visible Church and some hold no such necessity Some of them hold it necessary to be able to prove it distinct from ours and others that their business is dispatched when they have proved ours to have been alwayes visible for then they will conceive that theirs hath been so And the like may be truly said of very many other particulars Besides it is D. Potter's fashion wherein as he is very far from being the first so I pray God he prove the last of that humour to touch in a word many trivial old Objections which if they be not all answered it will and must serve the turn to make the ignorant sort of men believe and brag as if some main unanswerable matter had been subtilly and purposely omitted and every body knows that some Objection may be very plausibly made in few words the clear and solid answer whereof will require more leaves of paper than one And in particular D. Potter doth couch his corruption of Authors within the compass of so few lines and with so great confusedness and fraud that it requires much time pains and paper to open them so distinctly as that they may appear to every man's eye It was also necessary to shew what D. Potter omits in Charity Mistaken and the importance of what is omitted and sometimes to set down the very words themselves that are omitted all words themselves that are omitted all which could not but add to the quantity of my Reply And as for the quality thereof I desire thee good Reader to believe that whereas nothing is more necessary than Books for answering of Books yet I was so ill furnished in this kind that I was forced to omit the examination of divers Authors cited by D. Potter meetly upon necessity though I did very well perceive by most apparent circumstances that I must probably have been sure enough so finde them plainly misalledged and much wronged and for the few which are examined there hath not wanted some difficulties to do it For the times are not for all men alike and D. Potter hath much advantage therein But Truth is truth and will ever be able to justifie it self in the midst of all difficulties which may occurr And as for me when I alledge Protestant Writers as well Domestical as Forrain I willingly and thankfully acknowledge my self obliged for divers of them to the Author of the Book entituled The Protestant's Apology for the Romane Church who calls himself John Breerly whose care exactness and fidelity is so extraordinary great as that he doth not only cite the Books but the Editions also with the place and time of their Printing yea and often the very page and line where the words are to be had And if you happen not to finde what he cites yet suspend your judgement till you have read the corrections placed at the end of his Book though it be also true that after all diligence and faithfulness on his behalf it was not in his power to amend all the faults of the Print in which Prints we have difficulty enough for many evident reasons which must needs occurr to any prudent man 8. And forasmuch as concerns the manner of my Reply I have procured to do it without all bitterness or gall of invective words both for as much as may import either Protestants in general or D. Potter's person in particular unless for example he will call it bitterness for me to term a gross impertinency a sleight or a corruption by those very names without which I do not know how to express the things and yet therein I can truly affirm that I have studied how to deliver them in the most moderate way to the end I might give as little offence as possibly I could without betraying the Cause And if any unfit phrase may peradventure have escaped my pen as I hope none hath it was beside and against my intention though I must needs profess that D. Potter gives so many and so just occasions of being round with him as that perhaps some will judge me to have been rather remiss than moderate But since in the very title of my Reply I profess to maintain Charity I conceive that the excess will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men if it fall to be in mildness than if it had appeared in too much zeal And if D. Potter have a mind to charge me with ignorance or any thing of that nature I can and will ease him of that labour by acknowledging in my self as many and more personal defects than he can heap upon me Truth only and sincerity I so much value and profess as that he shall never be able to prove the contrary in any one least passage or particle against me Rules to be observed if D. Potter intend a Rejoynder 9. In the third and last place I have thought fit to express my self thus If D. Potter or any other resolve to answer my Reply I desire that he will observe some things which may tend to his own reputation the saving of my unnecessary pains and especially to the greater advantage of truth I wish then that he would be careful to consider wherein the point of every difficulty consists and not impertinently to shoot at Rovers and affectedly mistake one thing for another As for example to what purpose for as much as conecrns the question between D. Potter and Charity Mistaken doth he so often and seriously labour to prove that Faith is not resolved into the Authority of the Church as into the formal Object and Motive thereof Or that all Points of Faith are contained in Scripture Or that the Church cannot make new Articles of Faith Or that the Church of Rome as it signifies that particular Church or Diocess is not all one with the Universal Church Or that the Pope as a private Doctor may err With many other such points as will easily appear in their proper places It will also be necessary for him not to put certain Doctrines upon us from which he knows we disclaim as much as himself 10. I must in like manner intreat him not to recite my reasons and discourses by halfs but to set them down faithfully and entirely for as much as in very deed concerns the whole substance of the thing in question because the want sometime of one word may chance to make void or lessen the force of the whole Argument And I am the more solicitous about giving this particular caveat because I find how ill he hath complied with the promise which he made in his Preface to the Reader not to omit without answer any one thing of moment in all the discourse of Charity Mistaken Neither will this course be a cause that his Rejoynder grow too large but it will be occasion of brevity to him and free me also from the pains of setting down all the words which he omits and himself of demonstrating that what he omitted was not material Nay I
is impossible to know what Books be Scripture which yet to Protestants is the most necessary and chief Point of all other D. Covell expresly saith Doubtless q In his Defence of Mr. Hookers books art 4. p. 31. it is a tolera le opinion in the Church of Rome if they go no further as some of them do not he should have said as none of them do to affirm that the Scriptures are holy and divine in themselves but so esteemed by us for the authority of the Church He will likewise oppose himself to those his Brethren who grant that Controversies cannot be ended without some external living Authority as we noted before Besides how can it be in us a fundamental Error to say the Scripture alone is not Judge of Controversies seeing notwithstanding this our belief we use for interpreting of Scripture all the means which they prescribe as Prayer Conferring of places Consulting the Originals c. and to these add the Instruction and Authority of God's Church which even by his confession cannot err damnably and may afford us more help than can be expected from the industry learning or wit of any private person and finally D. Potter grants that the Church of Rome doth not maintain any fundamental error against Faith and consequently he cannot affirm that our doctrin in this present Controversie is damnable If he answer that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only Judge of Controversies is not a Fundamental Point of Faith then as he teacheth that the universal Church may err in Points Fundamental so I hope he will not deny but particular Churches and private men are much more obnoxious to error in such Points and in particular in this that Scripture alone is Judge of Controversies And so the very Principle upon which their whole Faith is grounded remains to them uncertain and on the other side for the self-same season they are not certain but that the Church is Judge of Controversies which if she be then their case is lamentable who in general deny her this Authority and in particular Controversies oppose her definitions Besides among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the year 1633. to the questions Whether the Church have Authority to determine Controversies in Faith And To interpret holy Scripture The answer to both is Affirmative 27. Since then the visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Means whereby the revealed truths of Almighty God are conveyed to our understanding it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himself which blessed St. Augustine plainly affirmeth when speaking of the Controversie about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques he saith This r De unit Eccles c. 2◠is neither openly nor evidently read neither by you nor by me yet if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to perform what he should say lest we might seem to gain-say not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witness to his Church And a little after Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself who by his testimony recommends the Church I conclude therefore with this argument Whosoever resisteth that means which infallibly proposeth to us God's Word or Revelation commits a sin which unrepented excludes Salvation But whosoever resisteth Christ's visible Church doth resist that means which infallibly proposeth God's Word or Revelation to us Therefore whosoever resisteth Christ's visible Church commits a sin which unrepented excludes Salvation Now what visible Church was extant when Luther began his pretended Reformation whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church and whether he and other Protestants do not oppose that visible Church which was spread over the World before and in Luther's time is easie to be determined and importeth every one most seriously to ponder as a thing whereon eternal salvation dependeth And because our Adversaries do here most insist upon the distinction of Points Fundamental and not-Fundamental and in particular teach that the Church may erre in Points not-Fundamental it will be necessary to examine the truth and weight of this evasion which shall be done in the next Chapter An ANSWER to the SECOND CHAPTER Concerning the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our Understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion AD § 1. He that would usurp an absolute Lordship and tyranny over any people need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disanulling the Laws made to maintain the common liberty for he may frustrate their intent and compass his own design as well if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases and add to them what he pleases and to have his interpretations and additions stand for Laws if he can rule his people by his Laws and his Laws by his Lawyers So the Church of Rome to establish her tyranny over mens consciences needed not either to abolish or corrupt the holy Scriptures the Pillars and supporters of Christian liberty which in regard of the numerous multitude of Copies dispersed through all places translated into almost all Languages guarded with all sollicitous care and industry had been an impossible attempt But the more expedite way and therefore more likely to be successeful was to gain the opinion and esteem of the publique and authoriz'd Interpreter of them and the Authority of adding to them what Doctrin she pleased under the title of Traditions or Definitions For by this means she might both serve herself of all those clauses of Scripture which might be drawn to cast a favourable countenance upon her ambitious pretences which in case the Scripture had been abolished she could not have done and yet be secure enough of having either her power limited or her corruptions and abuses reformed by them this being once setled in the minds of men that unwritten doctrins if proposed by her were to be received with equal reverence to those that were writen and that the sense of Scripture was not that which seemed to mens reason and understanding to be so but that which the Church of Rome should declare to be so seemed it never so unreasonable and incongruous The matter being once thus ordered and the holy Scriptures being made in effect not your Directors and Judges no farther than you please but your servants and instruments alwayes prest and in readiness to advance your designes and disabled wholly with minds so qualified to prejudice or impeach them it is safe for you to put a crown on their head and a reed in their hands and to bow before them and cry Hail Ring of the Jews to pretend a great deal of esteem and respect and reverence to them as here you do But to little purpose is verbal reverence without entire submission and syncere
in the Church all truth yet he says not neither can we infer from what he says That the Church should always infallibly keep this depositum entire without the loss of any truth and sincere without the mixture of any falshood 149. Ad § 25. But you proceed and tell us That beside all this the Doctrine of Protestants is destructive of it self For either they have certains and infallible means not to err in interpreting or not If not Scripture to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith If they have and so cannot err in interpreting Scripture then they are able with infallibility to hear and determine all Controversies of Faith and so they may be and are Judges of Controversies although they use the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their own doctrine they constitute another Judge of Controversies beside Scripture alone And may not we with as much reason substitute Church and Papists instead of Scripture and Protestants and say unto you Besides all this the doctrin of Papists is destructive of it self For either they have certain and infallible means not to err in the choice of the Church and interpreting her Decrees or they have not If not then the Church to them cannot be a sufficient but meerly a phantastical ground for infallible faith nor a meet Judge of Controversies For unless I be infallibly sure that the Church is infallible How can I be upon her Authority infallibly sure that any thing she says is Infallible If they have certain infallible means and so cannot err in the choice of their Church and in interpreting her Decrees then they are able with Infallibility to hear examine and determine all Controversies of Faith although they pretend to make the Church their Guide And thus against their own Doctrine they constitute another Judge of Controversies besides the Church alone Nay every one makes himself a chuser of his own Religion and of his own sense of the Churches Decree which very thing in Protestants they so highly condemn and so in judging others condemn themselves 150. Neither in saying thus have I only cried quittance with you but that you may see how much you are in my debt I will shew unto you that for your Sophism against our way I have given you a Demonstration against yours First I say your Argument against us is a transparent fallacy The first Part of it lies thus Protestants have no means to interpret without Errour obscure and ambiguous places of Scripture therefore plain places of Scripture cannot be to them a sufficient ground of Faith But though we pretend not to certain means of not erring in interpreting all Scripture particularly such places as are obscure and ambiguous yet this me-thinks should be no impediment but that we may have certain means of not erring in and about the sense of those places which are so plain and clear that they need no Interpreters and in such we say our Faith is contained If you ask me How I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these places I ask you again Can you be sure that you understand what I or any man else says They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles preach could they have sufficient assurance that they understood at any time what they would have them do If not to what end did they hear them If they could Why may we not be as well assured that we understand sufficiently what we conceive plain in their writings 151. Again I pray tell us whether you do certainly know the sense of these Scriptures with which you pretend you are led to the knowledge of your Church If you do not How know you that there is any Church Infallible and that these are the notes of it and that this is the Church that hath these notes If you do then give us leave to have the same means and the same abilities to know other plain places which you have to know these For if all Scripture be obscure how come you to know the sense of these places If some places of it be plain Why should we stay here 152. And now to come to the other part of your Dilemma in saying If they have certain means and so cannot err methinks you forget your self very much and seem to make no difference between having certain means to do a thing and the actual doing of it As if you should conclude because all men have certain means of Salvation therefore all men certainly must be saved and cannot do otherwise as if Whosoever had a horse must presently get up and ride Whosoever had means to find out a way could not neglect those means and so mistake it God be thanked that we have sufficient means to be certain enough of the truth of our Faith But the priviledge of not being in possibility of erring that we challenge not because we have as little reason as you to do so and you have none at all If you ask seeing we may possibly err How can we be assured we do not I ask you again seeing your eye-sight may deceive you How can you be sure you see the Sun when you do see it Perhaps you may be in a dream and perhaps you and all the men in the World have been so when they thought they were awake and then only awake when they thought they dreamt But this I am sure of as sure as that God is good that he will require no impossibilities of us not an Infallible nor a certainly-unerring belief unless he hath given us certain means to avoid error and if we use those which we have will never require of us that we use that which we have not 153. Now from this mistaken ground That it is all one to have means of avoiding error and to be in no danger nor possibility of error You infer upon us an absurd Conclusion That we make our selves able to determine Controversies of Faith with Infallibility and Judges of Controversies For the latter part of this Inference we acknowledge and embrace it We do make our selves Judges of Controversies that is we do make use of our own understanding in the choice of our Religion But this if it be a crime is common to us with you as I have proved above and the difference is not that we are chusers and you not chusers but that we as we conceive chuse wisely but you being willfully blind chuse to follow those that are so too not remembring what our Saviour hath told you When the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch But then again I must tell you You have done ill to confound together Judges and Infallible Judges unless you will say either that we have no Judges in our Courts of Civil Judicature or that they are all Infallible 154. Thus have we cast off your Dilemma and broken both the horns of it But now my retortion lies heavy upon you and will not be turned off For
propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense Fundamental in regard of the divine authority of God and his Word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be denied or contradicted without Infidelity such as every Christian is bound with humility and reverence to believe whensoever the knowledge thereof is offered to him And further Where (e) Pag. 250. the revealed Will or Word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of Error and he who is thus convinced is an Heretick and Heresie is a work of the flesh which excludeth from heaven Gal. 5.20 21. And hence it followeth that it is FUNDAMENTAL to a Christian's FAITH and necessary for his Salvation that he believe all revealed Truths of God whereof he may be convinced that they are from God Can any thing be spoken more clearly or directly for us that it is a Fundamental Error to deny any one Point though never so small if once it be sufficiently propounded as a divine Truth and that there is in this sense no distinction betwixt Points Fundamental and not Fundamental And if any should chance to imagine that it is against the foundation of Faith not to believe Points Fundamental although they be not sufficiently propounded D. Potter doth not admit of this (f) Pag. 246. difference betwixt Points Fundamental and not-Fundamental For he teacheth that sufficient proposition of revealed Truth is required before a man can be convinced and for want of sufficient conviction he excuseth the Disciples from Heresie although they believed not our Saviour's Resurrection (g) Pag 246. which is a very Fundamental Point of Faith Thus then I argue out of D. Potter's own confession No error is damnable unless the contrary Truth be suffficiently propounded as revealed by God Every Error is damnable if the contrary Truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Therefore all Errors are alike for the general effect of damnation if the difference arise not from the manner of being propounded And what now is become of their distinction 5. I will therefore conclude with this Argument According to all Philosophy and Divinity the Unity and distinction of every thing followeth the Nature and Essence thereof and therefore if the Nature and Being of Faith be not taken from the matter which a man believes but from the motive for which he believes which is God's Word or Revelation we must likewise affum that the Unity and Diversity of Faith must be measured by God's Revelation which is alike for all objects and not by the smalness or greatness of the matter which we believe Now that the nature of Faith is not taken from the greatness or smalness of the things believed is manifest because otherwise one who believes only Fundamâ—ntal Points and another who together with them doth also believe Points not Fundamental should have Faith of different natures yea there should be as many differences of Faith as there are different Points which men believe according to different capacities or instructions c. all which consequences are absurd and therefore we must say that Unity in Faith doth not depend upon Points Fundamental or not Fundamental but upon Gods Revelation equally or unequally proposed and Protestants pretending an Unity only by reason of their agreement in Fundamental Points do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of Faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them and since they disagree in things Equally revealed by Almighty God it is evident that they forsake the very Formal motive of Faith which is God's revelation and consequently lose all Faith and Unity therein 6. The first part of the Title of this Chapter That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental in the sense of Protestants is both impertinent and untrue being demonstrated let us now come to the second That the Church is insallible in all her definitions whether they concern Points Funmental or not Fundamental And this I prove by these reasons 7. It hath been shewed in the precedent Chapter that the Church is Judge of Controversies which she could not be if she could err in any one Point as D. Potter would not deny if he were once perswaded that she is Judge Because if she could err in some Points we could not relie upon her Authority and Judgement in any one thing 8. This same is proved by the reason we alledged before that seeing the Church was infallible in all her definitions ore Scripture was written unless we will take away all certainty of Faith for that time we cannot with any shew of reason affirm that she hath been deprived thereof by the adjoyned comfort and help of Sacred Writ 9. Moreover to say that the Catholique Church may propose any false Doctrin maketh her liable to damnable sin and error and yet D. Potter teacheth that the Church cannot err damnably For if in that kind of Oath which Divines call Assertorium wherein God is called to witness every falshood is a deadly sin in any private person whatsoever although the thing be of it self neither material nor prejudicial to any because the quantity or greatness of that sin is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed as by the manner and authority whereby it is avouched and by the injury that is offered to Almighty God in applying his testimony to a salshood in which respect it is the unanimous consent of all Divines that in such kâ—nd of Oaths no levitas materiae that is smalness of matter can excuse from a moral sacriledge against the moral vertue of Religion which respects worship due to God If I say every least falshood be deadly sin in the foresaid kind of Oath much more pernicious a sin must it be in the publique person of the Catholique Church to propound untrue Articles of Faith thereby fastning God's prime Verity to a falshood and inducing and obliging the world to do the same Besides according to the Doctrin of all Divines it is not only injurious to God's Eternal Verity to disbelieve things by him revealed but also to propose as revealed Truths things not revealed as in Commonwealths it is a hainous offence to coyn either by counterfeiting the metal or the stamp or to apply the King's Seal to a writing counterfeit although the contents were supposed to be true And whereas to shew the detestable sin of such pernitious fictions the Church doth most exemplarly punish all broachers-of feigned revelations visions miracles prophecies c. as in particular appeareth in the Councel of (h) Sub. Leon. 10. Sess 11. Lateran excommunicating such persons if the Church her self could propose false revelations she her self should have been the first and chiefest deserver to have been censured and as it were excommunicated by her self For as the holy Ghost saith in (i) Cap. 13. v. 5. Job Doth God need your lye that for him you may speak deceits And that of the
Church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate to us Among many other Points in the aforesaid words we are to observe that according to this holy Father when we prove some Points not particularly contained in Scripture by the authority of the Church even in that case we ought not to be said to believe such Points without Scripture because Scripture it self recommends the Church and therefore relying on her we relie on Scripture without danger of being deceived by the obscurity of any question defined by the Church And elsewhere he saith Seeing this is (z) De Unit. Eccles c. 19. written in no Scripture we must believe the testimony of the Church which Christ declareth to speak the truth But it seems D. Potter is of opinion that this Doctrin about not-rebaptizing such as were baptized by Heretiques is no necessary Point of Faith nor the contrary an Heresie wherein he contradicteth S. Augustine from whom we have now heard that what the Church teacheth is truly said to be taught by Scripture and consequently to deny this particular Point delivered by the Church is to oppose Scripture it self Yet it he will needs hold that this Point is not Fundamental we must conclude out of S. Augustine as we did concerning the baptizing of Children that the infallibility of the Church reacheth to Points not-Fundamental The same Father in another place concerning this very question of the validity of Baptism conferred by Heretiques saith The (a) De Bapt. cont Donat. l. 5. c. 23. Apostles indeed have prescribed nothing of this but this Custom ought to be believed to be originally taken from their Tradition as there are many things that the universal Church observeth which are therefore with good reason believed to have been commanded by the Apostles although they be not written No less clear is S. Chrysostom for the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church For treating these words 2 Thes 2. Stand and hold the Traditions which you have learned whether by speech or by Epistle he saith Hence it is (b) Hom. 4. manifest that they delivered not all things by letter but many things also without writing and these also are worthy of belief Let us therefore account the Tradition of the Church so be worthy of belief It is a Tradition Seek no more Which words are so plainly against Protestants that Whitaker is as plain with S. Chrysostom saying I answer (c) De Sacra Script p. 678. that this is an inconsiderate speech and unworthy so great a Father But let us conclude with S. Augustine that the Church cannot approve any Error against Faith or good manners The Church saith he being (d) Ep. 119. placed between much chaff and cockle doth tolerate many things but yet she doth not approve nor dissemble nor do those things which are against Faith or good life 17. And as I have proved that Protestants according to their grounds cannot yield infallible assent to the Church in any one Point so by the same reason I prove that they cannot relie upon Scripture it self in any one Point of Faith Not in Points of lesser moment or not Fundamental because in such Points the Catholique Church according to D. Potter and much more any Protestant may err and think it is contained in Scripture when it is not Not in Points Fundamental because they must first know what Points be Fundamental before they can be assured that they cannot err in understanding the Scripture and consequently independently of Scripture they must foreknow all Fundamental Points of Faith and therefore they do not indeed relie upon Scripture either for Fundamental or not Fundamental Points 18. Besides I mainly urge D. Potter and other Protestants that they tell us of certain Points which they call Fundamental and we cannot wrest from them a list in particular of such Points without which no man can tell whether or no he err in Points Fundamental and be capable of Salvation And which is most lamentable instead of giving us such a Catalogue they fall to wrangle among themselves about the making of it 19. Calvin holds the (e) Instit l. 4. cap. 2. Pope's Primacy Invocation of Saints Freewill and such like to be Fundamental Errors overthrowing the Gospel Others are not of his mind as Melancthon who saith in (f) Cent. Ep. Theol. Ep. 74. the opinion of himself and other his Brethren That the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is of use or profit to this end that consent of Doctrin may be retained An agreement therefore may easily be established in this Article of the Pope's Primacy if ether Articles could be agreed upon If the Pope's Primacy be a means that consent of Doctrin may be retained first submit to it and other articles will be easily agreed upon Luther also saith of the Pope's Primacy it may be born (g) In Assertionib art 36. withall And why then O Luther did you not bear with it And how can you and your followers be excused from damnable Schism who chose rather to divide God's Church then to bear with that which you confess may be born withall But let us go forward That the Doctrin of Freewill Prayer for the dead worshipping of Images Worship and Invocation of Saints Real presence Transubstantiation Receiving under one kind Satisfaction and Merit of works and the Mass be not fundamental Errors is taught respectivè by divers Protestants carefully alledged in the Protestants (h) Tract 1. c. 2. Sect. 14. after F. Apology c. as namely by Perkins Cartwright Frith Fulke Sparke Goad Luther Reynolds Whitaker Tindal Francis Johnson with others Contrary to these is the Confession of the Christian Faith so called by Protestants which I mentioned (i) Cap. 1. v. 4. heretofore wherein we are damned unto unquenchable fire for the Doctrin of Mass Prayer to Saints and for the dead Freewill Presence at Idol-service Mans merit with such like Justification by Faith alone is by some Protestants affirmed to be the soul of the (k) Chalk in the Tower disputation the 4. dayes conference Church The only Principal origin of (l) Fox Act. Mon. p. 402. Salvation of all other Points of (m) The Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Confessions p. 253. Doctrin the chiefest and weightiest Which yet as we have seen is contrary to other Protestants who teach that merit of good works is not a Fundamental Error yea divers Protestants defend merit of good works as may be seen in (n) Tract 3. Sect. 7. under m. n. 15. Breereley One would think that the King's Supremacy for which some blessed men lost their lives was once amongst Protestants held for a Capital Point but now D. Andrews late of Winchester in his Book against Bellarmine tells us that it is sufficient to reckon it among true Doctrins And Wotton denies that Protestants (o) In his answer to a Popish pamphlet p 68. hold the King's
are comprised all Points by us taught to be necessary to Salvation in these words We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholique Visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God If any be of another mind all Catholiques denounce him to be no Catholique But enough of this And I go forward with the Infallibility of the Church in all Points 20. For even out of your own Doctrin that the Church cannot err in Points necessary to Salvation any wise man will infer that it behoves all who have care of their souls not to forsake her in any one Point 1. Because they are assured that although her Doctrine proved not to be true in some Point yet even according to D. Potter the Error cannot be Fundamental nor destructive of Faith and Salvation neither can they be accused of any the least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the universal Church Secondly since she is under pain of eternal damnation to be believed and obeyed in some things wherein confessedly she is indued with infallibility I cannot in wisdom suspect her credit in matters of less moment For who would trust another in matters of highest consequence and be afraid to relie on him in things of less moment Thirdly since as I said we are undoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest or Fundamental Points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those Fundamental Points be I cannot without hazard of my soul leave her in any one Point lest perhaps that Point or Points wherein I forsake her prove indeed to be Fundamental and necessary to Salvation Fourthly that Visible Church which cannot err in Points Fundamental doth without distinction propound all her Definitions concerning matters of Faith to be believed under Anathema's or Curses esteeming all those who resist to be deservedly cast out of her Communion and holding it a Point necessary to Salvation that we believe she cannot err wherein if she speak true then to deny any one point in particular which she defineth or to affirm in general that she may err puts a man into a state of damnation Whereas to believe her in such Points as are not necessary to Salvation cannot endanger Salvation and likewise to remain in her Communion can bring no great harm because she cannot maintain any damnable error or practice but to be divided from her the being Christ's Catholique Church is most certainly damnable Fifthly the true Church being in lawful and certain possession of Superiority and Power to command and require Obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grievous sin withdraw my obedience in any one unless I evidently know that the thing commanded comes not within the compass of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better inform me how far God's Church can proceed than God's Church her self Or to what Doctor can the Children and Scholars with greater reason and more security flye for direction than to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused than in cleaving to any particular Sect or Person teaching or applying Scriptures against her Doctrin or Interpretation Sixthly the fearful examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the Church upon pretence of her Errors have failed even in Fundamental Points and suffered shipwrack of their Salvation ought to deter all Christians from opposing her in any one Doctrin or practice as to omit other both ancient and modern heresies we see that divers chief Protestants pretending to reform the corruptions of the Church are come to affirm that for many ages she erred to death and wholly perished which D. Potter cannot deny to be a Fundamental Error against that Article of our Creed I believe the Catholique Church as he affirmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the Universal Church within Africa or some other small tract of soil Lest therefore I may fall into some Fundamental Error it is most safe for me to believe all the Decrees of that Church which cannot err fundamentally especially it we add That according to the Doctrin of Catholique Divines one error in Faith whether it be for the matter it self great or small destroys Faith as is shewed in Charity Mistaken and consequently to accuse the Church of any one Error is to affirm that she lost all Faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaves Christ no visible Church on earth 21. To all these Arguments I add this Demonstration D. Potter teacheth that there neither was (c) Pag. 75. nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But if the Church of Christ can err in some Points of Faith men not only may but must forsake her in those unless D. Potter will have them to believe one thing and profess another and if such errors and corruptions should fall out to be about the Churches Liturgy publique Service administration of Sacraments the like they who perceive such errors must of necessity leave her external Communion And therefore if once we grant the Church may err it followeth that men may and ought to forsake her which is against D. Potter's own words or else they are inexcusable who left the Communion of the Roman Church under pretence of errors which they grant not to be Fundamental And if D. Potter think good to answer this argument he must remember his own Doctrin to be that even the Catholique Church may err in Points not Fundamental 22. Another argument for the universal Infallibility of the Church I take out of D. Potter's own words If saith he we (d) Pag. 97. did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true unless he presuppose that the Church truly Catholique cannot err in Points not Fundamental For if she may err in such Points the Roman Church which he affirmeth to err only in Points not Fundamental may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may err in Points not Fundamental Therefore either he must acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words or else must grant that the Church truly Catholique cannot err in Points not Fundamental which is what we intended to prove 23. If Words cannot perswade you that in all Controversies you must relie upon the infallibility of the Church at least yield your assent to Deeds Hitherto I have produced Arguments drawn as it were ex natura rei from the Wisdom and Goodness of God who cannot fail to have left some infallible means to determine Controversies which as we have proved can be no other except a Visible Church infallible in all her Definitions But because both Catholiques and Protestants receive holy Scripture we may thence also prove the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concern Faith and Religion Our
Saviour speaketh clearly The Gates of Hell (e) Mat. 16. shall not prevail against her And I will ask my (f) Joan. 14. Father and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever The Spirit of Truth And But when he the Spirit of (g) Joan. 16. Truth cometh he shall teach you all Truth The Apostle saith that the Church is the Pillar and ground of (h) 1 Tim. c. 3. Truth And He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and othersome Evangelists and othersome Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the Ministry unto the edifying of the Body of Christ until we meet all into the unity of Faith and knowledge of the Son of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ that now we be not children wavering and carried about with every wind of Doctrin in the wickedness of men in craftiness to the circumvention (i) Ephes 4. of Error All which words seem clearly enough to prove that the Church is universally infallible without which unity of Faith could not be conserved against every wind of Doctrin And yet D Potter (k) Pag. 151 153. limits these promises and priviledges to Fundamental Points in which he grants the Church cannot err I urge the words of Scripture which are universal and do not mention any such restraint I alledge that most reasonable and Received Rule that Scripture is to be understood literally as it soundeth unless some manifest absurdity force us to the contrary But all will not serve to accord our different interpretation In the mean time divers of D. Potter's Brethren step in and reject his limitation as over-large and somewhat tasting of Papistry And therefore they restrain the mentioned Texts either to the Infallibility which the Apostles and other sacred Writers had in penning of Scripture or else to the invisible Church of the Elect and to them not absolutely but with a double restriction that they shall not fall damnably and finally and other men have as much right as these to interpose their opinion and interpretation Behold we are three at debate about the selfesame words of Scripture We confer divers places and Texts We consult the Originals We examine Translations We endeavour to pray heartily We profess to speak sincerely To seek nothing but Truth and Salvation of our own souls and that of our Neighbours and finally we use all those means which by Protestants themselves are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture Nevertheless we neither do or have any possible means to agree as long as we are left to our selves and when we should chance to be agreed the doubt would still remain whether the thing it self be a Fundamental Point or no And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God the lover of Souls hath left no certain infallible means to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion Our remedy therefore in these contentions must be to consult and hear Gods Visible Church with submissive acknowledgment of her Power and Infallibility in whatsoever the proposeth as a revealed Truth according to that divine advice of St. Augustine in these words If at length (l) De util cred cap. 8. thou seem to be sufficiently tossed and hast a desire to put an end to thy pains follow the way of the Catholique Discipline which from Christ himself by the Apostles hath come down even to us and from us shall descend to all posterity And though I conceive that the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental hath now been sufficiently confuted yet that no shadow of difficulty may remain I will particularly refel a common saying of Protestants that it is sufficient for Salvation to believe the Apostles Creed which they hold to be a Summary of all Fundamental Points of Faith The ANSWER to the THIRD CHAPTER Wherein it is maintained That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental is in this present Controversie good and pertinent And that the Catholique Church may err in the latter kind of the said Points 1 THis Distinction is imployed by Protestants to many purposes and therefore if it be pertinent and good as they understand and apply it the whole edifice built thereon must be either firme and stable or if it be not it cannot be for any default in this Distinction 2. If you object to them discords in matter of Faith without any means of agreement They will answer you that they want not good and solid means of agreement in matters necessary to Salvation viz. Their beliefe of all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture which who so believes must of necessity believe all things necessary to Salvation and their mutual suffering one another to abound in their several sense in matters not plainly and undoubtedly there delivered And for their agreement in all Controversies of Religion either they have means to agree about them or not If you say they have why did you before deny it If they have not means why do you find fault with them for not agreeing 3. You will say that their fault is that by remaining Protestants they exclude themselves from the means of agreement which you have and which by submission to your Church they might have also But if you have means of agreement the more shame for you that you stil disagree For who I pray is more inexcusably guilty for the omission of any duty they that either have no means to do it or else know of none they have which puts them in the same case if as they had none or they which professe to have an easie and expedite means to do it and yet still leave it undone If you had been blind saith our Saviour to the Pharisees you had had no sin but now you say you see therefore your sin remaineth 4. If you say you do agree in matters of Faith I say this is ridiculous for you define matters of Faith to be those wherein you agree So that to say you agree in matters of Faith is to say you agree in those things wherein you do agree And do not Protestants do so likewise Do not they agree in those things wherein they do agree 5. But you are all agreed that only those things wherein you do agree are matters of Faith And Protestants if they were wise would do so too Sure I am they have reason enough to do so seeing all of them agree with explicite Faith in all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture that is in all which God hath plainly revealed and with an implicite Faith in that sense of the whole Scripture which God intended whatsoever was Secondly That which you pretend is false for else why do some of you hold it against faith to take or allow the Oath of
of Charity mistaken demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamental points And We say you again and again demand such a Catalogue And surely If this one Proposition which here you think to stop our mouths with be a Catalogue yet at least such a Catalogue it is not and therefore as yet you have not performed what you require For if to set down such a Proposition wherein are comprized all points taught by us to be necessary to salvation will serve you instead of a Catalogue you shall have Catalogues enough As we are obliged to believe all under pain of damnation which God commands us to believe There 's one Catalogue We are obliged under Pain of damnation to believe all whereof we may be sufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church There 's another We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe Gods Word and all contained in it to be true There 's a third If these generalities will not satisfie you but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular what those Doctrins are which Christ taught his Apostles and his Apostles the Church what points are contained in Gods Word Then I beseech you do us reason and give us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church-proposals without leaving out or adding any such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to and if you receive not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals I for my part will give you leave to proclaim us Bankrupts 54. Besides this deceitful generality of your Catalogue as you call it another main fault we find with it that it is extreamly ambiguous and therefore to draw you out of the Clouds give me leave to propose some Questions to you concerning it I would know therefore whether by Believing you mean explicitely or implicitely If you mean implicitely I would know Whether your Churches Infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely or no Whether any other point or points besides this be under the same penalty to be believed explicitely or no and if any what they be I would know what you esteem the Proposals of the Catholike visible Church In particular whether the Decree of the Pope ex Cathedra that is with an intent to oblige all Christians by it be a sufficient and an obliging Proposal Whether men without danger of Damnation may examin such a Decree and if they think they have just cause refuse to obey it Whether the Decree of a Councel without the Pope's Confirmation be such an obliging Proposal or no Whether it be so in case there be no Pope or in case it be doubtful who is Pope Whether the Decree of a general Councel confirmed by the Pope be such a Proposal and whether he be an Heretique that thinks otherwise Whether the Decree of a particular Councel confirmed by the Pope be such a Proposal Whether the General uncondemned practice of the Church for some Ages be such a sufficient Proposition Whether the consent of the most eminent Fathers of any Age agreeing in the affirmation of any Doctrin not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries be a sufficient Proposition Whether the Fathers testifying such or such a Doctrin or practice to be Tradition or to be the Doctrin or practice of the Church be a sufficient assurance that it is so Whether we be bound under pain of damnation to believe every Text of the vulgar Bible now authorized by the Roman Church to be the true Translation of the Originals of the Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles without any the least alteration Whether they that lived when the Bible of Sixtus was set forth were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that And if not of that of what Bible they were bound to believe it Whether the Catholike visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome Whether every Christian that hath ability and opportunity be not bound to endevour to know explicitely the Proposals of the Church Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity will not save him that actually and explicitely disbelieves some Doctrin of the Church not knowing it to be so and actually believes some damnable Heresie as that God hath the shape of a man Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church when his Priest or ghostly Father assures him it is so Whether his ghostly Father may not erre in telling him so and whether any man can be obliged under pain of damnation to believe an Errour Whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined when a number of Priests perhaps ten or twenty tell him it is so And what assurance he can have that they neither erre nor deceive him in this matter Why Implicite Faith in Christ or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans Salvation as well as implicite faith in the Church Whether when you say Whatsoever the Church proposeth you mean all that ever she proposed or that only which she now proposeth and whether she now proposeth all that ever she did propose Whether all the Books of Canonical Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so and proposed as such by the Apostles And if not from whom the Church had this Declaration afterward If so whether all men ever since the Apostles time were bound under pain of damnation to believe the Epistle of S. James and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonical at least not to disbelieve it and believe the contrary Lastly why it is not sufficient for any mans Salvation to use the best means he can to inform his conscience and to follow the direction of it To all these demands when you have given fair and ingenuous Answers you shall hear farther from me 55. Ad § 20. At the first entrance into this Paragraph From our own Doctrin That the Church cannot erre in Points necessary it is concluded if we are wise we must forsake it in nothing lest we should forsake it in something necessary To which I answer First that the supposition as you understand it is falsly imposed upon us and as we understand it will do you no service For when we say that there shall be a Church alwaies some where or other unerring in Fundamentals our meaning is but this that there shall be alwaies a Church to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should erre in Fundamentals for if it should do so it would want the very Essence of a Church and therefore cease to be a Church But we never annexed this priviledge to any one Church of any one Denomination as the Greek or the Roman Church which if we had done and set up some setled certain Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our Guide in Fundamentals then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty have
Miracles how shall I proceed at our meeting Or how shall I know the man on whom I may securely relie Procure will you say to know whether he believe all Fundamental Points of Faith For if he do his faith for point of belief is sufficient for Salvation though he err in an hundred things of less moment But how shall I know whether he hold all Fundamental Points or no For till you tell me this I cannot know whether or no his belief be sound in all Fundamental Points Can you say the Creed Yes and so can many damnable Hereticks But why do you ask me this question Because the Creed contains all fundamental Points of Faith Are you sure of that Not sure I hold it very probable (y) Pag. 241. Shall I hazard my soul on probabilities or even wagers This yeelds a new cause of dispaire But what doth the Creed contain all Points necessary to be believed whether they rest in the understanding or else do further extend to practice No. It was composed to deliver Credenda not Agenda to us Faith not Practice How then shall I know what Points of belief which direct my practice be necessary to Salvation Still you chalk out new paths for Desperation Well are all Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter Fundamental I cannot say so How then shall I know which in particular be and which be not fundamental Read my Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. there you shall find that fundamental Doctrins are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertain (z) Pag. 211 213 214. to be Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved They are those grand and capital Doctrins which make up our Faith in Christ that is that common Faith which is alike precious in all being one and the same in the highest Apostle and the meanest Believer which the Apostle else-where cals the first Principles of the Oracles of God and the form of sound words But how shall I apply these general definitions or descriptions or to say the truth these only varied words and phrases for I understand the word fundamental as well as the word principal essential grand and capital doctrins c. to the particular Articles of the Creed in such sort as that I may be able precisely exactly particularly to distinguish Fundamental Articles from Points of less moment You labour to tell us what Fundamental Points be but not which they be and yet unless you do this your Doctrin serves only either to make men dispair or else to have recourse to those whome you call Papists and which give one certain Rule that all Points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of Faith in such sense as that to deny any one cannot stand with Salvation And seeing your self acknowledges that these men do not err in Points Fundamental I cannot but hold it most safe for me to joyn with them for the securing of my soul and the avoiding of desperation into which this your Doctrin must cast all them who understand and believe it For the whole discourse and inferences which here I have made are either your own direct Assertions or evident Consequences cleerly deduced from them 20. But now let us answer some few Objections of D. Potters against that which we have said before to avoid our argument That the Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed he saith The Creed is an abstract of such (a) Pag. 234. necessary Doctrins as are delivered in Scripture or collected out of it and therefore needs not express the Authority of that which it supposes 21. This Answer makes for us For by giving a reason why it was needless that Scripture should be expressed in the Creed you grant as much as we desire namely that the Apostles judged it needless to express all necessary Points of Faith in their Creed Neither doth the Creed suppose or depend on Scripture in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence inferr from the Articles of the Creed that there is any Canonical Scripture at all and much less that such Books in particular be Canonical Yea the Creed might have been the same although holy Scripture had never been written and which is more the Creed even in priority of time was before all the Scripture of the New Testament except the Gospel of S. Mathew And so according to this reason of his the Scripture should not mention Articles contained in the Creed And I note in a word how little connexion D. Potters arguments have while he tels us that The Creed (b) Pag. 234. is an Abstract of such necessary Doctrins as are delivered in Scripture or collected out of it and therefore needs not express the authority of that which it supposes it doth not follow The Articles of the Creed are delivered in Scripture therefore the Creed supposeth Scripture For two distinct writtings may well deliver the same Truths and yet one of them not suppose the other unless D. Potter be of opinion that two Doctors cannot at one time speake the same truth 22. And notwithstanding that D. Potter hath now told us it was needless that the Creed should express Scripture whose Authority it supposes he comes at length to say that the Nicene Fathers in their Creed confessing that the holy Ghost spake by the Prophets doth thereby sufficiently avow the divine Authority of all Canonical Scripture But I would ask him whether the Nicene Creed be not also an Abstract of Doctrins delivered in Scripture as he said of the Apostles Creed and thence did infer that it was needless to express Scripture whose authority it supposes Besides we do not only believe in general that Canonical Scripture is of divine Authority but we are also bound under pain of damnation to believe that such and such particular Books not mentioned in the Nicene Creed are Canonical And lastly D. Potter in this answer grants as much as we desire which is that all Points of Faith are not contained in the Apostles Creed even as it is explained by other Creeds For these words who spake by the Prophets are no waies contained in the Apostles Creed and therefore contain an Addition not an Explanation thereof 23. But how can it be necessary saith D. Potter for any Christian to have more in his Creed than the (c) Pag. 221. Apostles had and the Church of their times I answer You trifle not distinguishing between the Apostles belief and that abridgment of some Articles of Faith which we call the Apostles Creed and withall you beg the question by supposing that the Apostles believed no more than is contained in their Creed which every unlearned person knows and believes and I hope you will not deny but the Apostles were endued with greater knowledg than ordinary persons 24. Your
manners but the approbation of them doth yield sufficient cause to leave the Church I reply with S. Augustine that the Church doth as the pretended Reformers ought to have done tolerate or bear with scandals and corruptions but neither doth nor can approve them The Church saith he being placed (z) Pag. 75. betwixt much chaffe and cockle doth bear with many things but doch not approve nor dissemble nor act those things which are against Faith and good life But because to approve corruption in manners as lawful were an error against Faith it belongs to corruption in Doctrin which was the second part of my demand 19. Now then that corruptions in Doctrin I still speak upon the untrue supposition of our Adversaries could not afford any sufficient cause or colourable necessity to depart from that Visible Church which was extant when Luther rose I demonstrate out of D. Potter's own confession that the Catholique Church neither hath nor can err in Points Fundamental as we shewed out of his own express words which he also of set purpose delivereth in divers other places and all they are obliged to maintain the same who teach that Christ had alwayes a visible Church upon earth because any one Fundamental error overthrows the being of a true Church Now as Schoolmen speak it is implicatio in terminis a contradiction so plain that one word destroyeth the other as if one should say A living dead man to affirm that the Church doth not err in Points necessary to Salvation or damnably and yet that it is damnable to remain in her Communion because she teacheth errors which are confessed not to be damnable For if the error be not damnable nor against any Fundamental Article of Faith the belief thereof cannot be damnable But D. Potter teacheth that the Catholique Church cannot and that the Roman Church hath not erred against any Fundamental Article of Faith Therefore it cannot be damnable to remain in her Communion and so the pretended corruptions in her doctrins could not induce any obligation to depart from her Communion nor could excuse them from Schism who upon pretence of necessity in Point of Conscience forsook her And D. Potter will never be able to salve a manifest contradiction in these his words To depart from the Church a of Rome in some Doctrins and practises there might be necessary cause though she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation For if notwithstanding these Doctrins and practises she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation how could it be necessary to Salvation to forsake her And therefore we must still conclude that to forsake her was properly an act of Schism 20. From the self-same ground of the infallibility of the Church in all Fundamental Points I argue after this manner The visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnation upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her Communion by reason of corruption in Doctrin as long as for the truth of her Faith and belief she performeth the duty which she oweth to God and her Neighbour As long as she performeth what our Saviour exacts at her hands as long as she doth as much as lies in her power to do But even according to D. Potters Assertions the Church performeth all these things as long she erreth not in Points Fundamental although she were supposed to err in other Points not Fundamental Therefore the Communion of the visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnation upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her Communion by reason of corruption in Doctrin The Major or first Proposition of it self is evident The Minor or second Proposition doth necessarily follow out of D. Potter's own Doctrin above-rehearsed that the promises of our Lord made to his Church for his assistance are to be (b) Pag. 131. extended only to Points of Faith or Fundamental Let me note here by the way that by his or he seems to exclude from Faith all Points which are not Fundamental and so we may deny innumerable Texts of Scripture That It is (c) Pag. 155. comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers c. but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error till she be in heaven For it is evident that the Church for as much as concerns the truth of her Doctrins and belief ows no more duty to God and her Neighbour neither doth our Saviour exact more at her hands nor is it in her power to do more than God doth assist her to do which assistance is promised only for Points Fundamental and consequently as long as she teacheth no Fundamental error her Communion cannot without damnation be forsaken And we may fitly apply against D. Potter a Concionatory declamation which he makes against us where he saith May the Church of after-Ages make the narrow way to heaven (d) Pag. 221. narrower than our Saviour lest it c since he himself obligeth men under pain of damnation to forsake the Church by reason of errors against which our Saviour thought it needless to promise his assistance and for which he neither denyeth his grace in this life or glory in the next Will D. Potter oblige the Church to do more then she may even hope for or to perform on earth that which is proper to heaven alone 21. And as from your own Doctrin concerning the infallibility of the Church in Fundamental Points we have proved that it was a grievous sin to forsake her so do we take a strong argument from the fallibility of any who dare pretend to reform the Church which any man in his wits will believe to be indued with at least as much infallibility as private men can challenge and D. Potter expresly affirmeth that Christs promises of his assistance are not intended (e) Pag. 151. to any particular persons or Churches and therefore to leave the Church by reason of errors was at best hand but to flit from one erring company to another without any new hope of triumphing over errors and without necessity or utility to forsake that Communion of which S. Augustine saith There is (f) Ep. cont Parmen lib. 2. c. 1â— no just necessity to divide Unity Which will appear to be much more evident if we consider that though the Church had maintained some false Doctrins yet to leave her Communion to remedy the old were but to add a new increase of errors arising from the innumerable disagreements of Sectaries which must needs bring with it a mighty mass of fallehoods because the truth is but one and indivisible And this reason is yet stronger if we still remember that even according to D. Potter the visible Church hath a blessing not to err in Points Fundamental in which any private Reformer may fail and therefore they could not pretend any necessity to forsake that Church out of whose Communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more and even into
