the point then the Chapter hath been hitherto to the Title You say there are great differences between the Protestants and you about the understanding of the Article of the descent of Christ into Hell and the other of the holy Catholick Church and the Communion of Saints c. But what doe you here talk of differences in understanding fundamentals where the present question is Whether the Protestants doe acknowledge their fundamentalls to bee contained in the Creed For if Protestants declare that their fundamentals are contained in the Creed then your Title is gone which saith That they do not nor dare not declare them And surely it will aske a greater strength and a farre bigger volume then Charity mistaken to prove that Protestants doe not rightly understand the Articles of the Creed But secondly the Authours objection is grounded not onely upon a new but upon a false supposition if his fellow Romists may bee Judges For his supposed proposition is this That all the Articles in the Creed are Fundamentall Now this is different from the first proposall of our opinion That all fundamentall Articles are in the Creed It is also denied by his owne fellowes For though all fundamentall Articles be there yet they say that some Articles that are there may not bee fundamentall or explicitely to be known upon losse of salvation as before hath been shewed out of Vasquez and Azorius Therefore to stand upon a different understanding of those Articles which are denied by your owne men to bee Explicites or doubted is besides the matter But thirdly Do we differ from you in understanding those points What is that to the point undertaken in the end of the last Chapter and promised to be shewed in this That wee differ among our selves in the number of Fundamentalls You are now gone â—â—om our ridiculousnesse by differing in the number of fundamentalls and are come to a ridiculousnesse of your owne by your differing from us in the false understanding of some Articles of the Creed which all your owne Prophets doe not account Fundamentals But you add It is to little purpose to know or confesse that the Creede containes all Fundamentals unlesse there were some certaine way to understand them right This is againe a ranging from shewing our differences among our selves or that wee have not these Fundamentals Yet I answer Wee have a certaine and the best way of understanding them right wee have a learned Ministery endued with gifts from on high which teacheth and preacheth these Fundamentals and the right meaning of them And the right meaning thus taught the Spirit in the hearers doth so discover and certifie the truth of them that the hearers see the Articles to bee Gods truth and not mans And accordingly their faith thus beleeving them resteth on God as the sole Foundation of their faith and this teaching of the Catholick Church wee use commend and allow But that The single Article of the holy Catholick Church should containe the reason of all our faith fundamentally seemes to mee an high kinde of Blasphemie And this blasphemous doctrine as wee have before shewed is the very spirit of Popery or Antichrist which sets up the Pope in Gods place and makes his beleevers truely Papists or Antichristians And this great offence and mysterie of iniquitie carryeth Papists by throngs into the Land of darknesse and into this secret of theirs the soules of the saved may not enter True it is that God useth the service of the Ministers or if you will of the Church in publishing the Articles of faith but no other Foundation of supernaturall faith there is but God himselfe though speaking by man unto man the Fundamentality of our faith passeth through man that is the instrument and resteth wholly upon God But saith hee If wee understand it otherwise the Scripture it selfe speakes of particular errours which are damnable in them by whom they are imbraced and yet they are not at all against any expresse Doctrine of the Creed As namely where Saint Paul calls it a Doctrine of Divels to forbid marriage and meates c. I answer first That the Authour hereby proves that which wee deny not and disproves not that which hee saith wee affirme For the point is not Whether there bee any damnable errours besides those that are against some expresse doctrine of the Creede But Whether there bee in the Creede those fundamentall points which being truely beleeved will cause unity with Christ the Head and unity with his Body the Church Other errours against other Truths in Scripture not fundamentall wee acknowledge there are many and proceeding from the Divell the Father of Lyes and in themselves damnable to such as hold not the true Foundation Christ Jesus by beleeving Fundamentals And it is to bee feared that such are many of those true Papists whose foundation is the Pope But otherwise they may bee rather damnable in themselves then actually damning to those who by infirmities hold them and by beleeving fundamentals are in Christ Jesus to whom there is no condemnation Secondly not onely Fathers in their Rules of faith but the Romists themselves doe not place the lawfulnesse of meates and marriage among their chiefe Heads of Christianitie or Explicites and Fundamentals and therefore this Authour doth ill require of us that which hee cannot obtaine of his fellowes Wherefore let him first make this objection against them and when hee hath their Answer then let him take it for us But being unhappily as well as impertinently fallen into the mention of these damnable errours hee saw that as soone as they were brought in they looked at least asquint on the Church of Rome and claymed kindred of her And therefore hee thought that there was need of an Apologie to put off this kindred and acquaintance Which by the way is not to bee understood of the chastity and fasts of the Catholick Church as Protestants doe most perversely affirme which knowes that those things are lawfull but that yet it is most gratefull to God when his servants for his love deprive themselves of those delâ—ghts But of the Heresies of the Manichâ—es as Saint Augustine doth expressely declare who forbad both marriage and meates as being abominable and impure through the institution thereof which they said was derived from a certaine second ill conditioned god of their owne making But this nor all the water in the Sea will wash away all the kindred betweene Romists and these errours For though Saint Augustine may apply this Prophecie to the Manichees yet may hee not also apply them to the Montanists Tertullian himselfe acknowledging that they have beene taxed out of this very place And if to the Montanists why not to those Romists who with Durandus maintaine a curse and so an impurity of flesh and cleannesse of fish who also forbid marriage to Priests which this place plainly condemneth And whereas this Authour talkes of voluntary deprivation it is certaine that
