he hath proceeded no lesse consequently then irreligiously But what of this Pref. This is sayth he agreable to what you haue said before and what out of the abundance of your hart you speak very often that all Christians besides you are open Fooles or concealed Atheists Answ For my part I haue neuer knowne any Catholique vse any such inciuility of language Neither do I thinke any harboureth any such conceipt of all other not Catholiques that they are either open Fooles or concealed Atheists though I can easily belieue the common opinion of Catholiques to be that a Socinian is a concealed Atheist at the least and so in consequence a foole For the foole hath said in his hart There is no God Now that which followeth in this Paragraph I will only retort disoblige my selfe of a duty Mutato nomine de to Fabula narratur All this the Aduocate writes with notable confidence as the manner of Sophistes is which manner he is very well acquainted with to place their confidence of preuailing in their confident manner of speaking but then for the euidence wherewith he should maintaine so great a confidence it is as inuisible as the Religion he defends from the tyme of Luther vpward His fallacious Recriminations SECT XXIX HItherto we haue seene what this Aduocate had done he tell 's now what he could doe which we must suppose to be more then he hath or will doe O parce viribus vsque tuis As if he had a mynd to recriminate and charge Papists that they lead men into Socinianisme he cold certainly make a much fayrer shew of euidence then his Aduersary hath done And truly I belieue he hath met with an Aduersarie that will easily yeild him the priority in making faire shew's without any shew of repugnance at all But now he fall's into the puerility of a most triuial Rhetorique you shall see him fight as like a Parthian as you would wish doing most what he makes shew least to do fight 's as he flyes away and will be found I belieue Parthis mendacior For thus he colours and florishe's his Sophisme Pref. If I had a mind to recriminate I would not tell you you deny the infallibility of the Church of England Ergo you lead to Socinianisme Which is altogether as good as this Protestants deny the infallibility of the Roman Church Ergo they induce Socinianisme Answ Yet because this I would not tell you is no reall pretermission or passing ouer in silence what he would say but a saying it after a more aduantagious and Emphatique manner of speach then if he had said it positiuely and in plaine termes as the flight of warring Parthians is no serious and intended flight but a more dangerous fight vnder shew and pretence of feare and flight therefore we must vnderstand these words according to the direct and positiue sense as though they were couch't in this forme This argument You deny the infallibility of the Church of England Ergo you lead to Socinianisme is as good as this Protestants deny the infallibility of the Church of Rome Ergo they induce Socinianisme Wherein I note first his most familiar Fallacy of willfull ignorance and mistake of his Aduersaries Argument and the Elench who neuer inferred leading or inducing into Socinianisme out of the deniall of infallibility of the Roman Church but out of the deniall of some infallibility of Iudgment and authority of a Visible Church to determine of Scriptures and their interpretation c. For he knew well that if there were any other such infallible authority to determine such differences it should not then follow that they who disclayme the authority of the Roman Church should haue their only remaining refuge to the priuate spirit or naturall iudgment c. Wherefore hauing not yet excluded all other infallibility no nor disputed it he assumeth not infallibility of the Roman Church or the deniall of that as inducing Socinianisme but the deniall of all infallibility of whatsoeuer Church Therefore if this Logician would haue played fayre and not more like a Sophister then like a Scholler which very appellation in my iudgment carrieth with it a face and promise of ingenuity he should haue framed his Aduersaries Argument as it lyeth in him or at least so as it might appeare the same in effect and not seeme to haue his whole attention applyed to shift's and aduantages thus then he should haue formed it Protestants deny infallibility to the Church of God Ergo they induce Socinianisme and then haue compared it with this his owne recriminant Papists deny the infallibility of the Church of England Ergo they induce Socinianisme and then Macte O cum compare compar Not a nut more like an apple He had parallel'd it faire indeeed Secondly in comparing the English with the Roman Church Fallacy he seemes no doubt to take the Roman as a particular Church fraudulently affecting not to know that by the Roman Church Catholiques vnderstand all Christian Churches making one with the Roman by obedience and subordination to it Whence by the way Catholique Roman Church is no Bull as I haue heard a Dux Gregis among them was pleased sometyme to say it is And yet againe how long