faith between the Lutherans the rigid Calvinists and Protestants of England So that if Luther were in the right those other Protestants who invented Doctrins far different from his and divided themselues from him must be reputed Schismatiques and the like argument may proportionably be aplyed to their further divisions and subdivisions Which reason I yet urge more strongly out of D. Potter (g) Pag. 20. who affirmes that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the errors of the Roman Church a reconciliation is impossible and damnable And yet he teacheth that their differnce from the Roman Church is not in Fundamental Points Now since among Protestants there is such diversity of belief that one denieth what the other affirmeth they must be convicted in conscience that one part is in error at least not Fundamental and if D. Potter will speak consequently that a reconciliation between them is impossible and damnable and what greater division or Schism can there be than when one part must judge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible and damnable 39. Out of all which premisses this Conclusion followes That Luther and his followers were Schismatiques from the universal visible Church from the Pope Christs vicar on earth and Successour to S. Peter from the particular Diocess in which they received Baptism from the Country or Nation to which they belonged from the Bishop under whom they lived many of them from the Religious Oâ—der in which they were professed from one another And Lastly from a mans self as much as is possible because the self-same Protestant to day is convicted in conscience that his yesterday's Opinion was an error as D. Potter knows a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant with whom therefore a reconciliation according to D. Potter's grounds is both impossible and damnable 40. It seems D. Potters last refuge to excuse himself and his Brethren from Schism is because they proceeded according to their conscience dictating an obligation under damnation to forsake the errors maintained by the Church of Rome His words are Although we confess the (h) Pag. 81. Church of Rome to be in some sense a true Church and her errours to some men not damnable yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she erres in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors 41. I answer It is very strange that you judge us extreamly Uncharitable in saying Protestants cannot be saved while your self avouch the same of all learned Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse If this your pretence of conscience may serve what Schiâ—matique in the Church what popular seditious brain in a Kingdom may not alledge the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from Schism or Sedition No man wishes them to do any thing against their conscience but we say that they may and ought to rectifie and depose such a conscience which is easie for them to do even according to your own affirmation that we Catholiques want no means necessary to Salvation Easie to do Nay not to do so to any man in his right wits must seem impossible For how can these two apprehensions stand together In the Roman Church I enjoy all means necessary to Salvation and yet I cannot hope to be saved in that Church or Who can enjoyn in one brain not crackt these Assertions After due examination I judge the Roman errors not to be in themselves fundamental or damnable and yet I judge that according to true reason it is damnable to hold them I say according to true reason For if you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedy but that you must rectifie your erring conscience by your other judgment that her errors are not fundamental nor damnable And this is no more Charity than you daily afford to such other Protestants as you term Brethren whom you cannot deny to be in some errors unless you will hold That of contradictory Propositions both may be true and yet you do not judge it damnable to live in their Communion because you hold their errors not to be fundamental You ought to know that according to the Doctrin of all Divines there is great difference between a speculative perswasion and a practical dictamen of conscience And therefore although they had in speculation conceived the visible Church to err in some doctrins of themselves not damnable yet with that speculative judgment they might and ought to have entertained this practical dictamen that for Points nor substantial to Faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could break the bond of Charity by breaking unity in God's Church You say that hay and stubble (i) Pag. 155. and such unprofitable stuffe as are corruptions in Points not fundamental laid on the roof destroyes not the house whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation And you would think him a mad man who to be rid of such stuffe would set his house on fire that so he might walk in the light as you teach that Luther was obliged to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light not without a combustion formidable to the whole Christian world rather than bear with some errors which did not destroy the foundation of Faith And as for others who entred in at the breach first made by Luther they might and ought to have guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis delivered in these words Indeed it is a matter of great (k) Adv. haeres c. 27. moment and both most profitable to be learned and necessary to be remembred and which we ought again and again to illustrate and inculcate with weighty heaps of examples that almost all Catholiques may know that they ought to receive the Doctors with the Church and not forsake the Faith of the Church with the Doctors And much less should they forsake the Faith of the Church to follow Luther Calvin and such other Novellists Moreover though your first Reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true yet they might and ought to have doubted whether they were certain because your self affirm That Infallibility was not promised to any particular Persons or Churches And since in cases of uncertainties we are not to leave our Superiour nor cast off his obedience or publiquely oppose his Decrees your Reformers might easily have found a safe way to satisfie their zealous conscience without a publique breach especially if with this their uncertainty we call to minde the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your own Brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many Ages enjoy I wish you would examine the works of your Brethren by the words your self set down to free S. Cyprian from Schism every syllable of which words convinceth Luther and his
it an act of humility to do so Many more would have been had they with liberty and indifference of judgement examined the grounds of the Religion which they profess But to think that all the Learned of your side are actually convinc'd of errors in your Church and yet will not forsake the profession of them this is so great an uncharitableness that I verily believe D. Potter abhorres it Your next falshood is That the Doctor affirms that you Catholiques want no means of Salvation and that he judges the Roman errors not to be in themselves fundamental or damnaâ—le Which calumny I have very often confuted and in this very place it is confuted by D. Potter and confessed by your self For in the beginning of this Answer you tell us that the Doctor avouches of all Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse that they cannot be saved Certainly then he must needs esteem them to want something necessary to Salvation And then in the Doctor 's saying it is remarkable that he confesses your errors to some men not damnable which cleerly imports that according to his judgement they were damnable in themselves though by accident to them who lived and died in invincible ignorance and with repentance they might prove not damnable A Third is that these Assertions the Roman Errors are in themselves not damnable and yet it is damnable for me who know them to be errors to hold and confess them are absolutely inconsistent which is false for be the matter what it will yet for a man to tell a lie especially in matter of Religion cannot but be damnable How much more then to go on in a course of lying by professing to believe these things divine Truths which he verily believes to be falshoods and fables A fourth is that if we erred in thinking that your Church holds errors this error or erroneous conscience might be rectified and deposed by judging those errors not damnable For what repugnance is there between these two Suppositions that you do hold some errors and that they are not damnable And if there be no repugnance between them how can the belief of the later remove or destroy or it be erroneous rectifie the belief of the former Nay seeing there is a manifest consent between them how can it be avoided but the belief of the later will maintain and preserve the belief of the former For who can conjoyn in one brain not crackt pardon me if I speak to you in your own words these Assertions In the Roman Church there are errors not damnable and In the Roman Church there are no errors at all Or what sober understanding would ever think this a good collection I esteem the errors of the Roman Church not damnable therefore I do amiss to think that she erres at all If therefore you would have us alter our judgement that your Church is erroneous your only way is to shew your doctrin consonant at least not evidently repugnant to Scripture and Reason For as for this device this short cut of perswading our selves that you hold no errors because we believe your errors are not damnable assure your self it will never hold 106. A fifth falshood is That we daily do this favour for Protestants you must mean if you speak consequently to judge they have no errors because we judge they have none damnable Which the world knows to be most untrue And for our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errors the justification hereof is not so much that their errors are not damble as that they require not the belief and profession of these errors among the conditions of their communion Which puts a main difference between them and you because we may continue in their communion without professing to believe their opinions but in yours we cannot A fixt is that according to the Doctrin of all Divines there is any difference between a Speculative Perswasion of conscience of the unlawfulness of any thing and a Practical Dictamen that the same thing is unlawful For these are but diverse words signifying the same thing neither is such perswasion wholly speculative but tending to practice nor such a dictamen wholly practical but grounded upon speculation A seventh is That Protestants did only conceive in speculation that the Church of Rome erred in some doctrins and had not also a practical dictamen that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errors An eighth is that it is not lawful to separate from any Churches communion for errors not appertaning to the substance of Faith Which is not universally true but with this exception unless that Church requires the belief and profession of them The ninth is that D. Potter teacheth that Luther was bound to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light Confuted manifestly by D. Potter in this very place for by the house of God you mean the Roman Church and of her the Doctor saies That a necessity did lie upon him even under pain of damnation to forsake the Church of Rome in her errors This sure is not to say that he was obliged to forsake her for an unnecessary light The tenth is covertly vented in your intimation That Luther and his followers were the proper cause of the Christian worlds Combustion Whereas indeed the true cause of this lamentable effect was your violent persecution of them for serving God according to their conscience which if it be done to you you condemn of horrible impiety and therefore may not hope to be excused if you do it to others 107. The eleventh is that our first reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain Which is to say that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formal and express terms contains many of these opinions And the reason of this assertion is very vain for though they had not an absolute infallibility promised unto them yet may they be of some things infallibly certain As Euclide sure was not infallible yet was he certain enough that twice two were four and that every whole was greater than a part of that whole And so though Calvin and Melancthon were not infallible in all things yet they might and did know well enough that your Latine Service was condemned by Saint Paul and that the Communion in both kinds was taught by our Saviour The twelfth and last is this that your Church was in peaceable possession you must mean of her Doctrin and the Professors of it and enjoyed prescription for many ages For besides that Doctrin is not a thing that may be possessed And the professors of it were the Church it self and in nature of possessors If we speak improperly rather than the thing possessed with whom no man hath reason to be offended if they think fit to quit their own possession I say that the possession which the governours of your Church held for some ages of the party governed was not peaceable but got
without which there can be no hope of Salvation 30 And that he who erreth against any one revealed truth as certainly some Protestants must de because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true doth lose all Divine saith is a very true doctrin delivered by Catholique Divines with so general a consent that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious The Angelical Doctor S. Thomas proposeth this Question Whether (o) 23 q. â— aâ—â— 3. in corp he who denieth one Article of saith may retain saith in other Articles and resolveth that he cannot which he proveth Argumento sed contra because As deadly sin is opposite to charity so to deny one Article of saith is opposite to saith But charity doth not remain with any one deadly sin Therefore faith doth not remain after the denial of any one Article of faith Whereof he gives this farther reason Because saith he the nature of every habit doth depend upon the formal Motive and Object thereof which Motive being taken away the nature of the habit cannot remain But the formal object of saith is the supreme Truth as it is manifesied in Scriptures and in the doctrin of the Church which proceed from the same supreme Verity Whosoever therefore doth not relie upon the doctrin of the Church which proceeds from the supreme Verity manifested in Scripture as upon an infallible Rule he hath not the habit of faith but believes those things which belong to faith by some other means than by faith as if one should remember some conclusion and not know the reason of that demonstration it is clear that he hath not certain Knowledge but only Opinion Now it is manifest that he who relies on the doctrin of the Church as upon an infallible Rule will yield his assent to all that the Church teacheth For if among those things which she teacheth he hold what he will and doth not hold what he will not he doth not relie upon the doctrin of the Church as upon an infallible Rule but only upon his own will And so it is clear that an Heretique who with pertinacity denieth one Article of saith is not ready to follow the doctrin of the Church in all things And therefore it is manifest that whosoever is an Heretique in any one Article of faith concerning other Articles hath not faith but a kind of Opinion or his own Will Thus far S. Thomas And afterward A man doth believe (q) Ad. 2. all the Articles of faith for one and the self same reason to wit for the Prime Verity proposed to us in the Scripture understood aright according to the Doctrin of the Church and therefore whosoever falls from this reason or motive is totally deprived of saith From this true doctrin we are to infeâ—r that to retain or want the substance oâ— faith doth not consist in the matter or multitude of the Articles but in the opposition against God's divine testimony which is involved in every least error against faith And since some Protestants must needs eâ—r and that they have no certain rule to know why rather one than another it manifestly follows that none of them have any Certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point Moreover D. Potter being forced to confess that the Roman Church wants not the substance of faith it follows that she doth not err in any one point against faith because as we have seen out of S. Thomas every such error destroys the substance of faith Now if the Roman Church did not err in any one point of faith it is manifest that Protestants err in all those points wherein they are contrary to her And this may suffice to prove that the faith of Protestants wants Infallibility They want the second Condition of Faith Obscurity 31 And now for the second Condition of faith I say If Protestants have Certainly they want Obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or noâ— necessitating our understanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonical Scripture And the sense and meaning of these Canonical Scriptures is clear and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation Now thâ—se Principles being once supposed it clearly followeth that what Protestants believe as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true by this argument It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in the word of God is true But it is certain and evident that these Books in particular are the word of God Therefore it is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true Which Conclusion I take for a Major in a second Argument and say thus It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true But it is certain and evident that such particular Articles for example The Trinity Incarnation Original sin c. are contained in these Books Thereâ—ore it is certain and evident that these particular Objects are true Neither will it avail you to say that the said Principles are not evident by natural discourse but only to the eye of reason cleared by grace as you speak For supernatural evidence no less yea rather more draws and excludes obscurity than natural evidence doth neither can the party so enlightned be said voluntarily to caprivate his understanding to that light but rather his understanding is by a necessity made captive and forced not to disbelieve what is presented by so clear a light And therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the Apostle but an invention of your own Their faith wants Prudence 32 That the faith of Protestants wanteth the third Condition which was Prudence is deduced from all that hitherto hâ—th been said What wisdom was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient and besides which there could be demonstrated no other visible Church of Christ upon earth A Church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation endued with Succession of Bishops with Visibility and Universality of Time and Place A Church which if it be not the true Church her enemies cannot pretend to have any Church Ordination Scriptures Succession c. and are forced for their own sake to maintain her perpetual Existence and Being To leave I say such a Church and frame a Community without either Unity or means to procure it a Church which at Luther's first re-revolt had no larger extent than where his body was a Church without Universality of Place or Time A Church which can pretend no Visibility or Being except only in that former Church which it opposeth a Church void of Succession of Persons or Doctrin What wisdom was it to follow such men as Luther in an opposition against the Visible Church of Christ begun upon meer passion What wisdom is it to receive from Us a Church Ordination Scriptures
Personal Succession and not Succession of Doctrin Is not this to verefie the name of Heresie which signifieth Election or Choice Whereby they cannot avoid that note of Imprudency or as S. Augustine calls it Foolishness set down by him against the Manichees and by me recited before I would not saith he believe (r) Cont. ep Fund c. 5. the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church did move me Those therefore whom I obeyed saying Believe the Gospel why should I not obey the same men saying to me Do not believe Manichaeus Luther Calvin c. Chuse what thou pleasest If thou say Believe the Catholiques they warn me not to believe thee Wherefore if I believe them I cannot believe thee If thou say Do not believe the Catholiques thou shall not do well in forcing me to the saith of Manichaeus because by the Preaching of Catholiques I believed the Gospel it self If thou say you did well to believe them Catholiques commending the Gospel but you did not well to believe them discommending Manichaeus dost thou think me so very FOOLISH that without any reason at all I should believe what thou wilt and not believe what thou wilt not Nay this holy Father is not content to call it Fool shness but meer Madness in these words Why should I not most diligently enquire (f) Lib de util Cred. c. 14. what Christ commanded of those before all others by whose Authority I was moved to believe that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the Belief thereof had been recommended by thee to me This therefore I believed by fame strengthned with Celebrity Consent Antiquity But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing which deserves Authority What MADNESS is this Believe them Catholiques that we ought to believe Christ but learn of us what Christ said why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my self that I were not to believe Christ then I should learn any thing concerning him from other than those by whom I believed him Lastly I ask What wisdom it could be to leave all visible Churches and consequently the true Catholique Church of Christ which you confess cannot err in points necessary to salvation and the Roman Church which you grant doth not err in fundamentals and follow private men who may err even in points necessary to salvation Especially if we add that when Luther rose there was no visible true Catholique Church besides that of Rome and them who agreed with her in which sense she was and is the only true Church of Christ and not capable of any Error in faith Nay even Luther who first opposed the Roman Church yet coming to dispute against other Heretiques he is forced to give the Lye both to his own words and deeds in saying We freely confess (t) In epist cont Anab. ad duos Paroches to 2. Germ. Wit fol. 229 230. that in the Papacy there are many good things worthy the name of Christian which have come from them to us Namely we consess that in the Papacy there is true Scripture true Baptism the true Sacrament of the Altar the true keyes for the remission of sins the true office of Preaching true Catechism as our Lords Prayer Ten Commandments Articles of faith c. And afterward I avouch that under the Papacy is true Christianity yea the Kâ—â—nâ—land Marrow of Christianity and many pious and great Saints And again he affirmeth that the Church of Rome hath the true Spirit Gospel Faith Baptism Sacraments the Keyes the Office of Preaching Prayer Holy Scripture and whatsoever Christianity ought to have And a little before I hear and see that they bring in Anabaptism only to this end that they may spight the Pope as men that will receive nothing from Antichrist no otherwise than the Sacramentaries do who therefore believe only Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament meerly in hatred against the Bishop of Rome and they think that by this means they shall overcome the Papacy Verily these men rely upon a weak ground for by this means they must deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For we have all these things from the Pope otherwise we must go make a new Scripture O Truth more forcible as S. Austin says to wring out (x) Cont. Donat. past collat c 24. Confession then is any rack or torment And so we may truly say with Moyses Inimici nostri sunt Judices Our very Enemies give (y) Deut. 32.31 Their faith wants Supernaturality sentence for us 33 Lastly since your faith wanteth Certainty and Prudence it is easie to inferr that it wants the fourth Condition Supernaturality For being but an Humane perswasion or Opinion it is not in nature or essence Supernatural And being imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from Divine Motion and grace and therefore it is neither supernatural in it self not in the cause from which it proceedeth 34 Since therefore we have proved that whosoever errs against any one point of faith loseth all divine faith even concerning those other Articles wherein he doth not err and that although he could still retain true faith for some points yet any one errour in whatsoever matter concerning faith is a grievous sin it clearly follows that when two or more hold different doctrins concerning faith and Religion there can be but one Part saved For declaring of which truth if Catholiques be charged with want of Charity and Modesty and be accused of rashness ambition and fury as D. Potter is very free in this kind I desire every one to ponder the whole words of S. Chrysostom who teacheth that every least error overthrows all faith and whosoever is guilty thereof is in the Church like one who in the Common wealth forgeth false coin Let them hear saith this holy Father what S. Paul saith Namely that they who brought in some small error (z) Gal. 1.7 had overthrown the Gospel For to shew how small a thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole he said that the Gospel was subverted For as he who clips a little of the stamp from the King's money makes the whole piece of no value so whosoever takes away â—he least particle of sound faith is wholly corrupted always going from that beginning to worse things Where then are they who condemn us as contentious persons because we cannot agree with Heretiques and do often say that there is no difference betwixt us and them but that our disagreement proceeds from Ambition to domineer And thus having shewed that Protestants want true Faith it remaineth that according to my first design I examine whether they do not also want Charity as it respects a mans self The ANSWER to the SIXTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not Heretiques
true doctrin this Position of yours thus nakedly set down That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine faith For they all require not your self excepted that this truth must not only be revealed but revealed publiquely and all things considered sufficiently propounded to the erring Party to be one of those which God under pain of damnation commands all men to believe And therefore the contradiction of Protestants though this vain doctrin of your Divines were supposed true is but a weak argument That any of them have no divine Faith seeing you neither have nor ever can prove without begging the Question of your Churches infallibility that the truths about which they differ are of this quality and condition But though out of courtesie we may suppose this doctrin true yet we have no reason to grant it nor to think it any thing but a vain and groundless fancie and that this very weak and inartificial argument from the authority of your Divines is the strongest pillar which it hath to support it Two reasons you alleadge for it out of Thomas Aquinas the first whereof vainly supposeth against reason and experience that by the commission of any deadly sinne the habit of Charitie is quite exstirpated And for the second though you cry it up for an Achilles and think like the Gorgons head it will turne us all into stone and in confidence of it insult upon Doctor Potter as if he durst not come neare it yet in very truth having considered it well I finde it a serious grave prolixe and profound nothing I could answer it in a word by telling you that it begges without all proof or colour of proof the main Question between us That the infallibilitie of your Church is either the formal motive or rule or a necessarie condition of faith which you know we flatly deny and therefore all that is built upon it has nothing but wind for a foundation But to this answer I will adde a large consutation of this vain fancie out of one of the most rational and profound Doctors of your own Church I mean Essius who upon the third of the Sent. the 23. dist the 13. § writes thus It is disputed saith he whether in him who believes some of the Articles of our faith and disbelieves others or perhaps some one there be faith properly so called in respect of that which he does believe In which question we must before all carefully distinguish between those who retaining a general readiness to believe whatsoever the Church believes yet erre by ignorance in some Doctrin of faith because it is not as yet sufficiently declared to them that the Church does so believe and those who after sufficient manifestation of the Churches Doctrin do yet choose to dissent from it either by doubting of it or affirming the contrary For of the former the answer is easie but of these that is of Heretiques retaining some part of wholesome Doctrin the question is more difficult and on both sides by the Doctors probably disputed For that there is in them true faith of the Articles wherein they do not erre first experience seems to convince For many at this day denying for example sake Purgatory or Invocation of Saints nevertheless firmly hold as by divine revelation that God is Three and One that the Son of God was incarnate and suffered and other like things As anciently the Novatians excepting their peculiar error of denying reconciliation to those that fell in persecution held other things in common with Catholiques So that they assisted them very much against the Arrians as Socrates relates in his Eccl. Hist Moreover the same is proved by the example of the Apostles who in the time of Christ's passion being scandaliz'd lost their faith in him as also Christ after his resurrection upbraids them with their incredulity and calls Thomas incredulous for denying the Resurrection John 20. Whereupon S. Austin also in his preface upon the 96 Psalme saith That after the Resurrection of Christ the faith of those that fell was restored again And yet we must not say that the Apostles then lost the faith of the Trinity of the Creation of the world of Eternal life and such like other Articles Besides the Jewes before Christs comming held the faith of one God the Creator of Heaven and Earth who although they lost the true faith of the Messias by not receiving Christ yet we cannot say that they lost the faith of one God but still retained this Article as firmely as they did before Add hereunto that neither Jews nor Heretiques seem to lye in saying they believe either the books of the Prophets or the four Gospels it being apparent enough that they acknowledge in them Divine Authority though they hold not the true sense of them to which purpose is that in the Acts chap. 20. Believest thou the Propheis I know that thou believest Lastly it is manifest that many gifts of God are found even in bad men and such as are out of the Church therefore nothing hinders but that Jews and Heretiques though they erre in many things yet in other things may be so divinely illuminated as to believe aright So S. Austine seems to teach in his book De Unico Baptismo contra Petilianum c. 3. in these words When a Jew comes to us to be made a Christian we destroy not in him God's good things but his own ill That he believes One God is to be worshipped that he hopes for eternal life that he doubts not of the Resurrection we approve and commend him we acknowledge that as he did believe these things so he is still to believe them and as he did hold so he is still to hold them Thus he subjoyning more to the same purpose in the next and again in the 26 Chapter and in his third Book De Bapt. contr Donat. cap. ult and upon Psal 64. But now this reason seems to perswade the contrary Because the formal object of faith seems to be the first verity as it is manifested by the Churches Doctrin as the Divine and infallible Rule wherefore whosoever adheres not to this Rule although he assent to some matters of faith yet he embraces them not with faith but with some other kind of assent as if a man assent to a conclusion not knowing the reason by which it is demonstrated he hath not true knowledge but an opinion only of the same conclusion Now that an Heretique adheres not to the rule aforesaid it is manifest Because if he did adhere to it as divine and infallible he would receive all without exception which the Church teacheth and so would not be an Heretique After this manner discourseth Saint Thom. 2.2 q. 5. art 3. From whom yet Durand dissents upon this distinction thinking there may be in an Heretique true faith in respect of the Article in which he doth not erre Others as Scotus and Bonaventure define not the matter plainly but seem to choose
that generally speaking in things necessary only because they are commanded it is sufficient for avoiding sin that we proceed prudently and by the conduct of some probable opinion maturely weighed and approved by men of vertue learning and wisdome Neither are we alwayes obliged to follow the most strict and severe or secure part as long as the doctrin which we embrace proceeds upon such reasons as may warrant it to be truly probable and prudent though the contrary part want not also probable grounds For in humane affairs and discourse evidence and certainty cannot be alwayes expected But when we treat not precisely of avoiding sin but moreover of procuring some thing without which I cannot saved I am obliged by the Law and Order of Charity to procure as great certainty as morally I am able and am not to follow every probable opinion or dictamen but tutiorem partem the safer part because if my probability prove false I shall not probably but certainly come short of Salvation Nay in such case I shall incurre a new sin against the Vertue of Charity towards my self which obligeth every one not to expose his soul to the hazard of eternal perdition when it is in his power with the assistance of Gods grace to make the matter sure From this very ground it is that although some Divines be of opinion that it is not a sin to use some Matter or Form of Sacraments only probable if we respect precisely the reverence or respect which is due to Sacraments as they belong to the Moral infused Vertue of Religion yet when they are such Sacraments as the invalidity thereof may endanger the salvation of souls all do with one consent agree that it is a grievous offence to use a doubtful or only probable Matter or Form when it is in our power to procure certainty If therefore it may appear that though it were not certain that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation as we have proved to be very certain yet at least that it is probable and withal that there is a way more safe it will follow out of the grounds already laid that they are obliged by the law of Charity to embrace that safe way 5. Now that Protestants have reason at least to doubt in what case they stand is deduced from what we have said and proved about the universal infallibility of the Church and of her being Judge of Controversies to whom all Christians ought to submit their Judgement as even some Protestants grant and whom to oppose in any one of her definitions is a grievous sin As also from what we have said of the Unity Universality and Visibility of the Church and of Succession of Persons and Doctrin Of the conditions of Divine Faith Certainty Obscurity Prudence and Supernaturality which are wanting in the faith of Protestants Of the frivolous distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental the confutation whereof proveth that Heretiques disagreeing among themselves in any least point cannot have the same faith nor be of the same Church Of Schism of Heresie of the Persons who first revolted from Rome and of their Motives of the Nature of Faith which is destroyed by any least error and it is certain that some of them must be in error and want the substance of true faith and since all pretend the like certainty it is cleer that none of them have any certainty at all but that they want true faith which is a means most absolutely necessary to Salvation Moreover as I said heretofore since it is granted that every Error in fundamentall points is damnable and that they cannot tell in particular what points be fundamental it followes that none of them knowes whether he or his Brethren do not erre damnably it being certain that amongst so many disagreeing Persons some must erre Upon the same ground of not being able to assigne what points be fundamental I say they cannot be sure whether the difference among them be fundamental or no and consequently whether they agree in the substance of faith and hope of Salvation I omit to adde that you want the Sacrament of Penance instituted for remission of sins or at least you must confess that you hold it not necessary and yet your own Bretheren for example the Century-Writers do (g) Cent. 3 cap. 6. Col. 127. acknowledge that in times of Cyprian and Tertullian Private Confession even of Thoughts was used and that it was then commanded and thought necessary The like I say concerning your Ordination which at least is very doubtful and consequently all that depends thereon 6. On the other side that the Roman Church is the safer way to Heaven not to repeat what hath been already said upon divers occasions I will again put you in mind that unless the Roman Church was the true Church there was no visible true Church upon earth A thing so manifest that Protestants themselves confess that more than one thousand yeers the Roman Church possessed the whole world as we have shewed heretofore out of their own (h) Chap. 5. Num. 9. words from whence it followes that unless Ours be the true Church you cannot pretend to any perpetual visible Church of your Own but Ours doth not depend on yours before which it was And here I wish you to consider with fear and trembling how all Roman Catholiques not one excepted that is those very men whom you must hold not to erre damnably in their belief unless you will destroy your own Church and salvation do with unanimous consent believe and profess that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation and then tell me as you will answer at the last day Whether it be not more safe to live and die in that Church which even your selves are forced to acknowledg not to be cut off from hope of Salvation which are your own words than to live in a Church which the said confessedly true Church doth firmly believe and constantly profess not to be capable of Salvation And therefore I conclude that by the most strict obligation of Charity towards your own soul you are bound to place it in safety by returning to that Church from which your Progenitors Schismatically departed lest too late you find that saying of the holy Ghost verified in your selves He that loves (i) Eccl. 3.27 the danger shall perish therein 7. Against this last argumant of the greater security of the Roman Church drawn from your own confession you bring an Objection which in the end will be found to make for us against your self It is taken from the words of the Donatists speaking to Catholiques in this manner Your selves confess (k) Pag. 112. our Baptism Sacraments and Faith here you put an Explication of your own and say for the most parts as if any small error in faith did not destroy all Faith to be good and available We deny yours to be so and say There is no Church no salvation amongst you Therefore it is safest for
first because the experience of innumerable Christians is against it who are sufficiently assured that the Scripture is divinely inspired and yet deny the infallible authority of your Church or any other The second because if I have not ground to be assured of the Divine authority of Scripture unless I first believe your Church infallible than I can have no ground at all to believe it because there is no ground nor can any be pretended why I should believe your Church infallible unless I first believe the Scripture Divine 15. Fiftly and lastly You say with confidence in abundance that none can deny the infallible authority of your Church but he must abandon all infused faith and true religion if he do but understand himself Which is to say agreeable to what you had said before and what out of the abundance of your heart you speak very often That all Christians besides you are open Fools or concealed Atheists All this you say with notable confidence as the maner of Sophisters is to place their confidence of prevailing in their confident maner of speaking but then for the evidence you promised to maintain this confidence that is quite vanished and become invisible 16. Had I a minde to recriminate now and to charge Papists as you do Protestants that they lead men to Socinianism I could certainly make a much fairer shew of evidence than you have done For I would not tell you You deny the infallibility of the Church of England ergo you lead to Socinianism which yet is altogether as good an Argument as this Protestants deny the infallibility of the Roman-Church ergo they induce Socinianism Nor would I resume my former Argument and urge you that by holding the Popes infallibility you submit your self to that Capital and Mother-Heresie by advantage whereof he may lead you at ease to believe vertue vice and vice vertue to believe Antichristianity Christianism and Christianity Antichristian he may lead you to Socinianism to Turcism nay to be Devill himself if he have a minde to it But I would shew you that divers wayes the Doctors of your Church do the principal and proper work of the Socinians for them undermining the Doctrine of the Trinity by denying it to be supported by those pillars of the Faith which alone are fit and able to support it I mean Scripture and the Consent of the ancient Doctors 17. For Scripture your men deny very plainly and frequently that this Doctrine can be proved by it See if you please this plainly taught and urged very earnestly by Cardinal Hosius De Author Sac. Scrip. l. 3. p. 53. By Gordonius Huntlaeus Contr. Tom. 1. Controv. 1. De verbo Dei C. 19. by Gretserus and Tannerus in Colloquio Ratisbon And also by Vega Possevin Wick us and Others 18. And then for the Consent of the Ancients That that also delivers it not by whom are we taught but by Papists only Who is it that makes known to all the world that Eusebius that great searcher and devourer of the Christian Libraries was an Arrian Is it not your great Achilles Cardinal Perron in his 3. Book 2. Chap. of his Reply to K. James Who is it that informs us that Origen who never was questioned for any error in this matter in or neer his time denied the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost Is it not the same great Cardinal in his Book of the Eucharist against M. du Plessis l. 2. c. 7 Who is it that pretends that Irenaeus hath said those things which he that should now hold would be esteemed an Arrian Is it not the same Perron in his Reply to K. James in the fifth Chapter of his fourth Observation And doth he not in the same place peach Tertullian also and in a manner give him away to the Arrians And pronounce generally of the Fathers before the Councel of Nice That the Arrians would gladly be tried by them And are not your fellow-Jesuits also even the prime men of your Order prevaricators in this point as well as others Doth not your Friend M. Fisher or M. Floyd in his book of the Nine Questions proposed to him by K. James speak dangerously to the same purpose in his discourse of the resolution of Faith towards the end Giving us to understand That the new Reformed Arrians bring very many testimonies of the Ancient Fathers to prove that in this Point they did contradict themselves and were contrary one to another which places whosoever shall read will clearly see that to common people they are unanswerable yea that common people are not capable of the answers that learned men yield unto such obscure passages And hath not your great Antiquary Petavius in his Notes upon Epiphanius in Haer. 69. been very liberal to the Adversaries of the Doctrine of the Trinity and in a manner given them for Patrons and Advocates first Justin Martyr and then almost all the Fathers before the Councel of Nice whose speeches he says touching this point cum Orthodoxae fidei regula minimè consentiunt Hereunto I might add that the Dominicans and Jesuits between them in another matter of great importance viz. God's Presciâ—â—ce of future contingents give the Socinians the premises out of which their conclusion doth unavoidably follow For the Dominicans maintain on the one Side that God can foresee nothing but what he decrees The Jesuits on the other Side that he doth not decree all things And from hence the Socinians conclude as it is obvious for them to do that he doth not foresee all things Lastly I might adjoyn this that you agree with one consent and settle for a rule unquestionable that no part of Religion can be repugnant to reason whereunto you in particulr subscribe unawares in saying From truth no man can by good consequence inferr Falshood which is to say in effect that Reason can never lead any man to Error And after you have done so you proclaim to all the world as you in this Pamphlet do very frequently that if men follow their Reason and discourse they will if they understand themselves be lead to Socinianism And thus you see with what probable matter I might furnish out and justifie my accusation if I should charge you with leading men to Socinianism Yet I do not conceive that I have ground enough for this odious imputation And much less should you have charged Protestants with it whom you confess to abhorre and detest it and who fight against it not with the broken reeds and out of the paper-fortresses of an imaginary Infallibility which were only to make sport for their Adversaries but with the sword of the Spirit the Word of God Of which we may say most truly what David said of Goliah's Sword offered by Abimelech Non est sicut iste There is none comparable to it 19. Thus Protestants in general I hope are sufficiently vindicated from your calumny I proceed now to do the same service for the Divines of England
whom you question first in point of learning and sufficiency and then in point of conscience and honesty as prevaricating in the Religion which they profess and inclining to Popery Their Learning you say consists only in some superficial talent of preaching languages and elocution and not in any deep knowledge of Philosophy especially of Metaphysicks and much less of that most solid profitable subtile and O rem ridiculam Cato jocosam succinct method of School-Divinity Wherein you have discovered in your self the true Genius and spirit of detraction For taking advantage from that wherein Envy it self cannot deny but they are very eminent and which requires great sufficiency of substantial learning you disparage them as insufficient in all things else As if forsooth because they dispute not eternally Utrum Chimaera bombinans in vacuo possit comedere secundas intentiones Whether a Million of Angels may not sit upon a Needle 's point Because they fill not their brains with notions that signifie nothing to the utter extermination of all reason and common sense and spend not an Age in weaving and unweaving subtile Cobwebs fitter to catch flyes than Souls therefore they have no deep knowledge in the Acroamatical part of Learning But I have too much honoured the poorness of this detraction to take notice of it 20. The other Part of your accusation strikes deeper and is more considerable And that tels us that Protestantism waxeth weary of it self that the Professors of it they especially of greatest worth learning and authority love Temper and Moderation and are at this time more unresolved where to fasten than at the infancy of their Church That Their Churches begin to look with a new face Their walls to speak a new language Their Doctrine to be altered in many things for which their Progenitors forsook the then Visible Church of Christ For example The Pope not Antichrist Prayer for the dead Limbus Patrum Pictures That the Church hath Authority in determining Controversies of Faith and to Interpret Scripture about Freewil Predestination Universal Grace That all our works are not sins Merit of good works Inherent Justice Faith alone doth not justifie Charity to be preferred before knowledge Traditions Commandments possible to be kept That their thirty nine Articles are patient nay ambitious of some sense wherein they may seem Catholique That to alledge the necessity of wife and children in these dayes is but a weak plea for a married Minister to compass a Benefice That Calvinism is at length accounted Heresie and little less than Treason That men in talk and writing use willingly the once fearful names of Priests and Altars That they are now put in mind that for exposition of Scripture they are by Canon bound to follow the Fathers which if they do with sincerity it is easie to tell what doom will pass against Protestants seeing by the confession of Protestants the Fathers are on the Papists side which the Answerer to some so clearly demonstrated that they remained convinced In fine as the Samaritans saw in the Disciples countenances that they meant to go to Jerusalem so you pretend it is even legible in the fore-heads of these men that they are even going nay making haste to Rome Which scurrilous Libel void of all truth discretion and honesty what effect it may have wrought what credit it may have gained with credulous Papists who dream what they desire and believe their own dreams or with ill-affected jealous and weak Protestants I cannot tell But one thing I dare boldly say that you your self did never believe it 21. For did you indeed conceive or had any probable hope that such men as you describe men of worth of learning and authority too were friends and favourers of your Religion and inclinable to your Party Can any imagine that you would proclaim it and bid the world take heed of them Sic notus Ulysses Do we know the Jesuits no better than so What are they turned prevaricators against their own Faction Are they likely men to betray and expose their own Agents and Instruments and to awaken the eyes of Jealousie and to raise the clamor of the people against them Certainly your Zeal to the See of Rome testified by your fourth Vow of special obedience to the Pope proper to your Order and your cunning carriage of all affairs for the greater advantage and advancement of that See are clear demonstrations that if you had thought thus you would never have said so The truth is they that run to extreams in opposition against you they that pull down your infallibility and set up their own they that declaim against your tyranny and exercise it themselves over others are the Adversaries that give you greatest advantage and such as you love to deal with whereas upon men of temper and moderation such as will oppose nothing because you maintain it but will draw as neer to you that they may draw you to them as the truth will suffer them such as require of Christians to believe only in Christ and will damn no Man nor Doctrine without express and certain warrant from God upon such as these you know not how to fasten but if you chance to have conference with any such which yet as much as possibly you can you avoid and decline you are very speedily put to silence and see the indefensible weakness of your cause laid open to all men And this I verily believe is the true reason that you thus rave and rage against them as foreseeing your time of prevailing or even of subsisting would be short if other Adversaries gave you no more advantage than they do 22. In which perswasion also I am much confirmed by consideration of the silliness and poorness of those Suggestions and partly of the apparent vanity and falshood of them which you offer in justification of this wicked Calumny For what if out devotion towards God out of a desire that he should be worshipped as in Spirit and truth in the first place so also in the beauty of holiness what if out of fear that too much simplicity and nakedness in the publique Service of God may beget in the ordinary sort of men a dull and stupid irreverence and out of hope that the outward state and glory of it being well-disposed and wisely moderated may ingender quicken increase and nourish the inward reverence respect and devotion which is due unto God's Soveraign Majesty and Power what if out of a perswasion and desire that Papists may be won over to us the sooner by the removing of this scandall out of their way and out of an holy jealousie that the weaker sort of Protestants might be the easier seduced to them by the magnificence and pomp of their Church-service in case it were not removed I say What if out of these considerations the Governours of our Church more of late than formerly have set themselves to adorn and beautifie the places where God's Honour dwels and
hear you say that he declines this Question and never tells you whether or no there be any other points of faith which being sufficiently propounded as divine Revelations may be denied and dis-believed He tells you plainly there are none such and therefore you cannot say that he tells you not whether there be any such Again it is almost as strange to me why you should say this was the only thing in question Whether a man may deny or disbelieve any point of faith sufficiently presented to his understanding as a truth revealed by God For to say that any thing is a thing in question me-thinks at the first hearing of the words imports that it is by some affirmed and denied by others Now you affirm I grant but What Protestant ever denied that it was a sin to give God the lye Which is the first and most obvious sense of these words Or which of them ever doubted that to disbelieve is then a fault when the matter is so proposed to a man that he might and should and were it not for his own fault would believe it Certainly he that questions either of these justly deserves to have his wits called in question Produce any one Protestant that ever did so and I will give you leave to say It is the only thing in question But then I must tell you that your ensuing Argument viz. To deny a truth witnessed by God is damnable But of two that disagree one must of necessity deny some such truth Therefore one only can be saved is built upon a ground clean different from this postulate For though it be always a fault to deny what either I do know or should know to be testified by God yet that which by a cleanly conveyance you put in the place hereof To deny a truth witnessed by God simply without the circumstance of being known or sufficiently proposed is so far from being certainly damnable that it may be many times done without any the least fault at all As if God should testifie something to a man in the Indies I that had no assurance of this testification should not be oblig'd to believe it For in such cases the Rule of the Law hath place Idem est non esse non apparere not to be at all and not to appear to me is to me all one If I had not come and spoken unto you saith our Saviour you had had no sin 10. As little necessity is there for that which follows That of two disagreeing in a matter of faith one must deny some such truth Whether by such you understand Testified at all by God or testified and sufficiently propounded For it is very possible the matter in controversie may be such a thing wherein God hath not at all declared himself or not so fully and clearly as to oblige all men to hold one way and yet be so overvalued by the parties in variance as to be esteemed a matter of faith and one of those things of which our Savior says He that believeth not shall be damn'd Who sees not that it is possible two Churches may excommunicate and damn each other for keeping Christmass ten dayes sooner or later as well as Victor excommunicated the Churches of Asia for differing from him about Easter day And yet I believe you will confess that God had not then declared himself about Easter nor hath now about Christmass Anciently some good Catholique Bishops excommunicated and damned others for holding there were Antipodes and in this question I would fain know on which side was the sufficient proposal The contra-Remonstrants differ from the Remonstrants about the point of Predetermination as a matter of faith I would know in this thing also which way God hath declared himself whether for Predetermination or against it Stephen Bishop of Rome held it as a matter of faith and Apostolique Tradition That Heretiques gave true Baptism Others there were and they as good Catholiques as he that held that this was neither matter of Faith nor matter of Truth Justin Martyr and Irenaeus held the doctrine of the Millenaries as a matter of faith and though Justin Martyr deny it yet you I hope will affirm that some good Christians held the contrary S. Augustine I am sure held the communicating of Infants as much Apostolique tradition as the Baptizing of them whether the Bishop and the Church of Rome of his time held so too or held otherwise I desire you to determine But sure I am the Church of Rome at this present holds the contrary The same S. Austin held it no matter of faith that the Bishops of Rome were Judges of Appeals from all parts of the Church Catholique no not in Major Causes and Major Persons whether the Bishop or Church of Rome did then hold the contrary do you resolve me but now I am resolv'd they do so In all these differences the point in question is esteemed and proposed by one side at least as a matter of faith and by the other rejected as not so and either this is to disagree in matters of faith or you will have no means to shew that we do disagree Now then to shew you how weak and sandy the foundation is on which the whole fabrick both of your Book and Church depends answer me briefly to this Dilemma Either in these oppositions one of the opposite Parts erred damnably and denied God's truth sufficiently propounded or they did not If they did then they which do deny God's truth sufficiently propounded may go to heaven and then you are rash and uncharitable in excluding us though we were guilty of this fault If not then there is no such necessity that of two disagreeing about a matter of faith one should deny God's truth sufficiently propounded And so the Major and Minor of your Argument are proved false Yet though they were as true as Gospel and as evident as Mathematical Principles the Conclusion so impertinent is it to the Premises might still be false For that which naturally issues from these Propositions is not Therefore one only can be saved But Therefore one of them does something that is damnable But with what Logick or what Charity you can inferr either as the immediate production of the former premises or as a Corollary from this Conclusion Therefore one only can be saved I do not understand unless you will pretend that this consequence is good Such a one doth something damnable therefore he shall certainly be damned Which whether it be not to overthrow the Article of our Faith which promises remission of sins upon repentance and consequently to ruine the Gospel of Christ I leave it to the Pope and the Cardinals to determine For if against this it be alleaged that no man can repent of the sin wherein he dies This muce I have already stopped by shewing that if it be a sin of Ignorance this is no way incongruous 11. Ad § 4. You proceed in sleighting and disgracing your
I have already satisfied in my Answers to the Second and the Fourth and in my Reply ad § 2. toward the end And though you say your repeating must be excused yet I dare not be so confident and therefore forbear it 25. Ad § 17. To the seventh Whether error against any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by God destroy not the Nature and Unity of faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding salvation I answer If you suppose as you seem to do the proposition so sufficient that the party to whom it is made is convinced that it is from God so that the denial of it involves also with it the denial of Gods veracity any such Error destroys both faith and salvation But if the Proposal be only so sufficient not that the party to whom it is made is convinced but only that he should and but for his own fault would have been convinced of the Divine Verity of the Doctrin proposed The crime then is not so great for the beliefe of Gods Veracity may well consist with such an Error Yet a fault I confess it is and without Repentance damnable if all circumstances considered the Proposal be sufficient But then I must tell you that the Proposal of the present Roman Church is only pretended to be sufficient for this purpose but is not so especially all the Rayes of the Divinity which they pretend to shine so conspicuously in her Proposals being so darkned and even extinguished with a cloud of contradiction from Scripture Reason and the Ancient Church 26. Ad. § 18. To the Eighth How of disagreeing protestants both parts may hope for salvation seeing some of them must needs err against some Truth testified by God I answer The most disagreeing Protestants that are yet thus far agree 1. That those Books of Scripture which were never doubted of in the Church are the undoubted Word of God and a perfect rule of faith 2. That the sense of them which God intended whatsoever it is is certainly true So that they believe implicitely even those very Truths against which they err and Why an implicite faith in Christ and his Word should not suffice as well as an implicite faith in your Church◠I have desired to be resolved by many of your Side but never could 3. That they are to use their best endevours to believe the Scripture in the true sense and to live according to it This if they perform as I hope many on all Sides do truly and sincerely it is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation that is in all those things which appertain to the Covenant between God and man in Christ for so much is not only plainly but frequently contained in Scripture And believing aright touching the Covenant if they for their parts perform the condition required of them which is sincere obedience Why should they not expect that God will perform his promise and give them salvation For as for other things which lie without the Covenant and are therefore lesse necessary if by reason of the seeming conflict which is oftentimes between Scripture and Reason and Authority on the one Side and Scripture Reason and Authority on the other if by reason of the variety of tempers abilities educations and unavoidable prejudices whereby mens understandings are variously formed and fashioned they do embrace several Opinions whereof some must be erroneous to say that God will damn them for such Errors who are lovers of Him and lovers of Truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodness it is to make Man desperate and God a Tyrant But they deny Truths testified by God and therefore shall be damned Yes if they knew them to be thus testified by him and yet would deny them that were to give God the lie and questionless damnable But if you should deny a truth which God had testified but only to a man in the Indies as I said before and this testification you had never heard of or at least had no sufficient reason to believe that God had so testified Would not you think it a hard case to be damned for such a denial Yet consider I pray a little more attentively the difference between them and you will presently acknowledge the question between them is not at any time or in any thing Whether God says true or no or Whether he says this or no But supposing he says this and says true Whether he means this or no As for example Between Lutherans Calvinists and Zwinglians it is agreed that Christ spake these words This is my Body and that whatsoever he meant in saying so is true But what he meant and how he is be understood that is the question So that though some of them deny a Truth by God intended yet you can with no Reason or Justice accuse them of denying the truth of Gods Testimony unless you can plainly shew that God hath declared and that plainly and clearly what was his meaning in these words I say plainly and clearly For he that speaks obscurely and ambiguously and no where declares himself plainly sure he hath no reason to be much offended if he be mistaken When therefore you can shew that in this and all other their Controversies God hath interposed his Testimony on one Side or other so that either they do see it and will not or were it not for their own voluntary and avoidable fault might and should see it and do not let all such Errors be as damnable as you please to make them In the mean while if they suffer themselves neither to be betraid into their Errors nor kept in them by any sin of their will if they do their best endevour to free themselves from all Errors and yet fail of it through humane frailty so well am I perswaded of the goodness of God that if in me alone should meet a confluence of all such Errors of all the Protestants in the World that were thus qualified I should not be so much afraid of them all as I should be to ask pardon for them For whereas that which you affright us with of calling Gods Veracity in Question is but a Panick fear a fault that no man thus qualified is or can be guilty of to ask pardon of simple and purely involuntary Errors is tacitely to imply that God is angry with us for them and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring brick when he gives no straw of expecting to gather where he strewed not to reap where he sowed not of being offended with us for not doing what he knows we cannot do This I say upon a supposition that they do their best endevours to know Gods will and do it which he that denies to be possible knows not what he sayes for he sayes in effect That men cannot do what they can do for to do what a man can do is to do his best
