repugnant to the doctrine and practise of the whole vniversall Church of God and therfore they must needs be lyable to that just
Austine How familiar is it with you to overthrow yourselfe and plead for your Adversary 119. But this is not all For when S. Austine affirmes against the Donatists It is not possible that any man may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the Communiō of the whole world he could not ground his Asseveration vpon any accidentall vnity in Communion which might be altered and which you say de facto is taken away by Divisions and subdivisions but vpon a higher and more vniversall and stable Ground that God hath obliged himselfe never to permitt the Gates of Hell to privaile against his Church in such manner as men not only might but also should be obliged to forsake her Communion Otherwise S. Austines Argument had beene of no force and only a Petitio principii as being grounded vpon a Point which was the thing in Controversy between Catholikes and Donatists that is whether the Church at that tyme was corrupted and therfore S. Austine and other Fathers did rely vpon an vniversall ād constant ground as I also observed when I spoke of succession of Bishops And the words of S. Austine can signify no less For he saith not There is not any just cause to separate from the Communion of the whole world as if he spoke only of some present state and condition or some accidentall and changeable thing but he saith absolutely It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world wheras according to your glosse it is not only possible but you say that de facto there was just and necessary cause to separate from the Communion of the whole world This being so I now inferr demonstratively that seing it is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate from the Communion of the whole world It is not possible that the Church of the whole world could fall into any errour or corruption and that Luther was a Schismatike for leaving Her Communion vpon a pretence so false and injurious to God and his Church Morover this your answer doth vndoubtedly crosse your owne conscience For you do not only belieue that there were many errours in the Church of S. Austires tyme as the beliefe of the B. Trinity the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Father c but you also affirme againe and againe that S. Austine himselfe and the whole Church with him held a great errour about the necessity of the Eucharist for children wherin though you do perniciously erre and wrong that Holy Father yet in your judgment the Donatists could not be truly convinced of Schisme for leaving that Church which you hold to haue beene in an errour against Faith in a Point of very great moment Or if the Donatists could not separate from the Church of that tyme though corrupted what excuse could Luther haue for his Division from all Churches of the whole world vpon pretence of errours 120. And here that the world may see with what spirit you began to swell in leaving the Catholique Church I cannot omitt to reflect how irreligously in this Page and Section you are bold with that great Doctour of Gods Church that Conquerour of Heretiks that Champion for Gods Grace that Cherubin for knowledg and that Seraphin for most ardent loue of God glorious S. Austine 121. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Cap 5. having cited the forsayd saying of S. Austine Ep 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world adds this other sentence of the same Blessed Saint de Bapt Lib 5. Cap 1. the most manifest sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there was no cause of separation To which sayings of S. Austine you giue this answer Pag 301. N. 101. The second of these sentences seemes to me to imply the contradiction of the first For to say that the sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there is no cause of separation implyes to my vnderstanding that there may be a cause of separation Now in the first he sayes plainly that this is impossible But by your leaue there is no such thing implyed in the words of S. Austine as your vnderstanding and will depraved by pride and Heresy moue you to apprehend And to facilitate your apprehension it made for your purpose to abbreviate or rather falsify S. Austines words which are these and are so cited by Charity Maintayned whom you had read The most manifest sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there was no cause of separation As if he had sayd in direct contrariety to your vnderstanding and false glosse it is always true that Schisme is agrievous sin but is most Manifest and Eminent when there could not be pretended any true or probable cause of separation I say any true or probable cause For you do not defend but betray the cause of S. Austine and of the Catholikes of his tyme by saying the Donatists did not deny but that the publike service of God 〈◊〉 at that tyme vnpolluted wheras it is notorious that they professed the whole Church beside their particular congregation in Afrike to haue perished by reason that Catholikes did communicate with some men who as they falsely sayd were guilty of great crimes and if they held the Church to haue perished how can you say that they pretended no cause for their separation Nay how could they chuse but alledge for their excuse a most convincing and necessary cause if it had been true the totall ruine and destruction of the Church with which therfore it was wholy impossible for them to communicate Neither can it be denyed but that they calumniated Catholikes for communicating with Caecilianus whom they falsly accused of partaking with them who were called Traditors of the holy Bible to be burnt though indeed not Caecilianus but they themselves were guilty of that crime And beside this cause which you do not deny they objected to Catholiques that they erred in believing that Baptisme might be cōferred by Heretiques and that they received without competent pennance those who in tyme of persecution had denied Christ and saieth Potter Pag 125. out of S. Austine Epist 167. That the efficacie of Sacraments depends on the dignity of the Minister that being no true Baptisme which is not given by a just man 122. As for that which you say the Donatists objected against Catholikes that they set pictures vpon their Altars and you speake of the same matter P. 334. N. 16. you cannot but in your conscience know that they meant such as were to be worshipped with idolatry which was a huge falshood and calumny and therfore S. Austine Epist 48. saith To how many did the reports of ill tongues shut vp the way to enter into the Catholike Church who sayd that we put I know not what vpon the Altar And in this I say againe you cannot but speak against your owne conscience seing you cite Optatus
Church acknowledged to be Infallible in Fundamentall Points rather than forsake her communion for Points not necessary to salvation especially with danger of forsaking her in some necessary Point Or if you say It is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue whatsoever is sufficiently propounded as revealed by God as Dr. Potter grants and the thingh it selfe is evidently true then you must either affirme that the Church did not erre in any Point of Faith or els that she erred Fundamentally and ceased to be a Church which is against your present supposition and against Potter who P. 126. teaches that to say the church remayned only in the part of Donatus was an errour in the matter and nature of it properly hereticall And much worse must it be to say she remayned no where and so while you pretend to fly the fained errours of the Church you fall into a formall and proper heresy 131. If we consider what may be inferred not absolutely but vpon some impossible supposition That the Church erres in Points of Faith not Fundamentall we must inferr that she may be forsaken because she erres in matters of Faith and yet may not be forsaken because as we have seene out of the Holy Fathers it is never lawfull to forsake the Church What then is to be concluded but that as I haue sayd hertofore she cannot erre and therfore cannot be forsaken vpon any termes Divines teach that at least per se loquendo non potest dari perplexitas that is there cannot happen a case wherin a man whatsoever he doth is sure to commit some sinfull thing because it is a first principle in nature that nothing is is more in our freedome than to sin or not to sin And yet this cause of perplexity must perpetually happen if the Church could erre that is one must judge that she were to be forsaken and not to be forsaken and so remaine miserably perplexed We must therefore for avoyding this absurdity conclude that the Church cannot erre in any matter of Faith 132. But yet to come to the last part of my Advertisement If we persist in the supposition That one is perswaded the Church doth erre must he therfore forsake her communion as Luther and his fellowes did In no case For then we must call to mynd the Doctrine of Divines in case of perplexity that if one be in a vincible or culpable errour for one of the contradictory parts it is in his power and he is obliged to depose that errour which if he do not he shall not be excused from sin notwithstanding his perplexity and seeming excuse of a necessity to sin whatsoever he does If we suppose his errour to be invincible for example he beleeves the Church may not in any case be forsaken and yet that she erres and that he should sin in pro fessing those supposed errours this supposition I say being once made I dispute not whether such a perplexity be possible in this particular matter or no then enters the Doctrine of all Divines that he is obliged to embrace the lesser evill and to follow the generall Axiome exduobus malis minus est eligendum as we see nature exposes the arme to defend the head And in dubijs pars tutior est eligenda And therfore your saying Pag 283. N. 72. We must not do evill to avoide evill taken vniversally and in all cases is manifestly false against the light of Reason and your allegation of Scripture Pag 168. N. 63. you must not do evill that good may come theron is not to the purpose For we speake not of attaining a voluntary greater good but of avoiding a greater evill necessary to be committed vnless a lesser evill be embraced This then being certaine that in case of perplexity one is obliged to embrace the lesser evill the Question may remaine whether by doing so he is excused from all fault or only from being guilty of that greater sin which he avoides by choosing the lesser Certaine it is that he committs not so grievous a sin as if he had betaken himselfe to the other part But diverse great Divines as Amicus Tom 3. D. 15. Sect 3. N. 43. Tho Sanch Tom 1. in Decalog Cap 11. N. 14. alij are of opinion that he commits no sin at all because in that case of invincible Perplexity it is not in his power to avoide that which otherwise were a sin and can be none in him because every sinne essentially requires freedome of will He harh say they freedom to chuse either of those two parts taken as it were materially or considered per modum naturae but not formally and morally so to chuse them as to avoide sin absolutely seing he must of necessity chuse one side and therfore by embracing the lesser evill he does as much as lyes in his power to doe for avoiding sin and consequently is not culpable or blameworthy Now according to these Doctrines whosoever leaves the Church vpon pretence of errours not Fundamentall cannot be excused from Schisme because to profess such errours had been either a lesse sin than to leaue the Church and so in the opinion of all Divines he was obliged to embrace that less evill and not leaue the Church or it had been no sin at all in the opinion of diverse good Divines and then much less can he be excused for leaving the Church without any necessity at all Yea seing this last opinion is probable he might prudently conforme his conscience to it and by that meanes free himselfe from not only sin but also from danger therof by following a probable and prudent dictamen that to profess errours not Fundamentall were no sin at all in that case and vpon that supposition of insuperable perplexity Nay I say more that if this latter opinion of Divines be true a man shall not sin though he be of a contrary mynd and thinke in his conscience that he sins by choosing the lesser evill though not so grievously as he had done by adhering to the other part My reason is because this latter opinion is grounded vpon the impossibility which the perplexed person hath to avoide sin and one cannot sin in doing that which he cannot avoide though by an erronious conscience he judge that he sins as if one cannot heare Masse vpon a holy day or kills a man with a weapon violently put into his hand and with his hand by like violence carryed to that fact in those or the like cases no sin is committed though the partyes should thinke they sin And this is true though that part or less ill which is embraced be intrinsecè malum evill of it self or of its nature which is well to be observed for our case of professing knowne errours which of it selfe is evill because no sin of any kind can be committed when it is impossible to avoid it According to which considerations to elect the profession of errours rather then the desertion of the