many whatsoever this Authour saith have not deprived themselves voluntarily of marriage but have taken it upon them as a yoke and burden which neither they nor their Predecessors were able to beare many sinking under it unto the very pit of Hell And let them labour with their wits and pennes so much as they can they will never by reason nor by the lives of their Priests disprove Christs truth That all men cannot receive it nor prove their owne untruth That all men can receive it And surely the Fornications Adulteries Murders and pollutions that have issued from this Law of Coelibate I doubt not cry aloud to heaven against Rome as once against Sodome for that sore to which it is condemned Hee adds further In like manner Saint Peter saith That Saint Paul in his Epistles had written certaine things which were hard to bee understood and which the unlearned and unstable did pervert to their destruction Saint Augustine declares upon this place that the places misunderstood concerned the doctrine of Iustification which some misconceived to bee by faith alone by occasion of what Saint Paul had writ to the Romanes and of purpose to countermine that errour hee saith that Saint James wrote his Epistle and proved therein that good works were absolutely necessary to the Act of Iustification Hereupon wee may observe two things the one That an errour in this point alone is by the judgement of Saint Peter to worke their destruction who imbrace it And the other That the Apostles Creede which speakes no one word thereof is no good Rule to let us know all the fundamentall points of faith To this I answer First That this Authour goes on still upon a false ground as if wee said that all errours in faith that may damne men were fundamentall and expressely against some Article of the Creede Whereas wee have often affirmed That any errour though not fundamentall may damne men that by a lively faith hold not rightly the fundamentals and so are without Christ. And it seemes that these men were not well grounded and founded by fundamentals in Christ Jesus whom Saint Peter calls unlearned and unstable and their errour the errour of the wicked A generation of vipers turne wholesome food into poyson and abuse Scriptures to their owne condemnation But secondly That faith doth not justifie but that good workes are absolutely necessarie to the Act of Iustification is most untrue and against Saint Augustine himselfe Untrue for a man is justified by faith in Christ and not by his owne merits which in your language are good workes as divers of your owne Authours affirme And a man in the instant of his Justification may dye before he hath had time to do good works and yet his Justification may be good And it is against Saint Austin even in the same place whence the former saying of Saint Peter is taken where you may find that commonly knowne sentence of his Opera sequuntur justificatum non praecedunt justificandum Good works follow justification and doe not goe before it So that whiles this Authour observes two things hee gives more then two scandalls to his Reader For first hee chargeth falsly not Saint Austin onely but Saint Iames with holding this errour That good workes were absolutely necessary to the act of justification And then secondly he will make him to say that the not holding of this errour is an errour which may worke their destruction that embrace it Yea thirdly that the Apostles Creed is no good rule to let us know all the fundamentall points of faith because it speakes no one word to teach us that the Cavaliers errour is a fundamentall point of faith Lastly his owne Doctors doe bring into their Explicites our faith in Christs passion resurrection for justification but not this his Article That good workes are absolutely necessary to the act of justification And if they doe not why doth hee require it of us in our fundamentalls SECT II. Wherein his Exceptions against the 39. Articles of Religion established in this Church are answered BUt having quarrelled in vaine with the Creed to prove the insufficiency of it for fundamentalls now hee comes to the Articles where he thus begins Others say that the Booke of the 39. Articles declares all the fundamentall points of Faith according to the Doctrine of the Church of England but this also is most absurdly affirmed For as it is true that they declare in some confused manner which yet indeed is extremely confused what the Church of England in most things beleeves so it is true that they are very carefull that they bee not too clearly understood And therefore in many Controversies whereof that Book speakes it comes not at all to the main difficulty of the question between them and us and especially in those of the Church and Free-will While the Authour speaks of a confused manner and which is extremely confused his words do returne upon himselfe and his owne discourse For that he may make his discourse confused it seemes hee makes use of this doubtfull word Declare For if wee say That the Booke of Articles declares our fundamentalls of faith wee doe not say it declares all the knots of questions which are between us and the Romists For it is well knowne there are divers controversies between us and the Romists which are not of fundamentalls And neither the Fathers in their rules of Faith neither Romists in their Explicites doe declare the knots of questions which may arise even concerning fundamentalls themselves if the fundamentalls be so expressed that their true and saving sense may bee received and beleeved by the working of that Spirit which makes Christs sheep to hear Christs voice They that thus beleeve shall bee saved though they know not all the knots which cunning and erring men doe make They that write rules of Faith Explicites and Fundamentalls doe not in the same undertake to write all knots of controversies which concerne them And the Cavalier doth not find them in his owne Doctors among their Explicites wherefore the answer which he makes for them let him take for us Secondly for his particulars of the Church and Free-will First for the Church Doth our Church hold that the visibility and inerrability of the Church are fundamentalls And if shee doe not how can this Authour accuse her for not shewing fundamentalls because she shewes not those points which she doth not hold to be fundamentall The Church is not the foundation of the Church but she her selfe is built on that onely foundation Christ Jesus And even your owne men are not agreed about making the Article of the Church one of the Explicites or at least agree not in declaring these points of controversies concerning her to be explicitely beleeved And for Free-will I might aske first Doth this Authour find in any of his Doctors this knot of Free-will for an Explicite But secondly Doth the Councell of
c. Aq. 22. q. 2. A. 5. See more hereafter in the diversitie oâ— Explicites b The Priest T.W. as I finde him alledged by B. White in his Orthodoxe Page 134. And the Priest Master Smith askes Mr. Walker whether the Church of England may erre in points fundamentall and the Councell of Trent Sess. 3. cals the Creed Fundamentum firmum unicum c De praescript cap. 14. Certè aut non obstrepant aut quiescant adversus Regulam Nihil ultra scire omnia scire est d Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 19. Cum teneamus Regulam veritatis id est Quia sit unus Deus omnipotens c. e In his verè completur Prophetia qua dicitur verbum consummans brevians in AEquitate Istud indicium posuerunt per quod agnosceretur is qui Christum verè secundum Apostolicas Regulas praedicaret Ruffin in Symbolum Sigillum integrum id est Symbolum Catholicum Optat. lib. 2. adversus Pa. Symbolum est breviter complexa Regula fidei Et totius Catholicae legis fides Symboli colligitur brevitate Aug. de Temp. S. 119.115 Regula fidei pusillis magnisque communis Aug de fide c. Est autem Symbolum per quod agnoscitur Deus quod quique proindè credentes accipiunt ut noverint qualiter contra Diabolum fidei certamina praeparent In quo quidem pauca sunt verba sed omnia continentur Sacramenta c. Isid. de off Eccl. lib. 2. c. 22. Patrum consensio non in omnibus legis divinae quaestiunculis sed solùm certè praecipuè in fidei Regula Item in iis duntaxat praecipuè quaestionibus quibus totius Catholici dogmatis fundamenta nitantur Vincent Livin cap. 39 41. a Profecto quod sacer Psalmus peâ—sonat verum est Quoniam pater meus mater mea dereliquerunt me Dominus autem assumpsit me Si ergò dereliquerunt nos patres nostri quomodo curis nostris rebus intersunt si autem parentes non intersunt qui sunt alli mortuorum qui noverint quid agamus quidve patiamur Ibâ— ergò sunt spiritus defunctorum ubi non vidâ—nâ— quaecunque aguntur aut eveniunt in ista vita hominibus August de cura pro mortuis cap. 13. b Major difficulâ—as est circa posteriora Capita ejusdem libri Esther ab illis verbis Cap. 10. Dixitque Mordochaeus à Deo facta sunt omnia Haec enim non esse veram Scripturam neque pertinere ad librum Esther Canonicum opinati sunt ante Concilium Trident. Lyranus Dion Carthusianus Hugo Camotensis Cajâ—tanus