the Jewish Church endued with an absolutely infallible direction in case of moment as all Points belonging to divine Faith are Now the Church of Christ our Lord was before the Scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one time but successively upon several occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles and after they were written they were not presently known to all Churches and of some there was doubt in the Church for some Ages after our Saviour Shall we then say that according as the Church by little and little received holy Scripture she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility and power to decide Controversies in Religion That sometime Churches had one Judge of Controversies and others another That with moneths or years as new Canonical Scripture grew to be published the Church altered her whole Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies After the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures Heresies would be sure to rise requiring in God's Church for their discovery and condemnation Infallibility either to write new Canonical Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emergent Heresies or Infallibility to interpret Scriptures already written or without Scripture by divine unwritten Traditions and assistance of the holy Ghost to determine all Controversies as Tertullian saith The soul is h De test aniâ— cap. 5. before the letter and speech before Books and sense before style Certainly such addition of Scripture with derogation or substraction from the former power and infallibility of the Church would have brought to the world division in matters of faith and the Church had rather lost than gained by holy Scripture which ought to be farr from our tongues and thoughts it being manifest that for decision of Controversies Infallibility setled in a living Judge is incomparably more useful and fit than if it were conceived as inherent in some inanimate writing Is there such repugnance betwixt Infallibility of the Church and Existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Must the Church wax dry by giving to her Children the milk of sacred Writ No No. Her Infallibility was and is derived from an inexhausted Fountain If Protestants will have the Scripture alone for their Judge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof Infallibility went out of the Church D. Potter may remember what himself teacheth That the Church is still endued with Infallibility in Points Fundamental and consequently that Infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the truth the sanctity yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to Salvation I would therefore gladly know out of what Text he imagineth that the Church by the coming of Scripture was deprived of Infallibility in some Points and not in others He affirmeth that the Jewish Synagogue retained infallibility in herself notwithstanding the writing of the Old Testament and will he so unworthily and unjustly deprive the Church of Christ of Infallibility by reason of the New Testament Especially if we consider that in the Old Testament Laws Ceremonies Rites Punishments Judgements Sacraments Sacrifices c. were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Jews than in the New Testament is done our Saviour leaving the determination or declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church which therefore stands in need of Infallibility more than the Jewish Synagogue D. Potter i Pag. 24. against this argument drawn from the power and infallibility of the Synagogue objects That we might as well inserr that Christians must have one Soveraign Prince over all because the Jews had one chief Judge But the disparity is very clear The Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ not so their civil Government of Christian Common-wealths or Kingdoms The Church succeeded to the Synagogue but not Christian Princes to Jewish Magistrates And the Church is compared to a house or k Heb. 13. family to an l Cant. 2. Army to a m 1 Cor. 10. Ephes 4. body to a n Mat. 12. kingdom c. all which require one Master one General one head one Magistrate one spiritual King as our blessed Saviour with fict Unum ovile o Joan. c. 10. joyned Unus Pastor One Sheepsold One Pastour But all distinct Kingdoms or Common-wealths are not one Army Family c. And finally it is necessary to Salvation that all have recourse to one Church but for temporal weale there is no need that all submit or depend upon one temporal Prince Kingdom or Common-wealth and therefore our Saviour hath left to his whole Church as being One one Law one Scripture the same Sacraments c. Whereas Kingdoms have their several Laws different governments diversity of Powers Magistracy c. And so this objection returneth upon D. Potter For as in the One Community of the Jews there was one Power and Judge to end debates and resolve difficulties so in the Church of Christ which is One there must be some one Authority to decide all Controversies in Religion 24. This Discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus p Lib. 5. c. 4. in these words What if the Apostles had not lest Scriptures ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many Nations yield assent who believe in Christ having Salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit of God without letters or lake and diligent keeping ancient Tradition It is easie to receive the truth from God's Church seeing the Apostles have most fully deposited in her as in a rich store-house all things belonging to truth For what if there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to have recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receive what is certain and clear concerning the present question 25. Besides all this the doctrine of Protestants is destructive of it self For either they have certain and infallible means not to err in interpreting Scripture or they have not If not then the Scripâ—ure to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible Faith nor a meet Judge of Controversies If they have certain infallible means and so cannot err in their interpretations of Scriptures then they are able with infallibility to hear examine and determine all Controversies of Faith and so they may be and are Judges of Controversies although they use the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their own doctrin they constitute another Judge of Controversies besides Scripture alone 26. Lastly I ask D. Potter Whether â—his Assertion Scripture alone is Judge of all Controversies in Faith be a fundamental Point of Faith or no He must be well advised before he say that it is a Fundamental Point For he will have against him as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone it
Apocalyps is most truly verified in fictions revelations If any (k) Cap. ult v. 18. shall add to these things God will add unto him the plagues which are written in this Book and D. Potter saith to add (l) Pag. 122. to it speaking of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract from it And therefore to say the Church may add false revelations is to accuse her of high presumption and of pernitious error excluding Salvation 10. Perhaps some will here reply that although the Church may err yet it is nor imputed to her for sin by reason she doth not err upon malice or wittingly but by ignorance or mistake 11. But it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cannot serve For if the Church be assisted only for Points Fundamental she cannot but know that she may err in Points not Fundamental at least she cannot be certain that she cannot err and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernitious temerity in proposing Points not Fundamental to be believed by Christians as matters of Faith wherein she can have no certainty yea which always imply a falshood For although the thing might chance to be true and perhaps also revealed yet for the matter she for her part doth always expose her self to danger of falshood and error and in fact doth always err in the manner in which she doth propound any matter not Fundamental because she proposeth it as a Point of Faith certainly true which yet is always uncertain if she in such things may be deceived 12. Besides if the Church may err in Points not Fundamental she may err in proposing some Scripture for Canonical which is not such or else err in nor keeping and conserving from corruptions such Scriptures as are already believed to be Canonical For I will suppose that in such Apocryphal Scripture as she delivers there is no Fundamental Error against Faith or that there is no falshood at all but only want of Divine testification in which case D. Potter must either grant that it is a Fundamental Error to apply Divine revelation to any Point not revealed or else must yield that the Church may err in her Proposition or Custody of the Canon of Scripture and so we cannot be sure whether she hath not been deceived already in Books recommended by her and accepted by Christians And thus we shall have no certainty of Scripture if the Church want certainty in all her definitions And it is worthy to be observed that some Books of Scripture which were not alwayes known to be Canonical have been afterward received for such but never any on Book or syllable defined by the Church to be Canonical was afterward questioned or rejected for Apocryphal A sign that God's Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost never to propose as Divine truth any thing not revealed by God and that Omission to define Points not sufficiently discussed is laudable but Commission in propounding things not revealed inexcusable into which precipitation our Saviour Christ never hath nor never will permit his Church to fall 13. Nay to limit the general promises of our Saviour Christ made to his Church to Points only Fundamental namely that the gates (m) Mat. 16.18 of hell shall not prevail against her and that the holy Ghost (n) Joan. 16.13 shall lead her into all Truth c. is to destroy all Faith For we may be that Doctrin and manner of interpreting the Scripture limit the Infallibility of the Apostles words and preaching only to Points Fundamental and whatsoever general Texts of Scripture shall be alledged for their infallibility they may be D. Potter's example be explicated and restrained to Points Fundamental By the same reason it may be farther affirmed that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonical Scripture were indued with infallibility only in setting down Points Fundamental For if it be urged that all Scripture is divinely inspired that it is the Word of God c. D. Potter hath afforded you a ready answer to say that Scripture is inspired c. only in those parts or parcels wherein it delivereth Fundamental Points In this manner D. Fotherby saith The Apostle (o) In his Sermons Serm. 2. pag. 50. twice in one Chapter professed that this he speaketh and not the Lord He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the express Word of God that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man D. Potter also speaks very dangerously towards this purpose Sect. 5. where he endeavoureth to prove that the infallibility of the Church is limited to Points Fundamental because as Nature so God is neither defective in (p) Pag. 150. necessaries nor lavish in superfluities Which reason doth likewise prove that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to Points necessary to Salvation that so God be not accused as defective in (p) Pag. 150. necessaries or lavish insuperfluities In the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose where speaking of these words The Spirit shall lead you into all Truth and shall abide with (q) Joan. c. 16.13 c. 14.16 you for ever he saith Though that promise was (r) Pag. 151 152. directly and primarily made to the Apostles who had the Spirit 's guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them yet it was made to them for the behoof of the Church and is verified in the Church Universal But all truth is not simply all but all of some kind To be lead into all truths is to know and believe them And who is so simple as to be ignorant that there are many millions of Truths in Nature History Divinity whereof the Church is simply ignorant How many Truths lie unrevealed in the infinite Treasury of God's wisdom wherewith the Church is not acquainted c So then the Truth it self enforceth us to understand by all Truths not simply all not all which God can possibly reveal but all pertaining to the substance of Faith all Truth absolutely necessary to Salvation Mark what he saith That promise The Spirit shall lead you into all Truth was made directly to the Apostles and is verified in the Universal Church but by all Truth is not understood simply all but all appertaining to the substance of Faith and absolutely necessary to Salvation Doth it not hence follow that the promise made to the Apostles of being lead into all Truth is to be understood only of all Truth absolutely necessary to Salvation and consequently their preaching and writing were not infallible in Points not Fundamental or if the Apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as divine Truth the like must be affirmed of the Church because D. Potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the Church And as he limits the aforesaid words to Points Fundamental so may he restrain what other Text soever that can be
one thing upon the sole warrant of this authority or unreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Let this therefore be granted and what will come of it Why then you say we cannot believe her in propounding Canonical Books If you mean still as you must do unless you play the Sophister not upon her own Authority I grant it For we believe Canonical Books not upon the Authority of the present Church but upon Universal Tradition If you mean Not at all and that with reason we cannot believe these Books to be Canonical which the Church proposes I deny it There is no more consequence in the Argument than in this The devil is not infallible therefore if he sayes there is one God I cannot believe him No Geometrician is Infallible in all things therefore not in these things which he demonstrates M. Knot is not infallible in all things therefore he may not believe that he wrote a Book entituled Charity Maintained 37. But though the Reply be good Protestants cannot make use of it with any good coherence to this distinction and some other Doctrins of theirs because they pretend to be able to tell what points are Fundamental and what not and therefore though they should believe Scripture erroneous in others yet they might be sure it erred not in these To this I answer That if without dependance on Scripture they did know what were Fundamental and what not they might possibly believe the Scripture true in Fundamentals and erroneous in other things But seeing they ground their belief that such and such things only are Fundamentals only upon Scripture and goe about to prove their assertion true only by Scripture then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutely and in all things or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them to believe this thing that these only Points are Fundamental For who would not laugh at them if they should argue thus The Scripture is true in something the Scripture sayes that these Points only are Fundamental therefore this is true that these only are so For every Fresh-man in Logick knows that from meer particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But on the other side this reason is firme and demonstrative The Scripture is true in all things But the Scripture sayes that these only Points are the Fundamentals of Christian Religion therefore it is true that these only are so So that the knowledge of Fundamentals being it self drawn from Scripture is so far from warranting us to believe the Scripture is or may be in part True and in part False that it self can have no foundation but the Universal truth of Scripture For to be a Fundamental Truth presupposes to be a Truth now I cannot know any Doctrin to be a Divine and supernatural Truth or a true part of Christianity but only because the Scripture sayes so which is all true Therefore much more can I not know it to be a Fundamental Truth 38. Ad. § 16. To this Paragraph I answer Though the Church being not infallible I cannot believe her in every thing she sayes yet I can and must believe her in every thing she proves either by Scripture Reason or Universal Tradition be it Fundamental or be it not Fundamental This you say we cannot in Points not Fundamental because in such we believe she may erre But this I know we can because though she may erre in some things yet she does not erre in what she proves though it be not Fundamental Again you say We cannot do it in Fundamentals because we must know what Points be Fundamental before we go to learn of her Not so But seeing Faith comes by Hearing and by hearing those who give testimony to it which none doth but the Church and the Parts of it I must learn of the Church or of some part of it or I cannot know any thing Fundamental or not Fundamental For how can I come to know that there was such a man as Christ that he taught such Doctrin that he and his Apostles did such Miracles in Confirmation of it that the Scripture of GOD's Word unless I be taught it So then the Church is though not a certain Foundation and proof of my Faith yet a necessary Introduction to it 39. But the Churches infallible Direction extending only to Fundamentals unless I know them before I go to learn of her I may be rather deluded than instructed by her The reason and connexion of this consequence I fear neither I nor you do well understand And besides I must tell you you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you That the Church is an Infallible Director in Fundamentals For if she were so then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her but also learn of her what is Fundamental and take all for Fundamental which she delivers to be such In the performance whereof if I knew any one Church to be Infallible I would quickly be of that Church But good Sir you must needs do us this favour to be so acute as to distinguish between being infallible in Fundamentals and being an infallible Guide in Fundamentals That there shall be alwaies a Church infallible in Fundamentals we easily grant for it comes to no more but this that there shall be alwais a Church But that there shall be alwaies such a Church which is an infallible Guide in Fundamentals this we deny For this cannot be without setling a known Infallibility in some one known Society of Christians as the Greek or the Roman or some other Church by adhering to which Guide men might be guided to believe aright in all Fundamentals A man that were destitute of all means of communicating his thoughts to others might yet in himself 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 repair to it for direction could not be an infallible Guide and yet he might be in himself infallible You see then there is a wide difference between these two and therefore I must beseech you not to confound them nor to take the one for the other 40. But they that know what Points are Fundamental otherwise than by the Churches Authority learn not of the Church Yes they may learn of the Church that the Scripture is the Word of God and from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamental others are not so and consequently learn even of the Church even of your Church that all is not Fundamental nay all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so Neither do I see what hinders but a man may learn of a Church how to confute the errors of that Church which taught him as well as of my Master in Physick or the Mathematicks I may learn those rules and principles by which I may confute my Master's erroneous Conclusions 41. But you ask If the Church be not an Infallible
of those that understand reason This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argument But I adde moreover that you neither have named those Protestants who held the Church to have perished for many Ages who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the Church not that the true Church but that the pure Church perished or rather that the Church perished not from its life and existence but from its purity and integrity or perhaps from its splendor and visibility Neither have you proved by any one reason but only affirmed it to be a Fundamental Error to hold that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world and abolished for a time from the face of the earth 65. But to accuse the Church of any Error in Faith is to say she lost all Faith For this is the Doctrin of Catholique Divines that one Errour in Faith destroyes Faith To which I answer that to accuse the Church of some Error in Faith is not to say she lost all Faith For this is not the Doctrin of all Catholique Divines But that he which is an Heretique in one Article may have true Faith of other Articles And the contrary is only said and not shewed in Charity Mistaken 66. Ad § 21. D. Potter saies We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things and from hence you conclude Therefore we may not depart from it in any thing And this Argument you call a Demonstration But a Fallacy à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid was not used heretofore to be called a Demonstration D. Potter says not that you may not depart from any opinion or any practice of the Church for you tell us in this very place that he sayes even the Catholique may err and every man may lawfully depart from Error He only says You may not cease to be of the Church nor depart from those things which make it so to be and from hence you infer a necessity of forsaking it in nothing Just as if you should argue thus You may not leave your friend or brother therefore you may not leave the Vice of your friend or the Errour of your brother What he sayes of the Catholique Church p. 75. the same he extends presently after to every true though never so corrupted part of it And why do you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgment can fall into any Error and call this a Demonstration too For as he sayes p. 75. That there can be no just cause to depart from the whole Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself So p. 76. he tels you That whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body forsakes the whole So that what he sayes of the one he sayes of the other and tels you that neither Universal nor particular Church so long as they continue so may be forsaken he means Absolutely no more than Christ himself may be forsaken absolutely For the Church is the body of Christ and whosoever forsakes either the body or his coherence to any one part of it must forsake his subordination and relation to the Head Therefore whosoever forsakes the Church or any Christian must forsake Christ himself 67. But then he tels you plainly in the same place That it may be lawful and necessary to depart from a Particular Church in some Doctrins and Practices And this he would have said even of the Catholike Church if there had been occasion but there was none For there he was to declare and justifie our departure not from the Catholike Church but the Roman which we maintain to be a particular Church But in other places you confess his Doctrin to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in points not Fundamental which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself And therefore you cannot with any candor interpret his words as if he had said We may not forsake the Church in any thing no more than Christ himself but only thus We may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more than Christ himself And thus we see sometimes A mountain may travel and the production may be a mouse 68. Ad § 22. But D. Potter either contradicts himself or else must grant the Church infallible Because he saies if we did not differ from the Roman we could not agree with the Catholique which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre Answer This Argument to give it the right name is an obscure and intricate Nothing And to make it appear so let us suppose in contradiction to your supposition either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church doth erre in some few things but that the Roman erres in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches Fallibility a man may truly say Unless I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therefore you must retract you imputation laid upon D. Potter or do that which you condemn in him and be driven to say that the same man may hold some errors with the Church of Rome and at the same time with the Catholique Church not to hold but condemn them For otherwise in neither of these cases is it possible for the same man at the same time to agree both with the Roman and the Catholique 69. In all these Texts of Scripture which are here alleaged in this last Section of this Chapter or in any one of them or in any other Doth God say clearly and plainly The Bishop of Rome and that Society of Christians which adheres to him shall be ever the infallible guide of Faith You will confess I presume he doth not and will pretend it was not necessary Yet if the King should tell us the Lord Keeper should judge such and such causes but should either not tell us at all or tell us but doubtfully who should be Lord-Keeper should we be any thing the nearer for him to an end of contentions Nay rather would not the dissentions about the Person who it is increase contentions rather than end them Just so it would have been if God had appointed a Church to be Judge of Controversies and had not told us which was that Church Seeing therefore God doth nothing in vain and seeing it had been in vain to appoint a Judge of Controversies and not to tell us plainly who it is and seeing lastly he hath not told us plainly no not at all who it is Is it not evident he hath appointed none Obj. But you will say perhaps if it be granted once that some Church of one denomination is the infallible Guide of Faith it will be no difficult thing to prove that yours is the Church seeing no other Church pretends to be so Answ Yes the Primitive and
done nothing your bridge is too short to bring you to the bank where you would be unless you can shew that by Truth here is certainly meant not only all necessary to salvation but all that is profitable absolutely and simply All. For that the true Church always shall be the maintainer and teacher of all necessary Truth you know we grant and must grant for it is of the essence of the Church to be so and any company of men were no more a Church without it than any thing can be a man and not be reasonable But as a man may be still a man though he want a hand or an eye which yet are profitable parts so the Church may be still a Church though it be defective in some profitable truth And as a man may be a man that hath some biles and botches on his body so the Church may be the Church though it have many corruptions both in doctrine and practice 79. And thus you see we are at liberty from the former places having shewed that the sense of them either must or may be such as will do your Cause no service But the last you suppose will be a Gordian knot and tie us fast enough The words are He gave some Apostles and some Prophets c. to the consummation of Saints to the work of the Ministery c. Until we all meet into the Unity of faith c. That we be not hereafter Children wavering and carryed up and down with every wind of Doctrin Out of which words this is the only Argument which you collect or I can collect for you There is no means to conserve Unity of Faith against every wind of Doctrin unless it be a Church universally infallible But it is impious to say There is no means to conserve Unity of Faith against every wind of Doctrin Therefore there must be a Church Universally Infallible Whereunto I answer that your Major is so far from being confirmed that it is plainly confuted by the place alleadged For that tels us of another means for this purpose to wit the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors and Doctors which Christ gave upon his Ascension and that their consummating the Saints doing the work of the Ministery and edifying the body of Christ was the means to bring those which are there spoken of be they who they will to the Unity of Faith and to perfection in Christ that they might not be wavering and carryed about with every wind of false Doctrin Now the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors and Doctors are not the present Church therefore the Church is not the only means for this end nor that which is here spoken of 80. Peradventure by he gave you conceive is to be understood he promised that he would give unto the worlds end But what reason have you for this conceit Can you shew that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath this signification in other places and that it must have it in this place Or will not this interpretation drive you presently to this blasphemous absurdity that God hath not performed his promise Unless you will say which for shame I think you will not that you have now and in all Ages since Christ have had Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists for as for Pastors and Doctors alone they will not serve the turn For if God promised to give all these then you must say He hath given all or else that he hath broke his promise Neither may you pretend that the Pastors and Doctors were the same with the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and therefore having Pastors and Doctors you have all For it is apparent that by these names are denoted several Orders of men clearly distinguished and diversified by the Original Text but much more plainly by your own Translations for so you read it some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors and yet more plainly in the parallel place 1 Cor. 12. to which we are referred by your Vulgar Translation God hath set some in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers therefore this subterfuge is stopped against you Object But how can they which died in the first Age keep us in Unity and guard us from Error that live now perhaps in the last This seems to be all one as if a man should say that Alexander or Julius Caesar should quiet a mutiny in the King of Spain 's Army Answ I hope you will grant that Hippocrates and Galen and Euclid and Aristotle and Salust and Caesar and Livie were dead many Ages since and yet that we are now preserved from error by them in a great part of Physick of Geometry of Logick of the Roman Story But what if these men had writ by Divine Inspiration and writ compleat bodies of the Sciences they professed and writ them plainly and perspicuously You would then have granted I believe that their works had been sufficient to keep us from error and from dissention in these matters And why then should it be incongruous to say that the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors and Doctors which Christ gave upon his Ascension by their writings which some of them writ but all approved are even now sufficient means to conserve us in Unity of Faith and guard us from error Especially seeing these writings are by the confession of all parts true and divine and as we pretend and are ready to prove contain a plain and perfect Rule of Faith and as the * Perron Chiefest of you acknowledge contain immediately all the Principal and fundamental Points of Christianity referring us to the Church and Tradition only for some minute particularities But tell me I pray the Bishops that composed the Decrees of the Councel of Trent and the Pope that confirmed them are they means to conserve you in Unity and keep you from Error or are they not Peradventure you will say Their Decrees are but not their Persons but you will not deny I hope that you owe your Unity and freedome from Error to the Persons that made these Decrees neither will they deny that the writings which they have left behind them are sufficient for this purpose And why may not then the Apostles writings be as fit for such a purpose as the Decrees of your Doctors Surely their intent in writing was to conserve us in Unity of Faith and to keep us from errour and we are sure God spake in them but your Doctors from whence they are we are not so certain Was the Holy Ghost then unwilling or unable to direct them so that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attain that end they aimed at in writing For if he were both able and willing to do so then certainly he did do so And then their writings may be very sufficient means if we would use them as we should do to preserve us in Unity in all necessary
points of Faith and to guard us from all pernitious Error 81. If yet you be not satisfied but will still pretend that all these words by you cited seem clearly enough to prove that the Church is Universally Infallible without which Unity of Faith could not be conserved against every wind of Doctrin I answer That to you which will not understand that there can be any means to conserve the Unity of Faith but only that which conserves your Authority over the Faithful it is no marvel that these words seem to prove that the Church nay that your Church is universally infallible But we that have no such end no such desires but are willing to leave all men to their liberty provided they will not improve it to a Tyranny over others we find it no difficulty to discern between dedit and promisit he gave at his Ascension and he promised to the worlds end Besides though you whom it concernes may haply flatter your selves that you have not only Pastors and Doctors but Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists and those distinct from the former still in your Church yet we that are disinteressed persons cannot but smile at these strange imaginations Lastly though you are apt to think your selves such necessary instruments for all good purposes and that nothing can be well done unless you do it that no unity or constancy in Religion can be maintained but inevitably Christendom must fall to ruin and confusion unless you support it yet we that are indifferent and impartial and well content that God should give us his own favours by means of his own appointment not of our choosing can easily collect out of these very words that not the Infallibility of your or of any Church but the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists c. which Christ gave upon his Ascension were designed by him for the compassing all these excellent purposes by their preaching while they lived and by their writings for ever And if they faile hereof the Reason is not any insufficiency or invalidity in the means but the voluntary perversness of the subjects they have to deal with who if they would be themselves and be content that others should be in the choice of their Religion the servants of God and not of men if they would allow that the way to heaven is no narrower now then Christ left it his yoak no heavier then he made it that the belief of no more difficulties is required now to Salvation than was in the Primitive Church that no error is in it self destructive and exclusive from Salvation now which was not then if instead of being zealous Papists earnest Calvinists rigid Lutherans they would become themselves and be content that others should be plain and honest Christians if all men would believe the Scripture and freeing themselves from prejudice and passion would sincerely endeavour to finde the true sense of it and live according to it and require no more of others but to do so nor denying their Communion to any that do so would so order their publique service of God that all which do so may without scruple or hypocrisie or protestation against any part of it joyn with them in it who doth not see that seeing as we suppose here and shall prove hereafter all necessary truths are plainly and evidently set down Scripture there would of necessity be among all men in all things necessary Unity of Opinion And notwithstanding any other differences that are or could he Unity of Communion and Charity and mutual toleration By which means all Schism and Heresie would be banished the world and those wretched contentions which now read and tear in pieces not the coat but the members and bowels of Christ which mutual pride and Tyrannie and cursing and killing and damning would fain make immortal should speedily receive a most blessed catastrophe But of this hereafter when we shall come to the Question of Schism wherein I perswade my self that I shall plainly shew that the most vehement accusers are the greatest offenders and that they are indeed at this time the greatest Schismatiques who make the way to heaven narrower the yoak of Christ heavier the differences of Faith greater the conditions of Ecclesiasticall Communion harder and stricter then they were made at the beginning by Christ and his Apostles they who talk of Unity but ayme at Tyraunie and will have peace with none but with their slaves and vassals In the mean while though I have shewed how Unity of Faith and Unity of Charity too may be preserved without your Churches Infallibility yet seeing you modestly conclude from hence not that your Church is but only seems to be universally infallible meaning to your self of which you are a better Judge than I Therefore I willingly grant your Conclusion and proceed 83. Whereas you say That D. Potter limits those promises and priviledges to Fundamental points The truth is with some of them he meddles not at all neither doth his adversary give him occasion Not with those out of the Epistle to Timothy and to the Ephesians To the rest he gives other answer besides this 83. But the words of Scripture by you alleadged are Universal and mention no such restraint to Fundamentals as D. Potter applies to them I answer That of the five Texts which you alleadge four are indefinite and only one universal and that you confess is to be restrained and are offended with D. Potter for going about to prove it And Whereas you say they mention no restraint intimating that therefore they are not to be restrained I tell you This is no good consequence for it may appear out of the matter and circumstances that they are to be understood in a restrained sense notwithstanding no restraint be mentioned That place quoted by S. Paul and applyed by him to our Saviour He hath put all things under his feet mentions no exception yet S. Paul tels us not only that it is true or certain but it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under him 84. But your interpretation is better than D. Potters because it is literal I answer His is Literal as well as yours and you are mistaken if you think a restrained sense may not be a literal sense for to Restrained Literal is not opposed but unlimited or absolute and to Literal is not oppos'd Restrained but Figurative 85. Wheras you say D. Potters Bretheren rejecting his limitation restrain the mentioned Texts to the Apostles implying hereby a contrariety between them and him I answer So doth D. Potter restrain all of them which he speaks of in the pages by you quoted to the Apostles in the direct and primary sense of the words Though he tels you there the words in a more restrained sense are true being understood of the Church Universal 86. As for your pretence That to find the meaning of those places you confer divers Texts you consult Originals you examine Translations and use all
Creed were faithfully summed and contracted and not one pretermitted altered or mistaken unless we undoubtedly know that the Apostles composed the Creed and that they intended to contract all Fundamental Points of Faith into it or at least that the Church of their times for it seemeth you doubt whether indeed it were composed by the Apostles themselves did understand the Apostles aright and that the Church of their times did intend that the Creed should contain all Fundamental Points For if the Church may err in Points not Fundamental may she not also err in the particulars which I have specified Can you shew it to be a Fundamental Point of Faith that the Apostles intended to comprize all Points of Faith necessary to Salvation in the Creed Your self say no more than that it is very (c) Pag. 241. probable which is far from reaching to a Fundamental Point of Faith Your probability is grounded upon the Judgment of Antiquity and even of the Roman Doctors as you say in the same place But if the Catholique Church may err what certainty can you expect from Antiquity or Doctors Scripture is your total Rule of Faith Cite therefore some Text of Scripture to prove that the Apostles or the Church of their times composed the Creed and composed it with a purpose that it should contain all Fundamental Points of Faith Which being impossible to be done you must for the Creed it self relie upon the infallibility of the Church 4. Moreover the Creed consisteth not so much in the words as in their sense and meaning All such as pretend to the name of Christians recite the Creed and yet many have erred fundamentally as well against the Articles of the Creed as other Points of Faith It is then very frivolous to say The Creed containes all Fundamental Points without specifying both in what sense the Articles of the Creed be true and also in what true sense they be fundamental For both these taskes you are to perform who teach that all Truth is not Fundamental and you do but delude the ignorant when you say that the Creed (d) Pag. 216. taken in a Catholique e sense comprehendeth all Points Fundamental because with you all Catholique sense is not Fundamental for so it were necessary to Salvation that all Christians should know the whole Scripture wherein every least Point hath a Catholique sense Or if by Catholique sense you understand that sense which is so universally to be known and believed by all that whosoever fails therein cannot be saved you trifle and say no more than this All Points of the Creed in a sense necessary to Salvation are necessary to Salvation Or All Points Fundamental are Fundamental After this manner it were an easie thing to make many true Prognostications by saying it will certainly rain when it raineth You say the Creed (f) Pag. 216. was opened and explaind in some parts in the Creeds of Nice c. But how shall we understand the other parts not explained in those Creeds 5. For what Article in the Creed is more Fundamental or may seem more clear than that wherein we believe JESUS CHRIST to be the Mediatour Redeemer and Saviour of Man-kind and the Founder and Foundation of a Catholique Church expressed in the Creed And yet about this Article how many different Doctrins are there not only of old Heretiques as Arius Nestorius Eutiches c. but also Protestants partly against Catholiques and partly against one another For the said main Article of Christ's being the only Saviour of the world c. according to different senses of disagreeing Sects doth involve these and many other such questions That Faith in JESUS CHRIST doth justifie alone that Sacraments have no efficiency in Justification That Baptism doth not avail Infants for Salvation unless they have an Act of Faith That there is no Sacerdotal Absolution from sinnes That good works proceeding from God's grace are not meritorious That there can be no Satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to sin after the guilt or offence is pardoned No Purgatory No prayers for the dead No Sacrifice of the Masse No Invocation No Mediation or Intercession of Saints No inherent Justice No supream Pastor yea no Bishop by divine Ordinance No Real presence No Transubstantiation with divers others And why Because forsooth these Doctrins derogate from the Titles of Mediator Redeemer Advocate Foundation c. Yea and are against the truth of our Saviours humane nature if we believe divers Protestants writing against Transubstantiation Let then any judicious man consider whether D. Potter or others do really satisfie when they send men to the Creed for a perfect Catalogue to distinguish Points Fundamental from those which they say are not Fundamental If he will speak indeed to some purpose let him say This Article is understood in this sense and in this sense it is fundamental That other is to be understood in such a meaning yet according to that meaning it is not so fundamental but that men may disagree and deny it without damnation But it were no policie for any Protestant to deal so plainly 6. But to what end should we use many arguments Even your selfe are forced to limit your own Doctrin and come to say that the Creed is a perfect Catalogue of Fundamental Points taken as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emergent Heresies in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Constantinople (g) Pag. 216. Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius But this explication or restriction overthroweth your assertion For as the Apostles Creed was not to us a sufficient Catalogue till it was explained by the first Councel nor then till it was declared by another c. So now also as new Heresies may arise it will need particular explanation against such emergent errors and so it is not yet nor ever will be of it self alone a particular Catalogue sufficient to distinguish betwixt fundamental and not fundamental points 7. I come to the second part That the Creed doth not contain all main and principal Points of Faith And to the end we may not strive about things either granted by us both or nothing concerning the point in question I must premise these Observations 8. First That it cannot be denyed but that the Creed is most full and complete to that purpose for which the holy Apostles inspired by God meant that it should serve and in that manner as they did intend it which was not to comprehend all particular Points of Faith but such general heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the Faith of Christ to Jews and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easily learned and remembred And therefore in respect of Gentiles the Creed doth mention God as Creator of all things and for both Jews and Gentiles the Trinity the Messias and Saviour his birth life death resurrection and glory from whom they were to hope remission of sinnes
and life everlasting and by whose sacred Name they were to be distinguished from all other professions by being called Christians According to which purpose S. Thomas of Aquine (h) 2.2 q. 1. Art 8. doth distinguish all the Articles of the Creed into-these general heads That some belong to the Majesty of the Godhead others to the Mysterie of our Saviour Christs Humane nature Which two general objects of Faith the holy Ghost doth express and conjoyn Joan 17. Haec est vita aeteâ—ua c. This is life everlasting that they know thee true GOD and whom thou hast sent JESUS CHRIST But it was not their meaning to give us as it were a course of Divinity or a Catechism or a particular expression of all Poinâ—s of Faith leaving those things to be performed as occasion should require by their own word or writing for their time and afterwards for their successors in the Catholique Church Our question then is not Whether the Creed be perfect as farre as the end for which it was composed did require For we believe and are ready to give our lives for this but only we deny that the Apostles did intend to comprise therein all particular points of belief necessary to Salvation as even by D. Potter's own (k) Pag. 235.215 confession it doth not comprehend Agenda or things belonging to practice as Sacraments Commandements the acts of Hope and duties of Charity which we are obliged not only to practise but also to believe be divine infallible faith Will he therefore inter that the Creed is not perfect because it contains not all those necessary and fundamental Objects of Faith He will answer No because the Apostles intended only to express credenda things to be believed not practised Let him therefore give us leave to say that the Creed is perfect because it wanteth none of those Objects of belief which were intended to be set down as we explicated before 9. The second Observation is that to satisfie our question what Points in particular be fundamental it will not be sufficient to alleage the Creed unless it contains all such Points either expresly and immediatly or else in such manner that by evident and necessary consequence they may be deduced from Articles both cleerly and particularly contained therein For if the deduction be doubtfull we shall not be sure that such Conclusions be fundamental or if the Articles themselves which are said to be fundamental be not distinctly and particularly expressed they will not serve us to know and distinguish all Points Fundamental from those which they call not Fundamental We do not deny but that all Points of Faith both fundamental and not fundamental may be said to be contained in the Creed in some sense as for example implicitely generally or in such involved maner For when explicitely believe the Catholike Church we do not implicitely believe whatsoever she proposeth as belonging to Faith Or else by way reduction that is when we are once instructed in the belief of particular Points of Faith not expressed nor by necessary consequence deducible from the Creed we may afterward by some analogie or proportion and resemblance reduce it to one or-moe of those Articles which are explicitely contained in the Symbole Thus S. Thomas the Cherubim among Divines teacheth (l) 2.2 q. 1 art 8. ad 6. that the miraculous existence of our blessed Saviours body in the Eucharist as likwise all his other miracles are reduced to God's Omnipotency expressed in the Creed And D. Potter saith The Eucharist (m) Pag. 23â— being a Seal of that holy Union which we have with Christour Head by his Spirit and Faith and with the Saints his Members by Charity is evidently included in the Communion of Saints But this reductive way is far from being sufficient to infer out of the Articles of God's Omnipotency or of the Communion of Saints that our Saviours body is in the Eucharist and much less whether it be only in figure or else in reality by Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation c. and least of all whether or no these Points be Fundamental And you hyperbolize in saying the Eucharist is evidently included in the Communion of Saints as if there could not have been or was not a Communion of Saints before the blessed Sacrament was instituted Yet it is true that after we know and believe there is such a Sacrament we may referre it to some of those heads expressed in the Creed and yet so as S. Thomas referrs it to one Article and D. Potter to another and in respect of different analogies or effects it may be referred to several Articles The like I say of other Points of Faith which may in some sort be reduced to the Creed but nothing to D. Potter's purpose But contrarily it sheweth that your affirming such and such Points to be Fundamental or not Fundamental is theerly arbitrary to serve your turne as necessity and your occasions may require Which was an old custome amongst Heretiques as we read in (n) De Pectat-Origai 2 5â—â— S. Austin Pelagius and Coelestius desiring fraudulently to avoid the hateful name of Heresies affirmed that the question of Original sinue may be disputed without danger of faith But this holy Father affirmes that it belongs to the foundation of Faith We may saith he endure a disputant who errs in other questions not yet diligently examined not yet diligently established by the whale Authority of the Church their error may be borne with but it must not pass so farre as to attempt to shake the Foundation of the Church We see S. Augustine placeth the being of a Point Fundamental or not Fundamental in that it hath been examined and established by the Church although the Point of which he speaketh namely Orginal Sin be not contained in the Creed 10. Out of that which hath been said I infer that D. Potters pains in alleaging Catholique Doctors the ancient Fathers and the Council of Trent to prove that the Creed contains all Points of Faith was needless since we grant it in manner aforesaid But D. Potter cannot in his conscience believe that Catholique Divines or the Council of Trent and the holy Fathers did intend that all Points in particular which we are obliged to believe are contained explicitely in the Creed he knowing well enough that all Catholiques hold themselves obliged to believe all those Points which the said Council define to be believed under an Anathema and that all Christians believe the Commandements Sacraments c. which are not expressed in the Creed 11. Neither must this seem strange For who is ignorant that Summaries Epitomes and the like brief Abstracts are not intended to specifie all particulars of that Science or Subject to which they belong For as the Creed is said to contain all Points of Faith so the Decalogue comprehends all Articles as I may term them which concern Charity and good life and yet this cannot be so understood as if
dead in any sense And yet D. Potter doth not deny but that Aerius was esteemed an Heretique for denying (r) Pag. 35. all sort of Commemoration for the dead Nothing of the Churches Visibility or Invisibility Fallibility or Infallibility nor of other Points controverted betwixt Protestants themselves and between Protestants and Catholiques which to D. Potter seem so hainous corruptions that they cannot without damnation joyn with us in profession thereof There is no mention of the Cessation of the Old Law which yet is a very main Point of Faith And many other might be also added 15. But what need we labour to specifie particulars There are as many important Points of Faith not expressed in the Creed as since the worlds beginning now and for all future times there have been are and may be innumerable gross damnable Heresies whose contrary truths are not contained in the Creed For every Fundamental Error must have a contrary Fundamental Truth because of two contradictory Propositions in the same degree if the one is false the other must be true As for example if it be a damnable error to deny the blessed Trinity or the Godhead of our Saviour the belief of them must be a Truth necessary to Salvation or rather if we will speak properly the Error is damnable because the opposite Truth is necessary as death is frightful because life is sweet and according to Philosophy the Privation is measured by the Forme to which it is repugnant If therefore the Creed contain in particular all fundamental Points of Faith it must explicitely or by cleer consequence comprehend all Truths opposite to innumerable Heresies of all Ages past present and to come which no man in his wits will affirm it to do 16 And here I cannot omit to signifie how you (Å¿) Pag. 255. applaud the saying of D. Usher That in those Propositions which without all controversie are universally received in the whole Christian world so much Truth is contained as being joyned with holy Obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting Salvation neither have we cause to doubt but that as many as walk according to this Rule neither overthrowing that which they have builded by superinducing any damnable heresies thereupon nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith with a lewd and wicked conversation peace shall be upon them and upon the Israel of God Now D. Potter knows that the Mystery of the B. Trinity is not universally received in the whole Christian world as appears by very many Heretiques in Polony Hungary and Transilvania and therefore according to this Rule of D. Usher approved by D. Potter the denyal of the B. Trinity shall not exclude Salvation 17. Let me note by the way that you might easily have espied a foul contradiction in the said words of D. Usher by you recited and so much applauded For he supposeth that a man agrees with other Churches in belief which joyned with holy Obedience may bring him to everlasting Salvation and yet that he may superinduce damnable heresies For how can he superinduce damnable heresies who is supposed to believe all Truths necessary to Salvation Can there be any damnable heresie unless it contradict some necessary Truth which cannot happen in one who is supposed to believe all necessary Truths Besides if one believing all Fundamental Articles in the Creed may superinduce damnable haeresies it followeth that the Fundamental Truths contrary to those damnable heresies are not contained in the Creed 18. According to this Model of D. Potters foundation consisting in the agreement of scarceone Point of Faith what a strange Church would he make of men concurring in some one or few Articles of belief who yet for the rest should be holding conceits plainly contradictory so patching up a Religion of men who agree only in the Article That Christ is our Saviour but for the rest are like to the parts of a Chimaera having the head of a man the neck of horse the shoulder of an Oxe the foot of a Lion c. I wrong them not herein For in good Philosophie there is greater repugnancy between assent and dissent affirmation and negation est est non non especially when all these contradictories pretend to relie upon one and the self same Motive the infallible Truth of Almighty God than between the integral parts as head neck c. of a man horse lion c. And thus Protestants are far more bold to disagree even in matters of Faith than Catholique Divines in questions meerly Philosophical or not determined by the Church And while thus they stand only upon fundamental Articles they do by their own confession destroy the Church which is the house of God For the foundation alone of a house is not a house nor can they in such an imaginary Church any more expect Salvation than the foundation alone of a house is fit to afford a man habitation 19. Moreover it is most evident that Protestants by this Chaos rather than Church do give unavoidable occasion of desperation to poor souls Let some one who is desirous to save his soul repair to D. Potter who maintains these grounds to know upon whom he may relie in a matter of so great consequence I suppose the Doctors answer will be Upon the truely Catholique Church She cannot erre damnably What understand you by the Catholique Church cannot general Councels which are the Church representative err Yes they may weakly or (t) Pag. 167. wilfully misapply or misunderstand or neglect Scripture and so err damnably To whom then shall I go for my particular instruction I cannot conferr with the united body of the whole Church about my particular difficulties as your self affirmes that the Catholique Church cannot be told (u) Pag. 27. of private injuries Must I then consult with every particular person of the Catholique Church So it seems by what you write in these woâ—ds The whole (w) Pag. 150. Militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly err either in the whole Faith or any necessary Article of it You say M. Doctor I cannot for my instruction accquaint the universal Church with my particular scruples You say the prelates of God's Church meeting in a lawful general Council may err damnably It remains then that for my necessary instruction I must repair to every particular member of the universal Church spred over the face of the earth and yet you teach that the Promises (x) Pag. 151. which our Lord hath made unto his Church for his assistance are intended not to any particular persons or Churches but only to the Church Catholique with which as I said it is impossible for me to conferr Alas O most uncomfortable ghostly Father you drive me to desperation How shall I confer with every Christian soul man and woman by sea and by land close prisoner or at liberty c. Yet upon supposal of this miraculous Pilgrimage for Faith before I have the faith of
who were chosen to the Ministry unmarried it was not lawful to take any wife afterward is affirmed by Protestants And your grand Reformer Luther lib. de Contiliis parte prima saith that he understands not the holy Ghost in that Councell For in one Canon is saith that those who have gelded themselves are not fit to be made Priests in another it forbids them to have wives Hath saith he the holy Ghost nothing to do in Councels but to bind and load his Ministers with impossible dangerous and unnecessary laws I forbear to shew that this very Article I confess one Baptism for the Remission of sins will be understood by Protestants in a far different sense from Catholiques yea Protestants among themselves do not agree How Baptism forgives sins nor what grace it conferrs Only concerning the Unity of Baptism against re-baptization of such as were once baptized which I noted as a Point not contained in the Apostles Creed I cannot omit an excellent place of S. Augustine where speaking of the Donatists he hath these words They are so bold as (l) Lib. de Haeres in 69. to re-baptize Catholiques wherein they shew themselves to be greater Heretiques since it hath pleased the universal Catholique Church not to make Baptism void even in the very Heretiques themselves In which few words this holy Father delivereth against the Donatists these Points which do also make against Protestants That to make an Heresie or an Heretique known for such it is sufficient to oppose the definition of God's Church That a Proposition may be Heretical though it be not repugnant to any Texts of Scripture For S. Augustine teacheth that the doctrine of reâ—baptization is heretical and yet acknowledgeth it cannot be convinced for such out of Scripture And that neither the Heresie of re-baptization of those who were baptized by Heretiques nor the contrary Catholique truth being expressed in the Apostles Creed it followeth that it doth not contain all Points of Faith necessary to Salvation And so we must conclude that to believe the Creed is not sufficient for Unity of Faith and Spirit in the same Church unless there be also a total agreement both in belief of other Points of Faith and in external profession and Communion also whereof we are to speak in the next Chapter according to the saying of S Augustine (m) Aug. ep 48. with us in Baptism and in the Creed but in the Spirit of Unity and bâ—nd of peace and lastly in the Catholique church you are not with us The ANSWER to the FOURTH CHAPTER Wherein is shewed that the Creed contains all necessary Points of meer Belief 1. AD § 1 2 3 4 5 6. Concerning the Creed's containing the Fundamentals of Christianity this is D. Potter's Assertion delivered in the 207. p. of his Book The Creed of the Apostles as it is explained in the latter Creeds of the Catholique Church is esteemed a sufficient Summary or Catalogue of Fundamentals by the best learned Romanists and by Antiquity 2. By Fundamentals he understands not the Fundamental Rules of good life and action though every one of these is to be believed to come from God and therefore virtually includes an Article of Faith but the Fundamental Doctrines of Faith such as though they have influence upon our lives as every essential doctrin of Christianity hath yet we are commanded to believe them and not to do them The assent of our understandings is required to them but no obedience from our wills 3. But these speculative Doctrines again he distinguisheth out of Aquinas Occham and Canus and others into two kinds of the first are those which are the Objects of Faith in and for themselves which by their own nature and God's prime intention are essential parts of the Gospel such as the Teachers in the Church cannot without Mortal sin omit to teach the learners such as are intrinsecal to the Covenant between God and man and not only plainly revealed by God and so certain truths but also commanded to be preacht to all men and to be believed distinctly by all and so necessary truths Of the second sort are Accidental Circumstantial Occasional objects of Faith millions whereof there are in holy Scripture such as are to be believed not for themselves but because they are joyned with others that are necessary to be believed and delivered by the same Authority which delivered these Such as we are not bound to know to be divine Revelations for without any fault we may be ignorant hereof nay believe the contrary such as we are not bound to examine Whether or no they be divine Revelations such as Pastors are not bound to teach their Flock nor their Flock bound to know and remember no nor the Pastors themselves to know them or believe them or not to disbelieve them absolutely and always but then only when they do see and know them to be delivered in Scripture as divine Revelations 4. I say when they do so and not only when they may do For to lay an obligation upon us of believing or not disbelieving any Verity sufficient Revelation on God's part is not sufficient For then seeing all the express Verities of Scripture are either to all men or at least to all learned men sufficiently revealed by God it should be a damnable sin in any learned man actually to disbelieve any one particular Historical verity contained in Scripture or to believe the contradiction of it though he knew it not to be there contained For though he did not yet he might have known it it being plainly revealed by God and this revelation being extant in such a Book wherein he might have found it recorded if with diligence he had perused it To make therefore any Points necessary to be believed it is requisite that either we actually know them to be divine Revelations and these though they be not Articles of Faith nor necessary to be believed in and for themselves yet indirectly and by accident and by consequence they are so The necessity of believing them being in forced upon us by a necessity of believing this Essential and Fundamental Article of Faith That all Divine Revelations are true which to disbelieve or not to believe is for any Christian not only impious but impossible Or else it is requisite that they be First actually revealed by God Secondly commanded under pain of damnation to be particularly known I mean known to be divine Revelations and distinctly to be believed And of this latter sort of speculative divine Verities D. Potter affirmed that the Apostles Creed was a sufficient summary yet he affirmed it not as his own opinion but as the doctrin of the ancient Fathers and your own Doctors And besides he affirmed it not as absolutely certain but very probable 5. In brief all that he says is this It is very probable that according to the judgment of the Roman Doctors and the Ancient Fathers the Apostles Creed is to be èsteemed a