Church is not only secure but certaine and easy and therfore necessary Thus your mayne Objection is turned against your selfe And then it is further inferred that if it either be no sin or at least a less offense to profess errours than to forsake the Church she may justly exact and injoyne vnder Censures that to which every one is obliged by the Law of God notwithstanding any pretence or supposition of errours For when the Holy Fathers vnanimously agree that it is not possible there can be any just cause to forsake the Church they must suppose that either she cannot fall into any errour which is most true and indeed they suppose it otherwise there could be no difference betweene the vniversall and a particular Church which may fall into errour and so be forsaken or els you must grant that they did not conceiue any eriours could excuse the leaving her Communion And this vnaninâ—ous consent alone were sufficient for Christians to belieue that the profession of errours cannot be so great an evill as separation from the Church is Nevertheless reason it selfe grounded in principles of Faith convinceth the same For in true Divinity it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to disbelieue any one point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants and you say further that it is to giue God the ly and therfore to profess as a point of Faith any thing contrary to the beliefe of the Church is to say she erred fundamentally and fell into infidelity as Potter saith every one doth who denyes a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed and consequently to profess that the Church erred is to say that she perished which Potter saith is in the matter and nature of it properly hereticall and so Whosoever saith the Church erred he himselfe by that very saying professes indeed a damnable heresy which is worse than to profess an errour contrary only to a Truth supposed to be not Fundamentall nor necessary and so by your owne confessions though I grant your confessions contradict yourself we proue our intent 123. Besides it is no less evident that it is essentially and Fundamentally evill to disbelieue a truth knowne to be witnessed by God than to profess externally some point which one believes not to be true yea that first must be the ground for which you say it is damnable to profess against ones conscience an errour repugnant to Divine Revelation For if it be not damnable to deny interiourly such a truth much lesse can it be damnable to profess exteriourly only a deniall of that which one believes to be revealed by God For it is to be considered that we speake not of any internall errour but only of the externall profession of an errour not Fundamentall which alone is not so great a sinne as internall Heresy nor so vast a Mischiefe as the inconvenience of Schisme is which is destructiue of the whole Church essentially including communion in profession of one Faith Liturgy c. and necessarily brings with it a deluge of scandall irreligiosity contempt disobedience and in one word vniversitatem malorum and therfore S. Thomas teaches 2.2 Quest 29. Art 2. ad 3. that amongst sins against our neighbour Schisme is the most grievous because it is against the spirituall good of the multitude or community and as Cha Ma saith Part 1. Pag 156. N. 6. As there is as great difference betweene the crime of rebellion or sedition and debates among private men as there is inequality betwixt one man and a whole kingdome or Common wealth so in the Church Schisme is as much more grievous than sedition in a Kingdome or Common wealth as the spirituall good of soules surpasses the Civill and politicall weale See here the sayings of the Holy Fathers in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 157. N. 70. of the grievousness of Schisme All which is confirmed by what we sayd even now that the profession of an errour in our case cannot so much as hurt a private person who constituted in an invincible perplexity doth not sin by embracing the less evill in the opinion of great Divines with whose Doctrine whosoever conformes his Conscience is certaine not to sin whatsoever the thing be in it selfe 134. Morover it is evident both in reason and by experience that Schisme always brings with it that very thing which you pretend to be so very inconvenient and damnable that is a profession of errours at least not Fundamentall by multiplying diversity of Sects and opinions as we see it happens among Protestants some of whoâ— must be in an errour And S. Hierome saith truly vpon those words of the Apostle which some casting of haue suffered ship wrack in their Faith though Schisme in the beginning may in some sort be vnderstood different from heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not faine some Heresy to it selfe that so it may seeme to haue departed from the Church vpon good reason And is it not worse both to belieue and profess culpable errours than to belieue aright and faile only in the outward profession of that beliefe The former makes one a formall compleat Heretike both in conscience and judgment of the Church the latter is indeed no Heretike but only appeares so to be neither is he subject to the punishment of Heretiks The former offends in two respects in the beliefe of an errour and profession of it The latter only in profession which alone as I saied cannot be so sinfull as the errour of Heresy it selfe both because the profession is sinfull only by reason of the errour professed as also because by heresy one doubts or denyes some truth revealed by God which is immediatly against Gods supreme Uerity and veracity and so is against an Object of a Theologicall Uertue as S. Thomas saith 2.2 Quest 39. A â— c. Infidelitas est peccatum contra ipsum Deum secundum quod in se est veritas prima cui fides innititur But to profess a knowne errour is only against the precept of professing ones Faith which are distinct thinges and therfore as I sayd a culpable errour is worse than the only profession of an errour If you thinke that such an externall profession is worse than an internall errour because that is against ones conscience you are much mistaken it being certaine that not every sin of dissimulation against ones conscience is greater than any other sin as is cleare of it selfe to every Divine or Philosopher yea the externall sinfull profession of an errour flowes from the Heresy itself which ordinarily is a worse roote than humane feare hope or the like from which an externall false profession or dissimulation is wont to procede and therfore this is less damnable than that even though it were a finne and were not excused by the supposed invincible perplexity as we have Shewed it may be S. Thomas 2.2 Quest 39. Art 2. in corpore teaches that Infidelity ex suo genere is a greater
sin than Schisme yet adds this exception It may happen that some Schismatike may commit a greater sin than some infidell either by reason of greater contempt or the greater danger which he brings or for some like thing If this Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas say this comparing Schisme with true infidelity much more may we affirme it if we consider true Schisme on the one side and on the other only a false appearance or meere externall profession of errour or heresy As for those limitations of S. Thomas they may seeme to be prophecyes if we apply them to Luther and his fellowes in regard of the contempt which they shewed of all Prelats and the whole Church of the not only danger but reall and vnspeakable mischiefes which their Schisme did bring and of moreand greater inconveniences than could haue been believed or imagined if the world did not see and lament them So as we may well speake to them in the words of Ch Ma P. 1. P. 187. N. 23. What excuse can you faine to yourselves who for Points not necessary to salvation haue been occasions causes and authors of so many mischiefes as could not but vnavoidably accompany so huge a breach in Kingdomes in Commonwealths in private persons in publike Magistrates in Body in soule in goods in life in Church in the state by Schismes by war by famine by plague by bloud shedd by all sorts of imaginable calamityes vpon the whole face of the Earth wherin as in a mapp of Desolation the heaviness of your crime appeares vnder which the world doth pant 135. Some learned Divines speaking of invincible Perplexity giue this Doctrine that if I must either committ a veniall sin in a matter which of it selfe and per se loquendo is only veniall for example an officiously or expose my selfe to danger of a mortall sin I am obliged to chuse the lesser evill which in opinion of great Divines were in that case no sin at all rather than put my selfe in danger of the greater evill a deadly sin O into how certaine danger doth a Schismaticke precipitate himselfe beside the sin of Schisme of committing innumerable deadly sins and of being cause that innumerable other persons fall into the like offences against God and his neighbour And therfore men are obliged rather to vndergoe a less evill than to make themselves obnoxious to infinitly greater mischiefes and rather to profess exteriourly an errour not distructiue of salvation than to forsake the Communion of Gods Church within which God hath confined Remission of sins and Salvation Consider what we haue cited out of your owne words Pag 163. N. 56. If by adhering to the Church we could haue been thus far secured not to erre in Fundamentalls this Argument that in wisdome we must forsake the Church in nothing least we should forsake her in some thing necessary had some shew of reason and what you say N. 55. We never annexed this Priviledge of not erring in Fundamentalls to any one Church of any one denomination Which if we had done and set vp some setled certain society of Christians for our Guide in Fundamentalls 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 