post Concilium Sextus Senensis Lorca â—ract de locis Cathol lib. 1. Dis. 3. membr 3. n. 23. Liber Baruch Hunc librum à Canone rejiciunt nonnulli ex haereticis ex Catholicis Driâ—do Idemque sentit Cal. in fine libri Ester qui nullos libros admittit praeter eos quos Hieronymus expresâ—è Canonicâ—s vocat Id. n. 27. similia passim in seq b Etiam quando aliqui dubitabant libri isti erant Canonici licet illi probabili ignorantiâ excusantur negarenâ— Id. n. 38. a Universum Romanum Imperium funditùs concussum emotum est Vinâ— Liri cap. 6. b Liberius Sozom lib. 4. c. 14. Cum his verò simul projicit à sancta Dei Catholica Ecclesia similiterque anathematizari praevidimus Et Honorium qui fuerat Papa antiquae Romae â—ò quòd invenimus per scripta quae ab eo facta sunt ad Seâ—giumâ— quia in omnibus menteÌ„ ejus secutus est impia dogmata conâ—irmaviâ— Conâ— 6. Act. 13. a See the History of the Waldenses lib. 1. cap. 8. when it was said by a Jesuite that the Waldenses and the Ministers of Calvin agree in twenty seven Articles viz. About the Popes Supremacie Purgatory Praiers to Saints worship of Images marriage of Priests sufficiencie of Scriptures c. which are more then one or two points Ibid. part 3. lib. 1 â—b 6. It is very likely their doctrine came from the Apostles and agreed with them for Reynerius the Inquisitour saith Some hold so And againe They live justly before men and beleeve all things well of God and all the Articles contained in the Creed onely they hate and blaspheme the Romish Church Speeds Chronic. Foxe Martyrolog aâ— Ann. 1160. The Confessour of Lâ—wes the twelfth being sent by him to examine some of the Walâ—enses at his returne wisheâ—h that â—e weâ—â— so good a Christian as the worst of them Histor. of the Waldenseâ— â—â—b 1. cap. 5. b See the Mysterie of Iniquity by Philip Momay L. of Plessis 1 Kin. 3.26 b Hunc qui receperunt veritatem consuetudini anteponunt Tert. de vel virg cap. 1. Consuetudo â—ine veriâ—aâ—e vâ—tustas erroris est propter quod relicto errore sâ—quamur veritaâ—é Cypâ— â—pâ—st 74. b Quaedam in doctrina Christiana tam fidei quam morum esse simpliciter omnibus necessaria ad salutem qualis est cognitio Articulorum Symboli Apostolici decem Praeceptorum nonnullorum Sacramentotum caeâ—era non ita necessaria ut sine eorum explicita notitia fide professione homo salvari non possit Bell. de verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. c In Symbolo Apostolorum Niceno â—liqui praeter illos continâ—ntur quos rudes non debent ex praecepto scire nec fideles communiter fed si quis audiat eos in Symbolo contineri debet credere nam Communionem Sanctorum non omnes sciunt imo etiam inter homineâ— literatos non paucos invenias qui ignorant quae sit haec Communio Sanctorum Articulus autem de Ecclesia multis viris doctis videtur difficilis ad docendum putant rudes in illo communiter errare Caeterum adhuc ego non dubitarem concedere esse non paucos rusticos inter Christianos qui absque culpa ignorant aliqua mysteria ex iis quae necessaâ—ia sunt Vasques in 12. Disp. 121. n. 2. d Quisque fidelium credeâ—e expliciâ—è debeat omnes Articulos fidei vel qui juxta numerum Apostolorum duodecim in Symbolo continentur vel qui juxta Thâ—olâ—gorum sententiam qâ—atuordecim proponuntur Quaeritur An quisque etiam vulgaris rudis credere expliciâ—è debeat aliquid praeter praedictos fidei Articulos Sunt qui ita affirmant eâ— ratione permoti quòd unusquisque expressim credere debeat immortalem esse animaÌ„ hominis item esse peccatum originis c. Qâ—â—rundam est opinio unumquemquâ— fidelium debere credere quicquid expressè in Symbolo Apostolorum continetur ob id minimè sufficere â—i singulâ— credant explicitè quaâ—uordecim Articulos fidei prout à Theologis propununtur quoniam quisque praecepto ac lege compellitur ad credendum expressim descensum Christi Domini ad inferos unam sanctam Caâ—holicam Ecclesiam Sanctorum communionem peccatorum remissionem perpetuam Deiparae Viâ—ginitatem de quibus singulis nihil explicitè quatuordecim fidei
the Church which is the Cavaliers point to be proved by this place for he denyeth many doctrines and fundamentall ones of the Law and the Prophets yea of God himselfe The next place doth much accuse the Cavaliers need of Allegations and yet withall excuseth him not from an indeavour to deceive his Reader The place alledged by him is this Quod apud multos c. That which is found to be one amongst so many is not to be thought to have crept in by errour but to have beene commended by Tradition The place cited is this Quod apud multos unum invenitur non est erratum sed traditum That which is one among so many is not an errour but a thing delivered The question in hand was concerning the rule of Faith or the Creed as the Reader may see by comparing the thirteenth chapter where the Creed is rehearsed and the end of the one and twentieth where he saith That it remained for him to shew whether the doctrine in the former rule came from the delivery or if you will Tradition so it bee not a Tradition beyond that which is written for there is no such in this rule of faith of the Apostles And having refuted these objections That the Apostles delivered not all and that they knew not all he comes after to this objection That the â—hurches did not purely reteine what the Apostles delivered and thus hee refells this objection Age nunc omnes erraverint deceptus sit Apostolus de Testimonio reddendo Nullam respexerit Spiritus sanctus uti eam in veritatem deduceret ad hoc missus à Christo ad hoc postulatus de Patre ut esset doctor veritatis neglexerit officium Dei Villicus Christi vicarius sinens Ecclesias aliter interim intelligere aliter credere quod ipse pâ—r Apostolos praedicabat Ecquid verisimile est ut tot ac tanâ—a in unam Fidem erraverint Nullus inter multos eventus est uâ—us exitus Varâ—asse debuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum â—aeterùm quod apud multos unum invenitur non est erratum sed traditum Whereof the summe is this that though the Holy Ghost the Vicar of Christ had not looked to his office of leading the Church into truth yet there is no likelihood that so many Churches had erred into one Faith But the Faith wherein there is such unity among many should not be an errour but a Truth delivered by the Apostles Now this place is so far from saying that all Churches agreed in sin all points beyond and besides the Creed that it speaks onely of their agreement in the rules of Faith and doctrine of the Creed And he saith that such an agreement comes not by errour which commonly is divers but by one uniforme delivery and doctrine of the Apostles So the Cavalier is still to seeke for a necessary unity in every smal doctrine and in points without the Creed Cyrill is mainly for the Protestants even as himselfe alledgeth him For we agreeably affirme That to be the Catholick Church which teacheth without defect all things necessary to salvation And in the doctrine of faith such things necessary to salvation are points fundamentall Cyprian comes or is rather drawne in next against his will and meaning and thus the Author produceth him The Church being stricken through by the light of our Lord doth send her beames throughout the whole world But yet that light which is cast so far abroad is but one and the same Shee spreads her branches over the whole earth after a plentifull manner Shee extends her flowing streames with great aboundance and to a great distance But yet is Shee one Head and one Root and one Mother who is fruitfull by such store of issue Now I thinke it were needlesse to help a Reader to take this place from the Author For it is plaine to every eye that this place speakes not of the unity of the Church in all points of doctrine but of their unity in one Love and one mysticall Body So that this place is not onely unserviceable to the Author but serves much against him and his lady Mother who cuts off noble and excellent members of the Church from her or rather her selfe from the Church if they doe not