hath the English Church made a part separate from the Roman Look back into her cradle of extraction or distraction rather and blush not What was the originall cause and yet blush not Well say we what we list to all the Churches I know there is none more Visible then the Protestant some man yet aliue may haue seene her quite through from her first birth or appearance euen to this age but yet what was the cause of the distraction Causa mali tanti c. But I know this Aduocate will easily shift all this he will grant for a need True the generation was Equiuocall yet it might be Honourable inough Ex malis moribus bonae leges c. of euill manners good Laws c. I know his common place Howsoeuer in my iudgment the comparison hath something of the odious But what hath this Retrograde to do with the Infallibility of the Church of England He hath profe'st the infallibility of it so farre as to deny to subscribe the English Articles of fayth and doctrine wherein the authority of this Church may seeme to appeare of as great force as wheresoeuer He may haue since beene wrought into some other opinion by the skill and industry of some such Artist as know's well how to deale with so pliable a nature Vdum molle lutum nunc nunc properandus acri Fingendus sine fine rota Or that other though no Doctour yet a maister of Art ingenique largitor Persius proem one who can teach such towardly schollars wit yea thrifty wit a precious lesson in this age of prodigality may haue persuaded him to conforme Howsoeuer now he will do her this honour by way of Restitution as to say she is no more Fallible
fayth and therefore as necessarily to be belieued or at the least not reiected by an expresse misbeliefe Againe some parts of Scripture may haue an euident construction to one which to another may be darke and obscure then the doctrine inferred vpon that euidence will be of fayth to him to whom it is euidently contained in Scripture to another who will deny the euidence because he see 's it not it will not be so What authority then other then the Church shall determine the true sense of this part of Scripture euident and ineuident especially which may often fall out if no other more euident Scripture can be brought in as a witnesse of greater authority to cleare the doubt Heere then the doctrine of Fundamentalls and not Fundamentals will be good for nothing but to bring in more Fayths yea contradictory Fayths since all points of Fayth are Fundamentall so as necessarily to be belieued by him to whom they are euidently contained in Scripture and none fundamentall to him to whom they are not euidently contained in Scripture and therefore not necessary to be belieued And if you say that such points euidently contained in regard of some vnderstanding not euidently to another are none of those which are coÌ„maunded to be preached to all men which euasion this Aduocate may seeme to haue reserued how will this be proued since our Sauiours commaund is in general termes this Praedicate Euangelium hoc omnicreaturae Preach this Ghospell to all the world he sayth not these or these points of the Ghospell and no more And yet againe Quod aeudistis in aurem praedicate super tectae what you haue heard in secret preach it publiquely But especially when any controuersy concerning doctrine of fayth ariseth and some Heresy is authorized by some supposed euidence of Scripture then the contrary truth is to be preach't and publish't to the whole Church least that Heresy should be imbraced for a truth of Fayth or the word of God yea God himselfe pretended the Author of that vntruth or Heresy which pretence is a very high and low'd Blasphemy By which may appeare the grosse and palpable absurdity of this Ministers doctrine legitimating as it were all Adulterate and suprious Doctrines and Heresies by saying Nothing that is obscure can be necessary to be vnderstood or not mistaken Which is indeed one of his capitall Principles and a chiefe support of his doctrine For I aske Is not the mistaking or misinterpreting of some parts of Scripture the very source of some Hereticall doctrines and those Scriptures the greatest strength and colour that giueth credit and countenance to such Heresies Is not then the not-mistaking of such Scriptures necessary euen as necessary as it is that such doctrines should not preuaile or win credit by the authority of those Scriptures For though the true vnderstanding of some obscure parts of Scripture be not necessary yet it is necessary that such obscure parts be not so mistaken as to warrant Heresy by their authority If therefore out of that first principle by this Minister presumed a thousand other absurdities follow such as those by him deduced howsoeuer for I will not examine the regularity of those deductions what is this to the matter in hand For this was not the Direction or Caueat giuen him by his Aduersary that he should not answere out of this principle of Protestancy but that he should not out of those other specified by his Director those Socinian principles which euen Protestants abhorre