In these words you grant that if any Church of one denomination were knowne to be infallible in all Fundamentall Points we might conclude though not certainly yet probably that you could not in wisdome forsake her in any Point for feare of forsaking her in a necessary Point If the inference of Charity Maintayned be probable by your confession vpon that supposition of infallibility in some determinate Church for Fundamentall Points then you must grant that all objections to the contrary may be answered which I pray you doe and tell vs whether in that case it should be damnable to profess any knowne errour If it be damnable then you must forsake the Church in such Points which yet you say in wisdome one could not doe If it should not be damnable you must shew how it was not so and whatsoever you alledge for the defense of professing knowne errours and adhering to the Church even in that case will serue for defense of vs and a confutation of your owne objections against vs. Besides you say Charity Maintayned might haue some colour and reason in the case proposed of some determinate Churches infallibility in Fundamentalls to conclude that we could not in wisdome forsake such a Church in any Point for feare of forsaking her in a necessary Point From which confession I inferr first that if in wisdome one ought not forsake in any Point a Church infallible in fundamentalls for feare of forsaking her in a necessary Point much more they ought to conforme themselves to her in externall profesion and consequently that it is a greater evill to forsake her communion than to profess externally some vnfundamentall errour and Secondly that for feare of incurring a greater evill that is in our case a Fundamentall errour one may and ought to chuse the less which is the thing I haue endeavoured to proue and which vtterly evacuates the ground for which you pretend to excuse Luther and his followets Morover If you meane that one is not to profess any errour against his Conscience but that also he ought his submitt to judgment in all Points to a Church lieved to be infallible in Fundamentalls then you overthrow your owne ground and words N. 57. that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things having no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things that is in Fundamentalls because in reason no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is founded And therfore if I consider what I doe and be perswaded that your Infallibility is but limited and particular and partiall my adherence vpon this ground cannot possible be Absolute and vniversall and Totall Thirdly vpon this your owne grant it followes clearly that Luther could not in wisdome forsake all Churches because Protestants grant that all Churches or the whole Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Points and therfore in wisdome could not be forsaken in any thing at all not that your first Protestants can be excused from Schisme in doing so But againe if they were obliged to submitt their judgment to the Church and had done so as indeed they ought to haue done their professing a Faith contrary to that of the Church as Luther did had been also to profess an errour contrary to their owne conscience and so whatsoever you say you are confuted by your owne grounds which appeares more by these your express words Pag 280. N. 95. What man of judgment will thinke it any disparagement to his judgment to preferre a field not perfectly weeded before a field that is quite over-runne with weeds and thornes And therfore though Protestants
vnderstanding to an assent in despite of any pious affection of the will and reverence due to Gods Church and Councells and the many and great reasons which make for Her which is vnanswerably confirmed by considering that Protestants disagree amongst themselves and many of them in many things agree with vs which I must often repeate which could not happen if the reasons against vs were demonstratiue or evident and in this occasion your Rule that the property of Charity is to judge the best will haue place at least for as much as concernes those your owne Brethren who agree with vs As also your other saying Pag 41. N. 13. That men honest and vpright hearts true lovers of God and truth may without any fault at all some goe one way some another which shewes that there can be no evidence against the Doctrine of the Church with which even so many Protestants agree but that Catholikes haue at least very probable and prudent reasons not to depart from the Church in any one point and that although we should falsely suppose Her to erre in points not fundamentall the errour could not be culpable nor sinfull but most prudent and laudable And in this our condition is far different and manifestly better than that of Protestants who disagreeing not only both from the Church but amongst themselves also must be certaine that they are in errour which for ought they know may be fundamentall seing they cannot tell what Points in particular are fundamentall wheras we adhering to the Church are sure not to erre against any necessary or fundamentall truth And yourselfe say Pag 376. N. 57. He that believes all necessary Truth if his life be answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should faile of salvation 168. And then further vpon this same ground is deduced another great difference with great advantage on our side that Protestants are obliged vnder paine of damnation to make choyse of the more certaine and secure part and must not be content with a meere probability if they can by any industry care study prayer fasting almes-deeds or any other meanes attaine to a greater degree of certainty For if indeed they erre in any one Article of Faith necessary necessitate medij they cannot be saved even though their errour were supposed to be invincible as hertofore we haue shewed out of Protestants Wheras we being assured that adhering to the Church we cannot erre in any point of it selfe necessary to salvation for the rest we are sure to be saved if we proceed prudently and probably because the truth contrary to our supposed errours cannot be necessary necessitate medij as not being fundamentall Yea since indeed Protestants can haue no other true and solid meanes of assurance that they erre not Fundamentally except the same which we embrace of believing the Church in all her definitions they are obliged vnder deadly sin to belieue all that she proposes for feare of erring in some Fundamentall Article What I haue sayd that we proceede prudently though our Doctrines were supposed to be errours may be confirmed by an Adversary Dr. Jer Taylor who in his Liberty of prophesying § 20. N. 2. saieth that our grounds that truth is more ancient then falshood that God would not for so many Ages forsake his Church and leaue her in errour that whatsoever is new is not only suspitions but false are suppositions pious and plausible enough And then having reckoned many advantages of our Church he concludes These things and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to haue been the Religion of their fore-Fathers which had actuall possession and seizure of mens vnderstandings before the opposite professions had a name before Luther appeared And in express tearmes he confesses that these things are instruments of our excuse by making our errours to be invinc1ible which is the thing I would proue But here I must declare that when I say It is sufficient for vs to proceed probably and prudently It is still vpon a false supposition that the Church may erre in some Point not Fundamentall though in reall truth there be no such distinction For we are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue the Church equally in all points and vse all not only probable but possible meanes to find the true Church and belieue her with absolute certainty in all matters belonging to Faith and in particular That she cannot erre in any point Fundamentall or not Fundamentall without the beliefe of which truth Christian Faith cannot be certaine and infallible as hath been shewed at large 169. Thirdly I answer to your Objection That we absolutely deny the Catholique Church to be subject to errour either in Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points or that she can erre either Fundamentally or damnably in what sense soever And therfore wheras you say Pag 280. N. 95. The errours of Protestants are not so great as ours we vtterly deny that our Church can belieue or propose any errour at all And though those Catholique Verityes which we belieue were errours yet they could not be greater than those of Protestants speaking in generall seing in all the chiefest controverted points we haue diverse chiefe learned men on our side who think themselves as good Protestants as those other from whom they disagree Besides in our Question respect must be had to the kind and not to the degree of errours that is nor whether the points be FundameÌ„tall or not FundameÌ„tall nor whether they which be Fundamentall be greater or less in their owne nature nor whether one not Fundamentall be worse than another not Fundamentall because if one errour not Fundamentall yield not sufficient cause to forsake the Communion of the Church another cannot otherwise you will not be able to assigne any Rule when the Church may be forsaken and when she cannor and it is damnable to professe against ones conscience any errour in Faith be it never so small which is the ground for which you say the Communion of the Church may be forsaken And lastly it is more wisdome to hold a greater vnfundamentall errour with the Church which I know by the confession of our Adversaryes cannot erre fundamentally than by holding a less vnfundamentall errour expose my selfe to danger of falling into fundamentall errours as I proved hertofore As it is less evill to commit a veniall sinne that is which abstracting from the case of perplexity would be certainly a veniall sinne than to expose ones selfe to true danger of falling into a mortall offence of God 170. Fourthly I answer that as I haue often noted according to you and Dr. Potter it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to deny any point though otherwise of its nature not Fundamentall being proposed and belieued to be revealed by God and so your distinction between Fundamentall and damnable Points as if the eâ—â—ours of Catholiks and Protestants were damnable