submit to her universall Tyranny Cyprian it seemes hath not said enough and therefore he must say more but indeed lesse Let us see how the Cavalier rather teacheth him then suffereth him to speake The same S. also speaking of the sin of Core Dathan and Abiram implies that the one Church must not onely be entirely beleeved but followed also in all her doctrines and directions For hee saith that though Core Dathan and Abiram did beleeve and worship one God and lived in the same Law and Religion with Moses and Aaron yet because they divided themselves from the rest by Schisme resisting their Governours and Priests they were swallowed up quick into Hell Here first wee may observe how hee tells his Reader what hee would have Cyprian say for hee saith not that Cyprian doth speake it plainely but the S. implyes and what doth he imply That the Church must not onely bee intirely beleeved but followed also in all her doctrines and directions But did Core Dathan and Abiram differ from Moses and Aaron in doctrine His owne place denyes it which saith They did beleeve and worship one God and lived in Moses his Law and Religion with Moses and Aaron And the place further assignes the true fault Division by Schisme They denyed the authority of those whom God had placed to be Governours over them Just the same sinne into which Pope Pius the fifth drew the English Papists by his Bull so that this place makes exceedingly against Romish doctrine of rebellion against Princes such as those of the North and in Ireland But let me give the Author one question at parting Was Aaron to bee followed in all his doctrines and directions what doth the Author think of this doctrine concerning the Calfe These be thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt Saint Basill is next produced thus speaking in Theod. They who are well instructed in holy writ permit not one syllable of divine doctrine to be betrayed or yeelded up but are willing to embrace any kinde of death for the defence thereof if need require Hereupon the Author thus commenteth That man of God had beene sollicited by some to relent for a time to yeeld though it were but to a little he refused in such sort as you have seene and he did it with much disdaine to be attempted in that kinde Now let the Reader see here the fairenesse of our Author Hee speakes of Basils not yeelding to a little and what was this little Denying the sonne of God to be God of one substance with the Father Is this a little Surely he should be a great Hereticke that should deny
Explicites or Fundamentals with some reasons of those differences and directions for discerning fundamentall points from others THe Cavalier thus goes on It is more then probable that one reason why they are so unwilling to give in any Catalogue of the fundamentall points is Because they know so well how ridiculous they would make themselves by the infinite variety of their Catalogues For if it be so familiar with them to bee of different mindes concerning particular doctrines how much more would they bee so in this which is a roote of many branches or rather a monster of many heads and so there can bee no doubt but that some of them would not bee more resolute in restraining the fundamentall points into a narrow compasse then others would bee in enlarging them into a broader The Authour here goes about to make the Fathers yea himselfe and his owne partners ridiculous for if varietie in the Catalogues of Fundamentals or chiefe heads and grounds of Christianity bee ridiculous how shall the Fathers escape the merriments of this Authour Yea how shall himselfe and his owne partners not bee mocked by himselfe For it is plaine that neither Irenaeus nor Tertullian in sundry patternes of the rule of Faith doe enumerate Articles just of the same number and breadth Neither doe the three usuall Creeds hold equall measure by the Authours ell yea let the Authour himselfe who confesseth that there are such Heads and Grounds of Christianity more fundamentall make a Catalogue of these Heads and hee can never agree with all his fellowes who agree not among themselves And thus if hee will looke into this glasse hee may see himselfe laughing at himselfe And indeed if the Reader will peruse the Romists where they write of their Explicites they may see the same variety wherewith the Cavalier here makes himselfe merry some contracting them into a narrower some enlarging them into a broader compasse And to save labour to the Reader I will here give him a Modell of this variety Bellarmine saith That there are some things in Christian Doctrine as well of faith as of manners which are simply necessary to all unto salvation as the knowledge of the Articles of the Apostles Creed tenne Commandements and some Sacraments other things not being so necessary that without their explicite knowledge and faith and profession a man may not bee saved But Vasques thus differs from Bellarmine in some Articles of the Creede There are saith hee some Articles in the Apostles Creed and the other of Nice which the ignorant are not commanded to know nor commonly the faithfull for all doe not know the Communion of Saints yea you shall finde not a few learned men that know not what the Communion of Saints is and the Article of the Church seemes hard to teach and learned men thinke that the ignorant doe commonly erre in it Yea hee comes at length to this short measure of faith I would not doubt to grant that there are not a few Countrey people that without fault are ignorant of some of those mysteries which are necessary Azorius the Jesuite speakes of other differences and varieties differing also himselfe from others First hee saith That every Beleever ought explicitely to beleeve all the Articles of faith either as according to the number of the Apostles they are accounted twelve or according to the sentence of Divines they are reckoned foureteene But then hee adds That some affirme the unlearned must beleeve more then these Articles because they must beleeve the immortality of the soule originall sinne c. Againe hee saith Some hold that both the twelve Articles and the fourteene must bee beleeved but himselfe thinks that it is sufficient to salvation if a man beleeve explicitely the one or the other Yea at length hee comes to shew That if a man bee so dull that hee cannot perceive the Article of the Trinity it will suffice if hee beleeve explicitely some other plainer Articles as that Christ the Sonne of God is borne of a Virgin that hee suffered was crucified dâ—ed and was buryed that hee rose againe from the dead and ascended into heaven Canisius as wee have seene before saith That the summe of faith or of all things to bee beleeved is the Apostles Creed And whereas Thomas Aquinas concludes that the Articles to bee beleeved of Christs Divinity and Humanity are fitly numbred either twelve or foureteene Lorca after this acknowledgement adds Perchance the Church did not intend in this summe to comprehend all these Articles which containe any speciall difficultie or ought explicitely to bee beleeved of all the faithfull And when hee comes to speake of those Explicites hee confesseth plainely That in assigning the Rule by which it may bee defined what the vulgar should beleeve Divines doe differ and doe put divers Rules the most common Rule is That they should beleeve those Articles which are by Solemnities celebrated in the Church and that it sufficeth if they beleeve these But this Rule seemes insufficient to others both in excesse and defect Scotus seemes to say That the common precept of faith doth onely binde to the beliefe of the easie which hee calleth grosse points Some of the later as Suarez It â—ufficeth the common people if they beleeve the Articles in the Creed But Lorca himselfe goes beyond all that hitherto have beene mentioned and saith These Rules being laid aside it is to bee affirmed That it is commanded to all the faithfull explicitely to beleeve first the Articles of faith both the foureteene