The Conclusion of his Preface with his fallacious Apology for himselfe SECT XLIII HE concludes after his self-plauding manner as I haue often noted before Pref. And thus your Venome against me is in a manner spent Answ Which words I take notice of also heere that you may obserue with me the spirit of his style perpetuate throughout his whole worke and with all the difference betweene it and his Aduersariâ—s Pen and then tell me whether this be not the spirit of a Spider indeed which findeth venome euen where none is whome therfore that is Aduocare and Spider I shall not doubt to ioyne in one and the same Word which mall be this for the tyme. Inueniam aut faciam I will find it or make it Pref. Now only two litle impertinenties remaine the first that I refused to subscribe the Articles of the Church of England the second my mortues which first induced me to forsake Protestantisâ—â—e Answ So he and to the first he answer's in effect this Pref. That the doctrine of the Church of England is so pure and Orthodoxe that whosoeuer belieues it and liues according to it vndoubtedly he shall be sauâ—d That there is no error in it which may nocesutate or warrant a man to disturbe the peace or renounce the Communion of it Which acknowledgment he is persuaded is the only thing intended by subscription Answ By this you see he hath now leueled his way to Ecclesiasticall preferment so that if hereafter you heare he hath accepted any such commodity you many know he did it vpon better consideration The scruple he had concerning subscription is vanish't into the aire whither the rest of his scruples will follow in their turnes It may be that scruple was but a melancholique Dreame such as he conceaues Luthers conference with the Diuell might be He is now Materia prima for any benefice Chayre Prebendary Chanonry or what yee will you may coniecture who hath had the tempering and working of this pliable clay he was a Maister in that feat you may assure your selfe if not a Doctor and this his Maister-peece To the second impertinency concerning his motiues he answere's Pref. That it is more impertinent and friuolous then the former Vnlesse sayth he it he a iust exception against a Physician that himselfe was sometymes in and recenerâ—d himself from that disease which he vndertakes to cure or against a Guide in a way that at first before he had experience himselfe mistoâ—ke it and afterwardâ— so and his error and 〈◊〉 it That 〈…〉 Michaâ—â— de Montaigne wassurely of a farre different mynd for he will hardly allow any Physician competem but only for such diseases as himself had passed through and a farre greater then Montaigne Answ I pray you by the way take notice of this as not spoken by chance or without due reflection least any man should question whether authority were of greater waight in the Socinian balance Iesus Christ or Michael de Montaigne Pref. Euen he that said Tu conuersus confirma sratres tuos thou being conuerted confimre thy brethren giues vs sufficiently to vnderstand that they which haue themselues beene in such a state as to need conuersion are not thereby made incapable of but rather engaged and obliged vnto and qualified for this charitable function Answ He might haue added to this that the Hollander's men say make speciall choyce of such men for Pilot's and Maisters of ships who haue formerly wrack't many ships
fortuna duos So an Heretique when he makes two with the Catholique they cannot stand together vnder one roofe of the Church expulsi sunt nec potueruntstare the Spirit of God as being the predominant spirit in the Church and in right of possession expels the other incompatible spirit of Pride But yet Good Sir Remouer is it possible so grosse a folly should escape your reflection as you manifest in the close of this your answere for thus you write That if this Church wherin nothing necessary to Saluation is wanting will not allow you her Communion but vpon condition c. in this case the Church for requiring such a condition is schismaticall not you for separating Now for my part I truly should haue had a very great Scruple to haue imprinted vpon your reputation such a character of a prodigious pride as you haue heere displayed with your owne hand and pen. For as I haue intimated before it is certaine yea and to surmise the contrary or draw it within suspitioÌ„ or iealousy is mere litigious cauilling that the Church will neuer require the beliefe of so small and innocent an error as includeth no preiudice or falshood against Catholique faith or manners and if it include any such it cannot be small or innocent Yet put the case that the Church should require of any single or priuate Christian that he would for peace sake condescend with the whole Catholique Church to the profession of some point of doctrine which euen in his iudgment were but a small and innocent error but in her iudgment an Orthodoxe truth though not yet defined and would aduise him to depose his single conscience in this point wherein he could not possibly be supposed to haue any conuincing euidence