here your saying N. 27. When Scripture is affirmed to be the Rule by which all Controversyes of Religion are to be decided those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it selfe â—or as that generall saying of Scripture He hath put all things vnder his feeâ—e is mâ—st true though yet S. Paul tells vs that when it is sayd he hath put all things vnder him it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things vnder him So when we say that all Controversyes of Religion are decidable by the Scripture it is manifest to all but cavillers that we do and must except from this generality those which are touching the scripture it selfe Iust as a Merchant shewing a ship of his owne may say all my substance is in this shipp and yet never intend to deny that his shipp is part of his substance nor yes to say that his ship is in it selfe Or as a man may say that a whole house is sipportâ—d by the foundation and yet never meane to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house or to say that it is supported by it selfe Or as you yourselves vse to say that the Bishopp of Rome is head of the whole Church and yet would thinke vs but captious Sophisters should we inferr from hence that either you made him no part of the whole or els made him head of himselfe 5. Answer Are all those Protestants Cavillers who teach that we may know by Scripture it selfe that it is the word of God and consequently that it may decide this Controversy concerning it selfe Doth not Potter Pag 141. say That Scripture is of Divine Authority the believer sees by that glorious beame of Divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall Arguments found in the letter it selfe And doth not the Scottish Minister Baron after he had confuted the opinions of others about the private spirit and the Doctrine of Catholikes concerning the Church finally resolve that Scripture is knowne to be the Word of God by certaine criteria or markes found in the Scripture it selfe And therfore it cannot be denyed but that when Protestants teach that all Points of Faith may be learned by Scripture they must either say that this Point of Faith Scripture is the word of God may be learned by Scripture or els contradict themselves as indeed they must and for that cause ought to grant that besides Scripture there is some other Meanes to propose Divine Revelations and Scripture it selfe with the true interpretation therof Your examples may be turned against you by those your Brethren who deny both the private spirit and the Authority of the Church for assuring vs with certainty that Scripture is the Word of God and they will tell you that if a ship must either be within itselfe or no where a marchant shewing a ship of his owne and saying all my substance is in this ship must either grant that the ship is in itselfe or els that he spoke vntruly in saying all my substance is in this ship and the like they would say of a foundation that if it support the whole house and cannot be supported by any thing but by itselfe it must support it selfe and then they would informe you that seing not only the contents of Scripture but also Scripture itselfe are objects revealed by God which revelation can neither be knowne by a private spirit which you and they hold to be a foolery nor an infallible Church which all of you hold to be Papistry it followes that Scripture must be believed for itselfe or els not be believed at all And the same we may answer ad hominem that if the Pope could not be head of the whole Church but he must be head of himselfe it could not be sayd that he is head of the whole vnless it be also granted that he is head of himselfe but we deny that fond supposition that he cannot be head of the Church vnless he be head of himselfe as contrarily Protestants teach that the Scripture cannot be knowne by an infallible Church nor by the private spirit and therfore it must be knowne by itselfe The same they would answer to those words he hath put all things vnder his feete that he could not be excepted who did put all things vnder him if indeed those first words he hath put all things vnder his feete could not be verifyed vnless he who put all things vnder his feete were put vnder him Neither can you avoide this retortion of your brethren except by saying that we do not infallibly belieue Scripture to be the word of God aÌ„d therfore there is required no infallibility in â—he Church from which you say we receiue Scripture or els that Scripture is not a materiall object which we belieue or both as indeed you affirme both that Faith is not infallible and that Scripture is not a materiall object of our Faith And finally every one who hath care of his soule must out of these inextricable labyrinths of Protestants conclude with Catholikes that for believing with certainty that Scripture is the word of God we must rely on the Church with this condition also that she be believed to be infallible which infallibility is absolutely necessary if once with all Christians we belieue Christian Faith to be infallibly true 6. To your N. 34. I answer That all those Bookes of Scripture are to be acknowledged for Canonicall which the Church receives for such Before which declaration of the Church all they were very secure who differed about some Bookes because they always believed the Authority of Gods Church which could not faile to propose in due tyme all things necessary for salvation But for the contrary reason Protestants relying vpon the sole written word cannot be safe in regard that they not knowing what Points in particular be necessary to salvation to make all sure must be obliged to know in particular all that is contayned in all the Bookes which diverse learned men even of their owne Sect acknowledg to be Canonicall least otherwise they may chance to remaine in ignorance or errour of some matter necessary to salvation 7. The same Answer serves for your N. 36. For it is a Lutheran and Luciferian blasphemy to speake of Esther and diverse other Bookes of Scripture as Luther speakes of them after the Definition of Gods Church to the contrary Wherof see Charity Ma. N. 9. Pag 45. 8. Your other Sections or numbers till the 48. concerning the sayings of Luther whom I know you defend against your Conscience and the Canon of the English Protestant Church which now hath no existence and her 39. Articles being or having been vnder Censure may perhaps be altered I let pass not to loose tyme. Only I cannot omitt your words N. 47. directed to Charity Maintayned You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much Truth togeather but to me it
could not haue believed Her in any one and so there had beene no meanes to attaine a Divine infallible Faith and that after the Canon of Scripture was persited the Church remaines infallible in Fundamentall Articles but may erre in Points not Fundamentall both which things are granted by Protestants I hope you will not deny but that the conclusion deduced from these Premises must be That she lost part and kept part of that infallibility with which she was endued before Scripture was written and that you haue an obligation to shew by some evident Text of Scripture that the Church by the writing therof was deprived of infallibility in Points not Fundamentall and conserved with infallibility in Fundamentall Articles beside what I sayd even now that according to your instance of a way the Church should haue bene deprived of infallibility when by writing of some Scriptures some points were made cleare in writing which before were believed only for the Authority of a Guide that is the Church And now consider whether Charity Maintayned may not say to you as you with your wanted humility speake to him jam dic Posthume de tribus capellis 45. Your N 141. hath beene answered in my confutation of your N. 124. concerning the infallibility of the high Priest and Jewish Church in your N. 142. you say to Charity Maintayned For particular rites and ceremonyes and orders for government our Saviour only hath left a generall injunction by S. Paul let all things be done decently and in order But what order is fittest i. e. what tyme what Place what Manner c is fittest that he hathleft to the discretion of the Governours of the Church But if you meane that he hath only concerning matters of Faith prescribed in Generall that we are to heare the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to beliue The Church being nothing els but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say He hath left it to all believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue Besides it is so apparently false that I wonder you could content yourselfe or thinke we should be contented with a bare saying without any shew or pretence of proofe 46. Answer My hope was at the first general view of this section to haue answered it in very few words But vpon particular examination I find it to involve so many points of moment that to vnfold them will require some little more tyme and paynes First you cite Ch Ma. imperfectly His words Part 1. P. 69. N. 23. are He Dr. Potter affirmes that the Jewish Sinagogue retained infallibility in herselfe notwithstanding the writing of the old Testament and will he so vnworthily and â—â—justly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibility by reason of the New Testament Expecially if we consider that in the Old Testament Lawes Ceremonyes Rites Punishments Judgments Sacraments Sacrifices c were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Jewes than in the New Testament is done our Saviour leaving the determination or Declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church which therfore stands in need of infallibility more than the Jewish Synagogue To these words you say I pray walke not thus in generality but tell vs what particulars And then you distinguish Rites and Ceremonyes and Orders for Governement from matters of Faith which indeed is no distinction if the matter be duly considered For although diverse Rites and Ceremonyes may chance to be of themselves indifferent and neither forbidden or commanded to be practised or omitted yet to be assured that indeed they are indifferent and not sinfull or superstitious and so infectiue of the whole Church we need some infallible authority And particularly this is true for the Hierarchy or Governement of the Church as I sayd hertofore which is a Fundamentall point if any can be Fundamentall to the constituting a Church For this cause Charity Maintayned expressly said that our aviour left to his Church the determination or declaration of particulars but you thought fit to leaue out the word declaration wheras we cannot certainly rely vpon the determination of any person or community without a power and infallibility to make a Declaration that the thing determined or ordained is lawfull and so a Determination or Ordination must suppose or imply in fact a declaration Do not you pretend to leaue vs for our superstitious Rites and Ceremonyes because you could not in conscience conforme yourselves to them And heere I may put the Reader in minde of the words which I cited aboue out of Moulin Epist 3 to Dr. Andrewes Non potui dicere primatum Episcoporum esse juris divini quin Ecclesijs nostris notam haereseos inurerem Enimvero obsirmare animum adversus ea quae sunt juris divini Deo jubentipertinaciter refragari planè est haeresis sive id Fidem attingat five disciplinam Thus your demand what particulars Charity Maitâ—yned vnderstood is answered namely that he vnderstood all particulars which occasion might require to be ordained determined and declared by the Church but in the meane tyme where or when did Ch Ma say or dreame that which you say is apparently false that our Saviour hath only concerning matters of Faith prescribed in generall that â—â—â—re to heare the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to belieue Your conscience cannot but beare witness against your owne words that Charity Maintayned hath expressed a thousand tymes our doctrine that we are bound to belieue whatsoever is sufficieÌ„tly proposed as revealed by God professing every where that this is the Ground for which he avouches that of two disagreeing in matters of faith one must be in a damnable state and that for this cause we are bound to belieue every particular truth contained in Scripture or defined by the Church which are millions And therfore not the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned but your imputation is apparently false Yet to say the truth that Doctrine which you say is apparently false aÌ„d no less falsely imputed to vs might be very true if it should stand or fall by the strength only of the argument which you object against it though perhaps it did seeme to you a great subtility 47. The Church say you being nothing els but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say he hath left to all believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue To which I may answer as you say to Charity Maintayned I wonder you would impugne that as apparently false which must be apparently true if the ground of all your doctrine be true That every mans Reason prescribes to himselfe and determines what he is to belieue and so your kind of Church being nothing but an aggregation of believers in that manner it followes that it is left to all Believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue The like may be sayd of the Councell of Apostles which