and the twelve in the Creede They must also beleeve the Decalogue and the more common Precepts which are reduced to the Decalogue the doctrine of the seven Sacraments of Prayer of the Popes authoritie and the Prelates Behold a great variety in Romish Explicites Yet I confesse that I find not my selfe so merry hereat as the Cavalier at our supposed differences in Fundamentals but will rather strive to excuse them and to finde reasons for their varietie for the reasons seeme to bee serious as the matter which they goe about is weightie and profitable even the proposall of those grounds whose knowledge is necessary to salvation So farre is it from being a monster as this Authour termes it that his calling of it by this Title is so much the more monstrous as it is true that himselfe acknowledgeth that there are such Heads of Christianitie which himselfe thus calleth monstrous Behold a Truth of the Authours owne bringing forth and then mocked by him for a monster but I will goe on to speake for his Truth and against his Monster even against him to plead for him and his fellowes True it is that there may bee a different enumeration of the Articles in the Fathers Rules of faith in the Creeds and in the Explicites of later Writers as well as our Fundamentals and that for divers reasons One may bee this Because some Catalogues may put in more Articles for more full unfolding
Christendome and your owne fires which you have kindled to consume a world of Protestants will flash into your faces blast them and make them look red with the shame of this scandall And that which followes is a like empty of Truth but indeed that emptinesse is againe filled up with malice They desire to obey appetite and sense without being ever so much as told if they can chuse that they must lose heaven for their labour You have had Scriptures Fathers and Reasons for our Religion which never yet were nor never can bee answered and with these hath Popery beene battered into pieces Why then talke you of appetite and sense when your owne smart and shame can tell you that wee have had stronger weapons which have beaten you with sound blows Rather speake of sense and appetite when you see a Papist in his â—at dayes before Ashwednesday to make worke for the Priest or speak of sense and appetite when a King is moved to goe to the dames of Paris and then offered to have a Cardinall a man of sense and appetite to be his Confessor as Lewis the eleventh at the enterview told Edward the fourth rather speake of sense and appetite among the stalled Monks the fleshly Cardinals the luxurious Popes that may draw a world of soules into hell both by doctrine and example and who of you durst say to such a one What dost thou or in our Authours words tell them that they must have hell for their labour But indeed wee justly take it ill that Papists should tell us that when wee are going to heaven we should lose heaven for our labour onely because wee give not up our soules to this Man and Head of sinne by schisme and errour leading millions of soules from heaven to hell Hee goes on and sayes The children in this are as like their Mother as they can looke For who perceives not that the Protestant Church doth rather carry a respect to outward conformity then to reall unity in matter of Religion and that indeed they are but as in jest when there is speech of saving soules in any one Church rather then in another A large scandall cast on a whole Church and I doubt once this Authours Mother yet without proofe and against proofe for no proofe doth hee bring that our Church is in jest in matters of Religion or accounts all Religious alike and even his owne words next following might have holpen him to disprove his owne false witnesse It is true that they make both Lawes and Canons whereby they obliged men under a world of penalties to frequent their Churches and to receive their Sacraments For the Lawes and Canons which hee mentions doe expresse a care for the beleeving her doctrine since they command a subscription to it a teaching and preaching of it and preaching Saint Paul saith is the meanes of beleeving and lastly Excommunication against those that affirme the contrary But the Authour having spoken a broad scandall against the whole Church brings in a very narrow tax of some Ministers for a proofe of it For I put the case If a man who were knowne to be wholly affected in his heart of the Catholick faith should yet for the saving of his lands or goods resolve to comply with their Lawes by going to their Churches and by receiving their Communion yea and withall should declare in company the day before that hee was resolved to doe so the day after for the onely saving of his estate and for the shewing of obedience to the Kings Lawes though yet withall hee were perswaded that their Sacraments were unlawfull and their Church impure Would that Minister refuse to let him goe to his Service and for to communicate with the rest Infallibly hee would not and wee see daily that they doe not in like occasions for that Church as I said aspires not to unity but uniformity But here first let the Reader take notice That the Cavalier brings in sons of Rome as like the mother as they can looke and just the same which hee reproved before For hee speakes of a man who is wholly affected in his heart to the Romish faith and yet for saving his goods will come to the Church and receive our Communion Now let me borrow the Cavaliers words and see how his owne words doe fit with his owne Catholicks They professe according to the occasion and comply with the superiour Powers of this world and obey the motions of appetite and sense and are as like their mother Rome as they can looke who for a long time hath fitted Religion to temporall ends if wee may beleeve judicious and truth-telling Guicciardin But now for the admitting of such a one to receive as shall professe his beleeving our Church to bee impure and our Sacraments unlawfull I can hardly thinke that this Authour beleeves that our Church doth allow it For the Canons do excommunicate ipso facto those that say our Church is not true and maintaineth the Apostles doctrine or affirme part of the Articles is erroneous now the doctrine of our Sacraments is a part of the Articles Besides the Rubrick before the Communion doth order That if any have done any wrong to his neighbor by word or deed the Curate having knowledge thereof shall call him and advertise him in any wise not to presume to come to the Lords Table untill hee have openly declared himself to have truly repented Now I think our Church is a very neer and honourable neighbour and that hee who professeth that hee holds her impure doth also professe that hee exceedingly wrongs her and then you may see what doth follow But that I may somewhat speak for Romists Though Rome which is called an Harlot cannot but have a Whores forehead yet I professe that I know no Romist so impudent I never heard of one in charity I can hardly think there is such a one that will openly professe our Sacrament to bee unlawfull and yet receive it presently upon the saying of it for my part if I were a Romist though I indeed knew such Romish Catholicks I should not boast of their shame to the Protestants it shewing an extreme need of scandalous objections when a man must first cast the filth of a scandall at his owne wholly affected for so he termes them Catholicks that it may rebound from their faces and light on Protestants And for our aspiring to unity it is far more reall and solide then such a single and slight objection can dissolve or dissever for we have those mighty bonds of unity One God the Father of all one Lord and one Spirit one Baptisme and one saving Faiht Neither is our faith leâ—t loose to Libertinisme but the doctrine of it is contained in Articles agreed and subscribed to by the Clergy and enacted by the State and as hath been shewed there is Authority and Law for the punishment of those that cast scandals upon it SECT III.