between him and Amerbachius and he shall confess as much is and hath been the only fountain of all the Schisms of the Church and that which makes them immortal the common incendiary of Christendom and that which as I said before tears into pieces not the coat but the bowels and members of Christ Ridente Turcâ nec dolente Judaeo Take away these Walls of separation and all will quickly be one Take away this Persecuting Burning Cursing Damning of men for not subscribing to the words of men as the words of God Require of Christians only to believe Christ and to call no man Master but him only Let those leave claiming Infallibility that have no title to it and let them that in their words disclaim it disclaim it likewise in their actions In a word take away Tyranny which is the Devils instrument to support errors and superstitions and impieties in the several parts of the world which could not otherwise long withstand the power of Truth I say take away Tyranny and restore Christians to their just and full liberty of captivating their understanding to Scripture only and as Rivers when they have a free passage run all to the Ocean so it may well be hoped by God's blessing that Universal Liberty thus moderated may quickly reduce Christendom to Truth and Unity These thoughts of peace I am perswaded may come from the God of peace and to His blessing I commend them and proceed 18. Your fifth and last Objection stands upon a false and dangerous supposition That new Heresies may arise For an Heresie being in it self nothing else but a Doctrin Repugnant to some Article of the Christian Faith to say that new Heresies may arise is to say that new Articles of Faith may arise and so some great Ones among you stick not to profess in plain terms who yet at the same time are not ashamed to pretend that your whole Doctrin is Catholique and Apostolique So Salmeron Non omnibus omnia dedit Deus ut quaelibet aetas suis gaudeat veritatibus quas prior aetas ignoravit God hath not given all things to ' All So that every Age hath its proper verities which the former Age was ignorant of Dis 57. in Epist ad Rom. And again in the Margent Habet unumquodque saeculum peculiares revelationes divinas Every Age hath its peculiar Divine Revelations Where that he speaks of such Revelations as are or may by the Church be made matters of Faith no man can doubt that reads him an example whereof he give us a little before in these words Unius Augustini doctrina Assumptionis B. Deiparae cultum in Ecclesiam introduxit The Doctrin of Augustine only hath brought into the Church the Worship of the Assumption of the Mother of God c. Others again mince and palliate the matter with this pretence that your Church undertakes not to coyn new Articles of Faith but only to declare those that want sufficient Declaration But if sufficient declaration be necessary to make any Doctrin an Article of Faith then this Doctrin which before wanted it was not before an Article of Faith and your Church by giving it the Essential form and last complement of an Article of Faith makes it though not a Truth yet certainly an Article of Faith But I would fain know whether Christ and his Apostles knew this Doctrin which you pretend hath the matter but wants the form of an Article of Faith that is sufficient declaration whether they knew it to be a necessary Article of the Faith or no. If they knew it not to be so then either they taught what they knew not which were very strange or else they taught it not and if not I would gladly be informed seeing you pretend to no new Revelations From whom you learned it If they knew it then either they concealed or declared it To say they concealed any necessary part of the Gospel is to charge them with far greater sacriledge than what was punished in Ananias and Saphira It is to charge these glorious Stewards and Dispensers of the Mysteries of Christ with want of the great vertue requisite in a Steward which is Fidelity It is to charge them with presumption for denouncing Anathema's even to Angels in case they should teach any other Doctrin than what they had received from them which sure could not merit an Anathema if they left any necessary part of the Gospel untaught It is in a word in plain terms to give them the lye seeing they profess plainly and frequently that they taught Christians the whole Doctrin of Christ If they did know and declare it then it was a full and formal Article of faith and the contrary a full and formal Heresie without any need of further declaration and then their Successors either continued the declaration of it or discontinued it If they did the latter How are they such faithful Depositaries of Apostolique Doctrin as you pretend Or what assurance can you give us that they might not bring in new and false Articles as well as suffer the oldand true ones to be lost If they did continue the declaration of it and deliver it to their Successors and they to theirs and so on perpetually then continued it still a full and formal Article of Faith and the repugnant doctrin a full and formal Heresie without and before the definition or declaration of a Councel So that Councels as they cannot make that a truth or falshood which before was not so so neither can they make or declare that to be an Article of Faith or an Heresie which before was not so The supposition therefore on which this Argument stands being false and ruinous whatsoever ' is built upon it must together with it fall to the ground This explication therefore and restriction of this doctrin whereof you make your advantage was to my understanding unnecessary The Fathers of the Church in after-times might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sense of some general Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all Ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some Ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Councel though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publique peace sake 19. Ad § 7 8 9. Were I not peradventure more fearful than I need to be of the imputation of tergiversation I might very easily rid my hands of the remainder of this Chapter For in the Question there discussed you grant for ought I see as much as D. Potter desires and D. Potter grants as much as
believed Now all these sorts of Doctrins are impertinent to the present Question For D. Potter never affirmed either that the necessary duties of a Christian or that all Truths piously credible but not necessary to be believed or that all Truths necessary to be believed upon the supposal of divine Revelation were specified in the Creed For this he affirms only of such speculative divine Verities which God hath commanded particularly to be preached to all and believed by all Now let the Doctrins objected by you be well considered and let all those that are reducible to the three former heads be discarded and then of all these Instances against D. Potter's Assertion there will not remain so much as one 33. First the Questions touching the conditions to be performed by us to obtain remission of sins the Sacraments the Commandements and the possibility of keeping them the necessity of imploring the Assistance of Gods Grace and Spirit for the keeping of them how far obedience is due to the Church Prayer for the Dead the cessation of the old Law are all about Agenda and so cut off upon the first consideration 34. Secondly the Question touching Fundamentals is profitable but not fundamental He that believes all Fundamentals cannot be damned for any error in Faith though he believe more or less to be Fundamental than is so That also of the procession of the Holy-Ghost from the Father and the Son of Purgatory of the Churches Visibility of the Books of the New-Testament which were doubted of by a considerable part of the Primitive Church until I see better reason for the contrary than the bare authority of men I shall esteem of the same condition 35. Thirdly These Doctrins That Adam and the Angels sinned that there are Angels good and bad that those Books of Scripture which were never doubted of by any considerable part of the Church are the Word of God that S. Peter had no such Primacy as you pretend that the Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith and consequently that no necessary Doctrine is unwritten that there is no one Society or Succession of Christians absolutely infallible These to my understanding are Truths plainly revealed by God and necessary to be believed by them who know they are so but not so necessary that every man and woman is bound under pain of damnation particularly to know them to be divine Revelations and explicitely to believe them And for this reason these with innumerable other Points are to be referred to the third sort of Doctrins above-mentioned which were never pretended to have place in the Creed There remains one only Point of all that Army you mustered together reducible to none of these heads and that is that God is and is a Remunerator which you say is questioned by the denyal of Merit But if there were such a necessary indissoluble coherence between this Point and the Doctrine of merit me-thinks with as much reason and more charity you might conclude That we hold Merit because we hold this Point than that we deny this Point because we deny Merit Besides when Protestants deny the Doctrine of Merits you know right-well for so they have declared themselves a thousand times that they mean nothing else but with David that their well-doing extendeth not is not truly beneficial to God with our Saviour when they have done all which they are commanded they have done their duty only and no curtesie And lastly with S. Paul that all which they can suffer for God and yet suffering is more then doing is not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed So that you must either misunderstand their meaning in denying Merit or you must discharge their Doctrin of this odious consequence or you must charge it upon David and Paul and Christ himself Nay you must either grant their denial of true Merit just and reasonable or you must say that our good actions are really profitable to God that they are not debts already due to him but voluntary and undeserved Favours and that they are equal unto and well worthy of eternal glory which is prepared for them As for the inconvenience which you so much fear That the denial of Merit makes God a Giver only and not a Rewarder I tell you good Sir you fear where no fear is And that it is both most true on the one side that you in holding good Works meritorious of eternal glory make God a Rewarder only and not a Giver contrary to plain Scripture affirming that The gift of God is eternal life And that it is most false on the other side that the Doctrin of Protestants makes God a Giver only and not a Rewarder In as much as their Doctrin is That God gives not Heaven but to those which do something for it and so his Gift is also a Reward but withal that whatsoever they do is due unto God before-hand and worth nothing to God worth nothing in respect of Heaven and so mans work is no Merit and Gods Reward is still a Gift 36. Put the case the Pope for a reward of your service done him in writing this Book had given you the honor and means of a Cardinal would you not not only in humility but in sincerity have professed that you had not merited such a Reward And yet the Pope is neither your Creator nor Redeemer nor Preserver nor perhaps your very great Benefactor sure I am not so great as God Almighty and therefore hath no such right and title to your service as God hath in respect of precedent Obligations Besides the work you have done him hath been really advantagious to him and lastly not altogether unproportionable to the fore-mentioned Reward And therefore if by the same work you will pretend that either you have or hope to have deserved immortal happiness I beseech you consider well whether this be not to set a higher value upon a Cardinals cap than a Crown of immortal glory and with that Cardinal to prefer a part in Paris before a part in Paradise 37. In the next Paragraph you beat the air again and fight manfully with your own shadow The Point you should have spoken to was this That there are some Points of simple belief necessary to be explicitely believed which yet are not contained in the Creed Instead hereof you trouble your self in vain to demonstrate That many important Points of Faith are not contained in it which yet D. Potter had freely granted and you your self take particular notice of his granting of it All this pains therefore you have imployed to no purpose saving that to some negligent Reader you may seem to have spoken to the very Point because that which you speak to at the first hearing sounds somewhat near it But such a one I must intreat to remember there be many more Points of Faith than there be Articles of Simple belief necessary to be explicitely believed And that though all of
offered are either innocently or perhaps affectedly ignorant of the contrariety of them for men in such cases easily to swallow and digest contradictions he that denies it possible must be a meer stranger in the world 48. Ad § 18. This Paragraph consists of two immodest Untruths obtruded upon us without shew or shadow of Reason and an evident Sophism grounded upon an affected mistake of the sense of the word Fundamental 49. The first Untruth is that D. Potter makes a Church of men agreeing scarcely in one Point of Faith of men concurring in some one or few Articles of Belief and in the rest holding conceits plainly contradictory Agreeing only in this one Article that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest like to the parts of a Chimaera c. Which I say is a shameless calumny not only because D. Potter in this Point delivers not his own judgment but relates the opinion of others M. Hooker and M. Morton but especially because even these men as they are related by D. Potter to the constituting of the very Essence of a Church in the lowest degree require not only Faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of the World but also submission to his Doctrin in mind and will Now I beseech you Sir tell me ingenuously whether the Doctrin of Christ may be called without blasphemy scarcely one Point of Faith or whether it consists only of some one or few Articles of Belief Or whether there be nothing in it but only this Article That Christ is our Saviour Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Books of Scripture which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church without danger of damnation Nay is it not apparent that no man at this time can without hypocrisie pretend to believe in Christ but of necessity he must do so Seeing he can have no reason to believe in Christ but he must have the same to believe the Scripture I pray then read over the Scripture once more or if that be too much labour the New Testament only and then say whether there be nothing there but scarcely one Point of Faith But some one or two Articles of Belief Nothing but this Article only That Christ is our Saviour Say whether there be not there an infinite number of Divine Verities Divine Preecepts Divine Promises and those so plainly and undoubtedly delivered that if any sees them not it cannot be because he cannot but because he will not So plainly that whosoever submits sincerely to the Doctrin of Christ in mind and will cannot possibly but submit to these in act and performance And in the rest which it hath pleased God for reasons best known to himself to deliver obscurely or ambiguously yet thus far at least they agree that the sense of them intended by God is certainly true and that they are without passion or prejudice to endeavour to find it out The difference only is Which is that true sense which God intended Neither would this long continue if the walls of separation whereby the Devil hopes to make their Divisions eternal were pulled down and error were not supported against Truth by humane advantages But for the present God forbid the matter should be so ill as you make it For whereas you looking upon their Points of difference and agreement through I know not what strange glasses have made the first innumerable and the other scarse a number the truth is clean contrary That those Divine Verities Speculative and Practical wherein they universally agree which you will have to be but a few or but one or scarcely one amount to many millions if an exact account were taken of them And on the other side the Points in variance are in comparison but few and those not of such a quality but the Error in them may well consist with the belief and obedience of the entire Covenant ratified by Christ between God and man Yet I would not be so mistaken as if I thought the errors even of some Protestants unconsiderable things and matters of no moment For the truth is I am very fearful that some of their opinions either as they are or as they are apt to be mistaken though not of themselves so damnable but that good and holy men may be saved with them yet are too frequent occasions of our remisness and slackness in running the race of Christian Profession of our deferring Repentance and Conversion to God of our frequent relapses into sin and not seldom of security in sinning consequently though not certain causes yet too frequent occasions of many mens damnation and such I conceive all these Doctrins which either directly or obliquely put men in hope of eternal happiness by any other means saving only the narrow way of sincere and universal obedience grounded upon a true and lively Faith These errors therefore I do not elevate or extenuate an◠on condition the ruptures made by them might be composed do heartily wish that the cement were made of my dearest bloud and only not to be an Anathema from Christ Only this I say that neither are their Points of agreement so few nor their differences so many as you make them nor so great as to exclude the opposite Parties from being Members of one Church Militant and joynt-heirs of the glory of the Church Triumphant 50. Your other palpable untruth is that Protestants are far more bold to disagree even in matters of Faith than Catholique Divines you mean your own in Questions meerly Philosophical or not determined by the Church For neither do they differ at all in matters of Faith if you take the word in the highest sense and mean by matters of Faith such Doctrins as are absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed or not to be dis-believed And then in those wherein they do differ with what colour or shadow of Argument can you make good that they are more bold to disagree than you are in Questions meerly Philosophical or not determined by the Church For is there not as great repugnancy between your assent and dissent your affirmation and negation your Est Est Non Non as there is between theirs You follow your Reason in those things which are not determined by your Church and they theirs in things not plainly determined in Scripture And wherein then consists their greater their far greater boldness And what if they in their contradictory opinions pretend both to relie upon the truth of God doth this make their contradictions ever a whit the more repugnant I had always thought that all contradictions had been equally contradictions and equally repugnant because the least of them are as far asunder as Est and Non est can make them and the greatest are no farther But then you in your differences by name about Predetermination the Immaculate Conception the Pope's Infallibility upon what other motive do you
thing to any thing 57. Wherein I am yet more confirmed by the Answer you put in his mouth to your next demand How shall I know whether he hold all Fundamental points or no For whereas hereunto D. Potter having given one Answer fully satisfactory to it which is If he truly believe the undoubted Books of Canonical Scripture he cannot but believe all Fundamentals and another which is but something towards a full satisfaction of it That the Creed contains all the Fundamentals of simple Belief you take no notice of the former and pervert the latter and make him say The Creed contains all Fundamentals of Faith Whereas you know and within six or seven lines after this confess that he never pretended it to contain all simply but all of one sort all necessary Points of simple belief Which assertion because he modestly delivers as very probable being willing to conclude rather less than more than his reasons require hereupon you take occasion to ask Shall I hazzard my soul on probabilities or even wagers As if whatsoever is but probable though in the highest degree of probability were as likely to be false as true Or because it is but Morally not Mathematically certain that there was such a Woman as Q. Elizabeth such a man as H. the 8. that is in the highest degree probable therefore it were an even wager there were none such By this reason seeing the truth of your whole Religion depends finally upon Prudential motives which you do but pretend to be very credible it will be an even wager that your Religion is false And by the same reason or rather infinitely greater seeing it is impossible for any man according to the grounds of your Religion to know himself much less another to be a true Pope or a true Priest nay to have a Moral certainty of it because these things are abnoxious to innumerable secret and undiscernable nullities it will be an even wager nay if we proportion things indifferently a hundred to one that every Consecration and Absolution of yours is void and that whensoever you adore the Host you and your Assistants commit Idolatry That there is a nullity in any Decree that a Pope shall make or any Decree of a Council which he shall confirm Particularly it will be at least any even wager that all the Decrees of the Council of Trent are void because it is at most but very probable that the Pope which confirmed them was true Pope If you mislike these Inferences then confess you have injur'd D. Potter in this also that you have confounded and made all one Probabilities and even Wagers Whereas every ordinary Gamester can inform you that though it be a thousand to one that such a thing will happen yet it is not sure but very probable 58. To make the measure of your injustice yet fuller you demand If the Creed contains only points of simple belief how shall you know what points of belief are necessary which direct our practise D. Potter would have answered you in our Saviours words Search the Scriptures But you have a great mind it seems to be dispairing and therefore having proposed your Question will not suffer him to give you Answer but shut your ears and tell him still he chalks out new paths for desperation 59. In the rest of your interlude I cannot but commend one thing in you that you keep a decorum and observe very well the Rule given you by the great Master of your Art Servetur ad imum Qualis ab incepto processerat sibi constet One vein of scurrility and dishonesty runs clean through it from the beginning to the end Your next demand then is Are all the Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter Fundamental and the Answer I cannot say so Which Answer though it be true D. Potter no where gives it neither hath he occasion but you make it for him to bring in another question and that is How then shall I know which in particular be and which be not Fundamental D. Potter would have answered It is a vain question believe all and you shall be sure to believe all that is Fundamental 60. But what says now his prevaricating Proxy What does he make him say This which follows Read my Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken There you shall find that Fundamental doctrins are such Catholique verities as principally and essentially pertain to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved They are those Grand and Captital Doctrins which make up our Faith that is the Common Faith which is alike pretious in all being one and the same in the highest Apostle and the meanest believer which the Apostle elsewhere cals The first Principles of the Oracles of God and The form of sound words 61. But in earnest Good Sir doth the Doctor in these places by you quoted make to this question this same sottish answer Or do you think that against an Heretique nothing is unlawful Certainly if he doth answer thus I will make bold to say he is a very fool But if he does not as indeed he does not then But I forbear you and beseech the Reader to consult the places of D. Potter's Book and there he shall find that in the former half of these as you call them varyed words and phrases he declared only what he meant by the word Fundamental which was needful to prevent mistakes and cavilling about the meaning of the word which is metaphorical and therefore ambiguous and that the latter half of them are several places of Scripture imployed by D. Potter to shew that his distinction of Fundamental and not Fundamental hath express ground in it Now of these two places very pertinent unto two very good purposes you have exceeding fairly patcht together a most ridiculous Answer to a Question that D. Potter never dreamed of But the words you will say are in D. Potters Book though in divers places and to other purposes Very true And so the words of Ausonius his obscene Fescennine are taken out of Virgil yet Virgil surely was not the Author of this Poem Besides in D. Potters book there are these words Dreâ—d Soveraign amongst the many excellent vertues which have made your Majesties person so dear unto God c. And why now may you not say as well that in these he made Answer to your former question what Points of the Creed were and what were not Fundamentals 62. But unlâ—ss this question may be answered his doctrin you say serves only either to make men despair or else to have recourse to these whom we call Rapists It seems a little thing will make you despair if you be so sullen as to do so because men will not trouble themselves to satisfie your curious questions And I pray be not offended with me for so esteeming it because as
before I told you if you will believe all the Points of the Creed you cannot choose but believe all the Points of it that are Fundamental though you be ignorant which are so and which are not so Now I believe your desire to know which are Fundamentals proceeds only from a desire to be assured that you do believe them which seeing you may be assured of without knowing which they be what can it be but curiosity to desire to desire to know it Neither may you think to mend your self herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call Papists for they are as far to seek as we in this Point which of the Articles of the Creed are for their nature and matter Fundamental and which are not Particularly you will scarce meet with any amongst their Doctors so adventurous as to tell you for a certain Whether or no the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost his being born of a Virgin his Burial his Descent into Hell and the Communion of Saints be Points of their own nature and matter Fundamental Such I mean as without the distinct and explicite knowledge of them no man can be saved 63. But you will say at least they give this certain Rule that all Points defined by Christ's visible Church belong to the foundation of faith in such sense as to deny any such cannot stand with Salvation So also Protestants give you this more certain Rule That whosoever believes heartily those books of Scripture which all the Christian Churches in the world acknowledge to be Canonical and submits himself indeed to this as to the rule of his belief must of necessity believe all things Fundamental and if he live according to his faith cannot fail of Salvation But besides What certainty have you that that rule of Papists is so certain By the visible Church it is plain they mean only their own and why their own only should be the Visible Church I do not understand and as little why all Points defined by this Church should belong to the foundation of faith These things you had need see well and substantially proved before you rely upon them otherwise you expose your self to danger of imbracing damnable errors instead of Fundamental truths But you will say D. Potter himself acknowledges that you do not err in Fundamentals If he did so yet me-thinks you have no reason to rest upon his acknowledgement with any security whom you condemn of error in many other matters Perhaps excess of Charity to your persons may make him censure your errors more favourably than he should do But the truth is and so I have often told you though the Doctor hopes that your errors are not so unpardonably destructive but that some men who ignorantly hold them may be saved yet in themselves he professes and proclaims them damnable and such as he fears will be certainly destructive to such as you are that is to all those who have eyes to see and will not see them 64. Ad § 20 21 22 〈◊〉 In the Remainder of this Chapter you promise to answer D. Potter's Arguments against that which you said before But presently forgetting your self instead of answering his Arguments you fall a confuting his Answers to your own The arguments objected by you which here you vindicate were two 1. The Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed therefore the Creed contains not all things necessary to be believed 2. Baptism is not contained in the Creed therefore not all things necessary To both which Arguments my answer shortly is this that they prove something but it is that which no man here denies For. D. Potter as you have also confessed never said nor undertook to shew that the Apostles intended to comprize in the Creed all Points absolutely which we are bound to believe or after sufficient proposal not to disbelieve which yet here and every where you are obtruding upon him But only that they purposed to comprize in it all such doctrines purely speculative all such matters of simple belief as are in ordinary course necessary to be distinctly and explicitly believed by all men Now neither of these objections do any way infringe or impeach the truth of this Assertion Not the first because according to your own doctrin all men are not bound to know explicitely what books of Scripture are Canonical Nor the second because Baptism is not a matter of Faith but practice not so much to be believed as to be given and received And against these Answers whether you have brought any considerable new matter let the indifferent Reader judge As for the other things which D. Potter rather glanceth at than builds upon in answering these objections as the Creeds being collected out of Scripture and supposing the Authority of it which Gregery of Valentia in the place above cited seems to me to confess to have been the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers and the Nicene Creeds intimating the authority of Canonical Scripture and making mention of Baptism These things were said ex abundanti and therefore I conceive it superfluous to examine your exceptions against them Prove that D. Potter did affirm that the Creed contains all things necessary to be believed of all sorts and then these objections will be pertinent and deserve an answer Or produce some Point of simple belief necessary to be explicitely believed which is not contained either in terms or by consequence in the Creed and then I will either answer your Reasons or confess I cannot But all this while you do but trifle and are so far from hitting the Mark that you rove quite beside the Butt 65. Ad § 23 24 25. D. Potter demands How it can be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed than the Apostles had and the Church of their times You Answer That he trifles not distinguishing between the Apostles belief and that abridgment of some Articles of faith which we call the Apostles Creed I reply that it is you which trifle affectedly confounding what D. Potter hath plainly distinguished the Apostles belief of the whole Religion of Christ as it comprehends both what we are to do and what we are to believe with their belief of that part of it which contains not duties of obedience but only the necessary Articles of simple Faith Now though the Apostles Belief be in the former sense a larger thing than that which we call the Apostles Creed yet in the latter sense of the word the Creed I say is a full comprehension of their belief which you your self have formerly confessed though somewhat fearfully and inconstantly and here again unwillingness to speak the truth makes you speak that which is hardly sense and call it an abridgement of some Articles of Faith For I demand these some Articles which you speak of Which are they Those that are out of the Creed or those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large
pretend or only as you say I know not what is another Question and which comes now to be farther examined D. Potter in confirmation of it besides the authorities which you formerly shifted off with so egregious tergiversation urges five several Arguments 73. The sense of the first is this If all the necessary Points of simple of Belief be not comprized in the Creed it can no way deserve the name of the Apostles Creed as not being their Creed in any sense but only a part of it To this you Answer § 25. Upon the same affected ambiguity c. Answ It is very true that their whole faith was of a larger extent but that was not the Question But whether all the Points of simple belief which they taught as necessary to be explicitely believed be not contained in it And if thus much at least of Christian Religion be not comprized in it I again desire you to inform me How it could be called the Apostles Creed 74. Four other Reasons D. Potter urges to the same purpose grounded upon the practice of the Ancient Church The last whereof you answer in the second part of your Book But to the rest drawn from the ancient Churches appointing her Infants to be instructed for matters of simple belief only in the Creed From her admitting Catechumens unto Baptism and of Strangers to her Communion upon their only profession of the Creed you have not for ought I can perceive thought fit to make any kind of Answer 75. The difficulties of the 27. and last § of this Chapter have been satisfied So that there remains unexamined only the 26. Section wherein you exceed your self in Sophistry Especially in that trick of Cavillers which is to answer objections by other objections an excellent way to make controversies endless D. Potter desires to be resolved Why amongst many things of equal necessity to be believed the Apostles should distinctly set down some in the Creed and be altogether silent of others Instead of resolving him in this difficulty you put another to him and that it is Why are some Points not Fundamental expressed in it rather than others of the same quality Which demand is so far from satisfying the former Doubt that it makes it more intricate For upon this ground it may be demanded How was it possible that the Apostles should leave out any Articles simply necessary and put in others not necessary especially if their intention were as you say it was to deliver it in such Articles as were fittest for those times Unless which were wondrous strange unnecessary Articles were fitter for those times than necessary But now to your Question the Answer is obvious These unnecessary things might be put in because they were circumstances of the necessary Pontius Pilate of Christ's Passion The third day of the Resurrection Neither doth the adding of them make the Creed ever a whit the less portable the less fit to be understood and remembred And for the contrary reasons other unnecessary things might be left out Beside who sees not that the addition of some unnecessary circumstances is a thing that can hardly be avoided without affectation And therefore not so great a fault nor deserving such a censure as the omission of any thing essential to the work undertaken and necessary to the end proposed in it 76. You demand again as it is no hard matter to multiply demands Why our Saviour's descent to Hell and Burial was expressed end not his Circumcision his manifestation to the three Kings and working of Miracles I answer His Resurrection Ascension and Sitting at the right hand of God are very great Miracles and they are expressed Besides S. John assures us That the Miracles which Christ did were done and written not for themselves that they might be believed but for a farther end that we might believe that Jesus was the Christ and believing have eternal life He therefore that believe this may be saved though he have no explicite and distinct faith of any Miracle that our Saviour did His Circumcision and Manifestation to the Wise men for I know not upon what grounds you call them Kings are neither things simply necessary to be known nor have any neer relation to those that are so As for his Descent into hell it may for ought you know be put in as a thing necessary of it self to be known If you ask why more than his Circumcision I refer you to the Apostles for an answer who put that in and left this out of their Creed and yet sure were not so forgetful after the receiving of the Holy Ghost as to leave out any prime and principal foundation of the Faith which are the very words of your own Gordonius Huntlaeus Contr. 2. c. 10. num Likewise his Burial was put in perhaps as necessary of it self to be known But though it were not yet hath it manifestly so near relation to these that are necessary his Passion and Resurrection being the Consequent of the one and the Antecedent of the other that it is no marvel if for their sakes it was put in For though I verily believe that there is no necessary Point of this nature but what is in the Creed yet I do not affirm because I cannot prove it that there is nothing in the Creed but what is necessary You demand thirdly Why did they not express Scriptures Sacraments and all Fundamental Points of Faith tending to practice as well as those which rest in Belief I answer Because their purpose was to comprize in it only those necessary Points which rest in Belief which appears because of practical Points there is not in it so much as one 77. D. Potter subjoyns to what is said above That as well nay better they might have given no Article but that of the Church and sent us to the Church for all the rest For in setting down others besides that and not all they make us believe we have all when we have not all This consequence you deny and neither give reason against it nor satisfie his reason for it which yet in my judgment is good and concluding The Proposition to be proved is this That if your Doctrin were true this short Creed I believe the Roman Church to be infallible would have been better that is more effectual to keep the believers of it from Heresie and in the true Faith than this Creed which now we have A Proposition so evident that I cannot see how either you or any of your Religion or indeed any sensible man can from his heart deny it Yet because you make shew of doing so or else which I rather hope do not rightly apprehend the force of the Reason I will endeavour briefly to add some light and strength to it by comparing the effects of these several supposed Creeds 78. The former Creed therefore would certainly produce these effects in the believers of it An impossibility of being in any formal Heresie A necessity of
being prepared in mind to come out of all Error in Faith or material Heresie which certainly you will not deny or if you do you pull down the only pillar of your Church and Religion and deny that which is in effect the only thing you labour to prove through your whole Book 79. The latter Creed which now we have is so uneffectual for these good purposes that you your self tell us of innumerable gross damnable Heresies that have been are and may be whose contrary Truths are neither explicitly nor by consequence comprehended in this Creed So that no man by the belief of this Creed without the former can be possibly guarded from falling into them and continuing obstinate in them Nay so far is this Creed from guarding them from these mischiefs that it is more likely to ensnare them into them by seeming and yet not being a full comprehension of all necessary Points of Faith which is apt as experience shews to mis-guide men into this as you conceive it pernitious error That believing the Creed they believe all necessary Points of Faith whereas indeed according to you they do not so Now upon these grounds I thus conclude That Creed which hath great commodities and no danger would certainly be better than that which hath great danger and wants many of these great commodities But the former short Creed propos'd by me I believe the Roman Church to be infallible if your doctrin be true is of the former condition and the latter that is the Apostles Creed is of the latter Therefore the former if your doctrin be true would without controversie be better than the latter 80. But say you by this kind of arguing one might infer quite contrary If the Apostles Creed contain all Points necessary to Salvation What need have we of any Church to teach us And consequently what need of the Article of the Church To which I answer that having compared your inference and D. Potter's together I cannot discover any shadow of resemblance between them nor any shew of Reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude a necessity of some body to deliver it Much less why the whole Creed's containing all things necessary should make the belief of a part of it unnecessary As well for ought I understand you might avouch this inference to be as good as D. Potters The Apostles Creed contains all things necessary therefore there is no need to believe in God Neither doth it follow so well as D. Potter's Argument follows That if the Apostles Creed contains all things necessary that all other Creeds and Catechisms wherein are added divers other Particulars are superfluous For these other Particulars may be the duties of obedience they may be profitable Points of Doctrine they may be good expositions of the Apostles Creed and so not superfluous and yet for all this the Creed may still contain all Points of Belief that are simply necessary These therefore are poor consequences but no more like D. Potters than an apple is like an oister 81. But this consequence after you have sufficiently slighted and disgraced it at length you promise us news and pretend to grant it But what is that which you mean to grant That the Apostles did put no Article in their Creed but only that of the Church Or that if they had done so they had done better than now they have done This is D. Potter's inference out of your Doctrin and truly if you should grant this this were news indeed Yes say you I will grant it but only thus far that Christ hath referred us only to his Church Yea but this is clean another thing and no news at all that you should grant that which you would fain have granted to you So that your dealing with us is just as if a man should proffer me a courtesie and pretend that he would oblige himself by a note under his hand to give me twenty pound and instead of it write that I owe him forty and desire me to subsctibe to it and be thankful Of such favours as these it is very safe to be liberal 82. You tell us afterward but how it comes in I know not that it were a childish argument The Creed contains not all things necessary Ergo It is not profitable Or The Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient means Ergo She must teach us without means These indeed are childish arguments but for ought I see you alone are the father of them for in D. Potter's book I can neither meet with them nor any like them He indeed tels you that if by an impossible supposition your Doctrin were true another and a far shorter Creed would have been more expedient even this alone I believe the Roman Church to be infallible But why you should conclude he makes this Creed which we have unprofitable because he says another that might be conceived upon this false supposition would be more profitable or that he lays a necessity upon the Church of teaching without means or of not teaching this very Creed which now is taught these things are so subtil that I cannot apprehend them To my understanding by those words And sent us to the Church for all the rest he does rather manifestly imply that the rest might be very well not only profitable but necessary and that the Church was to teach this by Creeds or Catechisms or Councels or any other means which she should make choice of for being Infallible she could not chuse amiss 83. Whereas therefore you say If the Apostles had exprest no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must have taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other means This is very true but no way repugnant to the truth of this which follows that the Apostles if your doctrin be true had done better service to the Church though they had never made this Creed of theirs which now we have if in stead thereof they had commanded in plain terms that for mens perpetual direction in the Faith this short Creed should be taught all men I believe the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible Yet you must not so mistake me as if I meant that they had done better not to have taught the Church the substance of Christian Religion For then the Church not having learnt it of them could not have taught it us This therefore I do not say but supposing they had written these Scriptures as they have written wherein all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that Doctrin which they did preach and done all other things as they have done besides the composing their Symbol I say if your doctrin were true they had done a work infinitely more beneficial to the Church of Christ if they had never composed their Symbol which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary Points of simple Belief and no distinctive mark as a Symbol should
His Understanding is united to God by Faith his Will by Charity The former relies upon his infallible Truth The latter carrieth us to his infinite Goodness Faith hath a deadly opposite Heresie Contrary to the Union or Unity of Charity is Separation and Division Charity is twofold As it respects God his Opposite Vice is Hatred against God as it uniteth us to our Neighbour his contrary is Separation or division of affections and will from our Neighbour Our Neighbour may be considered either as one private person hath a single relation to another or as all concur to make one Company or Congregation which we call the Church and this is the most principal reference and Union of one man with another because the chiefest Unity is that of the Whole to which the particular Unity of Parts is subordinate This Unity or Oneness if so I may call it is effected by Charity uniting all the members of the Church in one Mystical Body contrary to which is Schism from the Greek word signifying Scissure or Division Wherefore upon the whole matter we find that Schism as the Angelical Doctor S. Thomas defines it is A voluntary separation (c) 2.2 q. 39. art in corp ad 3. from the Unity of that Charity whereby all the members of the Church are united From hence he deduceth that Schism is a special and particular vice distinct from Heresie because they are opposite to two different Vertues Heresie to Faith Schism to Charity To which purpose he fitly alledgeth S. Hierom upon these words Tit. 3. A man that is an Heretique after the first and second admonition avoid saying I conceive that there is this difference betwixt Schism and Heresie that Heresie involves some perverse assertion Schism for Episcopal dissention doth separate men from the Church The same Doctrine is delivered by S. Austin in these words Heretiques (d) Lib. de Fid. Symbol cap. 10. and Schismatiques call their Congregations Churches but Heretiques corrupt the Faith by believing of God false things but Schismatiques by wicked divisions break from fraternal Charity although they believe what we believe Therefore the Heretique belongs not to the Church because she loves God nor the Schismatique because she loves her Neighbour And in another place he saith It is wont to be demanded (e) Qu. Evang ex Mat. q. 11. how Schismatiques be distinguished from Heretiques and this difference is found that not a diverse Faith but the divided society of Communion doth make Schismatiques It is then evident that Schism is different from Heresie Nevertheless saith S. Thomas (f) Ubi supra As he who is deprived of Faith must needs want Charity so every Heretique is a Schismatique but not conversively every Schismatique is an Heretique though because want of Charity disposes and makes way to the destruction of Faith according to those words of the Apostle Which a good conscience some casting off have suffered shipwrack in their Faith Schism speedily degenerates to Heresie as S. Hierom after the rehearsed words teacheth saying Though Schism in the beginning may in some sort be understood different from Heresie yet there is no Schism which doth not faign some Heresie to it self that so it may seem to have departed from the Church upon good reason Nevertheless when Schism proceeds originally from Heresie Heresie as being in that case the predominant quality in these two peccant humours giveth the denomination of an Heretique as on the other side we are wont especially in the beginning or for a while to call Schismatiques those men who first began with only Schism though in process of time they fell into some Heresie and by that means are indeed both Schismatiques and Heretiques 4. The reason why both Heresie and Schism are repugnant to the being of a good Catholique is Because the Catholique or Universal Church signifies One Congregation or Company of faithful people and therefore implies not only Faith to make them Faithful believers but also Communion or common Union to make them One in Charity which excludes Separation and Division and therefore in the Apostles Creed Communion of Saints is immediatly joyned to the Catholique Church 5. From this definition of Schism may be inferred that the guilt thereof is contracted not only by division from the Universal Church but also by a Separation from a particular Church or Diocess which agrees with the Universal In this manner Meletius was a Schismatique but not an Heretique because as we read in S. Epiphanius (h) Haeres 68. he was of the right Faith for his Faith was not altered at any time from the holy Catholique Church c. He made a Sect but departed not from Faith Yet because he made to himself a particular Congregation against S. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria his lawful Superiour and by that means brought in a division in that particular Church he was a Schismatique And it is well worth the noting that the Meletians building new Churches put this Title upon them The Church of Martyrs and upon the ancient Churches of those who succeeded Peter was inscribed The Catholique Church For so it is A new Sect must have a new name which though it be never so gay and specious as the Church of Martyrs the Reformed Church c. yet the Novelty sheweth that it is not the Catholique not a true Church And that Schism may be committed by division from a particular Church we read in Optatus Milevitanus (i) Lib. 1. conâ— Parmen these remarkable words which do well declare who be Schismatiques brought by him to prove that not Caecilianus but Parmenianus was a Schismatique For Caecilianus went not out from Majorinus thy Grand Father he means his next predecessour but one in the Bishoprick but Majorinus from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chair of Peter or of Cyprian who was but a particular Bishop but Majorinus in whose Chair thou fittest which had no beginning before Majorinus himself Seeing it is manifestly known that these things were so done it evidently appearch that you are heirs both of Traditors that is of those who delivered up the holy Bible to be burned and of Schismatiques And it seemeth that this kind of Schism must principally be admitted by Protestants who acknowledge no one visible Head of the whole Church but hold that every particular Diocess Church or Countrey is governed by it self independently of any one Person or General Councel to which all Christians have obligation to submit their judgments and wills 6. As for the grievousness or quantity of Schism which was the second Point proposed S. Thomas teacheth 2. Point The grievousness of Schism that amongst sins against our Neighbour Schism (l) Supra art 2. ad 3. is the most grievous because it is against the spiritual good of the multitude or Community And therefore as in a Kingdom or Commonwealth there is as great difference between the crime of rebellion or sedition and debates
Copartners to be guilty of that crime and sheweth in what manner they might with great ease and quietness have rectified their consciences about the pretended errors of the Church S. Cyprian say you was a peaceable (l) Pag. 124. and modest man dissented from others in his judgement but without any breach of Charity condemned no man much less any Church for the contrary opinion He believed his own Opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others but lest them to their liberty Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding Did they censure no man much less any Church S. Cyprian believed his own Opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others You believe the Points wherein Luther differs from us not to be fundamental or necessary and why do you not thence infer the like THEREFORE he should not have proceeded to censure others In a word since their disagreement from us concerned only Points which were not fundamental they should have believed that they might have been deceived as well as the whole visible Church which you say may erre in such Points and therefore their Doctrins being not certainly true and certainly not necessary they could not give sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church 42. In other places you write so much as may serve us to prove that Luther and his followers ought to have deposed and rectified their consciences As for example when you say When the Church (m) Pag. 105. hath declared herself in any matter of opinion or of rites her declaration obliges all her children to peace and external obedience Nor is it fit or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgment to the publique as Luther and his fellows did He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason and very modestly still containing himself within the dutiful respect which he oweth but if he will factiously advance his own conceits his own conceits and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture and despise the Church so far as to cut off her Communion he may be justly branded and condemned for a Schismatique yea and an Heretique also in some degree and in foro exteriori though his opinion were true and much more if it be false Could any man even for a Fee have spoken more home to condemn your Predecessors of Schism or Heresie Could they have stronger Motives to oppose the Doctrin of the Church and leave her Communion than evidence of Scripture And yet according to your own words they should have answered and rectified their conscience by your Doctrin that though their opinion were true and grounded upon evidence of Scripture or Reason yet it was not lawful for any private maâ— to oppose his judgment to the publique which obligeth all Christians to peace and external obedience and if they cast off the Communion of the Church for maintaining their own Conceits they may be branded for Schismatiques and Heretiques in some degree et in foro exteriori that is all other Christians ought so to esteem of them and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you and they also are obliged to behave themselves in the face of all Christian Churches as if indeed they were not Reformers but Schismatiques and Heretiques or as Pagans and Publicans I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will do a deed of Charity by putting you in minde into what Labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some Points of Faith and yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he have evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man to dissemble against his conscience or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture How much more coherently do Catholiques proceed who believe the universal infallibility of the Church and from thence are assured that there can be no evidence of Scripture or reason against her definitions nor any just cause to forsake her Communion M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man yeelds as much as we have alleadged out of you The will of God is saith he to have (n) In his preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiastical Policy Sect. 6. Pag. 28. them do whatsoever the sentence of judiciall and final decision shall determine yea though it seem in their private opinion to swarve utterly from that which is right Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was which he transgressing must of necessity be guilty of Schism And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the universal infallibility of the Church or else drive men into the perplexities and labyrinths of dissembling against their conscience whereof now I speak Not unlike to this is your Doctrin delivered elsewhere Before the Nicene Councel say you many (o) Pag. 132. good Catholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists that the Baptism of Heretiques was ineffectual and with the Novatians that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners These errors therefore if they had gone no further were not in themselves Heretical especially in the proper and most heavy or bitter sense of that word neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration Her intention was to silence all disputes and to settle peace and unity in her government to which all wise and peacable men submitted whatsoever their opinion was And those factious people for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition were very justly branded for Schismatiques For us the Mistaker will never prove that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church c. and therefore he doth unjustly charge us either with Schism or Heresie These words manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her Declarations Doctrins and Commands imposed upon them for silencing all disputes and setling peace and Vnity in the government and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient are justly charged with Schism and Heresie And it is to be observed that you grant the Donatists to have been very justly branded for Schismatiques although their opposition against the Church did concerne as you hold a Point not Fundamental to the Faith and which according to S. Augustin cannot be proved out of Scripture alone and therefore either doth evidently convince that the Church is universally infallible even in Points not Fundamental or else that it is Schism to oppose her Declarations in those very things wherein she may erre and consequently that Luther and his fellowes were Schismatiques by opposing the visible Church of Points not Fundamental though it were untruly supposed that she erred in such Points But by the
external communion was corrupted and needed Reformation 53. That a pretence of Reformation will acquit no man from Schism we grant very willingly and therefore say that it concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his Salvation is worth to look most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For unless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient But whether a true Reformation of our selves from errors superstition and impieties will not justifie our separation in these things our separation I say from them who will not reform themselves and as much as in them lies hinder others from doing so This is the point you should have spoken to but have not As for the sentences of the Fathers to which you refer us for the determination of this Question I suppose by what I have said above the Reader understands by alleadging them you have gain'd little credit to your cause or person And that if they were competent Judges of this controversie their sentence is against you much rather than for you 54. Lastly whereas you desire D. Potter to remember his own words There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself and pretend that you have shewed that Luther did so The Doctor remembers his words very well and hath no reason to be ashamed of them Only he desires you to remember that hereafter you do not confound as hitherto you have done Departing from the Church i.e. ceasing to be a member of it with departing from the Churches external communion and then he is perswaded it will appear to you that against Luther and his followers you have said many things but shewed nothing 55. But the Church Universal remaining the Church Universal according to D. Potter may fall into error And from hence it cleerly followes that it is impossible to leave the external communion of the Church so corrupted and retain external communion with the Catholique Church Ans The reason of this consequence which you say is so cleer truly I cannot possibly discern But the conclusion inferr'd me-thinks is evident of it self and therefore without proof I grant it I mean that it is impossible to leave the external communion of the Catholique Church corrupted and to retain external communion with the Catholique Church But what use you can make of it I do not understand Unless you will pretend that to say a man may forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church is all one as to say he may forsake the Churches external communion and not forsake it If you mean so sure you mistake the meaning of Protestants when they say They forsook not the Church but her corruptions For in saying so they neither affirm nor deny that they forsook the external communion of the Church nor speak at all of it But they mean only that they ceased not to be still members of the Church though they ceased to believe and practise some things which the whole Church formerly did believe and practise And as for the external Communion of the Visible Church we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it that is renounce the practice of some observances in which the whole Visible Church before them did communicate But this we say they did without Schism because they had cause to do so and no man can have cause to be a Schismatique 56. But your Argument you conceive will be more convincing if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct Visible true Churches one Pure the other Corrupted but one Church only Ans The ground say Histories are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should have read all Histories that may be extant of this matters nor that all should be extant that were written much less extant uncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all the power in her hands hath been so pernitiously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all Records should remain which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Neither secondly to suppose a Visible Church before Luther which did not err is it to contradict this ground of D. Potters that the Church may err Unless you will have us believe that May be and Must be is all one and that all which may be true is true which rule if it were true then sure all men would be honest because all men may be so and you would not make so bad Arguments unless you will pretend you cannot make better Nor thirdly is it to contradict these words The Church may not hope to triumph over all error till she be in Heaven For to triumph over error is to be secure from it to be out of danger of it not to be obnoxious to it Now a Church may be free from error and yet not secure from it and consequently in this Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church perhaps though I know not who they be that say so by a frequent Synecdoche they may mean by the whole the greatest and most illustrious part of it the lustre whereof did much obscure the other though it were not wholly invisible Besides if their brag be evacuated as you call it let it be so I see no harm will come of it Lastly whereas you say that supposing a visible pure Church Luther must be a Schismatick who separated from all visible Churches I tell you if you will suppose a visible Church extant before and when Luther arose conformable to him in all points of doctrin necessary and profitable then Luther separated not from this Church but adjoyned himself to it Not indeed in place which was not necessary not in external communion which was impossible but by the Union of faith and charity Upon these grounds I say that the ground of this Argument is no way made certain yet because it is not manifestly false I am content to let it pass And for ought I see it is very safe for me to do so for you build nothing upon it which I may not fairly grant For what do you rupted Luther forsaking the external communion of the corrupted Câ—urch could not but forsake the external communion of the Catholique Church Well let this also be granted what will come of it What that Luther must be a Schismatique By no means For not every separation but only a causless separation from the communion of the Church we maintain to be Schismatical Hereunto may be added that though the whole Church were corrupted yet properly speaking it is not true that Luther and his Followers forsook the whole corrupted Church or the external communion of it But only that he forsook that Part of it which was corrupted and still would be so and forsook not but only reformed another Part which Part they themselves