we can be certaine of the fallhood of no Propositions but these only which are damnable Errours For you know that we spoke not of whatsoever truth or falshood but of a Proposition the truth or falshood wherof cannot be knowne by sense or naturall Reason but only by Revelation in which if the vniversall Church may erre for Points not Fundamentall we cannot possibly haue certainty of the truth of them as I haue proved and it is intolerable in you to make this Argument we may be certaine that snow is not blacke nor fire cold therfore we may be certaine of truths which can be knowne only by Revelation for Points in which you say the whole Church of Christ and much more private men may erre 76. To your N. 162. I need only say that a publike and vniversall Authority to decide Controversyes of Faith and interpret Scriptures must be infallible otherwise it might either be disobeyed or els men would be forced to obey exteriourly that which they judge in Conscience to be a damnable Errour as hertofore I haue declared and shewed a large difference betweene a Judge in Civill causes and Controversyes in matters of Faith alledging to that purpose your owne words Pag 59. N. 17. That in Matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue judged right So that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is fitt to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible And yet so farre you forget yourself as to object to vs in this N. 162. I hope you will not deny but that the Iudges haue Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversyes and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations Infallble while they proceed according to Law How then can you distinguish betwene a Judge in Civill and a Judge in Controversyes of Religion vnless you grant not only a conditionall but an absolute infallibility to this latter whereby he is sure never to erre whereas a Judg in Civill matters may erre by not proceeding according to Law If therfore the Propositions which were publikly defended in Oxford that the Church hath Authority to determine Controversyes in Faith and to interpret Scripture be patient of your Explication I can only say that they either say nothing or teach men to dissemble in matters of Faith by obeying the Commandements of the Church against their Conscience I haue read your friend Irenaeus Philalethes Dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae who teaches that no man ought now after the tyme of the Apostles who were infallible to be punished by Excommunication as long as he followes the dictamen of his Conscience and how do you tell vs that now one may be excommunicated for an errour in Faith Though you admit no infallible Judge to declare the sense of Scripture and that those Texts which seeme evident to some appeare obscure to others as is manifest in the examples which you alledge as evident of our Saviours Passion and Resurection which diverse Heretikes haue either denyed or vnderstood in a different way from the doctrine of Gods Church and yourselfe in particular belieue that his suffering and Death was not the Death and Passion of God and that his Sufferings did not merit and satisfy for mankind and that he remaines in Heaven with a Body of a different nature and Essence from that which he had vpon Earth which is to deny his Resurrection for substance and Death for the fruite therof You say The Doctor who defended the saied Conclusions together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an Authority of determining Controversyes of Faith according to plain and evident Scripture and vniversall Tradition and infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule But how doth this agree with the whole Scope of your Booke that the Bible the Bible the Bible is the only Rule and with your express words heere N. 155. that no vnwritten Doctrine hath attestatten from Tradition truly vniversall Seing beside Scripture you grant a Tradition which you say gives an infallibility to him who proceeds according to it Which shewes that there is some infallible vnwritten word or Tradition You say But what now if I should tell you that in the yeare 1632. among publike Conclusions defended in Doway one was that God predeterminates men to All their Actions I answer That if you will inferr any thing from hence it must only be this that as the Question about Predetermination is not defined by the Church but left to be disputed in Schooles with an express command of our Supreme Pastour that one part do not censure another so if you grant that out of the sayd Propositions defended in Oxford I may inferr that the Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith or at least that you are not certaine it is so nor can condemne vs Catholikes for holding the contrary if I say you grant this you overthrow that Ground in which alone all Protestants pretend to agree and of which if they be not absolutly certaine the whole structure of their Faith must be ruinous You overlash in supposing we say that the Church cannot erre whether she vse meanes or no. But we are sure that as the Holy Ghost promised Her the End of not erring so also he will not faile to moue Her essectually to vse such meanes as shall be needfull for that End Your N. 163. about a place of S. Austine I haue answered very largly hertofore 77. In your N. 164. you say Why may not the Roman Church be content to be a Part of that visible Church which was extant when Luther began and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greeke Church as well as Roman There being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to Her as well as to your owne 78. Answer If you speake of the true Church of Christ in Greece she is so farr from being divided from the Roman that she doth not only agree with but submitts to Her and receives from her Priests ordained in Rome it selfe and brought vp in Catholique Countries The Scismaticall Grecians to their division from the Roman Church haue added Heresy as even Protestants confesse and so are neither the whole Church nor any Church at all it being indeed no lesse than a kind of blasphemy to affirme that Conventicles of Heretikes can be the true Church of Christ Dr Lawde Pag 24. saith of the Errour of the Grecians I know and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity And Pag 154. I would faine know what Article of the Faith doth more concerne all Christians in generall than that of Filioque Which Errour of the Grecians hath beene condemned by three Generall Councells in which the Grecians
not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true vnless he presupposes that the Church truly Catholique cānot erre in Points not fundamētall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmes to erre only in points not fundamētall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundamētall This is the Argumēt of Ch Ma and is it not cleare that if the Church Catholique can erre for example in the Doctrines of Purgatory Invocations of Saynts reall presence and the like as de facto Luther and his followers pretend she did erre and that they were reformers of such errours seing the Roman Church may and doth hold the same Doctrines the Church vniversall and the Roman Church shall agree in the same pretended errours and so Potter saied not truly that if we agree with the Roman Church for example about Purgatory Praiers to saynts c we cannot agree with the Church Catholique Will you deny the Axiom Quae sunt eadem vni tertio sunt eadem inter se If then the vniversall and the Roman Church agree in the belief of errours as you falsly terme them do they not agree one with an other And so contrary to Potters affirmation it must be saied If we did dissent from these opinions of the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church Catholique if once it be supposed that the Church holds those or the like vnfundamentall errours as you grant she may And further it would follow that seing Protestants dissent from the Roman Church they cannot agree with the Catholique Church But let vs heare how you make good your censure 69. You say let vs suppose either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church may erre in some few things but that the Roman errs in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches infallibility a man may truly saie vnless I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therfore you must retract your imputation laied vpon Dr. Potter or doe that which you condemne in him and be driven to say that the same man may held some errours with the Church of Rome and at the same tyme with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them For otherwise in neither of these cases it is possible for the same man at the same tyme to agree with the Roman and the Catholique 70. Answer Your conscience cannot but witness that the Doctor when he saied If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Cathelique did not speak of accidentall cases or voluntary suppositions such as you put but meant and spoke absolutely that if we did not dissent from the Present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique For if he meant only of contingent cases without regard to any particular advantage or prerogatiue of the Church vniversall he might haue made suppositions directly contrary to yours that the Roman Church may erre but doth not but the vniversall actually doth or that the Roman Church doth erre in some few things but the Catholique errs in many more For if once it be granted the Catholique Church to erre to say she may erre in many or few is a voluntary vngrounded conjecture or divination and nothing to any purpose Nay seing if once the Catholik Church be supposed to erre she may multiply errours without end and so to day agree with to morrow disagree from the Roman Church and it must follow that according to your explication the Doctours words may be in a perpetuall alteration to day fals to morrow true which either was farre from his meaning or his meaning was not only impertinent but against his owne scope and Intention which was to make the vniversall Church as it were the Modell or Rule to judge of the necessity which Protestants had to forsake the Roman Church by reason of her dissenting from the Church Catholiques which had bene no good reason if the vniversall Church may erre and erre as much and more than the Roman or any other partioular Church Which appeares also by these words of the Doctor in the same Pag 97. The Catholique Church is carefull to ground all her declarations vpon the divine Authority of Gods written word And therfore whosoever wilfully opposed a judgement so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretique And P 132. he saieth For vs the mistaker nor his he Masters will never prove that we oppose either any declaration of the Catholique Church or any Fundamentall or other truth of Scripture and therefore he doth vnjustly charge vs with Schisme or Herisie Do not these sayings attribute more