saved who avoyd the mortall infection of these points and what caution must be used to preserve this Charity from crossing with Truth HAving discovered many Untruths in at least foure maine points of this Chapter wee are come to a fifth point whose truth is so powerfull that it overcomes mee and makes mee to acknowledge with the Author That it divides Protestants and right Romists so farre as salvation and damnation And I must cleere either side from uncharitablenesse in saying that these who faile in this point are in a state of damnation And it is very true that hee promiseth That this Reason strikes at the roote which is taken from the nature and propertie of Faith The point is this That whosoever doth give his faith and assent to all the Articles of Christian doctrine yet if hee doe it not upon the right and infallible motive hee hath no saving Faith Now hereunto wee subjoyne That true and right Papists or Romists doe not beleeve upon the true and infallible motive Therefore they can have no saving Faith And indeed though they have many and pernitious errors yet this is the great and generall error that makes up the Mystery of iniquity which wee call the Papacie and the Papists call the Church For the ordinary motive of faith in those who are the right and naturall members of the Head of that Mysterie is to beleeve the Articles of Faith because the Church whose mouth head and spirit is the Pope propounds and commands them to bee beleeved And this Author saith that the onely true and infallible ground is The Revelation of Almighty God and the proposition and direction of the Church Wherein first hee joyneth the Church with God in this ground of Faith and so gives as it were halfe of the ground of Faith to the Church from God and makes it halfe unsafe and damnable But even this halfe hee seemes elsewhere wholly to take away and so to leave men wholly to bee damned by a Faith wholly grounded on a motive which cannot raise a saving and supernaturall Faith for hee saith That if the Church hath not decided propounded and commanded a doctrine to bee beleeved by her children a man may thinke and doe as hee sees cause without incurring the crime of heresie Thus wee see that the Revelation of God is not a motive of Faith of it selfe but the Church is the motive of beleeving Gods Revelation so first wee see the Church to put God aside and to take place of him and knowing who is the Head Heart if not the Whole of this Church wee finde him just in his owne place and that is lifting himselfe up above all that is called God And secondly wee see the deadly motive and ground of Faith proposed by Papists to Popish soules even the word of a man and a Man of sinne on whom whatsoever Faith is finally grounded it can give nothing but damnation Neither are wee put by other Papists to lay pieces together to prove this their damning motive of Faith for besides the common voice of the people that they beleeve as the Church beleeves wee have before heard that the Rhemists acknowledge the Popes to bee an Order of Governors to whom wee are bound to cleave in Religion and to obey in all things And thereupon they infer that A Papist is a Christian man a childe of the Church and subject to Christs Vicar So the Christianity of a Papist and his being a child of the Church depends on his cleaving to the Pope and obeying him in all things But yet againe we may see it more acknowledged in their Writers Lorca brings forth Medina affirming that The Testimonie of the Church doth so farre partake of being the formall object or motive of faith that the utmost resolution of faith is into the authoritie of the Church and the proofes produced for it are to bee heard in the common language of Romists If it bee asked why thou beleevest the Trinity in Unity and thou answer Because God saith it It will then bee demanded of thee how thou knowest that God saith it thou hast no other Answer left but this Because the Church saith it and so are they taught in the Catechisme and so answer both the learned and unlearned Behold the common answer and common faith of Romists Now this object of faith being man and not God it cannot raise that supernaturall and saving faith whose object is the prime Veritie even God speaking to the soules of his servants And seeing this humane faith hath so possessed Romists that their Prophets doe make the obeying and cleaving to the Pope in his doctrine the very Character of a Christian and childe of the Church this Church consisting of these children thus adhering to the Pope is against such truely affirmed not to bee the Church and so may the Homily of our Church clearely bee interpreted which denyeth the Church of Rome that is the Pope and his Adherents to bee the true Church for thus to adhere unto the Pope and to lay beliefe on him is so farre from making a true childe and member of the Church that it makes a member of the Papacie and so of Antichrist it makes a Synagogue for Sathan and Hell and not a Church for Christ and salvation And whereas this Author both in this Chapter and the beginning of the eighth objects it to us that wee condemne their doctrines and account the Church of Rome to bee the Seate of Antichrist and the Synagogue of Sathan Hee hath here seene one reason of it and it is a reason of his owne and his fellowes even because the Romish Doctors and Champions tell us that the Church of Rome is made of those children which beleeve in the Pope And this faith being humane cannot make a Church to Christ but to the Pope and thus the Pope stands in the place of Antichrist for putting Christ out of his place and stepping into it whiles thus hee makes his sheepe to heare his voice before Christs yea both herein and often otherwise against Christ. But a second Reason may bee given of their calling the Church of Rome the Synagogue of Sathan the Church of Rome being taken in a larger sense even for all those parts of mankinde that have reference to Rome For they finde this Church of Rome overspred not onely with this false and Antichristian faith but with other mortall errours and abhominations such are grosse and almost universall Idolatry in the worship of Images and especially of the Sacrament confidence in workes for justification and merit and a grosse ignorance even a not knowing of Christ which before hath beene touched Now many seeing a field overcome with these deadly and killing weeds and so overcome that they seemed to cover the face of the field they tooke it to bee a field of Weeds and not of Corne And because the usuall manner of speaking is to say that a horse is blacke and
divided Jesus from Christ and so themselves from Christians though as it hath been told them and as it is said by a Pope from S. Paul all Christians are called ad societatem Iesu Christi to the society both of Jesus and of Christ 1 Cor. 1.9 But surely if this be the Authors place in Calvin it is likely hee hath either forgotten Calvin or was not trusted with the reading of Calvin and some one that was trusted but not trusty told him it would serve his turne and deceived him As for the wonderfull wisdome which this Author speciously sets forth in the differences of those Order That wisdome is here come to passe which Solomon condemneth when he saith Be not wise over much for humane wisdome hath so far wrought herein that Orders have been multiplied far beyond the gifts of continency yea above the good both of Church and Common wealth And so far were they as this Author saith from stripping themselves from earthly incumberances to fly fast into heaven that too much they stripped both Laiâ—y and Clergy of earthly maintenances and therewith have made to themselves fleshly incumberances But of this wisdome before hath been given to the Reader such a representation that I think it appeared to him not to be spirituall but carnall earthly and divelish if not in the invention yet in the execution and therefore for brevity thither I remit the Reader Only I wish the Author would prove what hee saith by some place of Scripture That God inspired the Founders of Orders with severall spirits and that there is a speciall spirit with which an Order was first endued especially if that Scripture were rightly applyed by Abbot Whitgift That Monkery was a plant which the heavenly Father planted not and therefore should bee pulled up by the rootes Which Prophecie was soon after fulfilled in this Land The Cavalier comes now to dismount a third objection of Protestants concerning Romish difference which ariseth as hee saith in regard of the differences betweene learned and unlearned men which hee assayeth to take away by a distinction of explicite and implicite faith in this manner A man is said to have explicite faith of any article or doctrine when he hath heard it particularly propounded to him and hath some particular knowledge thereof and gives