difference between justifying his separation from Schism by this reason and making this the reason of his separation If a man denying obedience in some unlawful matter to his lawful Soveraign should say to him Herein I disobey you but yet I am no Rebel because I acknowledg you my Soveraign Lord and am ready to obey you in all things lawful should not he be an egregious Sycophant that should accuse him as if he had said I do well to disobey you because I acknowledge you my lawful Soveraign Certainly he that joyns this acknowledgment with his necessitated obedience does well but he that makes this consideration the reason of disobedience doth ill Urge therefore this as you call it most solemn foppery as far as you please For every understanding Reader will easily perceive that this is no foppery of D. Potters but a calumny of yours from which he is as far as he is from holding yours to be the true Church whereas it is a sign of a great deal of Charity in him that he allows you to be a Part of it 76. And whereas you pretend to find such unspeakable comfort herein that we cannot clear our selves from Schism otherwise than by acknowledging that they do not nor cannot cut off your Church from the hope of salvation I beseech you to take care that this false comfort cost you not too dear For why this good opinion of God Almighty that he will not damn men for errour who were without their own fault ignorant of the truth should be any consolation to them who having the key of knowledge will neither use it themselves nor permit others to use it who have eyes to see and will not see who have ears to hear and will not hear this I assure you passeth my capacity to apprehend Neither is this to make our salvation depend on yours but only ours and yours not desperately inconsistent nor to say we must be damn'd unless you may be saved but that we assure our selves if our lives be answerable we shall be saved by our knowledge And that we hope and I tell you again Spes est rei incertae nomen that some of you may possibly be saved by occasion of their unaffected Ignorance 77. For our brethren whom you say we condemn of heresie for denying the Churches perpetuity we know none that do so unless you conceive a corrupted Church to be none at all and if you do then for ought I know in your account we must be all Heretiques for all of us acknowledge that the Church might be corrupted even with errours in themselves damnable and not only might but hath been 78. But Schism consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith Now we must profess you say that we agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamental Articles Therefore we are Schismatiques Ans Either in your Major by all points of faith you mean all fundamental points only or all simply and absolutely If the former I deny your Major for I may without all schism divide from that Church which errs in any point of faith Fundamental or otherwise if she require the profession of this Error among the conditions of her Communion Now this is our case If the later I deny the syllogism as having manifestly four tearms and being cosen-german to this He that obeys God in all things is innocent Titius obeys God in some things Therefore he is innocent 79. But they who judge a reconciliation with the Church of Rome to be damnable they that say there might be just and necessary cause to depart from it and that they of that Church which have understanding and means to discover their Errour and neglect to use them are not to be slattered with hope of salvation they do cut off that Church from the body of Christ and the hope of salvation and so are Schismatiques but D. Potter doth the former therefore he is a schismatique Ans No he doth not not cut off that whole Church from the hope of salvation not those members of it who were invincibly or excusably ignorant of the truth but those only who having understanding and means to discover their errour neglect to use them Now these are not the whole Church and therefore he that supposing their impenitence cuts these off from hope of salvation cannot be justly said to cut off that whole Church from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation 80. Ad § 28 29. Whereas D. Potter says There is a great difference between a Schism from them and a Reformation of our selves this you say is a quaint subtilty by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused It seems then in your judgment that theeves and adulterers and murtherers and traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants that they did no hurt to others but only reform themselves But then methinks it is very strange that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schism that to this day never any Theef or Murtherer should have been heard of to make use of this Apologie And then for Schismatiques I would know Whether Victor Bishop of Rome who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not consorming to his Church in keeping Easter whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius upon pretence that himself was elected Bishop of Rome when indeed he was not whether Felicissimus and his Crew that went out of the Church of Carthage and set up Altar against Altar because having fallen in persecution they might not be restored to the peace of the Church presently upon the intercession of the Confessours whether the Donatists who divided from and damned all the World because all the World would not excommunicate them who were accused only and not convicted to have been Traditors of the sacred Books whether they which for the slips and infirmities of others which they might and ought to tolerate or upon some difference in matters of Order and Ceremony or for some Errour in Doctrin neither pernitious nor hurtful to Faith or Piety sepatate themselves from others or others from themselves or lastly whether they that put themselves out of the Churches unity and obedience because their opinions are not approved there but reprehended and confuted or because being of impious conversation they are impatient of their Churches censure I would know I say whether all or any of these may with any face or without extream impudency put in this plea of Protestants and pretend with as much likelyhood as they that they did not separate from others but only reform themselves But suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own defence falsely doth it follow by any good Logick that therefore this Apology is not to be imployed by Protestants who may say so truly We make say they no Schism from you but only a reformation of our selves This you reply
most certain and infallible wherein it surpasseth humane Opinion it must relie upon some motive and ground which may be able to give it certainly and yet not release it from Obscurity For if this motive ground or formal Object of Faith were any thing evidently presented to our understanding and if also we did evidently know that it had a necessary connection with the Articles which we believe our assent to such Articles could not be obscure but evident which as we said is against the nature of our faith If likewise the motive and ground of our faith were obscurely propounded to us but were not in it self infallible it would leave our assent in obscurity but could not endue it with certainty We must therefore for the ground of our faith find out a motive obscure to us but most certain in it self that the act of faith may remain both obscure and certain Such a motive as this can be no other but the divine authority of Almighty God revealing or speaking those truths which our faith believes For it is manifest that God's infallible testimony may transfâ—â—â— Certainty to our faith and yet not draw it out of obscurity because no humane discourse or demonstration can evince that God revealeth any supernatural truth since God hath been no less perfect than he is although hâ—â—â—â— never revealed any of those objects which we now believe 4 Nevertheless because Almighty God out of his infinite wisdom and sweetness doth conour with his Creatures in such sort as may befit the temper and exigence of their natures and because Man is a Creature endued with reason God doth not exact of his Will or Understanding any other then as the Apostle faith rationabile (f) Rom. 12.1 obsequium an Obedience sweetned with good reason which could not so appear if our Understanding were summoned to believe with certainty things no way represented as infallible and certain And therefore Almighty God obliging us under pain of eternal camnation to believe with greatest certainty divers verities not known by the light of natural reason cannot fail to furnish our Understanding with such inducements motives and arguments as may sufficiently perswade any mind which is not partial or passionate that the objects which we believe proceed from an Authority so Wise that it cannot be deceived so Good that it cannot deceive according to the words of David Thy Testimonies are made (g) Psal 92. credible exceedingly These inducements are by Divines called argumenta credibilitatis arguments of credibility which though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe yet they evidently convince that in one wisdom and prudence the objects of faith deserve credit and ought to be accepted as things revealed by God For without such reasons and inducements our judgment of faith could not be conceived prudent holy Scripture telling us that be who soon (h) Eccles 19. â— believes is light of heart By these arguments and inducements our Understanding is both satisfied with evidence of credibility and the objects of faith retain their obsenrity because it is a different thing to be evidently credible and evidently true as those who were present at the Miracles wrought by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles did not evidently see their doctrin to be true for then it had not been Faith but Science and all had been necessitated to believe which we see fell out otherwise but they were evidently convinced that the things confirmed by such Miracles were most credible and worthy to be imbraced as truth revealed by God 5 These evident arguments of Credibility are in great abundance found in the Visible Church of Christ perpetually existing on earth For that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines we have from our next Predecessors and these from theirs upward till we come to the Apostles and our Blessed Saviour which gradation is known by evidence of sense by reading books or hearing what one man delivers to another And it is evident that there was neither cause nor possibility that men so distant in place so different in temper so repugnant in private ends did or could agree to tell one and the self same thing if it had been but a fiction invented by themselves as ancient Tertullian well saith How is it likely that so many (i) Praescript c. 28. and so great Churches should err in one saith Among many events there is not one issue the error of the Churches must needs have varied But that which among many is sound to be One is not mistaken but delivered Dare then any body say that they erred who delivered it With this never-interrupted existence of the Church are joyned the many and great miracles wrought by mâ—n of that Congregation or Church the sanctity of the persons the renowned victories over so many persecutions both of all sorts of men and of the infernal spirits and lastly the perpetual existence of so holy a Church being brought up to the Apostles themselves she comes to partake of the same assurance of truth which They by so many powerful ways did communicate to their Doctrin to the Church of their times together with the divine Certainty which they received from our blessed Saviour himself revealing to Mankind what he heard from his Father and so we conclude with Tertullian We receive it from the Churches the Churches (k) Praese c. 21. 37. from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from his Father And if we once interrupt this line of succession most certainly made known by means of holy Tradition we cannot conjoyn the present Church and doctrin with the Church and doctrin of the Apostles buâ— must invent some new means and arguments sufficient of themselves to find out and prove a true Church and faith independently of the preaching and writing of the Apostles neither of which can be known but by Tradition as is truly observed by Tertullian saying I will prescribe that (l) Praesc c. 22. there is no means to prove what the Apostles preached but by the same Church which they sounded 6 Thus then we are to proceed By evidence of manifest and incorrupt Tradition I know that there hath always been a never interrupted Succession of men from the Apostles time believing professing and practising such and such doctrines By evident arguments of credibility as Miracles Sanctity Unity c. and by all those ways whereby the Apostles and our Blessed Saviour himself confirmed their doctrin we are assured that what the said never-interrupted Church proposeth doth deserve to be accepted and acknowledged as a divine truth By evidence of Sense we see that the same Church proposeth such and such doctrins as divine truths that is as revealed and testified by Almighty God By this divine Testimony we are infallibly assured of what we believe and so the last period ground motive and formal object of our Faith is the infallible testimony of that supreme Verity which
of the Apostles the (h) Lib. 28. cont Faust cap. 2. Church hath brought down to our days by a never-interrupted course of times and by undoubted succession of connection Now that the Reformation begun by Luther was interrupted for divers ages before him is manifest our of History and by his endeavouring a Reformation which must presuppose Abuses He cannot therefore pretend a continued Succession of that Doctrin which he sought to revive and reduce to the knowledge and practise of men And they ought not to prove that they have a Succession of doctrin because they agreee with the doctrin of the Apostles but contrarily we must infer that they agree not with the Apostles because they cannot pretend a never-interrupted succession of doctrin from the times of the Apostles till Luther And here it is not amiss to note that although the Waldeases Wickliff c. had agreed with Protestants in all points of doctrin yet they could not brag of Succession from them because their doctrin hath not been free from interruption which necessarily crosseth Succession 25 And as want of Succession of Persons and Doctrin cannot stand with that Universality of Time which is inseparable from the Catholique Church so likewise the disagreeing Sects which are dispersed throughout divers Countries and Nations cannot help towards that Universality of Place wherewith the true Church must be endued but rather such local multiplication doth more and more lay open their division and want of succession in Doctrin For the excellent Observation of S. Augustine doth punctually agree with all modern Heretiques wherein this holy Father having cited these words our of the Prophet Ezechiel (i) Cap. 24. My flocks are dispersed upon the whole face of the Earth he adds this remarkable sentence Not all Heretiques (k) Lib. de Pastorib c. 8. are spread over the face of the Earth and yet there are Heretiques spread over the whole face of the Earth some here some there yet they are wanting in no place they know not one another One Sect for example in Africa another Heresie in the East another in Egypt another in Mesopotania In divers places there are divers one Mother pride hath begot them all as our own Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all saithful people dispersed throughout the whole world No wonder then if Pride breed Dissention and Charity Union And in another place applying to Heretiques those words of the Canticles If thou know not (l) Cant. 1. thy self go forth and follow after the steps of the flocks and seed the kids he saith If thou know not thy self go (m) Ep. 48. thou forth I do not cast thee out but go thou out that it may be said of thee They went from us but they were not of us Go thou out in the steps of the flocks not in my steps but in the steps of the flocks nor of one flock but of divers and wandring flocks And feed thy Kids not as Peter to whom is said Feed thy sheep but seed thy kids in the Tabernacle of the Pastors not in the Tabernacle of the Pastor where there is one flock and one Pastor In which words this holy Father doth set down the Marks of Heresie to wit going out from the Church and Want of Unity among themselves which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme Visible Pastor and Head under Christ And so it being Proved that Protestants havâ—â— neither succession of Persons nor Doctrin nor Universality of Time or Place cannot avoid the just note of Heresie 26 Hitherto we have brought arguments to prove that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of Heresie against the Negative Precept of saith which obligeth 〈◊〉 under pain of damnation not to imbrace any one errour contrary to any Truth sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by Almighty God Which were enough to make good that among Persons who disagree in any one Point of Faith one part only can be saved Yet we will now prove that whosoever erreth in any one point doth also break the Affirmative Precept of Faith whereby we are obliged positively to believe some revealed truth with an infallible and supernatural Faith which is necessary to salvation even necessitate sinis or medii as Divines speak that is so necessary that not any after he is come to the use of Reason was or can be saved without it according to the words of the Apostle Without saith (n) Heb. 11.6 it is impossible to please God 27 In the beginning of this Chapter I shewed that to Christian Catholique faith are required Certainty Obscurity Prudence and Supernaturality All which Conditions we will prove to be wanting in the belief of Protestants even in those points which are true in themselves and to which they yield assent as happeneth in all those particulars wherein they agree with us from whence it will follow that they wanting true Divine saith want means absolutely necessary to salvation The faith of Protestants wanteth Certainty 28 And first that their belief wanteth Certainty I prove because they denying the Universal infallibility of the Church can have no certain ground to know what Objects are revealed or testified by God Holy Scripture is in it self most true and infallible but without the direction and declaration of the Church we can neither have certain means to know what Scâ—ipture is Canonical nor what Translations be faithful nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Every Protestant as I suppose is perswaded that his own opinions be true and that he hath used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer Conferring of divers Texts c. and yet their disagreements shew that some of them are deceived And therefore it is clear that they have no one certain ground whereon to relie for understanding of Scripture And seeing they hold all the Articles of Faith even concerning fundamental points upon the self same ground of Scripture interpreted not by the Churches Authority according to some other Rules which as experience of their contradictions teach do sometimes fail it is clear that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all And albeit sometime it chance to hit on the truth yet it is likewise apt to lead them to error As all Arch-heretiques believing some truths and withall divers errors upon the same ground and motive have indeed no true divine infallible faith but only a fallible humane opinion and perswasion For if the ground upon which they rely were certain it could never produce any errour 29 Another cause of uncertainty in the faith of Protestants must rise from their distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental For since they acknowledge that every error in fundamental points destroyeth the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points be fundamental it followeth that they must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamental error and so want the substance of faith
that commits any sin must not think himself a true believer Besides seeing faith worketh by Charity and Charity is the effect of faith certainly if the cause were perfect the effect would be perfect and consequently as you make no degrees in Faith so there would be none in Charity and so no man could possibly make any progress in it but all crue believers should be equal in Charity as in faith you make them equal and from thence it would follow unavoidably that whosoever finds in himself any true faith must presently perswade himself that he is perfect in Charity and whosoever on the other side discovers in his charity any imperfection must not believe that he hath any true faith These you see are strange and portentous consequences and yet the deduction of them from your doctrin is clear and apparent which shews this doctrin of yours which you would fain have true that there might be some necessity of your Churches infallibility to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth but even to all Religion and Piety and fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or Charity And therefore I must entreat and adjure you either to discover unto me which I take God to witness I cannot perceive some fallacy in my reasons against it or never hereafter to open your mouth in defence of it 5 As for that one single reason which you produce to confirm it it will appear upon examination to be resolved finally into a groundless Assertion of your own contrary to all Truth and experience and that is That no degree of faith less than a most certain and infallible knowledge can be able sufficiently to overbear our will and encounter with humane probabilities being backt with the strength of Flesh and Blood For who sees not that many millions in the world forgo many times their present ease and pleasure undergo great and toilsom labours encounter great difficulties adventure upon great dangers and all this not upon any certain expectation but upon a probable hope of some future gain and commodity and that not infinite and eternal but finite and temporal Who sees not that many men abstain from many things they exceedingly desire not upon any certain assurance but a probable fear of danger that may come after What man ever was there so madly in love with a present penny but that he would willingly spend it upon any little hope that by doing so he might gain an hundred thousand pound And I would fain know what gay probabilities you could devise to disswade him from this Resolution And if you can devise none what reason then or sense is there but that a probable hope of infinite and eternal happiness provided for all those that obey Christ Jesus much more a firm faith though not so certain in some sort as sense or science may be able to sway our will to obedience and encounter with all those temptations which Flesh and Blood can suggest to avert us from it Men may talk their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty but did they generall believe that obedience to Christ were the only way to present and eternal felicity but as firmly and undoubtedly as that there is such a City as Constantinople nay but as much as Caesar's Commentaries or the History of Salust I believe the lives of most men both Papists and Protestants would be better than they are Thus therefore out of your own words I argue against you He that requires to true faith an absolute and infallible certainty for this only Reason because any less degree could not be able to overbear our will c. imports that if a less degree of faith were able to do this then a less degree of faith may be true and divine and saving Faith But experience shews and reason confirms that a firm faith though not so certain as sense or science may be able to encounter and overcome our will and affections And therefore it follows from your own reason that faith which is not a most certain and infallible knowledge may be true and divine and saving faith 6 All these Reasons I have imployed to shew that such a most certain and infallible faith as here you talk of is not so necessary but that without such a high degree of it it is possible to please God And therefore the Doctrins delivered by you § 26 are most presumptuous and uncharitable viz. That such a most certain and infallible faith is necessary to salvation Necessitate Finis or Medii so necessary that after a man is come to the use of reason no man ever was or can be saved without it Wherein you boldly intrude into the judgment-feat of God and damn men for breaking Laws not of God's but your own making But withall you clearly contradict yourself not only where you affirm That your faith depends finally upon the Tradition of Age to Age of Father to Son which cannot be a fit ground but only for a Moral Assurance nor only where you pretend that not alone Hearing and Seeing but also Histories Letters Relations of many which certainly are things not certain and infallible are yet foundations good enough to support your faith Which Doctrin if it were good and allowable Protestants might then hope that their Histories and Letters and Relations might also pass for means sufficient of a sufficient Certainty that they should not be excluded from Salvation for want of such a Certainty But indeed the pressure of the present difficulty compell'd you to speak here what I believe you will not justifie with a pretty tergiversation to shew D. Potter your means of moral certainty whereas the Objection was that you had no means or possibility of infallible certainty for which you are plainly at as great a loss and as far to seek as any of your Adversaries And therefore it concerns you highly not to damn others for want of it lest you involve your selves in the same condemnation according to those terrible words of S. Paul Thou art inexcusable O Man whosoever thou art that judgest For wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thy self for thou that judgest dost the same things c. In this therefore you plainly contradict your self And lastly most plainly in saying as you do here you contradict and retract your pretence of Charity to Protestants in the beginning of your Book For there you make profession that you have no assurance but that Protestants dying Protestants may possibly die with contrition and be saved And here you are very peremptory that they cannot but want a means absolutely necessary to salvation and wanting that cannot but be damned The third Condition you require to faith is that our assent to divine Truths should not only be unknown and unevident by any humane discourse but that absolutely also it should be obscure in it self and ordinarily speaking be void even of supernatural evidence Which words
in the very next Chapter before that which you alledge Against these men being thus necessitated to do so they did urge Tradition but what or whose Tradition was it Certainly no other but the joint Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches with one mouth and one voice teaching the same doctrin Or if for brevity sake they produced the Tradition of any one Church yet is it apparent that that one was then in conjunction with all the rest Irenaeus Tertullian Origen testifie as much in the words cited and S. Austin in the place before alledged by me This Tradition they did urge against these men and in a time in comparison of ours almost contiguous to the Apostles So near that one of them Irenaeus was Scholar to one who was Scholar to S. John the Apostle Tertullian and Origen were not an age remov'd from him and the last of them all little more then an age from them Yet after all this they urg'd it not as a demonstration but only as a very probable argument far greater then any their Adversaries could oppose against it So Tertullian in the place above quoted § 5. How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should err in one faith it should be should have erred into one faith And this was the condition of this argument as the Fathers urg'd it Now if you having to deal with us who question no Book of Scripture which was not anciently questioned by some whom you your selves esteem good Catholiques nay who refuse not to be tried by your own Canon and your own Translation who in interpreting Scriptures are content to allow of all those rules which you propose only except that we will not allow you to be our Judges if you will come fifteen hundred years after the Apostles a fair time for the purest Church to gather much dross and corruption and for the mysterie of iniquity to bring its work to some perfection which in the Apostles time began to work If I say you will come thus long after and urge us with the single Tradition of one of these Churches being now Catholique to it self alone and Heretical to all the rest nay not only with her ancient and original Traditions but also with her post-nate introduc'd Definitions and these as we pretend repugnant to Scripture and ancient Tradition and all this to decline an indifferent trial by Scripture under pretence wherein also you agree with the calumny of the old Heretiques that all necessary truth cannot be found in them without recourse to Tradition If I say notwithstanding all these differences you will still be urging us with this argument as the very same and of the same force with that wherewith the fore-mentioned Fathers urg'd the old Heretiques certainly this must needs proceed from a confidence you have not only that we have no School-Divinity nor Metaphysicks but no Logick or common sense that we are but pictures of men and have the definition of rational creatures given us in vain 41 But now suppose I should be liberal to you and grant what you cannot prove that the Fathers make Succession a certain and perpetual mark of the true Church I beseech you what will come of it What that want of Succession is a certain sign of an Heretical company Truly if you say so either you want Logick which is a certain sign of an ill disputer or are not pleas'd to use it which is a worse For speech is a certain sign of a living man yet want of speech is no sure argument that he is dead for he may be dumb and yet living still and we may have other evident tokens that he is so as eating drinking breathing moving So though the constant and universal delivery of any doctrin by the Apostolique Churches ever since the Apostles be a very great argument of the truth of it yet there is no certainty but that truth even Divine truth may through mens wickedness be contracted from its universality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so lose this argument and yet not want others to justifie and support it self For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens hearts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contain'd in Scripture in express terms or deducible from it by apparâ—â—â— consequence If therefore you intend to prove want of a perpetual Succession of Professors a certain note of Heresie you must not content your self to shew that having it is one sign of truth but you must shew it to be the only sign of it and inseparable from it But this if you be well advis'd you will never undertake First because it is an impossible attempt and then because if you do it you will marr all for by proving this an inseparable sign of Catholique doctrin you will prove your own which apparently wants it in many points not to be Catholique For whereas you say this Succession requires two things agreement with the Apostles doctrin and an uninterrupted conveyance of it down to them that challenge it It will be prov'd against you that you fail in both points and that some things wherein you agree with the Apostles have not been held alwayes as your condemning the Doctrine of the Chiliasts and holding the Eucharist not necessary for Infants and that in many other things you agree not with them nor with the Church for many ages after For example In mutilation of the Communion in having your Service in such a language as the Assistants generally understand not your offering to Saints your picturing of God your worshipping of Pictures 42 Ad § 24. As for Universality of place the want whereof you object to Protestants as a mark of Heresie You have not set down clearly and univocally what you mean by it Whether universality of fact or of right and if of fact Whether absolute or comparative and if comparative Whether of the Church in comparison of any other Religion or only of heretical Christians or if in comparison of these whether in comparison of all other Sects conjoyn'd or in comparison only of any One of them Nor have you proved it by any good argument in any sense to be a certain mark of heresie For those places of S. Austin do not deserve the name And truly in my judgment you have done advisedly in proving it no better For as for Universality of right or a right to Universality all Religions claim it but only the true has it and which has it cannot be determin'd unless it be first determin'd which is the true An absolute Universality and diffusion through all the world if you should pretend to all the world would laugh at you If you should contend for latitude with any one Religion Mahumetism would carry the victory from you If you should oppose yourselves against all other Christians besides you it is certain you would be cast in this suit also If lastly being hard driven you
a middle way To the authority of S. Austin and these School-men this may be adjoyned That it is usual with good Christians to say that Heretiques have not the entire faith Whereby it seems to be intimated that some part of it they do retain Whereof this may be another reason That if the truths which a Jew or a Heretique holds be should not hold 〈◊〉 by faith but after some other manner to wit by his own proper will and judgment it will follow that all the excellent knowledge of God and divine things which is found in them is to be attributed not to the grace of God but the strength of Free-will which is against S. Austine both elsewhere and especially in the end of his book De potentia As for the reason alleaged to the contrary We answer It is impertinent to faith by what means we believe the prime Verity that is by what means God useth to confer upon men the gift of faith For although now the ordinary means be the Testimony and teaching of the Church yet it is certain that by other means faith hath been given heretofore and is given still For many of the Ancients as Adam Abraham Melchisedeck Job received faith by special revelation the Apostles by the Miracles and preaching of Christ others again by the preaching and miracles of the Apostles And Lastly others by other means when as yet they had heard nothing of the infallibility of the Church To little Children by Baptism without any other help faith is infus'd And therefore it is possible that a man not adhering to the Churches doctrin as a Rule infallible yet may receive some things for the word of God which do indeed truly belong to the faith either because they are now or heretofore have been confirm'd by miracles or because he manifestly sees that the ancient Church taught so or upon some other inducement And yet nevertheless we must not say that Heretiques and Jewes do hold the Faith but only some part of the Faith For the Faith signifies an entire thing and compleat in all parts whereupon an Heretique is said to be simply an Infidel to have lost the Faith and according to the Apostle 1 Tim. 1. to have made shipwrack of it although he holds some things with the same strength of assent and readiness of will wherewith by others are held all those points which appertain to the Faith And thus farre Aestius Whose discourse I presume may pass for a sufficient refutation of your argument out of Aquinas And therefore your Corollaries drawn from it That every errour aqainst faith involves opposition against God's testimony That Protestants have no Faith no certainty And that you have all Faith must together with it fall to the ground 50. But If Protestants have certainty they want obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing This argument you prosecute in the next Paragraph But I can find nothing in it to convince or perswade me that Protestants cannot have as much certainty as is required to faith of an object not so evident as to beget science If obscurity will not consist with certainty in the highest degree then you are to blame for requiring to faith contradicting conditions If certainty and obscurity will stand together what reason can be imagin'd that a Protestant may not entertain them both as well as a Papist Your bodies and souls your understandings and wills are I think of the same condition with ours And why then may not we be certain of an obscure thing as well as you And as you make this long discourse against Protestants why may not we putting Church instead of Scripture send it back again to you And say If Papists have certainty they want obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or not necessitating our understanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the faith of Papists is setled on these two principles These particular propositions are the propositions of the Church And the sense and meaning of them is clear and evident at least in all points necessary to salvation Now these principles being once suppos'd it clearly followeth that what Papists believe as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true by this argument It is certain and evident that whatsoever is the word of God or Divine Revelation is true But it is certain and evident that these propositions of the Church in particular are the word of God and Divine Revelations Therefore it is certain and evident that all propositions of the Church are true Which conclusion I take for a Major in a second argument and say thus It is certain and evident that all propositions of the Church are true But it is certain and evident that such particulars for example The lawfulness of the halfe Communion The lawfulness and expedience of Latine Service the Doctrin of Transubstantiation Indulgences c. are the Propositions of the Church Therefore it is certain and evident that these particular objects are true Neither will it avail you to say that the said principles are not evident by natural discourse but only by the eye of reason clear'd by grace For supernatural evidence no less yea rather more drowns and excludes obscurity than natural evidence doth Neither can the Party so enlightned be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light but rather his understanding is by necessity made captive and forc'd not to disbelieve what is presented by so clear a light And therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the Apostle but an invention of your own And having thus cryed quittance with you I must intreat you to devise for truly I cannot some answer to this argument which will not serve in proportion to your own For I hope you will not pretend that I have done you injurie in setling your faith upon principles which you disclaim And if you alleadge this disparitie That you are more certain of your principles than we of ours and yet you do not pretend that your principles are so evident as we do â—hat ours are what is this to say but that you are more confident than we but confess you have less reason for it For the evidence of the thing assented to be it more or less is the reason and cause of the assent in the understanding But then besides I am to tell you that you are here as every where extreamely if not affectedly mistaken in the doctrin of Protestants who though they acknowledge that the things which they believe are in themselves as certain as any demonstrable or sensible verities yet pretend not that their certainty of adherence is most perfect and absolute but such as may be perfected and increas'd as long as they walk by faith and not by sight And consonant hereunto is their doctrin touching the evidence of the objects whereunto they
ours by your own confession is safe whereas we hold that in yours there is no hope of salvation Therefore you may and ought to imbrace ours This is our Argument◠And if the Dominicans and Jesuits did say one to another as we say you then one of them might with good consequence press the other to believe his opinion You have still the hard fortune to be beaten with your own weapon 12. It remaineth then that both in regard of Faith and Charity Protestants are obliged to unite themselves with the Church of Rome And I may adde also in regard of the Theological Vertue of Hope without which none can hope to be saved and which you want either by excess of Confidence or defect 〈◊〉 Despaire not unlike to your Faith which I shewed to be either deficient in Certainty or excessive in Evidence as likewise according to the rigid Calvinists it is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more than weak and so much nothing that it can never be gotten For the true Theological Hope of Christians is a Hope which keeps a mean between Presumption and Desperation which moves us to work our salvation with fear and trembling which conducts us to make sure our salvation by good works as holy Scripture adviseth But contrarily Protestants do either exclude Hope by Despair with the Doctrin That our Saviour died not for all and that such want grace sufficient to salvation or else by vain Presumption grounded upon a fantastical perswasion that they are Predestinate which Faith must exclude all fear and trembling Neither can they make their Calling certain by good works who do certainly believe that before any good works they are justified and justified even by Faith alone and by that Faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified Which point some Protestants do expresly affirm to be the soul of the Church the principal Origin of salvation of all other points of Doctrin the chiefest and weightiest as already I have noted Chap. 3. n. 19. And if some Protestants do now relent from the rigour of the foresaid doctrin we must affirm that at least some of them want the Theological Vertue of Hope yea that none of them can have true Hope while they hope to be saved in the Communion of those who defend such doctrins as do directly overthrow all true Christian Hope And for as much as concerns Faith we must also inferr that they want Unity therein and consequently have none at all by their disagreement about the soul of the Church the principal Origin of salvation of all other points of Doctrin the chiefest and weightiest And if you want true Faith you must by consequence want Hope or if you hold that this point is not to be so indivisible on either side but that it hath latitude sufficient to imbrace all parties without prejudice to their salvation notwithstanding that your Brethren hold it to be the soul of the Church c. I must repeat what I have said heretofore that even by this Example it is cleer you cannot agree what points be fundamental And so to whatsoever answer you fly I press you in the same manner and say that you have no Certainty whether you agree in fundamental points or Unity and substance of Faith which cannot stand with difference in fundamentals And so upon the whole matter I leave it to be considered whether Want of Charity can be justly charged on us because we affirm that they cannot without repentance be saved who want of all other the most necessary means to salvation which are the three Theological Vertues FAITH HOPE and CHARITY 13. And now I end this first part having as I conceive complyed with my first design in that measure which Time Commodity scarcity of Books and my own small Abilities could afford which was to shew that Amongst men of different Religions one side only can be saved For since there must be some infallible Means to decide all Controversies concerning Religion and to propound truth revealed by Almighty God and this means can be no other but the Visible Church of Christ which at the time of Luther's appearance was only the Church of Rome and such as agreed with her We must conclude that whosoever opposeth himself to her definitions or forsaketh her Communion doth resist God himself whose Spouse she is and whose divine truth she propounds and therefore becomes guilty of Schism and Heresie which since Luther his Associates and Protestants have done and still continue to do it is not Want of Charity but abundance of evident cause that forceth us to declare this necessary Truth PROTESTANCY UNREPENTED DESTROIES SALVATION The ANSWER to the SEVENTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves to re-unite themselves to the Roman-Church THE first four Paragraphs of this Chapter are wholly spent in an unnecessary introduction unto a truth which I presume never was nor will be by any man in his right wits either denyed or question'd and that is That every man in Wisdom and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternal Salvation 2. The sift and sixt are nothing in a manner but references to discourses already answered by me and confuted in their proper places 3. The seventh eighth ninth tenth and eleventh have no other foundation but this false pretence That we confess the Roman Church free from damnable error 4. In the twelfth there is something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions or others to leave their communion but to prove Protestants in general to be in the state of sin while they remain separate from the Roman Church there is not one word or syllable and besides whatsoever argument there is in it for any purpose it may be as forcibly return'd upon Papists as it is urg'd against Protestants in as much as all Papists either hold the doctrin of Predetermination and absolute Election or communicate with those that do hold it Now from this doctrin what is more prone and obvious than for every natural man without Gods especial preventing grace to make this practical collection Either I am elected or not elected If I be no impiety possible can ever damne me If not no possible industry can ever save me Now whether this disjunctive perswasion be not as likely as any doctrin of any Protestants to extinguish Christian hope and filiall fear and to lead some men to dispaire others to presumption all to a wretchless and impious life I desire you ingeniously to inform mee and if you deny it assure your self you shall be contradicted and confuted by men of your own Religion and your own Society and taught at length this charitable Doctrin that though mens opinions may be charg'd with the absurd consequencs which naturally flow from them yet the men themselves are not I mean if they perceive not the consequence of these
justification by faith without the works of the Law were never read in the Church but when the 13. Chapter of the 1. Epistle to the Corinth concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read together with them 33. Whereas you say that some Protestants do expresly affirm the former point to be the soul of the Church c. and therefore they must want the Theological vertue of Hope and that none can have true hope while they hope to be saved in their communion I answ They have great reason to believe the Doctrin of justification by faith only a point of great weight and importance if it be rightly understood that is they have reason to esteem it a principal and necessary duty of a Christian to place his hope of justification and salvation not in the perfection of his own righteousness which if it be imperfect will not justifie but only in the mercies of God through Christs satisfaction and yet notwithstanding this nay the rather for this may preserve themselves in the right temper of good Christians which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and fear If this Doctrin be otherwise expounded than I have here expounded I will not undertake the justification of it only I will say that which I may do truly that I never knew any Protestant such a soli-sidian but that he did believe these divine truths That he must make his calling certain by good works That he must work out his salvation with Fear and Trembling and that while he does not so he can have no well grounded hope of Salvation I say I never met with any who did not believe these divine Truths and that with a more firm and a more unshaken assent than he does that himself is predestinate and that he is justified by believing himself justified I never met with any such who if he saw there were a necessity to do either would not rather forgoe his belief of these Doctrins than the former these which he sees disputed and contradicted and opposed with a great multitude of very potent Arguments than those which being the express words of Scripture whosoever should call into question could not with any modesty pretend to the title of Christian And therefore there is no reason but we may believe that their full assurance of the former Doctrin doth very well qualifie their perswasion of the later and that the former as also the lives of may of them do sufficiently testifie are more effectual to temper their hope and to keep it at a stay of a filial and modest assurance of Gods favour built upon the conscience of his love and fear than the later can be to swell and puffe them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption This reason joyn'd with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men of this opinion is a sufficient ground for Charity to hope well of their Hope and to assure our selves that it cannot be offensive but rather most acceptable to God if notwithstanding this diversity of opinion we embrace each other with the strict embraces of love and communion To you and your Church we leave it to separate Christians from the Church and to proscribe them from heaven upon trivial and trifling causes As for our selves we conceive a charitable judgement of our Bretheren and their errors though untrue much more pleasing to God than a true judgement if it be uncharitable and therefore shall alwayes choose if we do err to err on the milder and more merciful part and rather to retain those in our Communion which deserve to be ejected than eject those that deserve to be retain'd 34. Lastly whereas you say that seeing Protestants differ about the point of Justification you must needs inferre that they want Unity in faith and consequently all faith and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamentall I answer to the first of these inferences that as well might you inferre it upon Victor Bishop of Rome and Polycrates upon Stephen Bishop of Rome and Saint Cyprian in asmuch as it is undeniably evident that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation the other esteemed not so But points of Doctrin as all other things are as they are and not as they are esteemed neither can a necessary point be made unnecessary by being so accounted nor an unnecessary point be made necessary by being overvalued But as the ancient Philosophers whose different opinions about the Soule of man you may read in Aristotle de anima and Cicero's Tusculan Questions notwithstanding their divers opinions touching the nature of the soule yet all of them had soules and soules of the same nature Or as those Physitians who dispute whether the Brain or Heart be the principall part of a man yet all of them have brains and have hearts and herein agree sufficiently So likewise though some Protestants esteem that Doctrine the soule of the Church which others do not so highly value yet this hinders not but that which is indeed the soule of the Church may be in both sorts of them And though one account that a necessary truth which others account neither necessary nor perhaps true yet this notwithstanding in those truths which are truly and really necessary they may all agree For no Argument can be more sophistical than this They differ in some points which they esteem necessary Therefore they differ in some that indeed and in truth are so 35. Now as concerning the other Inference That they cannot agree what points are fundamental I have said and prov'd formerly that there is no such necessity as you imagine or pretend that men should certainly know what is and what is not fundamental They that believe all things plainly delivered in Scripture believe all things fundamental and are at sufficient Unity in matters of Faith though they cannot precisely and exactly distinguish between what is fundamental and what is profitable nay though by error they mistake some vain or perhaps some hurtful opinions for necessary and fundamental Truths C 3. Sect. 54. alibi Besides I have shewed above that as Protestants do not agree for you over-reach in saying they cannot touching what points are fundamental so neither do you agree what points are defin'd and so to be accounted and what are not nay nor concerning the subject in which God hath placed this pretended Authority of defining some of you setling it in the Pope himself though alone without a Councel Others in a Councel though divided from the Pope Others only in the conjunction of Councel and Pope Others not in this neither but in the acceptation of the present Church Universal Lastly others not attributing it to this neither but only to the perpetual Succession of the Church of all ages of which divided Company it is very evident and undeniable that every former may be and are obliged to hold many things defin'd and therefore
as on the other side I shall willingly grant if I have not answered the First I cannot answer a great part of the Second Thirdly because the addition of the Second not only is unnecessary but in effect by your self confess'd to be so For in your preamble to your Second Part you tell us That the substance of the present Controversie is handled in the first and therein also you pretend to have answered the chief grounds of D. Potters book So that in replying to your Second Part I shall do little else but pursue shadows Fourthly because your Second Part setting aside Repetitions and References is in a manner made up of Disputes about particular matters which you are very importunate to have forborn as suspecting at least pretending to suspect that they were brought in purposely by D. Potter to dazle the Reader 's eyes and distract his mind that he might not see the clearness of the reasons brought in defence of the General Doctrin delivered in Charity Mistaken All which you are likely enough if there be occasion to say again to me and therefore I am resolv'd for once even to humour you so farre as to keep my discourse within those very lists and limits which your self have prescrib'd and to deal with you upon no other arguments but only those wherein you conceive your chief advantage and principal strength and as it were your Sampson's lock to lye wherein if I gain the cause clearly from you as I verily hope by Gods help I shall do it cannot but redound much to the honour of the truth maintain'd by me which by so weak a Champion can overcome such an Achilles for error even in his strongest holds For these reasons although I have made ready an answer to your Second Part and therein have made it sufficiently evident That for shifting evasions from D. Potter's arguments for impertinent cavills and frivolous exceptions and injurious calumnies against him for his misalleadging of Authors For proceeding upon false and ungrounded principles for making inconsequent and sophistical deductions and in a word for all the vertues of an ill answer your Second Part is no way second to the first Yet notwithstanding all this advantage I am resolv'd if you will give me leave either wholly to suppress it or at least to deferre the publication of it untill I see what exceptions upon a twelve-months examination for so long I am well assur'd you have had it in your hands you can take at this which is now published that so if my grounds be discovered false I may give over building on them or if it shall be thought fit build on more securely when it shall appear that nothing material and of moment is or can be objected against them This I say upon a supposition that your self will allow these reasons for satisfying and sufficient and not repent of the motion which your self has made of reducing the Controversie between us to this short Issue But in case your minde be altered upon the least intimation you shall give me that you do but desire to have it out your desire shall prevail with me above all other reasons and you shall not fail to receive it with all convenient speed Only that my Answer may be compleat and that I may have all my work together and not be troubled my self nor enforc'd to trouble you with after-reckonings I would first entreat you to make good your Promise of not omitting to answer all the particles of D. Potters book which may any way import and now at least to take notice of some as it seems to me not unconsiderable passages of it which between your first and second Part as it were between two stools have been suffer'd hitherto to fall to the ground and not been vouchsaf'd any answer at all For after this neglectful fashion you have passed by in silence First his discourse wherein he proves briefly but very effectually that Protestants may be sav'd and that the Roman Church especially the Jesuits are very uncharitable S. 1. p. 6 7 8 9. Secondly the authorities whereby he justifies That the ancient Fathers by the Roman understood alwayes a particular and never the Catholique Church to which purpose he alleageth the words of Ignatius Ambrose Innocentius Celestine Nicolaus S. 1. p. 10. Whereunto you say nothing neither do you infringe his Observation with any one Instance to the contrary Thirdly the greatest and most substantial part of his answers to the Arguments of Charity Mistaken built upon Deut. 17. Numb 16. Mat. 28.20 Mat. 18.17 and in particular many pregnant and convincing Texts of Scripture quoted in the margent of his book p. 25. to prove that the Judges of the Synagogue whose Infallibility yet you make an Argument of yours and therefore must be more credible then yours are vainly pretended to have been infallible but as they were oblig'd to judge according to the Law so were obnoxious to deviations from it S. 2. p. 23 24 25 26 27. Fourthly his discourse wherein he shewes the difference between the Prayers for the dead used by the Ancients and those now in use in the Roman Church Fifthly the Authority of three Ancient and above twenty modern Doctors of your own Church alleadg'd by him to shew that in their opinion even Pagans and therefore much more erring Christians if their lives were morally honest by Gods extraordinary mercy and Christs merit may be saved S. 2. p. 45. Sixthly a great part of his discourse whereby he declares that actual and external Communion with the Church is not of absolute necessity to Salvation nay that those might be saved whom the Church utterly refus'd to admit to her Communion S. 2. p. 46 47 48 49. Seventhly his discourse concerning the Churches latitude which hath in it a clear determination of the main Controversie against you For therein he proves plainly that all appertain to the Church who believe that Jesus is the Christ the sonne of God and Saviour of the world with submission to his Doctrin in mind and will which he irrefragably demonstrates by many evident Texts of Scripture containing the substance of his Assertion even in terms S. 4. p. 114 115 116 117. Eighthly that wherein he shews by many pertinent examples that grosse error and true Faith may be lodged together in the same mind And that men are not chargeable with the damnable consequences of their erroneous opinions S. 4 p. 112. Ninthly a very great part of his Chapter touching the dissentions of the roman-Roman-Church which he shews against the pretences of Charity Mistaken to be no less than ours for the importance of the matter and the pursuit of them to be exceedingly uncharitable S. 6. p. 188 189 190 191 193 194 195 196 197. Tenthly his clear refutation and just reprehension of the Doctrine of implicite Faith as it is deliver'd by the Doctors of your Church which he proves very consonant to the Doctrin of Heretiques and Infidels but evidently