to the vniversall than to particular Churches and more than a meerely casualty that either she doth not actually erre or els erres in fewer things than the present Roman Church And vpon the whole matter is not that true which Charity Maintayned N. 22. saied That D. Potter must either grant that the Catholique Church cannot erre in Points not Fundamentall or confess a plain contradiction to himself in the saied words If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique Would not Protestants take it in ill parte if one should say If we did not dissent in some opinions from Protestants we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique And yet according to your explication and suppositions it could not be ill taken because either the Church might be supposed not to erre actually or in some few things but that the Protestants erre in many more it being manifest that some of them erre By the way when Potter saieth For vs the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholique Church or any truth of Scripture I would know whom he vnderstand by vs Seing it is evident that of Protestants holding so many contrary Doctrines some must of necessity oppose some Declaration of the Church or truth of Scripture and since they haue no certaine Rule to know which of them be in the wrong and oppose some Declaration of the Church or Scripture we must conclude that no man desirous of his salvation can commit his soule to any of them all Your Conclusion Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid vpon Dr Potter or doe that c. is obscure but I am sure it is answered seing it goes vpon your fals explication of the Doctors words 71. Your proceding N. 69. puts me vpon a necessity of intreating the Reader to peruse the N. 23. of Charity Maintayned which evidently demonstrates that it was wholy impertinent for you to answer the places which He saieth are wont to be all edged out of Scripture for the infallibility of Gods
his place and depending on him was not head of the Church while S. Peter did liue therefore he could not be his successor in that vniuersall power after S. Peters death Neither do you so much as offer to proue that S. Peter ever relinquished his being the particular Bishop of Rome and therefore how can you say the Bishop of Rome did succeed S. Peter while he was living seing no man can succeed a Bishop while that Bishop lives and is still Bishop of that particular Church in which an other is pretended to succeed him 42. Your Argument That as in building it is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations so it may be in the Church that any other Apostle should succeed the first is to giue it the right name a nothing or a meere equivocation in the Metaphor of a foundation whereas a Foundation in our case signifies a Head or chiefe and if you hold it incongruous that foundations in this sense should succeed foundations you must say that no King Prince or magistrate can without incongruity succeed one an other Besides The Apostles were Foundations of the Church by their Preaching and Teaching for not all of them wrote and they were foundations of the Church before any one of thē wrote and I hope you will not say it is incongruous that Preachers and Teachers should haue Successors Was not Judas an Apostle and was not S. Matthias chosen not only after him but expressly for him or in his place or to succeede him For so S. Peter Act 1. applies that place of Scripture Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter and the prayer of the Christiās was Ostende quem elegeris ex his duobus vnum accipere locum ministerij hujus Apostolatus de quo praevaricatus est Judas But what if your very ground or foundation That in building it is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations be false as certainly it is For if you suppose the first foundation to faile or be taken away may an other be substituted and succeed it The Apostles were Foundations but being mortall they faild and needed successours to supply their absence and so your similitude returnes directly vpon yourself If you will follow the metaphor of a foundation in all respects how do you say S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundations of the Church were to be the foundations of it seing you may saie in building it is incongruous that a foundation should laie a foundation Will you haue it laie itself Why do you not also say that as the foundation is vnder the building so the Apostles and all Pastors Prelats and Superiours are inferiour to the rest of the Church It seemes though the Scripture should be vnderstood as indeed it ought that Christ intended that S. Peters successours should haue jurisdiction over the whole Church you will controll God himself and say It is incongruous that foundation should succeed foundation You say els where vntruly that Ch. Ma. trifles about the word foundation which you confess to be metaphoricall and ambiguous and yet heere you ground your whole Argument vpon that metaphor ill applied as beside what hath bene sayd not only the Apostles but Prophets also are called in Scripture foundations super fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum and will you except that in a building it is incongruous to haue more than one firme and perfect foundation as certainly the Apostles were But I spend too much tyme in confuting such toyes as these 43. Your N. 101.102 haue bene answered already The Donatists for the cause of their separation pretēded not only that the men frō whome they separared were defiled with the contagion of the Traditors as you say but also that they erred in Faith in believing that Baptisme might be conferred by Heretiques to omit other things Your calumnie about a picture hath beene confuted heretofore Your N. 104. containes no difficulty which may not be answered by former grounds 44. To your N. 105. I answer that seing Potter accounts the errours of the Roman Church to be damnable to such as are not excused by Ignorance Ch. Ma. had reason to say the Doctour condemnes all learned Catholiques who least of all men can plead Ignorance It is evidently true that as Ch. Ma. P. 205.206 saith these two Propositions cannot consist in the vnderstanding of any one who considers what he saies After due examination I judg the Roman errours not to be in themselves fundamentall or damnable and yet I judg that according to true reason it is damnable to hold them For according to true reason one is to judg of things as indeed they are in themselves and therefore if in reason I judg them not to be fundamentall in themselves I must in reason conceyue that they are notfundamentall being held by mee neither doth there in this case intervene any lye seing one professeth that not to be damnable which he holds not to be damnable But where doth Ch. M. say as you cite him These Assertions the Roman errours are in themselves not damnable and yet it is damnable for me who know them to be errours to hold and confess them are absolutely inconsistent For it is impossible that any man can hold that which he knowes to be an errour because even by knowing it to be an error he holds it not but dissents from it He saieth only that it cannot be damnable to hold an error not damnable which is very true but saieth not that one can hold an errour which he knowes to be an errour 45. You make Ch. Ma. speak in this ridiculous manner to Protestants If you erred in thinking that our Church holds errours this error or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed ād deposed by judging those errors not damnable and then you triumph and spend many words in proving the very same thing which Ch. Ma. never denied but expressly affirmed namely that the errours of the Roman Church vpon a fals supposition that she had any were not damnable These be his words in the sayed N 206. 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 remedie but that you must rectifie your erring conscience by your other judgment that her errors are not fundamentall nor damnable And this is no more charity then you dayly affoard to such other Protestants as you tearme brethren whome you cannot deny to be in some errours vnless you will hold that of contradictorie propositions both may be true and yet you doe not judge it damnable to liue in their communion because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall Is this to say If you erred in thinking that your Church holds errours this errour might be rectified by judging these errours not damnable Is it not directly the contrary and supposes errours though they be not damnable Or doe you thinke that Ch. Ma. holds Protestants not to
be in errour All that Ch. Ma. sayes is That if you erre in judging you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours you must rectify your conscience by judging the errours not to be fundamentall or damnable and therfor not excluding salvation Is this good dealing in you And why doe you say N. 106. A fifth falshood it is that we daily doe this favour for Protestants you must meane if you speake consequently to judge they haue no errours because we judge they haue none damnable Seing Ch Ma sayd most expresly that you doe the favour to other Protestants whome you cannot deny to be in some errours not to judge it damnable to liue in their communion because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall Once againe I must aske whether this be conscionable dealing 46. You are too resolute in this N. 106. to impugne the saying of Ch Ma That according to the Doctrine of all Divines ther is great difference betwixt a speculatiue perswasion and a practicall dictamen of conscience And I feare you doe not well vnderstand this true Doctrine when you say These are but divers words signifying the same thing neither is such a perswasion wholy speculatiue but tending to practise nor such a dictamen wholy practicall but grounded vpon speculation For you should say the contrary that a perswasion purely speculatiue is so far from tending to practice that oftentimes it is joyned with this judgment I cannot frame my practice according to this speculation and consequently my practice can not be grounded vpon such a speculation as Catholike Divines doe learnedly explicate particularly in the matter and forme of Sacraments But this is not a place to handle this matter at large it being sufficient to haue sayd that a speculation taken alone and abstracting from all other considerations of all sides oftentimes would proue pernicious if it were applyed to practice You falsify Ch Ma as if he did affirme that Protestants did only conceaue 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 errours For Ch Ma sayth not that Protestants did only conceaue in speculation c. And had not also a practicall dictamen c. but his words are Although they had in speculation conceaved the vissble Church to erre in some Doctrines of themselves not damnable yet with that speculatiue judgment they might and ought to haue entertained this practicall dictamen that for points not suhstantiall to Faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could breake the bond of Charity by breaking vnity in Gods Church You see Ch Ma declares not what dictamen Protestants had but what they might and ought to haue had which are as different things as to say one is an honest man and might and ought to be such an one Ch Ma sayes not that Dr. Potter teaches in express words that Luther was obliged to forsake the Church for an vnnecessary light but that it followes vpon his assertion that he was bound to forsake her externall communion for poinrs not necessary to salvation 