especially against the torrent and vnanimous consent of the whole Church and that finally in case he would not submit he should be excommunicate held an alien from the Church were it not a strange pride in such a man to say No he could not and so would not depose his conscience that he know's he is in the right and the whole Church in an errour for thus we must suppose according to the sense of this Motiue that Luther stood out single against the whole Church and that therfore vnlesse the Church will allow him her Communion vpon his owne termes and conditions that is without obligation on his part to any such profession of doctrine or practise of the whole Church he would disclaime her communion and proclaime her schismaticall for requiring from him any such concurrence with her in any such practise or exterior conformity Although by the way Luther for whome he apologizeth opposed the whole Church in points of fayth then already defined when those errors if errors were neither small nor innocent being now imposed vpon Christians to be belieued euen as they would belieue God himself I say no error so imposed or so authorized could be small or innocent but if an error at all a most grieuous and damnable imposture Or if they were true doctrines and then also defined by the Church then Luther and his sectaries by not belieuing them and for separating according to your former discourse from that Church all the Churches of the world and so from the true if there were any true were damnable Schismatiqueâ— Therefore this part concerning Luthers Apostasy as vrged in your Motiue remaines yet vnanswered And yet further let vs consider your Apology for this Apostata personated in your selfe In this case the Church not allowing me her coÌ„munion is schismaticall not I for separating Reflect seriously vpon this discourse whether it be not only vnchristian but incongruous and illiterate nor worthy to haue dropt from a Grammarians Pen much lesse from a maister of Art's or of a Chaire For if Luther or any such whom you act in this defence were euer in the Church from which he separates he was in it as a limbe or member in the whole body for example as an arme or legge or thigh c. Now in case of separation or diuision betweene the body and any member do we say the body is deuided from the legge or arme or the legge or arme from the body Schisme is diuision or separation the Church say you is Schismaticall for requiring the aforesaid condition From whome or what schismaticall from whom or what deuided Is the Church deuided or separated from you What the body from the legge as if you suppose it incurably gangrain'd and then Immedicabile vuluns Eâ—se reâ—idendum est ne pars syncera trahatur But shall the body in this case be cut from the legge quis ita lâ—quitur is not this very language schismaticall separate from all Catholique vse of common sense speach Doth the Church separate from you in not condescending to your single opinion or you from her in not submitting to her Catholique doctrine The Church held the same doctrine for which you separate from her before you came to her you found her possest of this doctrine you leaue her so possest ' and standing where you found her Who separates in this case You stood for a while ioyned to a pillar you flye from the pillar what is the Pillar gone from you or you from the Pillar Nay I say more were it indeed an error which the Church should vrge you to professe and which because you refuse to professe you forsake the Church yet not the Church if we speake properly but you are the Schismatique or Separant Schismatique or Separate alway's denominates the inferior or subiected part for who are now the Separatist's in England They who exact conformity that is the Gouernours of the English Church or they who refuse to conforme Do you not see that by the very like discourse the Non-conformant's may conclude the Conformant's to be Schismaticks Nay might not the Heretiques of all ages euen those who opposed the doctrine of the primitiue Church haue returned the Schismaticall vpon that Church Yea vpon the Colledge of the Apostles themselues for requiring the beliefe of some doctrine which those Heretiques belieued not and which in their deluded conscience was errour For could not euery Nicholait say as much You require of me to professe against my conscience that I belieue some error which I belieue not otherwise you allow me not your communion you for requiring this are Schismaticall not I for separating from you rather then to condescend to this your condition Nor truly do I see why a priuate subiect might not aswell stand out against the King and Parlament refusing to subscribe or obey some decree or order establish't by full consent and authority of both Houses pleading in defence of such his recusancy that the order or decree is an errour in the State and alleadging perhap's to that purpose some old Charter or record misapplyed by his owne priuate interpretation disagreeing from the common intendment and declaration of the Lawyer 's and Iudges of