repugnant to the word of God Ibid. p. 201 202 203 204 205. Lastly his discourse wherein he shews that it is unlawful for the Church of after Ages to add any thing to the Faith of the Apostles And many of his Arguments whereby he proves that in the judgement of the Ancient Church the Apostles Creed was esteem'd a sufficient summary of the necessary Points of simple belief and a great number of great authorities to justifie the Doctrin of the Church of England touching the Canon of Scripture especially the old Testament S. 7. p. 221 223 228 229. All these parts of Doctor Potter's book for reason best known to your self you have dealt with as the Priest and Levite in the Gospel did with the wounded Samaritan that is only look't upon them and pass'd by But now at least when you are admonish't of it that my Reply to your second part if you desire it may be perfect I would entreat you to take them into your consideration and to make some shew of saying something to them lest otherwise the world should interpret your obstinate silence a plain confession that you can say nothing FINIS THE Apostolical Institution OF EPISCOPACY DEMONSTRATED BY WILL. CHILLINGWORTH Master of Arts of the UNIVERSITY of OXFORD NOSCE TE IPSVM NE QUID NIMIS LONDON Printed by E. Cotes dwelling in Aldersgate-street Anno Dom. M.DC.LXIV THE Apostolical Institution OF EPISCOPACY DEMONSTRATED SECT I. IF we abstract from Episcopal Government all accidentals and consider only what is essential and necessary to it we shall finde in it no more but this An appointment of one man of eminent sanctity and sufficiency to have the care of all the Churches within a certain Precinct or Diocess and furnishing him with authority not absolute or arbitrary but regulated and bounded by Laws and moderated by joyning to him a convenient number of assistants to the intent that all the Churches under him may be provided of good and able Pastors and that both of Pastors and people conformity to Laws and performance of their duties may be required under penalties not left to discretion but by Law appointed SECT II. To this kind of Government I am not by any particular interest so devoted as to think it ought to be maintained either in opposition to Apostolick Institution or to the much desired reformation of mens lives and restauration of Primitive discipline or to any Law or Precept of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for that were to maintain a means contrary to the end for Obedience to our Saviour is the end for which Church-Government is appointed But if it may be demonstrated or made much more probable than the contrary as I verily think it may I. That it is not repugnant to the government setled in and for the Church by the Apostles II. That it is as complyable with the Reformation of any evill which we desire to reform either in Church or State or the introduction of any good which we desire to introduce as any other kind of Government And III. That there is no Law no Record of our Saviour against it Then I hope it will not be thought an unreasonable Motion if we humbly desire those that are in Authority especially the High Court of Parliament That it may not be sacrificed to Clamour or over-born by Violence and though which God forbid the greater part of the Multitude should cry Crucifie Crucifie yet our Governours would be so full of Justice and Counage as not to give it up until they perfectly understand concerning Episcopacy it self Quid mali fecit SECT III. I shall speak at this time only of the first of these three points That Episcopacy is not repugnant to the Government setled in the Church for perpetuity by the Apostles Whereof I conceive this which follows is as clear a Demonstration as any thing of this nature is capable of That this Government was received universally in the Church either in the Apostles time or presently after is so evident and unquestionable that the most learned adversaries of this Government do themselves confess it SECT IV. Petrus Molinaeus in his Book De munere pastorali purposely written in defence of the Presbyterial-government acknowledgeth That presently after the Apostles times or even in their time as Ecclesiastical story witnesseth it was ordained That in every City one of the Presbytery should be called a Bishop who should have pre-eminence over his Colleagues to avoid confusion which oft times ariseth out of equality And truly this form of Government all Churches every where received SECT V. Theodorus Beza in his Tract De triplici Episcopatûs genere confesseth in effect the same thing For having distinguished Episcopacy into three kinds Divine Humane and Satanical and attributing to the second which he calls Humane but we maintain and conceive to be Apostolical not only a priority of Order but a superiority of Power and Authority over other Presbyters bounded yet by Laws and Canons provided against Tyranny he clearly professeth that of this kind of Episcopacy is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the authority of Bishops or Presidents as Justin Martyr calls them in Ignatius and other more ancient Writers SECT VI. Certainly from * To whom two others also from Geneva may be added Daniel Chamierus in Panstratia tom 2. lib. 10. cap. 6. Sect. 24. and Nicol. Vedelius Exereitat 3. in epist Ignatii ad Philadelph cap. 14. Exercit. 8. in Epist ad Mariam cap. 3. which is fully also demonstrated in D. Hammond's Dissertations against Blondel which never were answered and never will by the testimonies of those who wrote in the very next Age after the Apostles these two great Defenders of the Presbytery we should never have had this free acknowledgement so prejudicial to their own pretence and so advantagious to their adversaries purpose had not the evidence of clear and undeniable truth enforced them to it It will not therefore be necessary to spend any time in confuting that uningenuous assertion of the anonymous Author of the Catalogue of Testimonies for the equality of Bishops and Presbyters who affirms That their disparity began long after the Apostles times But we may safely take for granted that which these two learned Adversaries have confessed and see whether upon this foundation laid by them we may not by unanswerable reason raise this superstructure That seeing Episcopal Government is confessedly so Ancient and so Catholique it cannot with reason be denyed to be Apostolique SECT VII For so great a change as between Presbyterial Government and Episcopal could not possibly have prevailed all the world over in a little time Had Episcopal Government been an aberration from or a corruption of the Government left in the Churches by the Apostles it had been very strange that it should have been received inany one Church so suddainly or that it should have prevailed in all for many Ages after Variâsse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod
Patron as to the great Defendor of it which style Your Majesty hath ever so exactly made good both in securing it from all dangers and in vindicating it by the well ordering and rectifying this Church from all the foul aspersions both of Domestick and Foraign enemies of which they can have no ground but their own want of Judgement or want of Charity But it is an argument of a despairing and lost cause to support it self with these impetuous out-cries and clamours the faint refuges of those that want better arguments like that Stoick in Lucian that cryed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O damned villain when he could say nothing else Neither is it credible the wiser sort of them should believe this their own horrid assertion That a God of goodness should damn to eternal torments those that love him and love truth for errors which they fall into through humane frailty But this they must say otherwise their only great argument from their damning us and our not being so peremtory in damning them because we hope unaffected Ignorance may excuse them would be lost and therefore they are engaged to act on this Tragical part only to fright the simple and ignorant as we do little children by telling them that bites which we would not have them meddle with And truely that herein they do but act a part and know themselves to do so and deal with us here as they do with the King of Spain at Rome whom they accurse and Excommunicate for fashion sake on Maundy-Thursday for detaining part of St. Peters Patrimony and absolve him without satisfaction on Good-Friday methinks their faltring and inconstancy herein makes it very apparent For though for the most part they speak nothing but thunder and lightning to us and damn us all without mercy or exception yet sometimes to serve other purposes they can be content to speak to us in a milder strain and tell us as my Adversary does more than once That they allow Protestants as much Charity as Protestants allow them Neither is this the only contradiction which I have discovered in this uncharitable Work but have shewed that by forgetting himself and retracting most of the principal grounds he builds upon he hath saved me the labour of a Confutation which yet I have not in any place found any such labour or difficulty but that it was undertakable by a man of very mean that is of my abilities And the reason is because it is Truth I plead for which is so strong an argument for it self that it needs only light to discover it whereas it concernes Falshood and Error to use disguises and shadowings and all the fetches of Art and Sophistry and therefore it stands in need of abler men to give that a colour at least which hath no real body to subsist by If my endeavours in this kind may contribute any thing to this discovery and the making plain that Truth which my Charity perswades me the most part of them disaffect only because it hath not been well represented to them I have the fruit of my labour and my wish who desire to live to no other end than to do service to Gods Church and Your most Sacred Majesty in the quality of Your MAJESTIES Most faithful Subject and most humble and devoted Servant William Chillingworth The CONTENTS of the Chapters with the Answers thereunto THe Author of Charity Maintained his Preface to the Reader Page 1. The Answer to the Preface Page 5. The FIRST PART CHAP. I. THe State of the Question with a summary of the Reasons for which men of different Religions one side only can be saved Page 23. The Answer to the First Chapter Shewing that the Adversary grants the Former Question and proposeth a New One And that there is no reason why among men of different Opinions and Communions one Side only can be saved Page 25 CHAP. II. What is that means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion Page 37 The Answer to the Second Chapter Concerning the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our Understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion Page 45 CHAP. III. That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental is neither pertinent nor true in our present Controversie And that the Catholique visible Church cannot err in either kind of the said Point Page 107 The Answer to the Third Chapter Wherein is maintained That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental is in this present Controversie good and pertinent And that the Catholique Church may err in the latter kind of the said Points Page 115 CHAP. IV. To say that the Creed contains all Points necessary to be believed is neither pertinent to the Question in hand nor in it self true Page 165 The Answer to the Fourth Chapter Wherein is shewed that the Creed contains all necessary Points of meer belief Page 172 CHAP. V. That Luther Calvin their Associates and all who began or continue the Separation from the external Communion of the Roman Church are guilty of the proper and formal sin of Schism Page 210 The Answer to the Fifth Chapter The separation of Protestants from the Roman Church being upon just and necessary causes is not any way guilty of Schism Page 227 CHAP. VI. That Luther and the rest of the Protestants have added Heresie unto Schism Page 279 The Answer unto the Sixth Chapter That Protestants are not Heretiques Page 289 CHAP. VII In regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones self Protestants are in a state of Sin as long as they remain separate from the Roman-Church Page 341 The Answer to the Seventh Chapter That Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves to re-unite themselves to the Roman-Church Page 345 The Conclusion Page 365 THE PREFACE To the AUTHOR of CHARITY MAINTAINED WITH An Answer to his Pamphlet entituled A Direction to N. N. SIR UPon the first news of the publication of your Book I used all diligence with speed to procure it and came with such a mind to the reading of it as S. Austin before he was a setled Catholique brought to his conference with Faustus the Manichee For as he thought that if any thing more than ordinary might be said in defence of the Manichean Doctrine Faustus was the man from whom it was to be expected So my perswasion concerning you was Si Pergama dextrâ Defendi possunt certè hac defensa videbo For I conceived that among the Champions of the Roman Church the English in reason must be the best or equall to the best as being by most expert Masters trained up purposely for this war and perpetually practised in it Among the English I saw the Jesuites would yield the first place to none and men so wise in their generation as the Jesuits were if they had any Achilles among them I presumed
as good be of none at all Nor to trouble you Fourthly with this that a great part of your Doctrine especially in the points contested makes apparently for the temporal ends of the Teachers of it which yet I fear is a great scandal to many Beaux Esprits among you Only I should desire you to consider attentively when you conclude so often from the Differences of Protestants that they have no certainty of any part of their Religion no not of those points wherein they agree Whether you do not that which so Magisterially you direct me not to do that is proceed a destructive way and object arguments against your Adversaries which tend to the overthrow of all Religion And whether as you argue thus Protestants differ in many things therefore they have no certainty of any thing So an Atheist or a Sceptique may not conclude as well Christians and the Professors of all Religions differ in many things therefore they have no certainty in any thing Again I should desire you to tell me ingenuously Whether it be not too probable that your portentous Doctrine of Transubstantiation joyned with your fore-mentioned perswasion of No Papists no Christians hath brought a great many others as well as himself to Averroes his resolution Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis Whether your requiring men upon only probable and prudential Motives to yield a most certain assent unto things in humane reason impossible and telling them as you do too often that they were as good not believe at all as believe with any lower degree of faith be not a likely way to make considering men scorn your Religion and consequently all if they know no other as requiring things contradictory and impossible to be performed Lastly Whether your pretence that there is no good ground to believe Scripture but your Churches infallibility joyned with your pretending no ground for this but some texts of Scripture be not a fair way to make them that understand themselves believe neither Church nor Scripture 9. Your calumnies against Protestants in generall are set down in these words Chap. 2. § 2. The very doctrine of Protestants if it be followed closely and with coherence to it self must of necessity induce Socinianism This I say confidently and evidently prove by instancing in one error which may well be tearmed the Capital and mother-Heresie from which all other must follow at ease I mean their heresie in affirming That the perpetual visible Church of Christ descended by a never interrupted succession from our Saviour to this day is not infallible in all that it proposeth to be believed as revealed truths For if the infallibility of such a publique Authority be once impeached what remains but that every man is given over to his own wit and discourse And talk not here of Holy Scripture For if the true Church may erre in defining what Scriptures be Canonicall or in delivering the sense and meaning thereof we are still devolved either upon the private spirit a foolery now exploded out of England which finally leaving every man to his own conceits ends in Socinianism or else upon natural wit and judgement for examining and determining What Scriptures contain true or false doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or rejected And indeed take away the authority of God's Church no man can be assured that any one Book or parcel of Scripture was written by divine inspiration or that all the contents are infallibly true which are the direct errors of Socinians If it were but for this reason alone no man who regards the eternal salvation of his soul would live or dye in Protestancy from which so vast absurdities as these of the Socinians must inevitably follow And it ought to be an unspeakable comfort to all us Catholiques while we consider that none can deny the infallible authority of our Church but joyntly he must be left to his own wit and wayes and must abandon all infused faith and true Religion if he do but understand himself aright In all which discourse the only true word you speak is This I say confidently As for proving evidently that I believe you reserved for some other opportunity for the present I am sure you have been very sparing of it 10. You say indeed confidently enough that The deny all of the Churches infallibility is the Mother-Heresie from which all other must follow at ease Which is so far from being a necessary truth as you make it that it is indeed a manifest falshood Neither is it possible for the wit of man by any good or so much as probable consequence from the denyal of the Churches Infallibility to deduce any one of the ancient Heresies or any one error of the Socinians which are the Heresies here entreated of For who would not laugh at him that should argue thus Neither the Church of Rome nor any other Church is infallible Ergo The doctrine of Arrius Pelagius Eutyches Nestorius Photinus Manichaeus was true Doctrine On the other side it may be truly said and justified by very good and effectual reason that he that affirms with you the Pope's infallibility puts himself into his hands and power to be led by him at his ease and pleasure into all Heresie and even to Hell it self and cannot with reason say so long as he is constant to his grounds Domine cur ita facis but must believe white to be black and black to be white vertue to be vice and vice to be vertue nay which is a horrible but a most certain truth Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ if it be possible for the Pope to say so Which I say and will maintain howsoever you daub and disguise it is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar but real Enemy For that name and no better if we may speak truth without offence I presume He deserves who under pretence of interpreting the Law of Christ which Authority without any word of express warrant he hath taken upon himself doth in many parts evacuate and dissolve it So dethroning Christ from his dominion over mens consciences and instead of Christ setting up Himself Inasmuch as he that requires that his interpretations of any Law should be obeyed as true and genuine seem they to mens understandings never so dissonant and discordant from it as the Bishop of Rome does requires indeed that his interpretations should be the Lawes and he that is firmly prepared in minde to believe and receive all such interpretations without judging of them and though to his private judgement they seem unreasonable is indeed congruously disposed to hold Adultery a venial sin and Fornication no sin whensoever the Pope and his Adherents shall so declare And whatsoever he may plead yet either wittingly or ignorantly he makes the Law and the Law-maker both stales and obeyes only the Interpreter As if I should pretend that I should
to make them as heaven-like as they can with earthly ornaments Is this a sign that they are warping towards Popery Is this devotion in the Church of England an argument that she is coming over to the Church of Rome Sir Edwin Sands I presume every man will grant had no inclination that way yet he forty years since highly commended this part of devotion in Papists and makes no scruple of proposing it to the imitation of Protestants Little thinking that they who would follow his counsel and endeavour to take away this disparagement of Protestants and this glorying of Papists should have been censured for it as making way and inclining to Popery His words to this purpose are excellent words and because they shew plainly that what is now practised was approved by zealous Protestants so long ago I will here set them down 23. This one thing I cannot but highly commend in that sort and order They spare nothing which either cast can perform in enriching or skill in adorning the Temple of God or to set out his Service with the greatest pompe and magnificence that can be devised And although for the most part much basenesse and childishnesse is predominant in the Masters and Contrivers of their Ceremonies yet this outward state and glory being well disposed doth ingender quicken increase and nourish the inward reverence respect and devotion which is due unto Soveraign Majesty and Power And although I am not ignorant that many men well reputed have embraced the thrifty opinion of that Disciple who thought all to be wasted that was bestowed upon Christ in that sort and that it were much better bestowed upon him or the poor yet with an eye perhaps that themselves would be his quarter-Almoners notwithstanding I must confesse it will never sink into my heart that in proportion of reason the allowance for furnishing out of the service of God should be measured by the scant and strict rule of meer necessity a proportion so low that nature to other most bountiful in matter of necessity hath not failed no not the most ignoble creatures of the world and that for our selves no measure of heaping but the most we can get no rule of expence but to the utmost pompe we list Or that God himself had so enriched the lower parts of the world with such wonderfull varieties of beauty and glory that they might serve only to the pampering of mortall man in his pride and that in the Service of the high Creator Lord and Giver the outward glory of whose higher pallace may appear by the very lamps that we see so far off burning gloriously in it only the simpler baser cheaper lesse noble lesse beautiful lesse glorious things should be imployed Especially seeing as in Princes Courts so in the Service of God also this outward state and glory being well disposed doth as I have said ingender quicken increase and nourish thâ—â—ward reverence respect and devotion which is due to so Soveraign Majesty and Power Which those whom the use thereof cannot perswade unto would easily by the want of it be brought to confesse for which cause I crave leave to be excused by them herein if in Zeal to the common Lord of all I choose rather to commend the vertue of an enemy than to flatter the vice and imbecillity of a friend And so much for this matter 24. Again what if the names of Priests and Altars so frequent in the ancient Fathers though not in the now Popish sense be now resumed and more commonly used in England than of late times they were that so the colourable argument of their conformity which is but nominal with the ancient Church and our inconformity which the Governours of the Church would not have so much as nominal may be taken away from them and the Church of England may be put in a state in this regard more justifiable against the Romane than formerly it was being hereby enabled to say to Papists whensoever these names are objected we also use the names of Priests and Altars and yet believe neither the corporal Presence nor any Proper and propitiatory Sacrifice 25. What if Protestants be now put in minde that for exposition of Scripture they are bound by a Canon to follow the ancient Fathers which whosoever doth with sincerity it is utterly impossible he should be a Papist And it is most falsly said by you that you know that to some Protestants I clearly demonstrated or ever so much as undertook or went about to demonstrate the contrary What if the Centurists be censured somewhat roundly by a Protestant Divine for aâ—â—ming that the keeping of the Lord's day was a thing indifferent for two hundred years Is there in all this or any part of it any kind of proof of this scandalous Calumny 26. As for the points of Doctrine wherein you pretend that these Divines begin of late to falter and to comply with the Church of Rome upon a due examination of particulars it will presently appear First that part of them always have been and now are held constantly one way by them as the Authority of the Church in determining Controversies of faith though not the infallibility of it That there is Inherent Justice though so imperfect that it cannot justifie That there are Traditions though none necessary That charity is to be preferred before knowledge That good Works are not properly meritorious And lastly that Faith alone justifies though that faith justifies not which is alone And secondly for the remainder that they every one of them have been anciently without breach of charity disputed among Protestants such for example were the Questions about the Pope's being the Antichrist The lawfulness of some kind of prayers for the dead The Estate of the Fathers Souls before Christ's Ascension Freewill Predestination Universal grace The possibility of keeping God's Commandments The use of Pictures in the Church Wherein that there hath been anciently diversity of opinion amongst Protestants it is justified to my hand by a Witness with you beyond exception even your great friend M. Breerly whose care exactness and fidelity you say in your Preface is so extraordinary great Consult him therefore Tract 3. Sect. 7. of his Apology And in the 9 10 11 14 24 26 27 37. Subdivisions of that Section you shall see as in a mirror your self proved an egregious Calumniator for charging Protestants with innovation and inclining to Popery under pretence forsooth that their Doctrine begins of late to be altered in these points Whereas M. Breerly will inform you They have been anciently and even from the beginning of the Reformation controverted amongst them though perhaps the stream and current of their Doctors run one way and only some brook or rivulet of them the other 27. And thus my Friends I suppose are clearly vindicated from your scandals and calumnies It remains now that in the last place I bring my self fairly off from your foul aspersions that so my Person may
fabrick of my Discourse that is not naturally deducible out of this one Principle That all things necessary to salvation are evidently contained in Scripture Or what one Conclusion almost of importance is there in your Book which is not by this one clearly confutable 31. Grant this and it will presently follow in opposition to your first Conclusion and the Argument of your first Chap. that amongst men of different opinions touching the obscure and controverted Questions of Religion such as may with probability be disputed on both Sides and such are the disputes of Protestants Good men and â—â—â—ers of truth of all Sides may be saved because all necessary things being supposed evident concerning them with men so qualified there will be no difference There being no more certain sign that a Point is not evident than that honest and understanding and indifferent men and such as give themselves liberty of judgement after a mature consideration of the matter differ about it 32. Grant this and it will appear Secondly that the meanes whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which are to determine all Controversies in Faith necessary to be determined may be for any thing you have said to the contrary not a Church but the Scripture which contradicts the Doctrine of your Second Chapter 33. Grant this and the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental will appear very good and pertinent For those truths will be Fundamental which are evidently delivered in Scripture and commanded to be preached to all men Those not Fundamental which are obscure And nothing will hinder but that the Catholique Church may err in the latter kind of the said Points because Truths not necessary to the Salvation cannot be necessary to the Beeing of a Church and because it is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther than to bring her to Salvation neither will there be any necessity at all of any infallible Guide either to consign unwritten Traditions or to declare the obscurities of the Faith Not for the former end because this Principle being granted true nothing unwritten can be necessary to be consigned Nor for the latter because nothing that is obscure can be necessary to be understood or not mistaken And so the discourse of your whole Third Chap. will presently vanish 34. Fourthly for the Creed's containing the Fundamentals of simple belief though I see not how it may be deduced from this Principle yet the granting of this plainly renders the whole dispute touching the Creed unnecessary For if all necessary things of all sorts whether of simple belief or practice be confessed to be clearly contained in Scripture What imports it whether those of one sort be contained in the Creed 35. Fifthly let this be granted and the immediate Corollary in opposition to your fifth Chap. will be and must be That not Protestants for rejecting but the Church of Rome for imposing upon the Faith of Christians Doctrines unwritten and unnecessary and for disturbing the Churche's peace and dividing Unity for such matters is in a high degree presumptuous and Schismatical 36. Grant this sixthly and it will follow unavoidably that Protestants cannot possibly be Hereticks seeing they believe all things evidently contained in Scripture which are supposed to be all that is necessary to be believed and so your Sixth Chapter is clearly confuted 37. Grant this lastly and it will be undoubtedly consequent in contradiction of your Seventh Chapter that no man can shew more charity to himself than by continuing a Protestant seeing Protestants are supposed to believe and therefore may accordingly practise at least by their Religion are not hindered from practising and performing all things necessary to Salvation 38. So that the position of this one Principle is the direct overthrow of your whole Book and thâ—refore I needed not nor indeed have I made use of any other Now this Principle which is not only the corner-stone or chief Pillar but even the basis and adequate foundation of my Answer and which while it stands firm and unmoveable cannot but be the supporter of my Book and the certain ruine of Yours is so far from being according to your pretence detested by all Protestants that all Protestants whatsoever as you may see in their harmony of Confessions unanimously profess and maintain it And you your self Chap. 6. § 30. plainly confess as much in saying The whole Edifice of the Faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonical Scripture And the sense and meaning of them is plain and evident at least in all Points necessary to Salvation 39. And thus your Venom against me is in a manner spent saving only that there remain two little Impertinencies whereby you would disable me from being a fit Advocate for the cause of Protestants The first because I refuse to subscribe the Articles of the Church of England The second because I have set down in writing Motives which sometime induced me to forsake Protestantism and hitherto have not answered them 40. By the former of which Objections it should seem that either you conceive the 39. Articles the common Doctrine of all Protestants and if they be Why have you so often upbraided them with their many and great differences Or else that it is the peculiar defence of the Church of England and not the common cause of all Protestants which is here undertaken by me which are certainly very gross Mistakes And yet why he who makes scruple of subscribing the truth of one or two Propositions may not yet be fit enough to maintain that those who do subscribe them are in a savable condition I do not understand Now 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 error destructive of Salvation or in it self damnable And this I think in reason may sufficiently qualifie me for a maintainer of this assertion that Protestancy destroys not Salvation 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 undoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no Error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the Communion of it This in my opinion is all intended by Subscription and thus much if you conceive me not ready to subscribe your Charity I assure you is much Mistaken 41. Your other objection against me is yet more impertinent and frivolous than the former Unless perhaps it be a just exception against a Physitian that himself was sometimes in and recovered himself from that disease which he undertakes to cure or against a Guide in a way that at first before he had experience himself mistook it and afterwards found his error and amended it That noble
Writer Michael de Montaigne was surely of a far different minde for he will hardly allow any Physitian competent but only for such diseases as himself had passed through And a far greater than Montaigne even he that said Tu conversus confirma fratres gives us sufficiently to understand that they which have themselves been in such a state as to need conversion are not thereby made incapable of but rather engaged and obliged unto and qualified for this charitable function 42. Neither am I guilty of that strange and preposterous zeal as you esteem it which you impute to me for having been so long careless in removing this scandal against Protestants and answering my own Motives and yet now shewing such fervor in writing against others For neither are they other Motives but the very same for the most part with those which abused me against which this Book which I now publish is in a maner wholly imployed And besides though you Jesuits take upon you to have such large and universal intelligence of all State-affairs and matters of importance yet I hope such a contemptible matter as an Answer of mine to a little piece of paper may very probably have been written and escaped your Observation The truth is I made an Answer to them three years since and better which perhaps might have been published but for two reasons One because the Motives were never publique until you made them so The other because I was loath to proclaim to all the world so much weakness as I shewed in suffering my self to be abused by such silly Sophisms All which proceed upon mistakes and false suppositions which unadvisedly I took for granted as when I have set down the Motives in order by subsequent Answers to them I shall quickly demonstrate and so make an end 43. The Motives then were these 1. Because perpetuall visible profession which could never be wanting to the Religion of Christ nor any part of it is apparently wanting to Protestant Religion so far as concerns the points in contestation 2. Because Luther and his Followers separating from the Church of Rome separated also from all Churches pure or impure true or false then being in the World upon which ground I conclude that either Gods promises did fail of performance if there were then no Church in the world which held all things necessary and nothing repugnant to Salvation or else that Luther and his Sectaries separating from all Churches then in the World and so from the true if there were any true were damnable Schismaticks 3. Because if any credit may be given to as creditable Records as any are extant the Doctrine of Catholiques hath been frequently confirmed and the opposite Doctrine of Protestants confounded with supernatural and divine Miracles 4. Because many points of Protestant doctrine are the damned opinions of Heretiques condemned by the Primitive Church 5. Because the Prophecies of the old Testament touching the conversion of Kings and Nations to the true Religion of Christ have been accomplished in and by the Catholique Roman Religion and the Professors of it and not by Protestant Religion and the Professors of it 6. Because the doctrine of the Church of Rome is conformable and the Doctrine of Protestants contrary to the Doctrine of the Fathers of the Primitive Church even by the confession of Protestants themselves I mean those Fathers who lived within the compasse of the first 600. years to whom Protestants themselves do very frequently and very confidently appeal 7. Because the first pretended Reformers had neither extraordinary Commission from God nor ordinary Mission from the Church to Preach Protestant Doctrine 8. Because Luther to preach against the Masse which contains the most material points now in Controversie was perswaded by reasons suggested to him by the Devil himself disputing with him So himself professeth in his Bock de Missa Privata That all men might take heed of following him who professeth himself to follow the Devill 9. Because the Protestant cause is now and hath been from the beginning maintained with grosse falsifications and Calumnies whereof their prime Controvâ—rsie-Writers are notoriously and in high degree guilty 10. Because by denying all humane authority either of Pope or Councels or Church to determine Controversies of Faith they have abolished all possible means of suppressing Heresie or restoring Unity to the Church These are the Motives now my Answers to them follow briefly and in order 44. To the first God hath neither decreed nor foretold that his true Doctrine should de facto be alwayes visibly professed without any mixture of falshood To the second God hath neither decreed not foretold that there shall be always a visible company of men free from all error in it self damnable Neither is it always of necessity Schismatical to separate from the external communion of a Church though wanting nothing necessary For if this Church supposed to want nothing necessary require me to profess against my conscience that I believe some errour though never so small and innocent which I do not believe and will not allow me her Communion but upon this condition In this case the Church for requiring this condition is Schismatical and not I for separating from the Church To the third If any credit may be given to Records far more creditable than these the Doctrine of Protestants that is the Bible hath been confirmed and the Doctrine of Papists which is in many points plainly opposite to it confounded with supernatural and divine Miracles which for number and glory outshine Popish pretended Miracles as much as the Sun doth an Ignis fatuus those I mean which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles Now this Book by the confession of all sides confirmed by innumerous Miracles foretels me plainly that in after-ages great signs and wonders shall be wrought in confirmation of false doctrin and that I am not to believe any doctrin which seems to my understanding repugnant to the first though an Angel from Heaven should teach it which were certainly as great a Miracle as any that was ever wrought in attestation of any part of the doctrine of the Church of Rome But that true doctrine should in all ages have the testimony of Miracles that I am no where taught So that I have more reason to suspect and be afraid of pretended Miracles as signs of false doctrine than much to regard them as certain Arguments of the Truth Besides setting aside the Bible and the Tradition of it there is as good story for Miracles wrought by those who lived and dyed in opposition to the Doctrine of the Roman Church as by S. Cyprian Colmannus Columbanus Aidanus and others as there is for those that are pretended to be wrought by the members of that Church Lastly it seems to me no strange thing that God in his Justice should permit some true Miracles to be wrought to delude them who have forged so many as apparently the Professors of
the Roman Doctrin have to abuse the World To the fourth All those were not a See this acknowledged by Bellar. de Script Eccles in Philastrio By Petavius Animad in Epiph. de inscrip operis By S. Austin Lib. de Haer. Haer. 80. Heretiques which by Philastrius Epiphanius or S. Austin were put in the Catalogue of Heretiques To the fifth Kings and Nations have been and may be converted by men of contrary Religions To the sixth The Doctrin of Papists is confessed by Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points To the seventh The Pastors of a Church cannot but have authority from it to Preach against the abuses of it whether in Doctrin or Practice if there be any in it Neither can any Christian want an ordinary commission from God to do a necessary work of Charity after a peaceable manner when there is no body else that can or will do it In extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed If some Christian Lay-man should come into a Countrey of Infidels and had ability to perswade them to Christianity Who would say he might not use it for want of Commission To the eighth Luther's conference with the Devil might be for ought I know nothing but a melancholy Dream If it were reall the Devil might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keep him constant to it Or that others would make his disswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists do and be afraid of following Luther as confessing himself to have been perswaded by the Devill To the ninth Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault than Protestants Even this very Author in this very Pamphlet hath not so many leaves as falsifications and calumnies To the tenth Let all men believe the Scripture and that only and endeavour to believe it in the true sense and require no more of others and they shall find this not only a better but the only means to suppress Heresie and restore Unity For he that believes the Scripture sincerely and endeavours to believe it in the true sense cannot possibly be an Heretique And if no more than this were required of any man to make him capable of the Churches Communion then all men so qualified though they were different in opinion yet notwithstanding any such difference must be of necessity one in Communion The AUTHOR of CHARITY MAINTAINED His Preface to the READER GIve me leave good Reader to inform thee by way of Preface of three Points The first concerns D. Potters Answer to Charity Mistaken The second relates to this Reply of mine And the third contains some Premonitions or Prescriptions in case D. Potter or any in his behalf think fit to Rejoyn 2. For the first point concerning D. Potters Answer I say in general reserving particulars to their proper places that in his whole Book he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question which was Whether both Catholiques and Protestants can be saved in their several professions And therefore Charity Mistaken judiciously pressing those particulars wherein the difficulty doth precisely consist proves in general that there is but one true Church that all Christians are obliged to hearken to her that she must be ever visible and infallible that to separate ones self from her communion is Schism and to dissent from her Doctrin is Heresie though it be in points never so few or never so small in their own nature and therefore that the distinction of points Fundamental and not Fundamental is wholly vain as it is applyed by Protestants These I say and some other general grounds Charity Mistaken handles and out of them doth clearly evince that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation on both sides and therefore since it is apparent that Catholiques and Protestants disagree in very many points of faith they both cannot hope to be saved without repentance and consequently as we hold that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation so must they also believe that we cannot be saved if they judge their own Religion to be true and ours to be false And whosoever disguizeth this truth is an enemy to souls which he deceives with ungrounded false hopes of Salvation in different Faiths and Religions And this Charity Mistaken performed exactly according to that which appears to have been his design which was not to descend to particular disputes and D. Potter affectedly does namely Whether or no the roman-Roman-Church be the only true Church of Christ and much lesse Whether general Councels be infallible whether the Pope may erre in his Decrees common to the whole Church whether he be above a General Council whether all points of Faith be contained in Scripture whether Faith be resolved into the authority of the Church as into his last formal Object and Motive and least of all did he discourse of Images Communion under both kinds publique service in an unknown Tongue Seven Sacraments Sacrifice of the Masse Indulgences and Index Expurgatorius All which and divers other articles D. Potter as I said draws by violence into his Book and he might have brought in Pope Joan or Antichrist or the Jews who are permitted to live in Rome which are common Themes for men that want better matter as D. Potter was fain to fetch in the aforesaid Controversies that so he might dazle the eyes and distract the minde of the Reader and hinder him from perceiving that in his whole answer he uttereth nothing to the purpose and point in question which if he had followed closely I dare well say he might have dispatched his whole Book in two or three sheets of paper But the truth is he was loath to affirm plainly that generally both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved and yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to have any true Church before Luther except the Roman and such as agreed with her and consequently that they cannot hope for Salvation if they deny it to us he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of language and to fill up his Book with Points which make nothing to the purpose Wherein he is lesse excusable because he must grant that those very particulars to which he digresseth are not Fundamental errors though it should be granted that they be Errors which indeed are Catholique Verities For since they bâ— not Fundamental not destructive of Salvation what imports it Whether we hold them or no for as much as concerns our possibility to be saved 3. In one thing only he will perhaps seem to have touched the point in question to wit in his distinction of points Fundamental and not Fundamental because some may think that a difference in points which are not Fundamental breaks not the Unity of Faith and hinders not the hope of Salvation in persons so disagreeing And yet in this very distinction he never speaks to the purpose indeed but
only sayes That there are some points so Fundamental as that all are obliged to know and believe them explicitely but never tels us whether there be any other points of Faith which a man may deny or disbelieve though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding as truths revealed or testified by Almighty God which was the only thing in question For if it be damnable as certainly it is to deny or disbelieve any one truth witnessed by Almighty God though the thing be not in it self of any great consequence or moment and since of two disagreeing in matters of Faith one must necessarily deny some such truth it clearly followes that amongst men of different Faiths or Religions one only can be saved though their difference consist of divers or but even one point which is not in his own nature Fundamental as I declare at large in divers places of my first Part. So that it is clear D. Potter even in this his last refuge and distinction never comes to the point in question to say nothing that he himself doth quite overthrow it and plainly contradict his whole designe as I shew in the third Chapter of my first Part. 4. And as for D. Potter's manner of handling those very points which are utterly beside the purpose it consists only in bringing vulgar mean Objections which have been answered a thousand times yea and some of them are clearly answered even in Charity Mistaken but he takes no knowledge at all of any such answers and much less doth he apply himself to confute them He alledgeth also Authors with so great corruption and fraud as I would not have believed if I had not found it by clear and frequent experience In his second Edition he hath indeed left out one or two gross corruptions amongst many others no less notorious having as it seems been warned by some friends that they could not stand with his credit but even in this his second Edition he retracts them not at all nor declares that he was mistaken in the First and so his Reader of the first Edition shall ever be deceived by him though withall he read the Second For preventing of which inconvenience I have thought it necessary to take notice of them and to discover them in my Reply 5. And for conclusion of this point I will only say that D. Potter might well have spared his pains if he had ingenuously acknowledged where the whole substance yea and sometime the very words and phrases of his Book may be found in far briefer manner namely in a Sermon of D. Usher's preached before our late Soveraign Lord King James the 20. of June 1624. at Wansted containing A Declaration of the Universality of the Church of Christ and the Unity of Faith professed therein which Sermon having been roundly and wittily confuted by a Catholique Divine under the name of Paulus Veridicus within the compass of about four sheets of Paper D. Potter's Answer to Charity Mistaken was in effect confuted before it appeared And this may suffice for a general Censure of his Answer to Charity Mistaken Concerning my Reply 6. For the second touching my Reply if you wonder at the Bulk thereof compared either with Charity Mistaken or D. Potter's Answer I desire you to consider well of what now I am about to say and then I hope you will see that I was cast upon a meer necessity of not being so short as otherwise might peradventure be desired Charity Mistaken is short I grant and yet very full and large for as much as concerned his design which you see was not to treat of particular Controversies in Religion no not so much as to debate whether or no the Romane Church be the only true Church of Christ which indeed would have required a larger Volume as I have understood there was one then coming forth if it had not been prevented by the Treatise of Charity Mistaken which seemed to make the other intended work a little less seasonable at that time But Charity Mistaken proves only in General out of some Universal Principles well backed and made good by choice and solid Authorities that of two disagreeing in points of Faith one only without repentance can be saved which aim exacted no great bulk And as for D. Potter's Answer even that also is not so short as it may seem For if his marginal notes printed in a small letter were transferred into the Text the Book would appear to be of some bulk though indeed it might have been very short if he had kept himself to the point treated by Charity Mistaken as shall be declared anon But contrarily because the question debated betwixt Charity Mistaken and D. Potter is a point of the highest consequence that can be imagined and in regard that there is not a more pernitious Heresie or rather indeed ground of Atheism than a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved if otherwise forsooth they lead a kind of civil and moral life I conceive that my chief endeavour was not to be employed in answering D. Potter but that it was necessary to handle the Question it self somewhat at large and not only to prove in geral that both Protestants and Catholiques cannot be saved but to shew also that Salvation cannot be hoped for out of the Catholique Roman Church and yet withall not to omit to answer all the particulars of D. Potter's Book which may any way import To this end I thought it fit to divide my Reply into two Parts in the former whereof the main question is handled by a continued discourse without stepping aside to confute the particulars of D. Potter's Answer though yet so as even that in this first Part I omit not to answer such passages of his as I find directly in my way and naturally belong to the points whereof I treat and in the second Part I answer D. Potter's Treatise Section by Section as they lie in order I here therefore intreat the Reader that if heartily he desire satisfaction in this so important Question he do not content himself with that which I say to D. Potter in my second Part but that he take the First before him either all ot at least so much as may serve most to his purpose of being satisfied in those doubts which press him most For which purpose I have caused a Table of the Chapters of the first Part together with their Titles and Arguments to be prefixed before my Reply 7. This was then a chief reason why I could not be very short But yet there wanted not also divers other causes of the same effect For there are so several kinds of Protestants through the difference of Tenets which they hold as that if a man convince but one kind of them the rest will conceive themselves to be as truly unsatisfied and even unspoken to as if nothing had been said therein at all As for example Some hold a necessity of a perpetual
will assure him that if he keep himself to the point of every diffficulty and not weary the Reader and overcharge his margent with unnecessary quotations of Authors in Greek and Latine and sometime also in Italian and French together with Proverbs Sentences of Poets and such Grammatical stuff nor affect to cite a multitude of our Catholique School-Divines to no purpose at all his Book will not exceed a competent size nor will any man in reason be offended with that length which is regulated by necessity Again before he come to set down his answer or propose his Arguments let him consider very well what may be replyed and whether his own objections may not be retorted against himself as the Reader will perceive to have hapned often to his disadvantage in my Reply against him But especially I expect and Truth it self exacts at his hand that he speak clearly and distinctly and not seek to walk in darkness so to delude and deceive his Reader now saying and then denying and alwayes speaking with such ambiguity as that his greatest care may seem to consist in a certain Art to find a shift as his occasions might chance either now or hereafter to require and as he might fall out to be urged by diversity of several Arguments And to the end it may appear that I deal plainly as I would have him also do I desire that he declare himself concerning these points 11. First whether our Saviour Christ have not alwayes had and be not ever to have a visible true Church on earth and whether the contrary Doctrine be not a damnable heresie 12. Secondly what visible Church there was before Luther disagreeing from the Roman Church and agreeing with the pretended Church of Protestants 13. Thirdly Since he will be forced to grant That there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as agreed with her when Luther first appeared whether it doth not follow that she hath not erred Fundamentally because every such error destroyes the nature and beeing of the Church and so our Saviour Christ should have had no visible Church on earth 14. Fourthly if the Roman Church did not fall into any Fundamental error let him tell us how it can be damnable to live in her Communion or to maintain errors which are known and confessed not to be Fundamental or damnable 15. Fiftly if her Errors were not damnable nor did exclude salvation how can they be excused from Schism who forsook her Communion upon pretence of errors which were not damnable 16. Sixthly if D. Potter have a minde to say That her Errors are Damnable or Fundamental let him do us so much charity as to tell us in particular what those Fundamental errors be But he must still remember and my self must be excused for repeating it that if he say The Roman Church erred Fundamentally he will not be able to shew that Christ our Lord had any visible Church on earth when Luther appeared and let him tell us How Protestants had or can have any Church which was universal and extended herself to all ages if once he grant that the Roman Church ceased to be the true Church of Christ and consequently how they can hope for Salvation if they deny it to us 17. Seventhly whether any one Error maintained against any one Truth though never so small in it self yet sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by Almighty God do not destroy the Nature and Unity of Faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding Salvation 18. Eighthly if this be so how can Lutherans Calvinists Swinglians and all the rest of disagreeing Protestants hope for Salvation since it is manifest that some of them must needs err against some such truth as is testified by Almighty God either Fundamental or at least not Fundamental 19. Ninthly we constantly urge and require to have a particular Catalogue of such Points as he cals Fundamental A Catalogue I say in particular and not only some general definition or description wherein Protestants may perhaps agree though we see that they differ when they come to assign what Points in particular be Fundamental and yet upon such a particular Catalogue much depends as for example in particular Whether or no a man do not err in some Point Fundamental or necessary to Salvation and whether or no Lutherans Calvinists and the rest do disagree in Fundamentals which if they do the same heaven cannot receive them all 20. Tenthly and lastly I desire that in answering to these Points he would let us know distinctly what is the Doctrine of the Protestant English Church concerning them and what he utters only as his own private opinion 21. These are the Questions which for the present I find it fit and necessary for me to ask of D. Potter or any other who will defend his cause or impugne ours And it will be in vain to speak vainly and to tell me that a Fool may ask more questions in an hour than a Wise man can answer in a year with such idle Proverbs as that For I ask but such questions as for which he gives occasion in his Book and where he declares not himself but after so ambiguous and confused a manner as that Truth it self can scarce tell how to convince him so but that with ignorant and ill judging men he will seem to have somewhat left to say for himself though Papists as he cals them and Puritans should presse him contrary wayes at the same time and these questions concern things also of high importance as whereupon the knowledge of God's Church and true Religion and consequently Salvation of the soul depends And now because he shall not taxe me with being like those men in the Gospel whom our blessed Lord and Saviour charged with laying heavy burdens upon other mens shoulders who yet would not touch them with their finger I oblige my self to answer upon any demand of his both to all these Questions if he find that I have not done it already and to any other concerning matter of Faith that he shall ask And I will tell him very plainly what is Catholique Doctrin and what is not that is what is defined or what is not defined and rests but in discussion among Divines 22. And it will be here expected that he perform these things as a man who professeth learning should do not flying from questions which concern things as they are considered in their own nature to accidental or rare circumstances of ignorance incapacity want of means to be instructed erroneous conscience and the like which being very various and different cannot be well comprehended under any general Rule But in delivering general Doctrins we must consider things as they be ex natura rei or per se loquendo as Divines speak that is according to their natures if all circumstances concurr proportionable thereunto As for example some may for a time have invincible
As the doctrine of Indulgences may take away the fear of Purgatory and the doctrine of Purgatory the fear of Hell as you well know it does too frequently So that though a godly man might be saved with these errours yet by means of them many are made vicious and so damned By them I say though not for them No godly Layman who is verily perswaded that there is neither impiety nor superstition in the use of your Latine-service shall be damned I hope for being present at it yet the want of that devotion which the frequent hearing the Offices understood might happily beget in them the want of that instruction and edification which it might afford them may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might have been saved Besides though the matter of an Errour may be only something profitable not necessary yet the neglect of it may be a damnable sin As not to regard venial sins is in the Doctrine of your Schools mortal Lastly as venial sins you say dispose men to mortal so the erring from some profitable though lesser truth may dispose a man to errour in greater matters As for example The belief of the Pope's infallibility is I hope not unpardonably damnable to every one that holds it yet if it be a falshood as most certainly it is it puts a man into a very congruous disposition to believe Antichrist if he should chance to get into that See 8. Ad § 3. In his Distinction of point fundamental and not fundamental he may seem you say to have touched the point but does not so indeed Because though he says There are some points so fundamental as that all are obliged to believe them explicitely yet he tels you not whether a man may disbelieve any other points of faith which are sufficiently presented to his understanding as Truths revealed by Almighty God Touching which matter of Sufficient Proposal I beseech you to come out of the clouds and tell us roundly and plainly what you mean by Points of faith sufficiently propounded to a man's understanding as Truths revealed by God Perhaps you mean such as the person to whom they are proposed understands sufficiently to be Truths revealed by God But how then can he possibly choose but believe them Or how is it not an apparent contradiction that a man should disbelieve what himself understands to be a Truth o◠any Christian what he understands or but believes to be testified by God Doctor Potter might well think it superfluous to tell you This is damnable because indeed it is impossible And yet one may very well think by your saying as you do hereafter That the impiety of heresie consists in calling God's truth in question that this should be your meaning Or do you esteem all those things sufficiently presented to his understanding as Divine truths which by you or any other man or any Company of men whatsoever are declared to him to be so I hope you will not say so for this were to oblige a man to believe all the Churches and all the men in the world whensoever they pretend to propose Divine Revelations D. Potter I assure you from him would never have told you this neither Or do you mean by sufficiently propounded as Divine Truths all that your Church propounds for such That you may not neither For the Question between us is this Whether your Churches Proposition be a sufficient Proposition And therefore to suppose this is to suppose the Question which you know in Reasoning is always a fault Or lastly do you mean for I know not else what possibly you can mean by sufficiently presented to his understanding as revealed by God that which all things considered is so proposed to him that he might and should and would believe it to be true and revealed by God were it not for some voluntary and avoidable fault of his own that interposeth it self between his understanding and the truth presented to it This is the best construction that I can make of your words and if you speak of truths thus proposed and rejected let it be as damnable as you please to deny or disbelieve them But then I cannot but be amaz'd to hear you say That D. Potter never tells you whether there be any other Points of faith besides those which we are bound to believe explicitely which a man may deny or disbelieve though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding as truths revealed or testified by Almighty God seeing the light it self is not more clear than D. Potter's Declaration of himself for the Negative in this Question p. 245 246 247 249 250. of his Book Where he treats at large of this very Argument beginning his discourse thus It seems fundamental to the faith and for the salvation of every member of the Church that he acknowledge and believe all such points of faith as whereof he may be convinced that they belong to the Doctrine of Jesus Christ To this conviction he requires three things Clear Revelation Sufficient Proposition and Capacity and Understanding in the Hearer For want of clear Revelation he frees the Church before Christ and the Disciples of Christ from any damnable errour though they believed not those things which he that should now deny were no Christian To Sufficient Proposition he requires two things 1. That the points be perspicuously laid open in themselves 2. So forcibly as may serve to remove reasonable doubts to the contrary and to satisfie a teachable mind concerning it against the principles in which he hath been bred to the Contrary This Proposition he says is not limited to the Pope or Church but extended to all means whatsoever by which a man may be convinced in conscience that the matter proposed is divine Revelation which he professes to be done sufficiently not only when his conscience doth expresly bear witness to the truth but when it would do so if it were not choaked and blinded by some unruly and unmortified lust in the will The difference being not great between him that is wilfully blind and him that knowingly gainsayeth the Truth The third thing he requires is Capacity and Ability to apprehend the Proposal and the Reasons of it the want whereof excuseth fools and madmen c. But where there is no such impediment and the will of God is sufficiently propounded there saith he he that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus convinced is an Heretique and heresie is a work of the Flesh which excludeth from salvation he means without Repentance And hence it followeth that it is fundamentall to a Christian's faith and necessary for his salvation that he believe all revealed truths of God whereof he may be convinced that they are from God This is the conclusion of Doctor Potter's discourse many passages whereof you take notice of in your subsequent disputations and make your advantage of them And therefore I cannot but say again that it amazeth me to