47. In your N. 107. your example that Euclide was not infallible yet was he certaine enough that twice two are foure is not to the purpos because such truths are evident by the light of nature as the mysteries of Christian Faith are not Otherwise how were it possible for you to disagree so irreconciliably as the world sees you doe 48. Ch Ma sayth N. 41. Since in cases of vncertaintyes we are not to leaue our Superiour nor cast of his obedience or publickly oppose his decrees your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfy their zealous conscience without a publick breach especially if with their vncertainty we call to minde the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your owne brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy To this you answer by abbreviating the words of Ch Ma thus Your Church was in peaceable possession you must meane of her Doctrine and the Professors of it and enjoyed prescription for many ages and then you add Doctrine is not a thing that may be possessed and the Professors of it were the Church it selfe and in nature of Possessours if we may speake improperly rather then the thing possessed with whome no man hath Reason to be offended if they thinke fit to quit their owne possession But by what commission or warrant doe you say to Ch Ma you must meane of her Doctrine and the Professors of it as if his words must needs be so restrained Wheras the Church of Rome was in possession of Right not to bee opposed in her Doctrine by private persons she was in possession of the good Name and Estimation of being a true Church for which she is commended by S. Paul The Pope was in possession of power and jurisdiction over all Christians of making lawes Accepting appeales gathering Councells c. And both the Pope and Church were in possession of the Professors of her Doctrine that is Christians were their subjects who could not be seduced by fraude Schisme Heresy or violence without offence to God and man as you will not deny all lawfull Communities to haue Right that their subjects should not withdraw and divide themselves from such a mysticall Body Neither is it pertinent whether in this place we take possession as it is defined Detentio rei corporalis corporis animâ—jurisque adminiculo it being sufficient for our present purpose that it be that which is called quasi possessio the having any thing as we are sayd to haue hands feete life c. You say the Professors of the Doctrine were in nature of Possessors if we may speake improperly rather then the thing possessed with whome no man hath Reason to be offended if they thinke fit to quit their owne possession Answer It is strange that no man hath reason to be offended if men quit the possession or forsake the true Doctrine the grace of God or vertue or honesty because he is supposed to possesse them or for a man to depriue himselfe of some member of his body or even of life it selfe Your last words That the possession which the Gouvernours of our Church had for some ages of the party gouverned was not peaceable but got by fraude and held by violence are most injurious to Truth to Gods Church and to God himselfe as if our Saviours promise of a stable Church should be verified only by fraude and violence seing as I haue often sayd ther was no visible Church vpon earth except the Roman and those who agreed with her against the Doctrines which Luther did broach as Ch Ma shewes here Pag 173. and you doe not deny Pag 274. N. 56. where I obserue by the way that you say I know not who they be that say Luther reformed the whole Church wheras Ch
In your N. 21. you endeavour to answer some Fathers alledged by Ch. Ma. N. 18. to proue that separation from the visible Church is a mark of Heresie namely Uincentius Lirinensis saying Lib. Advers Her Chap. 34. who ever began heresies who did not first separate himself from the Vniversality Antiquity and Consent of the Catholique Church And S. Prosper Dimid Temp. Chap. 5. A Christian communicating with the Catholique Church is a Catholique and he who is divided froâ—â— her is an Heretique and Antichrist S. Cyprian Lib. de Vnit. Eccles. Not we departed from them but they from vs and since Heresies and Schismes are bred afterwards while they make themselves divers conventicles they haue forsaken the head and Origen of truth 20. To these Authorityes you answer That the first and last are meerely 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 And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true according to your owne grounds For you say a man may be divided from the Church vpon mâ—ere 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 vnjust 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 21. Answer I haue often put you in minde and the thing is evident of it self and still to be repeated that Luther separated not only from the Roman Church but from all true Churches of the whole world who all agreed with the Roman as also from all true Churches of many precedent Ages which if you once suppose to haue erred against the Word of God the Rule of those Fathers That separation from the Church is a mark of Heresy had bene plainly impertinent and of no vse at all For still the Question would haue remayned whether the Church of all Ages had erred as well as the present Church since we cannot know what the Ancient Church taught except vpon the credit and Tradition of middle ages till our tyme which passage if it be stopt and bridge broken we must liue in ignorance and not be able irregularly and per saltum to reach immediatly from the last to the first Besides you hold all Churches of all Ages to be fallible and not to deliver vniversally any other point except that Scripture is the Word of God and therefore it is a meere evasion in you to make a difference for matters of doctrine betweene the whole present visible Church and the Churches of all Ages and if separation from these be a mark of Heresy separation from that must also be such Yea S. Cyprian speakes expressly of the then present Church Not we departed from them but they from vs and since Heresies and Schismes are bred aftherwards while they make themselves divers Conventicles they haue forsaken the head and origen of Truth As for S. Prosper you do not defend but impugne him But I wonder you will offer your Reader such toyes as you produce for good Arguments against the words of that Saint which are both evidently true and coherent with themselves For as whosoever communicates with the vniversall Church in Faith and externall communion is a Catholique which was the first part of S. Prospers sentence so it is vniversally true that whosoever is divided from the Church in Faith and externall communion is an Heretique as S. Prosper affirmes in the latter parte of his speach and which you know is the thing which Charity Maintayned intends to proue and which makes your talking of meere Schisme without any mixture of Heresy to be wholy impertinent seing we treate of division both in Faith and externall communion though it be also true that Schisme is wont to end in Heresy as Cha. Ma. Part. 1. Chap. 5. N 3. declares out of S. Hierom and others No less impertinent is your objection taken from persons divided from the Church by the Censure of Excommunication which is a kind of Division in many respects far different from separation by Schisme or Heresy as hath bene declared heretofore at large and which is not incurred at all in the sight of God if the Excommunication be vnjust Agreable to this doctrine of these Fathers is that excellent document of S. Optatus Lib. 1. contra Parm. how to judg who be Schismatiques and Heretiques Uidendum est quis in radice cum toto orbe manserit quis foras exierit quis cathedram sederit alteram quaeante non fuerit quis altare contra altare erexerit quis ordinationem fecerit salvoaltero ordinato were there not Protestant Bishops set vp in the place of Catholique Bishops yet living in England quis jaceat sub sententia Joannis Apostoli qui dixit multos Antichristos foras exituros quia non erant inquit nostri nam si nostri essent mansissent nobiscum If you examine the proceeding of your first Protestants by the Rule of this holy and ancient Father you cannot but condemne them of Schisme and Heresy 22. Your N 22. being but a passage to the next Section I neede only saie that there is great difference between Catholiques and Protestants in order to the admitting or rejecting some doctrine of some particular Fathers seing we for interpreting Scripture and all Points of Faith acknowledg an infallible guide to whom even the Fathers themselves humbly submit but when you forsake the Fathers be they never so many the comparison runnes not betwene them and Gods Church but betwene them and every single Protestant and who will not sooner belieue the Holy Fathers for the interpretation of Scripture than such men as can neither agree amongst themselves nor with the whole Church of God And if you will but heare what your owne knowledg and conscience tells you you will confess that you acknowledged the ancient Fathers to stand for vs. 23. Your N. 23. is employed in answering some Authorityes alledged by Ch. Ma. out of S. Hierom wherein you shew the litle reckon you make of the holy Fathers since you do covertly or rather expressly tax this blessed Saint of writing over-truths and you know what it is to write beyond truth which in true Philosophy consist in indivisibili and what is beyond it must be against it The words of S. Hierom Ep 57. ad Damas. are these I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter I know the Church is built vpon that Rock Whosoever shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is profane 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 Lib. 1. Apolog. which doth
Nonne Deo subjecta erit anima mea which entire submission and subjection is evidently more necessary in Faith than in Charity against which some sinnes may be veniall whereas every errour against any truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God is a deadly sinne nor can be excused ob parvitatem materiae 50. You conclude and say to Ch. Ma. Your Corollaries drawen from it the Doctrine of S. Thomas That every errour against Faith involves opposition against Gods testimony That Protestants haue no Faith no certainty and that you haue all Faith must together with it fall to the ground Which words are either non-sense or evidently false For who ever denied not your self excepted that every errour against Faith involves an opposition against Gods testimony which is the very essence of errour against Faith that is of Heresy 51. Your N. 50.51.52 haue bene answered heretofore and are answered by this one consideration That your Faith is not raised aboue the probable motives or Arguments of Credibility which being evident your kind of Faith must be evident but our Catholique Faith is an assent aboue the saied motives and is certaine though not evident as I haue declared els where and by this meanes your imitation of the Argument of Ch Ma to proue that the pretended faith of Protestants implied not obscurity falls to the ground because we belieue with a greater certainty than is derived from the sole motives of credibility so that your Faith must haue evidence but cannot haue certainty The Faith of Protestants who pretended to be assured what Bookes be Canonicall by the private spirit must be certaine and evident and consequently not obscure and therefor Calvin Lib Institut Cap 7. Sect 2. saieth that by the spirit men may discerne true Scripture as we discerne lucem à tenebris album à nigro suaue ab amaro light from darkness