particular assent thereunto But as for implicite faith of any article or doctrine a man is then said to have it when hee beleeves that concerning it which the Church teacheth them explicitely who are capable thereof although for his owne part he have not perhaps so much as heard of it in particular or if he did hee hath forgot it or if he did remember it he hath not capacity enough to apprehend or understand it And when he hath shewed this distinction he labours with great vehemency to prove it and affirmes That without this it would be wholly impossible to maintaine any Church in any unity of faith at all and finally concludes That this sword of ours is turned into a buckler wherewith to defend them First for the pains he takes to make good this distinction hee takes it to make good our objection and so labours for us and against himselfe for upon this distinction being grounded we ground our objection and say that this distinction leaves even the like differences amongst Romists for which they accuse and damne us and leaves no better unity among them then it leaves among us And if thus then it is both a sword in our hand to hurt them and a buckler also to defend us against them neither have they any buckler to defend themselves against this sword much lesse will this sword that wounds them become a buckler to defend the wounds which it selfe gives But the onely safe way is with that King who comes with the weake side to send Ambassadors for peace to the stronger Now to shew that this distinction being strengthened doth strengthen our objection and so is a true sword against Romists I say That in those points of faith which are beyond the explicites or fundamentals are called implicites there are differences among Romists as well as among us and these differences are not onely such as are discovered by the ell by which the faith of the unlearned is found shorter then that of the learned but the Cloth it selfe within the measure of the learned is torne into pieces and the learned themselves doe differ in the beliefe of the said points among themselves as well as from the unlearned And this hath bin shewed before and is indeed a part of D. Whites undertaking formerly mentioned I may instance in a point or two Transubstantiation is an Article of their new faith and not usually reckoned among their explicites the one part of the learned hath beleeved that the substance of Bread being abolished the Body of Christ is brought to the place of it another part beleeves that the substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christs Body which I nothing doubt was the first meaning of this new doctrine each confutes either And an unlearned man that stands by may easily being over-weighed with the reasons of both either beleeve neither or somewhat else of his owne And indeede I my selfe have asked one of their Proselites whether he would chew or teare the body of Christ with his teeth and he told me that he did not think that their Doctors would say it so also in the point of Image-worship a matter of deepe consequence and much concerning life and death yet by them left among Implicites One side of the Doctors holds a plaine worship of the Image of Christ with Latria or divine honour and others hold this honour given properly to Images to be Idolatrie and either give it improperly or give an inferiour reverence or no religious reverence at all But the unlearned man when he sees the Image set in Churches covered with gold turning his head and eyes weeping working miracls saith with the Lycaonians Gods are common to us in the shape of men and thinkes hee cannot worship God too much and therefore doth it with all his soule and all his might even with a perfect Idolatrie Now are not these differences of momeÌ„t among them in their Explicites many more such there are which it were too tedious to repeat indeed their differences must needs bee much more then ours because many of their learned Explicites are errours and in errours there can never bee a full agreement for if any one hath that good spirit which maks discovery of them he commonly is opposed and contradicted by the others errour as here the not worshippers of the Image with divine worship is opposed by the worshipper Besides he that is in the darke and sees not what to beleeve if he beleeve any thing he can but beleeve an imagination of his owne and not a reall ttuth and so must needs differ from him who seeth
Trent it selfe called of purpose to end controversies so set downe the knot of this controversie that your owne Romists are agreed of it among themselves True it is that the maine body of the Papacy dotes upon Free-will according to their Leaders who as this Authour well affirmeth have many profitable Doctrines as that of Merit Supererogation c. depending upon it But yet there are among them some that hold the efficacy of grace on the will which the Protestants do teach and so the Authours confused manner doth now light on the precious Synod of his deare Mother whose Champion hee is but not without prevarication For while hee condemnes a confused speaking of Free-will hee is become that sonne of Solomon who shameth his mother For she hath taught and as he calls it Declared Free-will in such a confused manner that her owne children cannot agree about her meaning And now hee sets downe the words of the tenth Article concerning Free-will and concludes That this is true Catholick Doctrine which we beleeve better then they A man would have thought here that we had been almost friends but let not the Reader bee mistaken for the worke of mistaken Charity is not to make peace but division Therefore after a confessed agreement a disagreement is to bee pickt out They declare not saith he whether or no a man have freedome of will to doe a good worke or not to doe it when first hee is inspired and moved to it by God Almighties grace which we affirme and they deny which is the onely knot of our question and the point upon which so many other Catholick Doctrines depend I desire the Reader to take speciall notice of these words of the Cavalier That upon the Doctrine of Free-will many Romish Doctrines doe depend For hence may arise a caution to those that affect this Doctrine of Free-will since here they see it confessed by the Cavalier that on this Doctrine many Romish Doctrines doe depend so it concernes them to beware how they admit this Doctrine which hath so much Popery in the belly of it But now to the maine knot of his question I give this answer That in untying this knot there is yet left unfolded the chiefe pleat of the knot For the chiefe fold of this knot is not Whether the will being inspired and moved by God there bee freedome in it to will or not to will but whether the will be not at any time so moved by grace especially in conversion that though it may will or not will yet it will certainly infallibly move that way to which Gods grace enclines it For indeed the freedome which these men speake for is a freedome of the will from the grace of God For they would have the will so free from Gods grace that grace should not actuate and worke it to will and to doe For other freedome of the will wee acknowledge even the most excellent freedome affirming that when the will is thus moved by God it willeth freely that way to which Gods grace moveth it yea most freely because most willingly For this is the soveraignty of power issuing from the highest cause that it worketh in second causes according to their own natures and therefore it workes in the will of man by making it most freely willing Accordingly grace doth so worke in the will that the will determines it selfe that way to which grace doth incline it And thus as it hath been well observed The feare of overthrowing Free-will is removed since things are violently moved by a contrary cause but never by their owne And God being the cause of the will to say it is moved by God is to say it is moved by it selfe And indeed this is the chiefe freedome of the will which wee maintaine when the will doth freely move being moved by the highest cause whose service is perfect freedome Onely because the word hath been abused we do abstain from that terme which by this abuse is likely to be mis-understood But this highest and most excellent freedome wee truly maintaine even that by which the will is free when God worketh it freely to will Yet many Romists complaine because no other freedome will please them but that the will may be freed from God and not be wrought by him to will as he will But thus doe they mainly fight against Gods glory and mans safety For first great glory is got hereby unto God that hee can turne the wills that are most averse from him and make them willingly and gladly to will what he willeth Even Saul breathing out threatnings and slaughter in his naturall will hee can change into Paul in his new and spirituall will ready not onely to be bound but to dye for the Name of the Lord Iesus And thus he that glorieth can only glory in the Lord. Secondly it gives God the glory of performing his promises God hath promised a Seed to the woman even Christ mysticall as well as Christ personall and hee hath promised a Seed to Abraham out of all Nations Now by this effectuall power on the wils of men doth hee performe his promises Therefore the Psalmist when hee speakes of Gods establishing Christs Kingdome saith rightly The people shall bee willing in the day of thy power and accordingly Abraham having received the promise of this Seed is said to beleeve that what God had promised hee was able to performe Hee did not beleeve in the wils of men left free from Gods ruling and effectuall grace that they would performe Gods promise for indeed so hee might have beene deceived but hee beleeved in God and his power that hee would performe this promised Seed and accordingly the Seed of promise is borne like Isaac by the will and power of the Promiser And in thus beleeving it is said That Abraham gave glory to God Wherefore this being Abrahams faith and this faith of Abraham giving glory to God Let men first consider whether they can bee the Seede of Abraham that have not this faith of Abraham And next If this faith of Abraham give glory to God Let men bee affraid by a different faith even a faith in mans free will for the performance of Gods promises to rob God of his glory Thirdly it gives God the glory of our prayers for therefore wee pray unto God that his Kingdome may come and his will may bee done because wee beleeve that Gods effectuall grace doth set up his kingdome in our Wils and cause them to will the Will of God Therefore we pray to God for this doing of Gods will which wee could not pray for to God if God did not produce this effect for otherwise the Free-will-prayer must run thus Lord give mee onely such free will that I may chuse whether I will doe thy will or no and not that thy will may bee certainely done But for the certaine and sure doing of Gods will they must pray to their
that hee himselfe can by name say that we admit him So it seems wee had no great depth in hiding the name of Saint Iames which our Authour as shallow as his pen runs did so easily find But I confesse I am sorry both for him and my selfe for him that hee is troubled with working such Cob webs and for my selfe that I have the labour of sweeping them away Yet will hee needs goe on in such industrious vanities But abstracting from all these insincerities wherewith that booke of Articles is full fraught they doe not so much as say that the Articles of Doctrine which they deliver are fundamentall either all or halfe or any one thereof or that they are necessarily to be beleeved by them or the contrary damnable if it be beleeved by us But they are glad to walk in a cloud for the reasons which have been already toucht Our Author commends the booke of Articles while he calls the Insincerities of it These Insincerities that is these which before have been shewed to be invisible and no Insincerities Insincerities only in the eye of the Author which did cast the shape of them on the booke when he read it But saith he They shew not which are fundamentall and which are not Neither did they ever promise you that they would do so The fundamentalls are said to be there but no man said for ought I know that there it was shewed which are fundamentalls and which are not Your selves hold points of importance which are more fundamentall and to bee explicitely knowne and doth every Romish Councell tell you which are these points and which are not And if it doth not why doe you demand it of our Church in her Synod more then of your own Or if you can excuse your own why doe you quarrell with ours It was not the intended much lesse promised businesse of our Church there to distinguish fundamentalls from superedifications but to set downe both fundamentalls and superedifications And these being taught to her children the Spirit of Christ the foundation will discover the fundamentalls to his members and thereby settle them on Christ and further build them up by the superedifications according to their appointed measure And I have before shewed how our fundamentalls may bee discerned though I may say somewhat like to that of our Saviour to the Jewes Why of your selves discern ye not that which is right and rightly fundamentall For if you know how to find out these grounds of Christianity which must bee explicitely knowne which your selves acknowledge to be more fundamentall you may easily find out our fundamentalls so that all this is but an empty out-cry to affright the Reader with noise without reason thus to call for a designment of fundamentalls where none was undertaken and where in like case your selves do it not and to quarrell with fundamentalls which your self and yours do acknowledge Yet when Romists have agreed of the set number themselves let them send to us their Catalogue defined by a Synod and it may be we may deale with them upon exchange The Cavalier goes on Master Rogers indeed in the Analysis which hee makes of those nine and thirty Articles speakes loud enough by way of taxing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as being contrary to that of the Church of England and hee gives it 〈◊〉 many ill names as his impure spirit can devise and affirmes among other things that many Papists and namely the Franciscans blush not to affirme that S. Francis is the holy Ghost and that Christ is the Saviour of men but one mother Jane is the Saviour of women a most execrable aspersion of Postellius the Iesuite with a great deale of such base trash as this And yet his Booke is declared to have beene perused and by the lawfull Authoritie of the Church of England permitted to be publick But yet even Master Rogers himselfe is not so valiant as to tell us in particular which point of their doctrine is fundamentall to salvation and which is not True it is that Master Rogers doth very clearely and audibly speake against and condemn divers errours of the Church of Rome as being not onely contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England but to the Word of God with which commonly he confronts the errours which hee brings forth to judgement And among them hee sheweth some errours of a high nature which make Saviours of Merits and Masses and Popish Pardons yea which carry the faith of the soule from God unto man the Pope and his Councels And for ought I see hee doth not give worse names then the purest and holiest Spirit gives to the Pope who calleth him the Man of sinne and sonne of perdition c. And the impurity which this Authour at his owne costs and upon his owne word layes on him Mr Rogers layes on Rome by proofes and allegations as in divers places so particularly in the nineteenth Article Propos. 7. whereof the Title is this That the Church of Rome most shamefully hath erred in life ceremonies and matters of faith But for that to which this Authours spirit gives the ill name of base trash it is brought in as the filth of his owne Associates and testified by other Writers and therefore the basenesse of it most justly should light on them that are the first Authours of it Neither is it strange amongst Papists to make creatures to share salvation with our Saviour the hymnes concerning the milke of the blessed Virgin the bloud of Thomas the vertue of the woodden Crosse singing it aloud in the ears of the world Filthinesse and basenesse most abominable and that deserves to bee swept out of the Church with detestation and to bee carried out as the Filthinesse out of the holy Place in the Reformation of Hezekiah And why in an equall judgement should not Master Rogers his Books much rather be permitted to bee publick for naming such filthinesse with detestation then Rome allowed to bee Catholick though using such filthinesse with practicall approbation Lastly The want of valour in Master Rogers to tell us which point of our doctrine is fundamentall and which is not I thinke is no just accusation because for ought I know hee did not undertake this as his businesse neither had any Romish Cavalier yet challenged him upon this quarrell SECT III. Wherein is discovered the vanity of his boasting That the Protestant Church is unlikely to define which are the fundamentall differences betwixt them and the Papists since they scarce dare avow any difference at all HEe goes on Much lesse is there any appearance that ever the Church of England should doe it since even now wee have seene that it dares not in divers points so much as declare in publick manner that it professes the expresse contrary of what wee held Nay wee are not likely to see the fundamentall points of faith whereof they talke so loud to bee avowed by so much as either