white from black sweete from sower And so the Faith of Catholiques only remaines both certaine and obscure as Christian Faith ought to be 52. Your N. 53.54.55 haue bene either answered already or els containe meere sayings without any proofe That the Jewes before our Saviours tyme conserved the Scripture is no wonder since at that tyme they were the true Church and afterward it was not in their power to corrupt it at their pleasure in regard the Apostles and other converted to Christian Religion could manifestly haue convinced them as shameless falsaries But what hath this to doe with that Church which was the vniversall Church of Christ before Luther and if it be fallible and so could haue bene permitted to corrupt Scripture you can at this tyme haue no certainty of the Bible That Luther opposed the Roman Church appeares by what I sayd heretofore and is demonstrated by Ch Ma Part 1. Chap 5. N. 29. and yourself N. 73. describe the man in such manner as makes the matter credible of it self 53. You tell vs N. 56. that the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Of this we haue saied enough heretofore Now I will only put you in minde First that this cannot agree with your Doctrine that Scripture is not a materiall object of Faith nor which men are obliged to belieue For if it only be the Religion and Faith of Protestants and yet be not a point or object of Faith which you are bound to belieue it followes that Protestants haue no Religion or Point of Faith at all Secondly We haue heard you say Pag 287. N. 82. that some Protestants tooke for the model or Idaea of their Reformation not Scripture only but also the Decrees of Councells and the Writings of the Fathers of the first fiue Ages Thirdly you say Whatsoever els they Protestants belieue besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their owne grounds belieue it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most Schismaticall presumption It is strang that the Approbators of your Book and other Protestants did not see a thing verie evident That in these words you declare Protestant pretended Bishops and the Church of England to haue bene guilty of most high and most Schismaticall presumption for requiring the belief of the 39. Articles some of which you belieue neither to be contained in Scripture nor to be the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it but to be fals and repugnant to it So that we haue reason more and more to be even amazed that such a Book could at such a tyme be published 54. Your N. 57 and the rest till your N. 72. inclusiuè haue bene answered in different occasions respectiuè Vnfortunate man Who will not compassionate your disorder of minde and pen when N. 66. you are not ashamed to say of Catholiques It is too too apparent that your Church hath got and still maintaines her authority over mens consciences by counterfeiting false stories by obtruding on the world supposititious writings by corrupting the monuments of former times and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you by warres by perfecutions by Massacres by Treasons by Rebellions in short by all manner of carnall meanes whether violent or fraudulent If Luther found the Roman Church and such as were vnited with her that is all Orthodox Christian Churches in such a state as you describe what a scandall must it needs haue bene to Jewes Turks Pagans and all the enemies of Christian Religion 55. Whosoever reads your N 73. will find that you abandon Luther and that you grant very much in favour of the Roman Church as will appeare by reading Ch Ma heere N. 32. and I obserue that you confess with Luther that in the Papacy are many good things that haue come from them to vs and then why do you alwaies deny that you receiue Scripture from vs which is one of those many good things that haue come from vs to you as Luther expressly confesses 56. In your N. 74. you involue and make things seeme obscure which are very cleare You cite Ch. Ma. as if he saied in generall certainty and prudence are certaine grounds of supernaturality which is evidently fals it being manifest that some naturall knowledg may be certaine and prudent You say also that Ch Ma makes perswasion and opinion all one And why because he saieth the Faith of Protestants is but an human perswasion or opinion as if you should haue saied when you say this or that we make this and that all one or in saying such a one studied in Oxford or Cambridg we make Oxford or Cambridg all one The truth is Ch. Ma. neither intended to make them all one or different it being sufficient for his purpose that the Faith of Protestants was not a certaine divine assent call it otherwise what you please You ask how we can assure you that our Faith is not our
and say to you if nothing were revealed nothing could be necessary to be believed would you not say he did but cavill The rest of this Number tasts of nothing but gall and bitterness and is such as if you were now aliue you would haue wished vnwritten Seing our salvation is either endangered or secured according to the proportion that we are in danger of sinne or secured from it with what consequence can you so hypocrytically talk of taking alwaies the absolutely safest way for avoiding all sinne and yet teach that men are not alwaies obliged to take the safest meanes for salvation especially since you also teach that to avoide sinne to the vttermost of our power is a necessary meanes of salvation Neither do you consider that while you pretend to teach that for avoiding sinne it is not sufficient to follow a truly probable and prudent opinion you do much more confirme the chiefe Purpose and Intent of Cha Ma which was to proue that in things absolutely and indispensably necessary to salvation men are obliged to seek and embrace the safer patte and in the meane tyme I pray you see if by your Divinity you can perswade all litigants to parte with theyr goods though they prudently and probably Judge they maintayne a just cause because forsooth it is safer to yeald than overcome seing it is not impossible but the Adversarie may be in the right And though heere you talk magnificently of the necessity men haue to avoide sinne to the vttermost of their power as a necessary meanes of salvation yet Pag 19. N. 26. you were content to say I am verily perswaded that God will not impute errours to them as sinnes who vse such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudence and ordinary discretion their abilities and oportunities their distractions and hinderances and all other things considered shall advise them in a matter of such consequence Lastly who will not wonder to see you so much depress Probability in morall cases seing you teach that even Christian Faith vpon which salvation depends doth not excede Probability 17. Your N. 9.10.11.12.13.14.15 are answered out of grounds laied heretofore And in particular that Cha Ma N. 5. saied very truly that seing all Protestants pretend the like certainty and goe vpon the same grounds and haue the same Rules for interpreting Scripture and yet cannot agree it is a signe that their very Rules and grounds are vncertaine and insufficient to settle an Act of Faith as I declared aboue and if this could truly be saied of Protestants and Papists of all Christians of all Religions of all Reason it is cleare that they could not truly pretend to any certainty But God be ever blessed for it we Catholiques haue Rules and an infallible Authority the Church most able to erect a certaine infallible belief With what conscience can you say that Arcudius acknowledges that the Eucharist was in Cyprians time given to infants and esteemed necessary or at least profitable for them For this disjunctiue necessary or at least profitable may signifie that Arcudius doubts whether it were not esteemed necessary which never came to his thoughts Yea he proves expresly and largelie that it is not necessary We grant that it might be profitable to infants by producing Grace in their soules but it being not necessary the Church for just causes may think fitt not to administer it to them Your talking of an humane Law obliging men to confess their secret sinnes and even sinfull thoughts will I belieue rather cause laughter than any belief that such a Law could oblige and therfore seing you do not denie but that the Protestant Centurie Writers alledged by Cha Ma N. 5. acknowledg that in the tymes of Cyprian and Tertullian priuate confession even of Thought was vsed and commanded and thought necessary we must infer that it was held necessary as commanded by God yea seing you say it might be then commanded and being commanded be thought necessary shewes that you dare not deny but that private or auricular Confession was vsed as a thing commanded even in those primitiue Ages You know the story of the Protestants in Germanie who finding by experience the huge inconveniences that accompanied the want of Confession supplicated the Emperour that he would command it by some Law but were deservedly rejected with scorne as if men would think themselves obliged to obey his Law who had rejected the Law of God in that matter To all which if we add that you belieue not that true Priests haue power to absolue from sinne and if they had yet Protestants not being true Priests what Law of man can be of force to oblige men to confess even their thoughts 18. Your N. 16.17.18 touch only vpon what hath bene handled in other places and need no Answer heere How litle hope of salvation Protestants can conceyue from the Doctrine of Cha Ma and how impossible it is for them to repent and not relinquish their errours hath bene shewed at large heretofore 19. Though your N. 19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29 containe no new difficulty yet I answer them briefly by these considerations that S. Austine and other Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had true Divine Faith but only that they believing divers or most of the Truths which Catholiques believed had the same Faith or Belief materially as the Jewes belieue many Truths contayned in the Old Testament which Christians belieue and yet cannot be saied to haue true supernaturall saving Faith that you are very ignorant of Catholique Divinity if you conceiue as by your words it seems you do that we hold an Hereticall or Schismaticall Bishop not to administer validè though illicitè such Sacraments as depend only vpon Potestas Ordinis and therefore you say vainely to Char Ma Which Doctrine if you can reconcile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church Eris mihi magnus Apollo That Dr Potter citing the doctrine or saying of the Donatists in a different letter ought not to haue saied more than the words of S. Austine in the margent vpon which the Doctor grounds himself did express which was only Baptisme not salvation whatsoever otherwise the Donatists held against the salvation of Catholiques That Dr Potters words that Protestants cut vs not of from the hope of salvation and therefore are excused from Schisme haue beene considered heretofore and your defense of them confuted That whosoever reads the N. 8. and 9. of Cha Ma will finde that your answer is in no wise satisfactorie consisting meerely of Points which you know we deny our Argument being grounded vpon the Confession of the most and best learned Protestants who deny not salvation to vs which we cannot yeald to them and so in the judgement of both parts we are safe but you are not That the Act of Rebaptization was sacrilegious and the error that it was lawfull an Heresie after the matter was declared by the Church And concerning S. Cyprian see