upon those very Books which they entituled Of the contempt of Glory What then shall we say of D. Potter who in the Title and Text of his whole Book doth so tragically charge Want of Charity on all such Romanists as dare affirm that Protestancy destroyeth Salvation while he himself is in act of pronouncing the like heavy doom against Roman Catholiques For not satisfied with much uncivil language in affirming the Roman Church many (a) Pag. 11. ways to have plaid the Harlot and in that regard deserved a bill of divorce from Christ and detestation of Christians in styling her that proud (b) Ibid. and curst Dame of Rome which takes upon her to revel in the House of God in talking of an Idol (c) Pag. 4. Edit 1. to be worshipped at Rome he comes at length to thunder out this fearful sentence against her For that (d) Pag. 20. Mass of Errors saith he in judgement and practice which is proper to her and wherein she differs from us we judge a reconciliation impossible and to us who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions damnable And in another place he saith For us who (e) Pag. 81. are convincted in conscience that she erres in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those Errors By the acerbity of which Censure he doth not only make himself guilty of that which he judgeth to be a hainous offence in others but freeth us also from all colour of crime by this his unadvised recrimination For if Roman Catholiques be likewise convicted in conscience of the Errors of Protestants they may and must in conformity to the Doctor 's own rule judge a reconciliation with them to be also damnable And thus all the Want of Charity so deeply charged on us dissolves it self into this poor wonder Roman Catholiques believe in their conscience that the Religion which they profess is true and the contrary false 2. Nevertheless we earnestly desire and take care that our doctrine may not be defamed by misinterpretation Far be it from us by way of insultation to apply it against Protestants otherwise than as they are comprehended under the generality of those who are divided from the only one true Church of Christ our Lord within the Communion whereof he hath confined salvation Neither do we understand why our most dear Countrymen should be offended if the Universality be particularized under the name of Protestants first given (f) Sleidan l. 6. fol. 84. to certain Lutherans who protesting that they would stand out against the Imperial decrees in defence of the Confession exhibited at Ausburge were termed Protestants in regard of such their protesting which Confessio Augustana disclaiming from and being disclaimed by Calvinists and Zwinglians our naming or exemplifying a general doctrine under the particular name of Protestantism ought not in any particular manner to be odious in England 3. Moreover our meaning is not as mis-informed persons may conceive that we give Protestants over to reprobation that we offer no prayers in hope of their salvation that we hold their case desperate God forbid We hope we pray for their Conversion and sometimes we find happy effects of our charitable desires Neither is our Censure immediatly directed to particular persons The Tribunal of particular Judgement is God's alone When any man esteemed a Protestant leaveth to live in this world we do not instantly with precipitation avouch that he is lodged in Hell For we are not always acquainted with what sufficiency of means he was furnished for instruction we do not penetrate his capacity to understand his Catechist we have no revelation what light might have cleared his errors or Contrition retracted his sins in the last moment before his death In such particular cases we wish more apparent signs of salvation but do not give any dogmatical sentence of perdition How grievous sins Disobedience Schism and Heresie are is well known But to discern how far the natural malignity of those great offences might be checked by Ignorance or by some such lessening circumstance is the office rather of Prudence than of Faith 4. Thus we allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter spares us for whom in the words above mentioned and elsewhere he (g) See P. 39. makes Ignorance the best hope of salvation Much less comfort can we expect from the fierce doctrine of those chief Protestantss who teach that for many Ages before Luther Christ had no visible Church upon earth Not these men alone or such as they but even the 39. Articles to which the English Protestant Clergy subscribes censure our belief so deeply that Ignorance can scarce or rather not at all excuse us from damnation Our Doctrine of Transubstantiation is affirmed to be repugnant to the plain words of (h) Art 28. Scripture our Masses to be blasphemous (i) Art 31. Fabies with much more to be seen in the Articles themselves In a certain Confession of the Christian Faith at the end of their books of Psalms collected into Meâ—ter and printed Cum privlegio Regis Regali they call us Idolaters and limmes of Antichrist and having set down a Catalogue of our doctrins they conclude that for them we shall after the General Resurrection be damned to unquestionable fire 5. But yet lest any man should flatter himself with our charitable Mitigations and thereby wax careless in search of the true Church we desire him to read the Conclusion of the Second Part where this matter is more explained 6. And because we cannot determine what Judgement may be esteemed rash or prudent except by weighing the reasons upon which it was grounded we will here under one aspect present a Summary of those Principles from which we infer that Protestancy in it self unrepented destroyes Salvation intending afterward to prove the truth of every one of the grounds till by a concatenation of sequels we fall upon the Conclusion for which we are charged with Want of Charity 7. Now this is our gradation of reasons Almighty God having ordained Mankind to a supernatural End of eternal felicity hath in his holy Providence setled competent and convenient Means whereby that end may be attained The universal grand Origen of all such means is the Incarnation and Death of our Blessed Saviour whereby he merited internal grace for us and founded an external visible Church provided and stored with all those helps which might be necessary to Salvation From hence it followeth that in this Church among other advantages there must be some effectual means to beget and conserve Faith to maintain Unity to discover and condemn Heresies to appease and reduce Schisms and to determine all Controversies in Religion For without such means the Church should not be furnished with helps sufficient to salvation nor God afford sufficient means to attain that End to which himself ordained Mankind This means to decide Controversies in Faith and Religion whether it
should be the holy Scripture or whatsoever else must be indued with an Universal Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine Truth that is as revealed spoken or testified by Almighty God whether the matter of its nature be great or small For if it were subject to Error in any one thing we could not in any other yield it infallible assent because we might with good reason doubt whether it chanced not to err in that particular 8. Thus far all must agree to what we have said unless they have a minde to reduce Faith to Opinion And even out of these grounds alone without further proceeding it undeniably follows that of two men dissenting in matters of faith great or small few or many the one cannot be saved without repentance unless Ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse For in that case of contrary belief one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods Word or Revelation sufficiently represented to his understanding by an infallible Propounder which opposition to the Testimony of God is undoubtedly a damnable sin whether otherwise the thing so testified be in it self great or small And thus we have already made good what was promised in the argument of this Chapter that amongst men of different Religions one is only capable of being saved 9. Nevertheless to the end that men may know in particular what is the said infallible means upon which we are to relie in all things concerning Faith and accordingly may be able to judge in what safety or danger more or less they live and because D. Potter descendeth to divers particulars about Scriptures and the Church c. we will go forward and prove that although Scripture be in it self most sacred infallible and divine yet it alone cannot be to us a Rule or Judge fit and able to end all doubts and debates emergent in matters of Religion but that there must be some external visible publique living Judge to whom all sorts of persons both learned and unlearned may without danger of error have recourse and in whose judgement they may rest for the interpreting and propounding of Gods Word or Revelation And this living Judge we will most evidently prove to be no other but that Holy Catholique Apostolique and Visible Church which our Saviour purchased with the effusion of his most precious bloud 10. If once therefore it be granted that the Church is that means which God hath left for deciding all Controversies in Faith it manifestly will follow that she must be infallible in all her determinations whether the matters of themselves be great or small because as we said above it must be agreed on all sides that if that means which God hath left to determine Controversies were not infallible in all things proposed by it as truths revealed by Almighty God it could not settle in our minds a firm and infallible belief of any one 11. From this Universal Infallibility of God's Church it followeth that whosoever wittingly denyeth any one Point proposed by her as revealed by God is injurious to his divine Majesty as if he could either deceive or be deceived in what he testifieth The averring whereof were not a Fundamental error but would overthrow the very foundation of all Fundamental Points and therefore without repentance could not possibly stand with salvation 12. Out of these grounds we will shew that although the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental be good and useful as it is delivered and applyed by Catholique Divines to teach what principal Articles of faith Christians are obliged explicitely to believe yet that it is impertinent to the present purpose of excusing any man from grievous sin who knowingly disbelieves that is believes the contrary of that which God's Church proposeth as Divine Truth For it is one thing not to know explicitely something testified by God and another positively to oppose what we know he hath testified The former may often be excused from sin but never the latter which only is the case in Question 13. In the same manner shall be demonstrated that to alleadge the Creed as containing all Articles of Faith necessary to be explicitely believed is not pertinent to free from sin the voluntary denial of any other Point known to be defined by God's Church And this were sufficient to overthrow all that D. Potter alleadgeth concerning the Creed though yet by way of Supererogation we will prove that there are divers important matters of Faith which are not mentioned at all in the Creed 14. From the aforesaid main Principle that God hath alwayes had and alwayes will have on earth a Church Visible within whose Communion Salvation must be hoped and infallible whose definitions we ought to believe we will prove that Luther Calvin and all other who continue the division in Communion or Faith from that Visible Church which at and before Luther's appearance was spread over the world cannot be excused from Schism and Heresie although they opposed her Faith but in one only Point whereas it is manifest they dissent from her in many and weighty matters concerning as well belief as practice 15. To these reasons drawn from the vertue of Faith we will add one other taken from Charitas propria the Vertue of Charity as it obligeth us not to expose our soul to hazard of perdition when we can put our selves in a way much more secure as we will prove that of the Roman Catholiques to be 16. We are then to prove these points First that the infallible means to determine controversies in matters of Faith is the visible Church of Christ Secondly that the distinction of Points Fundamental and not-Fundamental maketh nothing to our present Question Thirdly that to say the Creed contains all Fundamental Points of Faith is neither pertinent nor true Fourthly that both Luther and all they who after him persist in division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church cannot be excused from Schism Fifthly nor from Heresie Sixthly and lastly that in regard of the precept of Charity towards one's self Protestants be in state of sin as long as they remain divided from the Roman Church And these six Points shall be several Arguments for so many ensuing Chapters 17. Only I will here observe that it seemeth very strange that Protestants should charge â—s so deeply with Want of Charity for only teaching that both they and we cannot be saved seeing themselves must affirm the like of whosoever opposeth any least Point delivered in Scripture which they hold to be the sole Rule of Faith Out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former Inferences pass for Good For is it not a grievous sin to deny any one truth contained in Holy Writ Is there in such denial any distinction between Points Fundamental and not-Fundamental sufficient to excuse from Heresie Is it not impertinent to alledge the Creed containing all Fundamental Points of Faith as if believing it alone we
hope of your Salvation but upon these grounds that unaffected ignorance may excuse you or true repentance obtain pardon for you neither do the heavy censures which Protestants you say pass upon your errors any way hinder but they may hope as well of you upon Repentance as I do For the fierce Doctrine which God knows who teacheth that Christ for many Ages before Luther had no visible Church upon earth will be mild enough if you conceive them to mean as perhaps they do by no visible Church none pure and free from corruptions which in your judgement is all one with no Church But the truth is the corruption of the Church and the destruction of it is not all one For if a particular Man or Church may as you confess they may hold some particular Errors and yet be a Member of the Church Universal why may not the Church hold some Universal Error and yet be still the Church especially seeing you say it is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church that makes an Error damnable and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church I mean that the present Church should oppose it self And then for the English Protestants though they censure your Errors deeply yet by your favour with their deepest censures it may well consist that invincible ignorance may excuse you from damnation for them For you your self confess That Ignorance may excuse Errors even in Fundamental Articles of Faith so that a man so erring shall not offend at all in such his ignorance or error they are your own words Pref. § 22. And again with their heaviest censures it may well consist that your Errors though in themselves damnable yet may prove not-damning to you if you die with true repentance for all your sins known and unknown 5. Thus much Charity therefore if you stand to what you have said is interchangeably granted by each Side to the other that Neither Religion is so fatally destructive but that by Ignorance or Repentance Salvation may be had on both Sides though with a difference that keeps Papists still on the more uncharitable side For whereas we conceive a lower degree of Repentance that which they call Attrition if it be true and effectual and convert the heart of the penitent will serve in them They pretend even this Author which is most charitable towards us that without Contrition there is no hope for us But though Protestants may not obtain this purchase at so easie a rate as Papists yet even Papists being Judges they may obtain it and though there is no entrance for them but at the only door of Contrition yet they may enter Heaven is not inaccessible to them Their errors are no such impenetrable Isthmus's between them and Salvation but that Contrition may make away through them All their Schism and Heresie is no such fatal poison but that if a man joyn with it the Antidote of a general Repentance he may die in it and live for ever Thus much then being acknowledged I appeal to any indifferent Reader whether C. M. be not by his Hyperaspist forsaken in the plain field and the Point in question granted to D. Potter viz. That Protestancy even without a particular Repentance is not destructive of Salvation So that all the Controversie remaining now is not simply Whether Protestancy unrepented destroys Salvation as it was at first proposed but Whether Protestancy in it self that is abstracted from Ignorance and Contrition destroys Salvation So that as a foolish fellow who gave a Knight the Lye desiring withall leave of him to set his Knighthood aside was answered by him that he would not suffer any thing to be set aside that belonged unto him So might we justly take it amiss that conceiving as you do Ignorance and Repentance such necessary things for us you are not more willing to consider us with them than without them For my part such is my Charity to you that considering what great necessity You have as much as any Christian Society in the World that these Sanctuaries of Ignorance and Repentance should always stand open I can very hardly perswade my self so much as in my most secret consideration to devest you of these so needful qualifications But whensoever your errors superstitions and impieties come into my mind and besides the general bonds of Humanity and Christianity my own particular Obligations to many of you such and so great that you cannot perish without a part of my Self my only comfort is amidst these Agonies that the Doctrine and Practice too of Repentance is yet remaining in your Church And that though you put on a face of confidence of your innocence in point of Doctrine yet you will be glad to stand in the eye of Mercy as well as your fellows and not be so stout as to refuse either God's pardon or the King 's 6. But for the present Protestancy is called to the bar and though not sentenced by you to death without Mercy yet arraigned of so much natural malignity if not corrected by ignorance or contrition as to be in it self destructive of Salvation Which Controversie I am content to dispute with you tying my self to follow the Rules prescribed by you in your Preface Only I am to remember you that the adding of this limitation in it self hath made this a new Question and that this is not the Conclusion for which you were charged with want of Charity But that whereas according to the grounds of your own Religion Protestants may die in their supposed errors either with excusable ignorance or with Contrition and if they do so may be saved you still are peremptory in pronouncing them damned Which Position supposing your Doctrine true and ours false as it is far from Charity whose essential Character it is to judge and hope the best so I believe that I shall clearly evince this new but more moderate Assertion of yours to be far from verity and that it is Popery and not Protestancy which in it self destroys Salvation 7. Ad § 7. 8. In your gradation I shall rise so far with you as to grant That Christ founded a visible Church stored with all helps necessary to Salvation particularly with sufficient means to beget and conserve Faith to maintain Unity and compose Schisms to discover and condemn Heresies and to determine all Controversies in Religion which were necessary to be determined For all these purposes he gave at the beginning as we may see in the Epistle to the Ephesians Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors who by word of mouth taught their Contemporaries and by writings wrot indeed by some but approved by all of them taught their Christian posterity to the world's end how all these ends and that which is the End of all these ends Salvation is to be atchieved And these means the Providence of God hath still preserved and so preserved that they are sufficient for all these intents I say sufficient
soever it is holds that which indeed is opposite to the sense of the Scripture which God intended for it is impossible that God should intend Contradictions But then this intended sense is not so fully declared but that they which oppose it may verily believe that they indeed maintain it and have great shew of reason to induce them to believe so and therefore are not to be damned as men opposing that which they either know to be a Truth delivered in Scripture or have no probable Reason to believe the contrary but rather in Charity to be acquitted and absolved as men who endeavour to find the Truth but fail of it through humane frailty This ground being laid the Answer to your ensuing Interrogatories which you conceive impossible is very obvious and easie 14. To the first Whether it be not in any man a grievous sin to deny any one Truth contained in holy Writ I answer Yes if he knew it to be so or have no probable Reason to doubt of it otherwise not 15. To the second Whether there be in such denial any distinction between Fundamental and not-Fundamental sufficient to excuse from Heresie I answer Yes There is such a Distinction But the Reason is because those Points either in themselves or by accident are Fundamental which are evidently contained in Scripture to him that knows them to be so Those not-Fundamental which are there-hence deducible but probably only not evidently 16. To the third Whether it be not impertinent to alledge the Creed as containing all Fundamental Points of Faith as if believing it alone we were at Liberty to deny all other Points of Scripture I answer It was never alledged to any such purpose but only as a sufficient or rather more than a sufficient Summarie of those Points of Faith which were of necessity to be believed actually and explicitly and that only of such which were meerly and purely Credenda and not Agenda 17. To the fourth drawn as a Corollary from the former Whether this be not to say that Of Persons contrary in belief one part only can be saved I answer By no means For they may differ about Points not contained in Scripture They may differ about the sense of some ambiguous Texts of Scripture They may differ about some Doctrines for and against which Scriptures may be alledged with so great probability as may justly excuse either Part from Heresie and a self-condemning Obstinacy And therefore though D. Potter do not take it ill that you believe your selves may be saved in your Religion yet notwithstanding all that hath yet been pretended to the contrarie he may justly condemn you and that out of your own principles of uncharitable presumption for affirming as you do that no man can be saved out of it CHAP. II. What is that means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our Understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion OF our estimation respect and reverence to holy Scripture even Protestans themselves do in fact give testimony while they possess it from us and take it upon the integrity of our custody No cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of supreme and sole Judge to holy Writ if both the thing were not impossible in it self and if both reason and experience did not convince our understanding that by this Assertion Contentions are increased and not ended We acknowledge holy Scrippture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a Writing can be a Rule We only deny that it excludes either divine Tradition though it be unwritten or an external Judge to keep to propose to interpret in a true Orthodox and Catholique sense Every single Book every Chapter yea every period of holy Scripture is infallibly true and wants no due perfection But must we therefore inferr that all other Books of Scripture are to be excluded lest by addition of them we may seem to derogate from the perfection of the former When the first Books of the Old and New Testament were written they did not exclude unwritten Traditions nor the Authority of the Church to decide Controversies and who hath then so altered their nature and filled them with such jealousies as that now they cannot agree for fear of mutual disparagement What greater wrong is it for the written Word to be compartner now with the unwritten than for the unwritten which was once alone to be afterward joyned with the written Who ever heard that to commend the fidelity of a Keeper were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody Or that to extol the integrity and knowledge and to avouch the necessity of a Judge in suits of Law were to deny perfection in the Law Are there not in Common-wealths besides the Laws written and unwritten customs Judges appointed to declare both the one and the other as several occasions may require 2. That the Scripture alone cannot be Judge in Controversies of Faith we gather it very clearly From the quality of a writing in general From the nature of holy Writ in particular which must be believed as true and infallible From the Editions and Translations of it From the difficulty to understand it without hazard of Error From the inconveniences that must follow upon the ascribing of sole Judicature to it and finally From the Confessions of our Adversaries And on the other side all these difficulties ceasing and all other qualities requisite to a Judge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord we must conclude that She it is to whom in doubts concerning Faith and Religion all Christians ought to have recourse 3. The name notion nature and properties of a Judge cannot in common reason agree to any meer writing which be it otherwise in it its kind never so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility yet it must ever be as all writings are deaf dumb and inanimate By a Judge all wise men understand a person endued with life and reason able to hear to examine to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties in such sort as that each one may know whether the sentence be in favour of his cause or against his pretence and he must be applyable and able to do all this as the diversity of Controversies Persons Occasions and Circumstances may require There is a great and plain distinction betwixt a Judge and a Rule For as in a Kingdom the Judge hath his Rule to follow which are the received Laws and Customs so are not they fit orable to declare or be Judges to themselves but that office must belong to a living Judge The holy Scripture may be and is a Rule but cannot be a Judge because it being always the same cannot declare it self any one time or upon any one occasion more particularly then upon any other and let it be read over an hundred times it will be still the same and no more fit alone to terminate Controversies in Faith than the Law
abandon him as he was bold to alter that Canon of Scripture which he found received in God's Church 9. What Books of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonical is not easie to affirm In their sixth Article they say In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church What mean they by these words That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonical This were to make the Church Judge and not Scriptures alone Do they only understand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of Faith By this rule of whose Authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church the whole book of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church have excluded it from the Canon as (o) Apud Euseb l. 4. hist c. 26 Melito Asianus (p) In Synop. Athanasius and (q) In carm de genuinis Scrip. Gregory Nazianzen And Luther if Protestants will be content that he be in the Church saith The Jews (r) Li. de serv arb con Eras tom 2. Wit sol 471. place the book of Esther in the Canon which yet if I might be Judge doth rather deserve to be put out of the Canon And of Ecclesiastes he saith This (Å¿) In lat serm conviviali us Franc. in 8. imp Anno 1571. book is not full there are in it many abrupt things he wants boots and spurs that is he hath no perfect sentence he rides upon a tong reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him who (t) In Ger. colloq Lutheri ab Aurifabro ed. Fran. tit de lib. vet nov Test fol. 379. saith further that the said book was not written by Solomon but by Syrach in the time of the Macchabees and that it is like to the Talmud the Jews Bible out of many books heaped into one work perhaps out of the Library of King Prolomaeus And further he saith that (u) Ib. tit edit Patriar Proph. sol 282. he doth not believe all to have been done as there is set down And he teacheth the (w) Tit. de li. Vet. Nov. Test book of Job to be as it were an argument for a Fable or Comedy to set before us an example of Patience And he (x) Fol. 380. delivers this general censure of the Prophets Books The Sermons of no Prophet were written whole and perfect but their Disciples and Auditors snatched now one sentence and then another and so put them all into one book and by this means the Bible was conserved If this were so the books of the Prophets being not written by themselves but promiscuously and casually by their Disciples will soon be called in question Are not these errors of Luther fundamental and yet if Protestants deny the Infallibility of the Church upon what certain ground can they disprove these Lutherian and Luciferian blasphemies O godly Reformer of the Roman Church But to return to our English Canon of Scripture In the New Testament by the above-mentioned rule of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church divers Books of the New Testament must be dis-canonized to wit all those of which some Ancients have doubted and those which divers Lutherans have of late denied It is worth the observation how the before-mentioned sixth Article doth specifie by name all the Books of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonical but those of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account them Canonical The Mysterie is easily to be unfolded If they had descended to particulars they must have contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren As they are commonly received c. I ask By whom By the Church of Rome Then by the same reason they must receive divers Books of the Old Testament which they reject By Lutherans Then with Lutherans they may deny some Books of the New Testament If it be the greater or less number of Voices that must cry up or down the Canon of Scripture our Roman Canon will prevail and among Protestants the Certainty of their Faith must be reduced to an Uncertain Controversie of Fact Whether the number of those who reject or of those others who receive such and such Scriptures be greater Their Faith must alter according to years and days When Luther first appeared he and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church and so this claim Of being commonly received stood for them till Zuinglius or Calvin grew to some equal or greater number than that of the Lutherans and then this rule of Commonly received will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans I would gladly know why in the former part of their Article they say both of the Old and New Testament In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church And in the latter part speaking again of the New Testament they give a far different rule saying All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account them Canonical This I say is a rule much different from the former of whose Authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church For some Books might be said to be Commonly received although they were sometime doubted of by some If to be Commonly received pass for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament why not of the Old Above all we desire to know Upon what infallible ground in some Books they agree with us against Luther and divers principal Lutherans and in others jump with Luther against us But seeing they disagree among themselves it is evident that they have no certain rule to know the Canon of Scripture in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity err because of contradictory Propositions both cannot be true 10. Moreover the letters syllables words phrase or matter contained in holy Scripture have no necessary or natural connection with divine Revelation or Inspiration and therefore by seeing reading or understanding them we cannot inferr that they proceeed from God or be confirmed by divine Authority as because Creatures involve a necessary relation connection and dependance on their Creator Philosophers may by the light of natural reason demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things In Holy Writ there are innumerable truths not surpassing the sphear of humane wit which are or may be delivered by Pagan Writers in the self same words and phrase as they are in Scripture And as for some truths peculiar to Christians for example the mysterie of the blessed Trinity c. The only setting them down in Writing is not enough to be assured that such a Writing is the undoubted Word of God otherwise
Apostle and to refuse the Gospel of Thomas who was an Apostle and to retain Luke ' s Gospel who saw not Christ and to reject the Gospel of Nicodemus who saw him 14. Another Answer or rather Objection they are wont to bring That the Scripture being a principle needs no proof among Christians So i Pag. 234. D. Potter But this is either a plain begging of the question or manifestly untrue and is directly against their own Doctrin and Practice If they mean that Scripture is one of those principles which being the first and the most known in all Sciences cannot be demonstrated by other principles they suppose that which is in question Whether there be not some Principle for example the Church whereby we may come to the knowledg of Scripture If they intend that Scripture is a Principle but not the first and most known in Christianity then Scripture may be proved For Principles that are not the first nor known of themselves may and ought to be proved before we can yield assent either to them or to other verities depending on them It is repugnant to their own Doctrine and practice in as much as they are wont to affirm that one part of Scripture may be known to be Canonical and may be interpreted by another And since every Scripture is a Principle sufficient upon which to ground divine Faith they must grant that one Principle may and sometime must be proved by another Yea this their Answer upon due ponderation fals out to prove what we affirm For since all Principles cannot be proved we must that our labour may not be endless come at length to rest in some Principle which may not require any other proof Such is Tradition which involves an evidence of fact and from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself cometh to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other arguments whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true Wherefore the ancient Fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred Canon upon the credit of God's Church k In Synopsi S. Athanasius saith that only four Gospels are to be received because the Canons of the holy and Catholique Church have so determined The third Councel of l Can. 47. Carthage having set down the Books of holy Scripture gives the reason because We have received from our Fathers that these are to be read in the Church S. Augustine m Cont. ep Fundam c. 5. speaking of the Acts of the Apostles saith To which book I must give credit if I give credit to the Gospel because the Catholique Church doth alike recommend to me both these Books And in the same place he hath also these words I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholique Church did move me A saying so plain that Zuinglius is forced to cry out Here I n To. 1. fol. 135. implore your equity to speak freely whether this saying of Augustine seem not over-bold or else unadvisedly to have fallen from him 15. But suppose they were assured what Books were Canonical this will little avail them unless they be likewise certain in what language they remain uncorrupted or what Translations be true Calvin o Instit c. 6. Sect. 11. acknowledgeth corruption in the Hebrew Text which if it be taken without points is so ambiguous that scarcely any one Chapter yea period can be securely understood without the help of some Translation If with points These were after S. Hieroms time invented by the perfidious Jews who either by ignorance might mistake or upon malice force the Text to favour their impieties And that the Hebrew Text still retains much ambiguity is apparent by the disagreeing Translation of Novelists which also proves the Greek for the New Testament not to be void of doubâ—fulness as Calvin p Instit c. 7â— Sect. 12. confesseth it to be corrupted And although both the Hebrew and Greek were pure what doth this help if only Scripture be the rule of Faith and so very few be able to examine the Text in these languages All then must be reduced to the certainty of Translations into other Tongues wherein no private man having any promise or assurance of Infallibility Protestants who rely upon Scripture alone will find no certain ground for their faith as accordingly whitaker q Lib. de sancta Scriptura p. 52. affirmeth Those who understand not the Hebrew and Greek do erre often and unavoidably 16. Now concerning the Translations of Protestants it will be sufficient to set down what the laborious exact and judicious Author of the Protestants Apology c. dedicated to our late King James of famous memory hath to this r Tast 1. Sect. 10. subd 4. joyned with Tract 2 cap. 2. Sect. 10 subd 2. purpose To omit saith he particulars whose recital would be infinite and to touch this point but generally only The Translation of the New Testament by Luther is condemned by Andreas Osiander Keckermannus and Zuinglius who saith hereof to Luther Thou dost corrupt the Word of God thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy Scriptures how much are we ashamed of thee who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure and now prove thee to be such a man And in like manner doth Luther reject the Translation of the Zuinglians terming them in matter of Divinity Fooâ—s Asses Antichrists Deceivers and of Asse-like understanding In so much that when Froschoverus the Zuinglian Printer of Zurich sent him a Bible translated by the Divines there Luther would not receive the same but sending it back rejected it as the Protestants Writers Hospinianus and Lavatherus witness The Translation set forth by Oecolampadius and the Divines of Basil is reproved by Beza who affirmeth that the Basil Translation is in many places wicked and altogether differing from the mind of the holy Ghost The Translation of Castalio is condemned by Beza as being sacrilegious wicked and Ethnical As concerning Calvins Translation that learned Protestant Writer Carolus Molinaeus saith thereof Calvin in his Harmony maketh the Text of the Gospel to leap up and down he useth violence to the letter of the Gospel and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Beza's Translation to omit the dislike had thereof by Selneccerus the German Protestant of the University of Jena the foresaid Molinaeus saith of him de facto mutat textum he actually changeth the text and giveth farther sundry instances of his corruptions as also Castalio that learned Calvinist and most learned in the tongues reprehendeth Beza in a whole Book of this matter and saith that to note all his errors in translation would require a great volume And M. Parkes saith As for the Geneva Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors which are both in the text and in the margent or else utterly
prohibited All which confirmeth your Majesties grave and learned Censure in your thinking the Geneva translation to be warst of all and that in the Marginal notes annexed to the Geneva translation some are very partial untrue seditious c. Lastly concerning the English translation the Puritans say Our translation of the Psalms comprized in our Book of Common-Prayer doth in addition substraction and alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least In so much as they do therefore profess to rest doubtful whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereunto And M. Carlile saith of the English translators that they have depraved the sense obscured the truth and deceived the Ignorant that in many places they do detort the Scriptures from the right sense And that they shew themselves to love darkness more than light falshood more than truth And the Ministers of Lincoln-Diocess give their publique testimony terming the English Translation A Translation that taketh away from the Text that addeth to the Text and that sometime to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the holy Ghost Not without cause therefore did your Majesty affirm that you could never see a Bible well Translated into English Thus farr the Author of the Protestants Apologie c. And I cannot forbear to mention in particular that famous corruption of Luther who in the Text where it is said Rom. 3. v. 28. We account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the Law in favour of Justification by faith alone translateth justified by faith ALONE As likewise the falsification of Zuinglius is no less notorious who in the Gospels of S. Matthew Marke and Luke and in S. Paul in place of This is my Body this is my Bloud translates This signifies my Body this signifies my Bloud And here let Protestants consider duely of these Points Salvation cannot be hoped for without true Faith Faith according to them relies upon Scripture alone Scripture must be delivered to most of them by the Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certain than a most certain possibility to err and no greater evidence of truth than that it is evident some of them embrace falshood by reason of their contrary Translations What then remaineth but that Truth Faith Salvation and All must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground How many poor souls are lamentably seduced while from preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of Texts of divine Scripture but are indeed the false Translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therefore if they will be assured of true Scriptures flye to the alwayes visible Catholique Church against which the gates of hell can never so farr prevail as that she shall be permitted to deceive the Christian world with false Scriptures And Luther himself by unfortunate experience was at length forced to confess thus much saying If the Å¿ Li. cont Zuing. de verit corp Christ in Eucha world last longer it will be again necessary to receive the Decrees of Councels and to have recourse to them by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now raign On the contrary side the Translation approved by the Roman-Church is commended even by our Adversaries and D. Covell in particular saith that it was used in the Church one thousand t In his answer unto M. Joha Burges pag. 94. three hundred years ago and doubteth not to prefer u Ibid. that Translation before othâ—rs In so much that whereas the English-Translations be many and among themselves disagreeing he concludeth that of all those the approved Translation authorized by the Church of England is that which cometh nearest to the vulgar and is commonly called the Bishops Bible So that the truth of that Translation which we use must be the rule to judge of the goodness of their Bibles and therefore they are obliged to maintain our Translation if it were but for their own sake 17. But doth indeed the source of their manifold uncertainties stop here No The chiefest difficulty remains concerning the true meaning of Scripture for attaining whereof if Protestants had any certainty they could not disagree so hugely as they do Hence Mr. Hooker saith We are w In his Preface to his Books of Eccl. Politie Sect. 6.26 right sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience have all taught the woâ—ld to seek for the ending of contentions by submitting it self unto some judicial and definiâ—ive sentence whereunto neither part that contendeth may under any pretence refuse to stand Doctor Fields words are remarkable to this purpose Seeing saith he the Controversies x In his Treatise of the Church in his Epistle dedicatory to the L. Archbishop of Religion in our timâ—s are grown in number so many and in nature to intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societies in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgement 18. And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture ought to be received from the Church it is also proved by what we have already demonstrated that she it is who must declare what Books be true Scripture wherein if she be assisted by the holy Ghost Why should we not believe her to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them Let Protestants therefore either bring some proof out of Scripture that the Church is guided by the holy Ghost in discerning true Scripture and not in delivering the true sense thereof Or else give us leave to apply against them the argument which S. Augustine opposed to the Manicheans in these words I would not y Con. Ep. Fund cap. 5. believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyed saying Believe the Gospel why should I not obey saying to me Do not believe Manicheus Luther Calvin c. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say Believe the Catholiques They warn me not to give any credit to you If therefore I believe them I cannot believe thee If thou say Do not believe the Catholiques thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the faith of Manicheus because by the Preaching of Catholiques I believed the Gospel it self If thou say You did well to believe them Catholiques commending the Gospel buâ— you did not well to believe them discommending Manicheus Dost thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should believe what thou wilt and not believe what thou wilt not And do not Protestants perfectly resemble these men to whom
S. Augustine spake when they will have men to believe the Roman-Church delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning Luther and the rest Against whom when they first opposed themselves to the Roman Church S. Augustine may seem to have spoken no less Prophetically than Doctrinally when he said Why should I not most z Lib. de util ere Cap. 14. diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose authority I was moved to believe that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the belief thereof had been recommended by thee to me This therefore I believed by fame strengthened with celebrity consent Antiquity But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving authority What madness is this Believe them Catholiques that we ought to believe Christ but learn of us what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my self that I were not to believe Christ than that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom I believed him If therefore we receive the knowledge of Christ and Scriptures from the Church from her also must we take his Doctrine and the interpretation thereof 19. But besides all this the Scriptures cannot be Judge of Controversies who ought to be such as that to him not only the learned or Veterans but also the unlearned and Novices may have recourse for these being capable of Salvation and endued with Faith of the same nature with that of the learned there must be some universal Judge which the ignorant may understand and to whom the greatest Clerks must submit Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such 20. Now the inconveniences which follow by referring all Controversies to Scripture alone are very clear For by this Principle all is finally in very deed and truth reduced to the internal private Spirit because there is really no middle way betwixt a publique external and a private internal voice and whosoever refuseth the one must of necessity adhere to the other 21. This Tenet also of Protestants by taking the office of Judicature from the Church comes to conferr it upon every particular man who being driven from submission to the Church cannot be blamed if he trust himself as farr as any other his conscience dictating that wittingly he means not to cozen himself as others maliciously may do Which inference is so manifest that it hath extorted from divers Protestants the open confession of so vast an absurdity Hear Luther The Governors of a Churches o To. 2. Wittemb fol. 375. and Pastors of Christs Sheep have indeed power to teach but the Sheep ought to give judgement whether they propound the voice of Christ or of Aliens Lubertus saith As we have b In lib de principiis Christian dogm li 6. c. 13. demonstrated that all publique Judges may be deceived in interpreting so we affirm that they may err in judging All faithful men are private Judges and they also have power to judge of Doctrins and interpretations Whitaker even of the unlearned saith They c De sacra Scriptura pag. 529. ought to have recourse unto the more learned but in the mean time we must be careful not to attribute to them over-much but so that still we retain our own freedom Bilson also affirmeth that The people d In his true Difference part 2. must be discerners and Judges of that which is taught The same pernicious Doctrine is delivered by Brentius Zanchius Cartwright and others exactly cited by e Tract 2. cap. 1 Sect. 1. Breerely and nothing is more common in every Protestants mouth than that he admits of Fathers Councles Church c. as far as they agree with Scripture which upon the matter is himself Thus Heresie ever falls upon extreams It pretends to have Scripture alone for Judge of Controversies and in the mean time sets up as many Judges as there are men and women in the Christian world What good Statesmen would they be who should ideate or fancy such a Common-wealth as these men have framed to themselves a Church They verifie what S. Augustine objecteth against certain Heretiques You see f Lib. 32. cont Faust that you go about to overthrow all authority of Scripture and that every mans mind may be to himself a Rule what he is to allow or disallow in every Scripture 22. Moreover what confusion to the Church what danger to the Common-wealth this denial of the Authority of the Church may bring I leave to the consideration of any judicious indifferent man I will only set down some words of D. Potter who speaking of the Proposition of revealed Truths sufficient to prove him that gain-saith them to be an Heretique saith thus This Proposition g Pag. â—4 of revealed truths is not by the infallible determination of Pope or Church Pope and Church being excluded let us hear what more secure rule he will prescribe but by whatsoever means a man may be convinced in conscience of divine Revelation If a Preacher do clear any Point of Faith to his Hearers if a private Christian do make it appear to his Neighbour that any Conclusion or Point of Faith is delivered by divine revelation of Gods Word if a man himself without any Teacher by reading the Scriptures or hearing them read be convinced of the truth of any such Conclusion this is a sufficient Proposition to prove him that gain sayeth any such proof to be an Heretique and obstinate opposer of the Faith Behold what goodly safe Propounders of Faith arise in place of Gods universal visible Church which must yield to a single Preacher a Neighbour a man himself if he can read or at least have ears to hear Scripture read Verily I do not see but that every well-governed civil Common-wealth ought to concur towards the exterminating of this Doctrin whereby the Interpretation of Scripture is taken from the Church and conferred upon every man who whatsoever is pretended to the contrary may be a passionate seditious creature 23. Moreover there was no Scripture or written Word for about two thousand years from Adam to Moses whom all acknowledge to have been the first Author of Canonical Scripture And again for about two thousand years more from Moses to Christ our Lord holy Scripture was only among the people of Israel and yet there were Gentiles endued in those dayes with divine Faith as appeareth in Job and his friends Wherefore during so many Ages the Church alone was the Decider of Controversies and Instructor of the faithful Neither did the Word written by Moses deprive the Church of her former Infallibility or other qualities requisite for a Judge yea D. Potter acknowledgeth that besides the Law there was a living Judge in
it is apparent Because that is not perfect in any kind which wants some parts belonging to its integrity As he is not a perfect man that wants any part appertaining to the Integrity of a Man and therefore that which wants any accession to make it a perfect Rule of it self is not a perfect Rule And then the end of a Rule is to regulate and direct Now every instrument is more or lesse perfect in its kind as it is more or lesse fit to attain the end for which it is ordained But nothing obscure or unevident while it is so is fit to regulate and direct them to whom it is so Therefore it is requisite also to a Rule so farr as it is a Rule to be evident otherwise indeed it is no Rule because it cannot serve for direction I conclude therefore that both these properties are required to a perfect Rule both to be so compleat as to need no Addition and to be so evident as to need no Interpretation 7. Now that a writing is capable of both these perfections it is so plain that I am even ashamed to prove it For he that denies it must say That something may be spoken which cannot be written For if such a compleat and evident Rule of Faith may be delivered by word of mouth as you pretend it may and is and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written then such a compleat and evident Rule of Faith may also be written If you will have more light added to the Sun answer me then to these Questions Whether your Church can set down in writting all these which she pretends to be divine unwritten Traditions and add them to the verities already written And Whether she can set us down such interpretations of all obscurities in the Faith as shall need no farther interpretations If she cannot then she hath not that power which you pretend she hath of being an Infallible Teacher of all divine verities and an infallible Interpreter of obscurities in the Faith for she cannot teach us all divine verities if she cannot write them down neither is that an interpretation which needs again to be interpreted If she can Let her do it and then we shall have a writting not only capable of but actually endowed with both these perfections of being both so compleat as to need no Addition and so evident as to need no Interpretation Lastly whatsoever your Church can do or not do no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Jesus if he had pleased could have writ us a Rule of Faith so plain and perfect as that it should have wanted neither any part to make up its integrity nor any cleerness to make it sufficiently intelligible And if Christ could have done this then the thing might have been done a writting there might have been indowed with both these properties Thus therefore I conclude a writing may be so perfect a Rule as to need neither Addition nor Interpretation But the Scripture you acknowledg a perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule therefore it needs neither Addition nor Interpretation 8. You will say that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it must be beholding to Tradition to give it this Testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the Word of God I answer First there is no absolute necessity of this For God might if he thought good give it the attestation of perpetuall miracles Secondly that it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith another to be proved so unto us And this though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of Faith by its owne saying so for nothing is proved true by being said or written in a book but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it self yet it may be so in it self and contain all the material objects all the particular articles of our Faith without any dependance upon Tradition even this also not excepted that this writing doth contain the rule of Faith Now when Protestants affirm against Papists that Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a gainsayer that there is a God or that the book called Scripture is the word of God For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spoken will believe them never a whit the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them which presuppose it Divine and a Rule of Faith as Papists and Protestants do contains all the material objects of Faith is a compleat and total and not onely an imperfect and a partial Rule 9. But every Book and Chapter and Text of Scripture is infallible and wants no due perfection and yet excludes not the Addition of other books of Scripture Therefore the perfection of the whole Scripture excludes not the Addition of unwritten Tradition I answer Every Text of Scripture though it hath the perfection belonging to a Text of Scripture yet it hath not the perfection requisite to a perfect Rule of Faith and that only is the perfection which is the subject of our discourse So that this is to abuse your Reader with the ambiguity of the word Perfect In effect as if you should say A text of Scripture may be a perfect Text though there be others beside it therefore the whole Scripture may be a perfect Rule of Faith though there be other parts of this Rule besides the Scripture and though the Scripture be but a part of it 10. The next Argument to the same purpose is for Sophistry cosen-german to the former When the first books of Scripture were written they did not exclude unwritten Tradition Therefore now also that all the books of Scripture are written Traditions are not excluded The sense of which argument if it have any must be this When only a part of the Scripture was written then a part of the divine doctrine was unwritten Therefore now when all the Scripture is written yet some part of the divine doctrine is yet unwritten If you say your Conclusion is not that it is so but without disparagement to Scripture may be so without disparagement to the truth of Scripture I grant it but without disparagement to the Scripture's being a perfect Rule I deny it And now the Question is not of the Truth but the perfection of it which are very different things though you would fain confound them For Scripture might very well be all true though it contain not all necessary Divine Truth But unlesse it do so it cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith for that which wants any thing is not perfect For I hope you do not imagine that we conceive any antipathy between God's Word written and unwritten but that both might very well stand together All that
nothing that is material and considerable pass without some stricture or animadversion 30. You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is God's Word is the Church and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. § 8. Let the Reader consult the place and he shall find that he and M. Hooker have been much abused both by you here and by M. Breerly and others before you and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose but very much directly to the contrary There he tells us indeed That ordinaly the first Introduction and probable Motive to the belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded that in the same place he plainly denies His words are Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it self is Divine and Sacred The Question then being by what means we are taught this * Some answer so but he doth not some answer that to learn it we have no other way than Tradition As namely that so we believe because we from our Predecessors and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied and by experience we all know that (a) The first outward Motive not the last assurance whereon we rest the first outward Motive leading men to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of God's Church For when we know (b) The whole Church that he speaks of seems to be that particular Church wherein a man is bred and brought up and the Authority of this he makes an Argument which presseth a man's modesty more than his reason And in saying It seems impudent to be of a contrary mind without cause he implies There may be a just cause to be of a contrary mind and that then it were no impudence to be so the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof (c) Therefore the Authority of the Church is not the pause whereon we rest we had need of more assurance and the intâ—insâ—cal Arguments afford â—t the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing (d) Somewhat bâ—t not much until it be backed and inforced by farther reason it self therefore is not the farthest reason and the last resolution somewhat with us before doth now much more prevail when the very thing hath ministred farther reason If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture and our own perswasion which Scripture it self hath setled may be proved a truth infallible (e) Observe I pray Our perswasion and the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture may be proved true Therefore neither or them was in his account the farthest proof In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to relie upon the Scriptures endeavoured still to maintain the Authority of the Books of God by Arguments such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable if they judge thereof as they should Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard even by such kind of proofs so to manifest and clear that Point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent Principle such as all men acknowledg to be true (f) Natural reason thâ—n built on principles common to all men is the last resolution unto which the Churches Authority is but the first inducement By this time I hope the Reader sees sufficient proof of what I said in my Reply to your Preface that M. Breerelie's great ostentation of exactness is no very certain Argument of his fidelity 31. But seeing the belief of Scripture is a necessary thing and cannot be proved by Scripture How can the Church of England teach as she doth Art 6. That all things necessary are contained in Scripture 32. I have answered this already And here again I say That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be That all the Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in Scripture That is all the material objects of our Faith whereof the Scripture is none but only the means of conveying them unto us which we believe not finally and for it self but for the matter contained in it So that if men did believe the Doctrine contained in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous Nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aims at is the belief of the Gospel the Covenant between God and Man the Scripture he hath provided as a means for this end and this also we are to believe but not as the last Object of our Faith but as the Instrument of it When therefore we subscribe to the 6 Art you must understand that by Articles of Faith they mean the final and ultimate Objects of it and not the Means and instrumental Objects and then there will be no repugnance between what they say and that which Hooker and D. Covel and D. Whitaker and Luther here say 33. But Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of Holy Scripture Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. James Kemnitius and other Lutherans the second of Peter the second and third of John The Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of James of Jude and the Apocalyps Therefore without the Authority of the Church no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonical 34. So also the Ancient Fathers and not only Fathers but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the Authority of the very same Books and by their difference shewed they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church For had they done so they must have agreed all with that Church and consequently among themselves Now I pray tell me plainly Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonical or had they not If they had not it seems there is no great harm or danger in not having such a certainty whether some Books be Canonical or no as you require If they had Why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs
35. You proceed And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art have these words In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Books of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church you demand What they mean by them Whether that by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonical I answer for them Yes they are so And whereas you inferre from hence This is to make the Church Judge I have told you already That of this Controversie we make the Church the Judge but not the present Church much less the present Roman Church but the consent and testimony of the Ancient and Primitive Church Which though it be but an highly probable inducement and no demonstrative enforcement yet me-thinks you should not deny but may be a sufficient ground of Faith Whose Faith even of the Foundation of all your Faith your Churches Authority is built lastly and wholly upon Prudential Motives 36. But by this Rule the whole Book of Esther must quit the Canon because it was excluded by some in the Church by Melito Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen Then for ought I know he that should think he had reason to exclude it now might be still in the Church as well as Melito Athanasius Nazianzen were And while you thus inveigh against Luther and charge him with Luciferian heresies for doing that which you in this very place confess that Saints in Heaven before him have done are you not partial and a Judge of evil thoughts 37. Luther's censures of Ecclesiastes Job and the Prophets though you make such tragedies with them I see none of them but is capable of a tolerable construction and far from having in them any fundamental Heresie He that condemns him for saying the Book of Ecclesiastes is not full That it hath many abrupt things condemns him for ought I can see for speaking truth And the rest of the censure is but a bold and blunt expression of the same thing The Book of Job may be a true History and yet as many true stories are and have been and Argument of a Fable to set before us an example of Patience And though the Books of the Prophets were not written by themselves but by their Disciples yet it does not follow that they were written casually Though I hope you will not damn all for Hereticks that say Some Books of Scripture were written casually Neither is there any reason they should the sooner be called in question for being written by their Disciples seeing being so written they had attestation from themselves Was the Prophesie of Jeremy the less Canonical for being written by Baruch Or because S. Peter the Master dictated the Gospel and S. Mark the Scholler writ it is it the more likely to be called in Question 38. But leaving Luther you return to our English Canon of Scripture And tell us That in the New Testament by the above-mentioned Rule of whose Authority was never doubt in the Church divers Books must be dis-canonized Not so For I may believe even those questioned Books to have been written by the Apostles and to be Canonical but I cannot in reason believe this of them so undoubtedly as of those Books which were never questioned At least I have no warrant to damn any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justifie or excuse such their doubting or denial 39. You observe in the next place That our sixth Article specifying by name all the Books of the Old Testament shuffles over those of the New with this generality All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account them Canonical And in this you fancy to your self a mysterie of iniquity But if this be all the shuffling that the Church of England is guilty of I believe the Church as well as the King may give for her Motto Honi soit qui mal y pense For all the Bibles which since the composing of the Articles have been used and allowed by the Church of England do testifie and even proclaim to the World that by Commonly-received they meant received by the Church of Rome and other Churches before the Reformation I pray take the pains to look in them and there you shall find the Books which the Church of England counts Apocryphal marked out and severed from the rest with this Title in the beginning The Books called Apocrypha and with this close or seal in the end The end of the Apocrypha And having told you by name and in particular what Books only she esteems Apocryphal I hope you will not put her to the trouble of telling you that the rest are in her judgment Canonical 40. But if by Commonly-received She meant by the Church of Rome then by the same reason must she receive divers Books of the Old Testament which she rejects 41. Certainly a very good consequence The Church of England receives the Books of the New Testament which the Church of Rome receives Therefore she must receive the Books of the Old Testament which she receives As if you should say If you will do as we in one thing you must in all things If you will pray to God with us ye must pray to Saints with us If you hold with us when we have reason on our Side you must do so when we have no reason 42. The Discourse following is but a vain Declamation No man thinks that this Controversie is to be tried by Most Voices but by the Judgement and Testimony of the Ancient Fathers and Churches 43. But with what Coherence can we say in the former part of the Article That by Scripture we mean those Books that were never doubted of and in the latter say We receive all the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received whereas of them many were doubted I answer When they say of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church They mean not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any time doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not universal yet at least sufficient to make considering men receive them for Canonical In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and authority was not so great as to prevail against the contrary suffrages 44. But if to be commonly received passe for a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by why not of the Old You conclude many times very well but still when you do so it is out of Principles which no man grant for who ever told you that to be commonly received is a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by Have you been trained up in Schools of subtilty and cannot you see a great difference
between these two We receive the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received and we receive those that are commonly received because they are so To say this were indeed to make being commonly received a Rule or reason to know the Canon by But to say the former doth no more make it a Rule then you should make the Church of England the Rule of your receiving them if you should say as you may The Books of the New Testament we receive for Canonical as they are received by the Church of England 45. You demand Upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther against you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand Upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon and agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it selfe no more apparently reasonable than our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say Your Churches infallibility is your ground I demand again some infallible ground both for the Churches infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands until you settle me upon a Rock I mean give such an Answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Universal Tradition I reply your Churches infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receive it is For we do not profess our selves so absolutely and undoubtedly certain neither do we urge others to be so of those Books which have been doubted as of those that never have 46. The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it self alone but by some extrinsecal Authority Which you need not prove for no wise man denies it But then this Authority is that of Universal Tradition not of Your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospel of S. Matthew is the Word of God as that all which your Church sayes is true That Believers of the Scripture by considering the Divine matter the excellent precepts the glorious promises contained in it may be confirmed in their faith of the Scriptures Divine Authority and that among other inducements and enforcements hereunto internal arguments have their place and force certainly no man of understanding can deny For my part I professe if the Doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the Fountain of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one main Pillar of my faith and for want of it I fear should be much stagger'd in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Believer sees by that glorious Beam of Divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internal Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is he is moved to and strengthened in his beliefe of it and by this partly not wholly by this not alone but with the concurrence of other Arguments He that will quarrel with him for saying so must finde fault with the Master of the Sentences and all his Schollers for they all say the same The rest of this Paragragh I am as willing it should be true as you are to have it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholly unconcerned You might have met with an Answerer that would not have suffered you to have said so much Truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose 48. In the next Division out of your liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporal light is by it self alone able to determine and move our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposal Faith still you say must go before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that have eyes so the Scripture only to those that have the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture do move and determine our Understanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must be before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else than the Understanding's assent And therefore upon this supposal Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presupposed before the assent of Faith unto which it moves and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it self being able as here you suppose to determine and move the Understanding to assent that is to believe them and the Verities contained in them Neither is this to say that the eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceive that in this comparison Faith answers to the Eye But if you will not pervert it the Analogie must stand thus Scripture must answer to light The eye of the soul that is the Understanding or the faculty of assenting to the Bodily eye And lastly assenting or believing to the act of Seeing As therefore the light determining the Eye to see though it presupposeth the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the object on which it is imployed yet it self is presuppos'd and antecedent to the act of seeing as the cause is alwaies to its effect So if you will suppose that Scripture like light moves the Understanding to assent the Understanding that is the eye and object on which it workes must be before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the beliefe whereto the Scripture moves and the Underis moved which answers to the act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already To what purpose should the Scripture do that which was done before Nay indeed How were it possible it should be so any more than a Father can beget a Son that he hath already Or an Architect built a house that is built already Or than this very world can be made again before it be unmade Transubstantion indeed is fruitful of such Monsters But they that have not sworn themselves to the defence of Error will easily perceive that jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digress 49. The close of this Paragraph is a fit cover for such a dish There you tell us That if there must be some other means precedent to Scripture to beget faith this can be no other than the Church By the Church we know you doe and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can have faith but he must be moved to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants
to whom you write though they verily think they are Christians and believe the Gospel because they assent to the truth of it and would willingly die for it yet indeed are Infidels and believe nothing The Scripture tels us The heart of man knoweth no man but the spirit of man which is in him And Who are you to take upon you to make us believe that we do not believe what we know we do But if I may think verily that I believe the Scripture and yet not believe it how know you that you believe the Roman Church I am as verily and as strongly perswaded that I believe the Scripture as you are that you believe the Church And if I may be deceived why may not you Again what more ridiculous and against sense and experience than to affirm That there are not millions amongst you and us that believe upon no other reason than their education and the authority of their Parents and Teachers and the opinion they have of them The tenderness of the subject and aptness to receive impressions supplying the defect and imperfection of the Agent And will you proscribe from heaven all those believers of your own Creed who do indeed lay the foundation of their Faith for I cannot call it by any other name no deeper than upon the authority of their Father or Master or Parish-Priest Certainly if these have no true faith your Church is very full of Infidels Suppose Xaverius by the holiness of his life had converted some Indians to Christianity who could for so I will suppose have no knowledge of your Church but from him and therefore must last of all build their faith of the Church upon their opinion of Xaverius Do these remain as very Pagans after their conversion as they were before Are they brought to assent in their souls and obey in their lives the Gospel of Christ only to be Tantaliz'd and not saved and not benefited but deluded by it because forsooth it is a man and not the Church that begets faith in them What if their motive to believe be not in reason sufficient Do they therefore not believe what they do believe because they do it upon insufficient motives They choose the Faith imprudently perhaps but yet they do choose it Unless you will have us believe that that which is done is not done because it is not done upon good reason which is to say that never any man living ever did a foolish action But yet I know not why the Authority of one holy man which apparently hath no ends upon me joyn'd with the goodness of the Christian faith might not be a far greater and more rational motive to me to imbrace Christianity than any I can have to continue in Paganism And therefore for shame if not for love of Truth you must recant this fancy when you write again and suffer true faith to be many times where your Churches infallibility hath no hand in the begetting of it And be content to tell us hereafter that we believe not enough and not go about to perswade us we believe nothing for fear with telling us what we know to be manifestly false you should gain only this Not to be believed when you speak truth Some pretty sophisms you may haply bring us to make us believe we believe nothing but wise men know that Reason against Experience is alwaies Sophistical And therefore as he that could not answer Zeno's subtilties against the existence of Motion could yet confute them by doing that which he pretended could not be done So if you should give me a hundred Arguments to perswade me because I do not believe Transubstantiation I do not believe in God and the Knots of them I could not unty yet I should cut them in pieces with doing that and knowing that I do so which you pretend I cannot do 50. In the thirteenth Division we have again much ado about nothing A great deal of stir you keep in confuting some that pretend to know Canonical Scripture to be such by the Titles of the Books But these men you do not name which makes me suspect you cannot Yet it is possible there may be some such men in the world for Gusmen de Alfarache hath taught us that The Fools hospital is a large place 51. In the fourteenth § we have very artificial jugling D. Potter had said That the Scripture he desires to be understood of those books wherein all Christians agree is a principle and needs not be proved among Christians His reason was because that needs no farther proof which is believed already Now by this you say he means either that the Scripture is one of these first Principles and most known in all Sciences which cannot be proved which is to suppose it cannot be proved by the Church and that is to suppose the Question Or he means That it is not the most known in Christianity and then it may be proved Where we see plainly That two most different things Most known in all Sciences and Most known in Christianity are captiously confounded As if the Scripture might not be the first and most known Principle in Christianity and yet not the most known in all Sciences Or as if to be a First Principle in Christianity and in all Sciences were all one That Scripture is a Principle among Christians that is so received by all that it need not be proved in any emergent Controversie to any Christian but may be taken for granted I think few will deny You your selves are of this a sufficient Testimony for urging against us many texts of Scripture you offer no proof of the truth of them presuming we will not question it Yet this is not to deny that Tradition is a Principle more known than Scripture But to say It is a Principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men 52. But It is repugnant to our practice to hold Scripture a Principle because we are wont to affirm that one part of Scripture may be known to be Canonical and may be interpreted by another Where the former device is again put in practice For to be known to be Canonical and to be interpreted is not all one That Scripture may be interpreted by Scripture that Protestants grant and Papists do not deny neither does that any way hinder but that this assertion Scripture is the word of God may be among Christians a common Principle But the first That one part of Scripture may prove another part Canonical and need no proof of its own being so for that you have produced divers Protestants that deny it but who they are that affirm it nondum constat 53. It is superfluous for you to prove out of S. Athanasius and S. Austine that we must receive the sacred Canon upon the credit of Gods Church Understanding by Church as here you explain your self The credit of Tradition And that not the Tradition of the Present
Church which we pretend may deviate from the Ancient but such a Tradition which involves an â—â—ndence of Fact and from hand to hand from age to age bringing us up to the times and persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself cometh to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true Thus you Now prove the Canon of Scripture which you receive by such Tradition and we will allow it Prove your whole doctrine or the infallibility of your Church by such a Tradition and we will yield to you in all things Take the alleaged places of S. Athanasius and S. Austin in this sense which is your own and they will not press us any thing at all We will say with Athanasius That only four Gospels are to be received because the Canons of the Holy and Catholique Church understand of all Ages since the perfection of the Canon have so determined 54. We will subscribe to S. Austin and say That we also would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholique Church did move us meaning by the Church the Church of all Ages and that succession of Christians which takes in Christ himself and his Apostels Neither would Zwinglius have needed to cry out upon this saying had he conceived as you now do that by the Catholique Church the Church of all Ages since Christ was to be understood As for the Councel of Carthage it may speak not of such Books only as were certainly Canonical and for the regulating of Faith but also of those which were only profitable and lawful to be read in the Church Which in England is a very slender Argument that the book is Canonical where every body knows that Apocryphal books are read as well as Canonical But howsoever if you understand by Fathers not only their immediate Fathers and Predecessors in the Gospel but the succession of them from the Apostles they are right in the Thesis that whatsoever is received from these Fathers as Canonical is to be so esteemed Though in the application of it to this or that particular book they may haply erre and think that book received as Canoniel which was only received as profitable to be read and think that Book received alwaies and by all which was rejected by some and doubted of by many 55. But we cannot be certain in what language the Scriptures remain uncorrupted Not so certain I grant as of that which we can demonstrate But certain enough morally certain as certain as the nature of the thing will bear So certain we may be and God requires no more We may be as certain as S. Austin was who in his second book of Baptism against the Donatists c. 3. plainly implies the Scripture might possibly be corrupted He means sure in matters of little moment such as concern not the Covenant between God and Man But thus he saith The same S. Austin in his 48. Epist cleerly intimates (a) Neque enim sic poturt integrit as atque notitia literarum quamlibet illust is Episcopi castodiri quemadmodum Scritura Canonica tet linguarum literis ordine successione celebrationis Ecclesiasticae custoditur contra quam non desuerunt tamâ—n qui sub nominibus Aposiolorum multa consiagerent Frustra quidem quia illa sic commendata sic celebrata sic nota est Verum quid possit adversus literas non Canonica authoritate sundatas etiam hinc demonstrabit impiae conatus audaciae quòd adversus cos quae tanta notitiae mole firmatae sunt sese erigere non praetermisit Aug. ep 48. ad Vincent cont Donat. Rogat That in his judgement the only preservative of the Scriptures integrity was the translating it into so many Languages and the general and perpetual use and reading of it in the Church for want whereof the works of particular Doctors were more exposed to danger in this kind but the Canonical Scripture being by this means guarded with universal care and diligence was not obnoxious to such attempts And this assurance of the Scriptures incorruption is common to us with him we therefore are as certain hereof as S. Austin was and that I hope was certain enough Yet if this does not satisfie you I say farther We are as certain hereof as your own Pope Sixtus Quintus was He in his Preface to his Bible tells us (b) In hac germani textus peâ—vestigatione satis perspicue inter omnes constat nullum argumenum esse certius ac sirmius quà m antiquorum probatorum codicum Latinorum fidem c. sie Sâ—xtus in Praef. That in the pervestigation of the true and genuine Text it was perspicuously manifest to all men that there was no Argument more firm and certain to be relied upon than the Faith of Ancient Books Now this ground we have to build upon as well as he had and therefore our certainty is as great and stands upon as certain ground as his did 56. This is not all I have to say in this matter For I will add moreover that we are as certain in what Language the Scripture is uncorrupted as any man in your Church was until Clement the eighth set forth your own approved Edition of your Vulgar Translation For you do not nor cannot without extream impudence deny that until then there was great variety of Copes currant in divers parts of your Church and those very frequent in various lections all which Copies might possibly be false in some things but more than one sort of them could not possibly be true in all things Neither were it less impudence to pretend that any man in your Church could until Clement's time have any certainty what that one true Copie and Reading was if there were one perfectly true Some indeed that had got Sixtus his Bible might after the Edition of that very likely think themselves cock-sure of a perfect true uncorrupted Translation without being beholding to Clement but how foully they were abused and deceived that thought so the Edition of Clemens differing from that of Sixtus in a great multitude of places doth sufficiently demonstrate 57. This certainty therefore in what language the Scripture remains uncorrupted is it necessary to have it or is it not If it be not I hope we may do well enough without it If it be necessary What became of your Church for 1500 years together All which time you must confess she had no such certainty no one man being able truly and upon good ground to say This or that Copy of the Bible is pure and perfect and uncorrupted in all things And now at this present though some of you are grown to a higher degree of Presumption in this Point yet are you as far as ever from any true real and rational assurance of the absolute purity of your Authentique Translation which I suppose my self to have proved unanswerably in divers places 58. In the sixteenth Division It is objected to
Protestants in a long discourse transcribed out of the Protestant's Apology That their Translations of the Scripture are very different and by each other mutually condemned Luther 's Translation by Zwinglius and others That of the Zwinglians by Luther The Translation of Oecolampadius by the Divines of Basil that of Castalio by Beza That of Beza by Castalio That of Calvin by Carolus Molinaeus That of Geneva by M. Parks and King James And lastly One of our Translations by the Puritans 59. All which might have been as justly objected against that great variety of Translations extant in the Primitive Church and made use of by the Fathers and Doctors of it For which I desire not that my word but S. Austin's may be taken They which have translated the Scriptures out of the Hebrew into Greek may be numbred but the Latin Interpreters are innumerable For whensoever any one in the first times of Christianity met with a Greek Bible and seemed to himself to have some ability in both Languages he presently ventured upon an Interpretation So He in his second Book of Christian doctrine Cap. 11. Of all these that which was called the Italian Translation was esteemed best so we may learn from the same S. Austin in Chap. 15. of the same Book Amongst all these interpretations saith he let the Italian be preferred for it keeps closer to the Letter and is perspicuous in the sense Yet so far was the Church of that time from presuming upon the absolute purity and perfection even of this best Translation that S. Hierom thought it necessary to make a new Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew Fountain which himself testifies in his Book de Viris illustribus and to correct the Vulgar version of the New Testament according to the truth of the Original Greek amending many errors which had crept into it whether by the mistake of the Author or the negligence of the Transcribers which work he undertook and performed at the request of Damasus Bishop of Rome You constrain me saith he to make a new work of an old that after the Copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed through the whole World I should sit as it were an Arbitrator amongst them and because they vary among themselves should determine what are those things in them which consent with the Greek verity And after Therefore this present Preface promises the four Gospels only corrected by collation with Greek Copies But that they might not be very dissonant from the custom of the Latin reading I have so tempered with my stile the Translation of the Ancients that those things amended which did seem to change the sense other things I have suffered to remain as they were So that in this matter Protestants must either stand or fall with the Primitive Church 60. The Corruption that you charge Luther with and the falsification that you impute to Zwinglius What have we to do with them Or why may not we as justly lay to your charge the Errours which Lyranus or Paulus Brugensis or Laurentius Valla or Cajetan or Erasmus or Arias Montanus or Augustus Nebiensis or Pagnine have committed in their Translations 61. Which yet I say not as if these Translations of Luther and Zwinglius were absolutely indefensible for what such great difference is there between Faith without the Works of the Law and Faith alone without the Works of the Law Or why does not Without Alone signifie all one with Alone Without Consider the matter a little better and observe the use of these phrases of speech in our ordinary talk and perhaps you will begin to doubt whether you had sufficient ground for this invective And then for Zwinglius if it be true as they say it is that the language our Saviour spake in had no such word as Tosignifie but used always to be in stead of it as it is certain the Scripture does in an hundred places then this Translation which you so declaim against will prove no falsification in Zwinglius but a calumny in you 62. But the faith of Protestants relies upon Scripture alone Scripture is delivered to most of them by Translations Translations depend upon the skill and honesty of Men who certainly may err because they are Men and certainly do err at least some of them because their Translations are contrary It seems then the Faith and consequently the Salvation of Protestants relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds 63. This Objection though it may seem to do you great service for the present yet I fear you will repent the time that ever you urged it against us as a fault that we make mens salvation depend upon uncertainties For the Objection returns upon you many ways as first thus The salvation of many millions of Papists as they suppose and teach depends upon their having the Sacrament of Pennance truly administred unto them This again upon the Minister's being a true Priest That such or such a man is Priest not himself much less any other can have any possible certainty for it depends upon a great many contingent and uncertain supposals He that will pretend to be certain of it must undertake to know for a certain all these things that follow 64. First That he was baptized with due matter Secondly with the due form of words which he cannot know unless he were both present and attentive Thirdly he must know that he was baptized with due Intention and that is that the Minister of his Baptism was not a secret Jew nor a Moor nor an Atheist of all which kinds I fear experience gives you just cause to fear that Italy and Spain have Priests not a few but a Christian in heart as well as Profession otherwise believing the Sacrament to be nothing in giving it he could intend to give nothing nor a Samosatenian nor an Arrian but one that was capable of having due intention from which they that believe not the Doctrine of the Trinity are excluded by you And lastly That he was neither drunk nor distracted at the administration of the Sacrament nor our of negligence or malice omitted his intention 65. Fourthly he must undertake to know that the Bishop which ordained him Priest ordained him compleatly with due Matter Form and Intention and consequently that he again was neither Jew nor Moor nor Atheist nor liable to any such exception as is unconsistent with due Intention in giving the Sacrament of Orders 66. Fifthly he must undertake to know that the Bishop which made him Priest was a Priest himself for your Rule is Nihil dat quod non habet And consequently that there was again none of the former nullities in his Baptism which might make him incapable of Ordination nor no invalidity in his Ordination but a true Priest to ordain him again the requisite matter and form and due intention all concurring 67. Lastly he must pretend to know the same of him that made him Priest and him that made Him
his malice had caused And besides it were to say that Infants dying without Baptism might be saved God supplying the want of Baptism which to them is unavoidable But beyond all this it were to put into my mouth a full and satisfying Answer to your Argument which I am now returning so that in answering my Objection you should answer your own For then I should tell you that it were altogether as abhorrent from the goodness of God and as repugnant to it to suffer an ignorant Lay-man's soul to perish meerly for being misled by an undiscernable false Translation which yet was commended to him by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he had reason to relie upon either above all other or as much as any other as it is to damn a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired Absolution which his Ghostly Father perhaps was an Atheist and could not give him or was a villain and would not This answer therefore which alone would serve to comfort your penitent in his perplexities and to assure him that he cannot fail of Salvation if he will not for fear of inconvenience you must forbear And seeing you must I hope you will come down from the Pulpit and preach no more against others for making mens Salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain grounds lest by judging others you make your selves and your own Church inexcusable who are strongly guilty of this fault above all the men and Churches of the World whereof I have already given you two very pregnant demonstrations drawn from your presumptuous tying God and Salvation to your Sacraments And the efficacy of them to your Priest's Qualifications and Intentions 69. Your making the Salvation of Infants depend on Baptism a Casual thing and in the power of man to conferre or not conferre would yield me a Third of the same nature And your suspending the same on the Baptizer's Intention a Fourth And lastly your making the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist depend upon the casualties of the Consecrator's true Priesthood and Intention and yet commanding men to believe it for certain that he is present and to adore the Sacrament which according to your Doctrine for ought they can possibly know may be nothing else but a piece of Bread so exposing them to the danger of Idolatry and consequently of damnation doth offer me a Fifth demonstration of the same Conclusion if I thought fit to insist upon them But I have no mind to draw any more out of this Fountain neither do I think it charity to cloy the Reader with uniformity when the Subject affords variety 70. Sixthly therefore I return it thus The faith of Papists relies alone upon their Churche's infallibility That there is any Church infallible and that Theirs is it they pretend not to believe but only upon prudential Motives Dependance upon prudential Motives they confess to be obnoxious to a possibility of erring What then remaineth but Truth Faith Salvation and All must in them relie upon a fallible and uncertain ground 71. Seventhly The Faith of Papists relies upon the Church alone The Doctrine of the Church is delivered to most of them by their Parish-Priest or Ghostly Father or at least by a company of Priests who for the most part sure are men and not Angels in whom nothing is more certain than a most certain possibility to err What then remaineth but that Truth Faith Salvation and All must in them relie upon a fallible and uncertain ground 72. Eighthly thus It is apparent and undeniable that many Thousands there are who believe your Religion upon no better grounds than a man may have for the belief almost of any Religion As some believe it because their Forefathers did so and they were good People Some because they were Christened and brought up in it Some because many Learned and Religious men are of it Some because it is the Religion of their Countrey where all other Religions are persecuted and proscribed Some because Protestants cannot shew a perpetual succession of Professors of all their Doctrines Some because the service of your Church is more stately and pompous and magnificent Some because they find comfort in it Some because your Religion is farther spread and hath more Professors of it than the Religion of Protestants Some because your Priests compass Sea and Land to gain Proselytes to it Lastly an infinite number by chance and they know not why but only because they are sure they are in the right This which I say is a most certain experimented truth and if you will deal ingenuously you will not deny it And without question he that builds his faith upon our English Translation goes upon a more prudent ground than any of these can with reason be pretended to be What then can you alledge but that with you father than with us Truth and Faith and Salvation and All relie upon fallible and uncertain grounds 73. Ninthly Your Rhemish and Doway Translations are delivered to your Proselytes such I mean that are dispenced with for the reading of them for the direction of their Faith and Lives And the same may be said of your Translations of the Bible into other National languages in respect of those that are licenced to read them This I presume you will confess And moreover that these Translations came not by inspiration but were the productions of humane Industry and that not Angels but men were the Authors of them Men I say meer men subject to the same passions and to the same possibility of erring with our Translators And then how does it not unavoidably follow that in them which depend upon these Translations for their direction Faith and Truth and Salvation and All relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds 74. Tenthly and lastly to lay the ax to the root of the tree the Helena which you so fight for your vulgar Translation though some of you believe or pretend to believe it to be in every part and particle of it the pure and uncorupted Word of God yet others among you and those as good and zealous Catholiques as you are not so confident hereof 75. First for all those who have made Translations of the whole Bible or any part of it different many times in sense from the Vulgar as Lyranus Cajetan Pagnine Arias Erasmus Valla Steuchus and others it is apparent and even palpable that they never dreamt of any absolute perfection and authentical infallibility of the Vulgar Translation For if they had Why did they in many places reject it and differ from it 76. Vega was present at the Councel of Trent when that Decree was made which made the Vulgar Edition then not extant any where in the world authentical and not to be rejected upon any pretence whatsoever At the forming this Decree Vega I say was present understood the mind of the Councel as well as any man and professes that he was instructed in it
must be the Rule to judge of the goodness of ours this is but a vain flourish For to say of our Translations That is the best which comes nearest the Vulgar and yet it is but one man that says so is not to say it is therefore the best because it does so For this may be true by accident and yet the truth of our Translation no way depend upon the truth of yours For had that been their direction they would not only have made a Translation that should come near to yours but such a one which should exactly agree with it and be a Translation of your Translation 84. Ad 17. § In this Division you charge us with great uncertainty concerning the true meaning of Scripture Which hath been answered already by saying That if you speak of plain places and in such all things necessary are contained we are sufficiently certain of the meaning of them neither need they any interpreter If of obscure and difficult places we confess we are uncertain of the sense of many of them But then we say there is no necessity we should be certain For if God's will had been we should have understood him more certainly he would have spoken more plainly And we say besides that as we are uncertain so are You too which he that doubts of let him read your Commentators upon the Bible and observe their various and dissonant interpretations and he shall in this point need no further satisfaction 85. But seeing there are contentions among us we are taught by nature and Scripture and experience so you tell us out of M. Hooker to seek for the ending of them by submitting unto some Judicial sentence whereunto neither part may refuse to stand This is very true Neither should you need to perswade us to seek such a means of ending all our Controversies if we could tell where to find it But this we know that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a judicial definitive obliging sentence in Controversies of Religion but only such a Man or such a society of Men as is authorized thereto by God And besides we are able to demonstrate that it hath not been the pleasure of God to give to any Man or Society of Men any such authority And therefore though we wish heartily that all Controversies were ended as we do that all sin were abolisht yet we have little hope of the one or the other till the World be ended And in the mean while think it best to content our selves with and to perswade others unto an Unity of Charity and mutual Toleration seeing God hath authorized no man to force all men to Unity of Opinion Neither do we think it fit to argue thus To us it seems convenient there should be one Judge of all Controversies for the whole world therefore God hath appointed one But more modest and more reasonable to collect thus God hath appointed no such Judge of Controversies therefore though it seems to us convenient there should be one yet it is not so Or though it were convenient for us to have one yet it hath pleased God for Reasons best know to Himself not to allow us this convenience 86. D. Field's words which follow I confess are somewhat more pressing and if he had been infallible and the words had not slipt unadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Book But yet it is evident out of his Book and so acknowledged by some of your own That he never thought of any one company of Christians invested with such authority from God that all men were bound to receive their Decrees without examination though they seem contrary to Scripture and Reason which the Church of Rome requires And therefore if he have in his Preface strained too high in commendation of the Subject he writes of as Writers very often do in their Prefaces and Dedicatory Epistles what is that to us Besides by all the Societies of the World it is not impossible nor very improbable he might mean all that are or have been in the world and so include even the Primitive Church and her Communion we shall embrace her Direction we shall follow her Judgement we shall rest in if we believe the Scripture endeavour to find the true sense of it and live according to it 87. Ad § 18. That the true Interpretation of the Scripture ought to be received from the Church you need not prove for it is very easily granted by them who profess themselves very ready to receive all Truths much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but from any society of men nay from any man whatsoever 88. That the Churche's Interpretation of Scripture is alwayes true that is it which you would have said and that in some sense may be also admitted viz. if you speak of that Church which before you spake of in the 14. § that is of the Church of all Ages since the Apostles Upon the Tradition of which Church you there told us we were to receive the Scripture and to believe it to be the Word of God For there you teach us That our Faith of Scripture depends on a Principle which requires no other proof And that such is Tradition which from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the Times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself cometh to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrin to be true Wherefore the Ancient Fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred Scripture upon the Tradition of this Church The Tradition then of this Church you say must teach us what is Scripture and we are willing to believe it And now if you make it good unto us that the same Tradition down from the Apostles hath delivered from age to age and from hand to hand any interpretation of any Scripture we are ready to embrace that also But now if you will argue thus The Church in one sense tells us what is Scripture and we believe it therefore if the Church taken in another sense tell us This or that is the meaning of the Scripture we are to believe that also this is too transparent Sophistry to take any but those that are willing to be taken 89. If there be any Traditive Interpretation of Scripture produce it and prove it to be so and we embrace it But the Tradition of all ages is one thing and the Authority of the present Church much more of the Roman Church which is but a Part and a corrupted Part of the Catholique Church is another And therefore though we are ready to receive both Scripture and the sense of Scripture upon the Authority of Original Tradition yet we receive neither the one nor the other upon the Authority of your Church 90. First for the Scripture How can we receive them upon the Authority of your Church who hold now those Books to be Canonical which
formerly you rejected from the Canon I instance in the Book of Macchabees and the Epistle to the Hebrews The first of these you held not to be Canonical in S. Gregorie's time or else he was no member of your Church for it is apparent (a) See Grâ—g Maâ—â— 19 〈◊〉 13. He held otherwise The second you rejected from the Canon in S. Hierom's time as it is evident out of (b) 〈…〉 there 〈…〉 And again 〈◊〉 c. 8. in 〈…〉 many places of his Works 91. If you say which is all you can say that Hierom spake this of the particular Roman Church not of the Roman Catholique Church I answer there was none such in his time None that was called so Secondly What he spake of the Roman Church must be true of all other Churches if your Doctrine of the necessity of the Conformity of all other Churches to that Church were then Catholique Doctrine Now then chuse whether you will Either that the particular Roman Church was not then believed to be the Mistress of all other Churches notwithstanding Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est omnes qui sunt undique fiâ—leles which Cardinal Perron and his Translatress so often translates false Or if you say she was you will run into a greater inconvenience and be forced to say that all the Churches of that time rejected from the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews together with the Roman Church And consequently that the Catholique Church may err in rejecting from the Canon Scriptures truly Canonical 92. Secondly How can we receive the Scripture upon the Authority of the Roman Church which hath delivered at several times Scriptures in many places different and repugnant for Authentical and Canonical Which is most evident out of the place of Malachy which is so quoted for the Sacrifice of the Mass that either all the ancient Fathers had false Bibles or yours is false Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of Jacob in Genesis with that which is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrews according to the vulgar Edition But above all to any one who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtus and Clement so evident that the wit of man cannot disguise it 93. And thus you see what reason we have to believe your Antecedent That your Church it is which must declare what Books be true Scripture Now for the consequence that certainly is as liable to exception as the Antecedent For if it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige Him or would it follow from hence that He had obliged himself to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of Scripture God is not defective in things necessary neither will he leave himself without witness nor the World without means of knowing his will and doing it And therefore it was necessary that by his Providence he should preserve the Scripture from any undiscernable corruption in those things which he would have known otherwise it is apparent it had not been his will that these things should be known the only means of continuing the knowledge of them being perished But now neither is God lavish in superfluities and therefore having given us means sufficient for our direction and power sufficient to make use of these means he will not constrain or necessitate us to make use of these means For that were to cross the end of our Creation which was to be glorified by our free obedience whereas Necessity and Freedom cannot stand together That were to reverse the Law which he hath prescribed to himself in his dealing with Man and that is to set life and death before him and to leave him in the hands of his own Counsel God gave the Wisemen a Star to lead them to Christ but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this Star that was left to their liberty God gave the Children of Israel a Fire to lead them by night and a Pillar of Cloud by day but he constrained no man to follow them that was left to their liberty So he gives the Church the Scripture which in those things which are to be believed or done are plain and easie to be followed like the Wisemen's Star Now that which he desires of us on our part is the Obedience of Faith and love of the Truth and desire to find the true sense of it and industry in searching it and humility in following and Constancy in professing it all which if he should work in us by an absolute irresistible necessity he could no more require of us as our duty than he can of the Sun to shine of the Sea to ebb and flow and of all other Creatures to do those things which by meer necessity they must do and cannot chuse Besides What an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture whereas there are thousands of places of Scripture which you do not pretend certainly to understand and about the Interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themselves If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture why do not your Doctors follow her infallible direction And if they do How comes such difference among them in their Interpretations 94. Again Why does your Church thus put her Candle under a Bushel and keep her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in napkins Why sets she not forth Infallible Commentaries or Expositions upon all the Bible Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians that Scripture should be interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The Scripture it self tells us All Scripture is profitable And the Scripture is not so much the Words as the Sense And if it be not profitable Why does she imploy particular Doctors to interpret Scriptures fallibly unless we must think that fallible interpretations of Scripture are profitable and infallible interpretations would not be so 95. If you say The Holy Ghost which assists the Church in interpreting will move the Church to interpret when he shall think fit and that the Church will do it when the Holy Ghost shall move her to do it I demand Whether the Holy Ghost's moving of the Church to such works as these be resistible by the Church or irresistible If resistible then the Holy Ghost may move and the Church may not be moved As certainly the Holy Ghost doth always move to an action when he shews us plainly that it would be for the good of men and honour of God As he that hath any sense will acknowledge that an infallible exposition of Scripture could not but be and there is no conceivable reason Why such a work should be put off a day but only because you are conscious to your selves you cannot do it and therefore make excuses But if the moving of
she delivers for that reason because she delivers it And if you meant only Protestants will have men to believe some Books to be Scripture which the Roman Church delivers for such may not we then ask as you do Do not Papists perfectly resemble these men which will have men believe the Church of England delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning the Church of Rome 101. And whereas you say S. Austin may seem to have spoken Prophetically against Protestants when he said Why should I not most diligently enquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose Authority I was moved to believe that Christ commanded any good thing I answer Until you can shew that Protestants believe that Christ commanded any good thing that is That they believe the Truth of Christian Religion upon the Authority of the Church of Rome this place must be wholly impertinent to your purpose which is to make Protestants believe your Church to be the infallible Expounder of Scriptures and Judg of Controversies Nay rather is it not directly against your purpose For why may not a Member of the Church of England who received his Baptism Education and Faith from the Ministery of this Church say just so to you as S. Austin here to the Manichees Why should I not most diligently enquire what Christ commanded of them the Church of England before all others by whose Authority I was moved to believe that Christ commanded any good thing Can you F. or K. or whosoever you are better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the belief thereof had been recommended by you to me This therefore that Christ Jesus did those Miracles and taught that Doctrine which is contained evidently in the undoubted Books of the New Testament I believed by Fame strengthened with Celebrity and Consent even of those which in other things are at infinite variance one with another and lastly by Antiquity which gives an universal and a constant attestation to them But every one may see that you so few in comparison of all those upon whose consent we ground our belief of Scripture so turbulent that you damn all to the fire and to Hell that any way differ from you that you profess it is lawful for you to use violence and power whensoever you can have it for the planting of your own Doctrine and the extirpation of the contrary Lastly so new in many of your Doctrines as in the lawfulness and expedience of debarring the Laity the Sacramental Cup the lawfulness and expedience of your Latine Service Transubstantiation Indulgences Purgatory the Pope's Infallibility his Authority over Kings c. So new I say in comparison of the undoubted Books of Scripture which evidently containeth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adequate object of our faith I say every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving Authority with wise and considerate men What madness is this Believe then the consent of Christians which are now and have been ever since Christ in the World that we ought to believe Christ but learn of us what Christ said which contradict and damn all other parts of Christendom Why I beseech you Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my self that I were not to believe in Christ than that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom I believed him at least than that I should learn what his Religion was from you who have wronged so exceedingly his Miracles and his Doctrine by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the Confirmation of your new Doctrine which might give us just occasion had we no other assurance of them but your Authority to suspect the true ones Who with forging so many false Stories and fals◠Authors have taken a fair way to make the faith of all Stories questionable if we had no other ground for our Belief of them but your Authority who have brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confess to be the Word of Christ and which for the most part make either for the honour or profit of the Teachers of them which if there were no difference between the Christian and the Roman Church would be very apt to make suspicious men believe that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors only to make themselves rich and powerful who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remain uncorrupted For if you take this Authority upon you upon the six Ages last past how shall we know that the Church of that time did not usurp the same Authority upon the Authors of the six last Ages before them and so upwards until we come to Christ himself Whose questioned Doctrines none of them came from the Fountain of Apostolike Tradition but have insinuated themselves into the Streams by little and little some in one age and some in another some more anciently some more lately and some yet are Embrio's yet hatching and in the shell as the Pope's infallibility the blessed Virgin 's immaculate Conception the Pope's power over the Temporalties of Kings the Doctrine of Predetermination c. all which yet are or in time may be imposed upon Christians under the Title of Original and Apostolike Tradition and that with that necessity that they are told they were as good believe nothing at all as not believe these things to have come from the Apostles which they know to have been brought in but yesterday which whether it be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus with themselves I am told that I were as good believe nothing at all as believe some points which the Church teacheth me and not others and some things which she teacheth to be Ancient and Certain I plainly see to be New and False therefore I will believe nothing at all Whether I say the foresaid grounds be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus and whether this Conclusion be not too often made in Italy and Spain and France and in England too I leave it to the judgement of those that have wisdom and experience Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so far from being a sufficient Foundation for our Belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather conclude Seeing we receive not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rom◠neither from her must we take his Doctrine or the Intepretation of Scripture 102. Ad § 19. In this number this Argument is contained The Judg of Controversies ought to be intelligible to learned and unlearned The Scripture is not so and the Church is so Therefore the Church is the Judge and not
122. And how it can be any way advantagious to Civil government that men without warrant from God should usurp a Tyranny over other mens consciences and prescribe unto them without reason and sometime against reason what they shall believe you must shew us plainer if you desire we should believe For to say Verily I do not see but that it must be so is no good demonstration For whereas you say That a man may be a passionate and seditious creature from whence you would have us inferr that he may make use of his interpretation to satisfie his passion and raise sedition There were some colour in this consequence if we as you do make private men infallible Interpreters for others for then indeed they might lead Disciples after them and use them as instruments for their vile purposes But when we say they can only interpret for themselves what harme they can do by their passionate or seditious Interpretations but only endanger both their temporal and eternal happiness I cannot imagine For though we deny the Pope or Church of Rome to be an infallible Judge yet we do not deny but that there are Judges which may proceed with certainty enough against all seditious Persons such as draw men to disobedience either against Church or State as well as against Rebels and Traitors and Theeves and Murderers 123. Ad § 23. The next § in the beginning argues thus For many ages there was no Scripture in the world and for many more there was none in many places of the world yet men wanted not then and there some certain direction what to believe Therefore there was then an infallible Judge Just as if I should say York is not my way from Oxford to London therefore Bristol is Or a Dog is not a horse therefore he is a man As if God had no other waies of revealing himself to men but only by Scripture and an infallible Church * See Chrysost Hom. 1 in Mat. Isidor Pelus l. 3. ep 106. and also Basil in Ps 28. and then you shall confess that by o her means besides these God did communicate himself unto men and made them receive and understand his laws See also to the same purpose Heb. 1.1 S. Chrysostom and Isidorus Pelusiota conceived He might use other means And Saint Paul telleth us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be known by his works And that they had the Law written in their hearts Either of these waies might make some faithful men without either necessity of Scripture or Church 124. But D. Potter sayes you say In the Jewish Church there was a living Judge indowed with an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to divine Faith are And where was that infallible direction in the Jewish Church when they should have received Christ for their Messias and refused him Or perhaps this was not a case of moment D. Potter indeed might say very well not that the high Priest was infallible for certainly he was not but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed Besides it is one thing to say that the living Judge in the Jewish Church had an infallible direction another that he was necessitated to follow this direction This is the priviledge which you challenge But it is that not this which the Doctor attributes to the Jews As a man may truely say the Wisemen had an in fallible direction to Christ without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it and could not do otherwise 125. But either the Church retains still her Infallibility or it was devested of it upon the receiving of Holy Scripture which is absurd An Argument me thinks like this Either you have horns or you have lost them but you never lost them therefore you have them still If you say you never had horns so say I for ought appears by your reasons the Church never had Infallibility 126. But some Scriptures were received in some places and not in others therefore if Scriptures were the Judge of Controversies some Churches had one Judge and some another And what great inconvenience is there in that that one part of England should have one Judge and another another especially seeing the Books of Scripture which were received by those that received fewest had as much of the Doctrin of Christianity in them as they all had which were received by any all the necessary parts of the Gospel being contained in every one of the four Gospels as I have proved So that they which had all the Books of the New Testament had nothing superfluous For it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be said divers times and be testified by divers witnesses And they that had but one of the four Gospels wanted nothing necessary and therefore it is vainly inferred by you that with months and years as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published the Church altered her rule of Faith and judge of Controversies 127. Heresies you say would arise after the Apostles time and after the writâ—ng of Scriptures These cannot be discovered condemned and avoided unlesse the Church be infallible Therefore there must be a Church infallible But I pray tell me Why cannot Heresies be sufficiently discovered condemned and avoided by them which believe Scripture to be the rule of Faith If Scripture be sufficient to inform us what is the Faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresie seeing Heresie is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an opposition to the Faith That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked and one contrary cannot but manifest the other If any one should deny that there is a God that this God is omnipotent omniscient good just true mercifull a rewarder of them that seek him a punisher of them that obstinately offend him That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of the World that it is He by obedience to whom men must look to be saved If any man should deny either his Birth or Passion or Resurrection or Ascension or Sitting at the right hand of God his having all power given him in Heaven and Earth That it is he whom God hath appointed to be Judg of the quick the dead That all men shall rise again at the last day That they which believe and repent shall be saved That they which do not believe or repent shall be damned If a man should hold that either the keeping of the Mosaical Law is necessary to Salvation or that good works are not necessary to Salvation In a word if any man should obstinatly contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture who does not see that every one which believes the Scripture hath a sufficient means to discover and condemn and avoid that Heresie without any need of an infallible guide
If you say that the obscure places of Scripture contain matters of Faith I answer that it is a matter of faith to believe that the sense of them whatsoever it is which was intended by God is true for he that doth not do so calls Gods Truth into question But to believe this or that to be the true sense of them or to believe the true sense of them and to avoid the false is not necessary either to Faith or Salvation For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known how could it stand with his wisdom to be so wanting to his own will and end as to speak obscurely or how can it consist with his Justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himselfe hath not revealed Suppose there were an absolute Monarch that in his own absence from one of his Kingdomes had written Laws for the government of it some very plainly and some very ambiguously and obscurely and his Subjects should keep those that were plainly written with all exactness and for those that were obscure use their best diligence to find his meaning in them and obey them according to the sense of them which they conceived should this King either with justice or wisdom be offended with these Subjects if by reason of the obscurity of them they mistook the sense of them and faild of performance by reason of their errour 128. But It is more useful and fit you say for the deciding of Controversies to have besides an infallible rule to go by a living infallible Judge to determin them and from hence you conclude that certainly there is such a Judge But why then may not another say that it is yet more useful for many excellent purposes that all the Patriarchs should be infallible than that the Pope only should Another that it would be yet more useful that all the Archbishops of every Province should be so than that the Patriarchs only should be so Another That it would be yet more useful if all the Bishops of every Diocese were so Another that it would be yet more available that all the Parsons of every Parish should be so Another that it would be yet more excellent if all the Fathers of Families were so And lastly another that it were much more to be desired that every Man and every Woman were so just as much as the prevention of Controversies is better than the decision of them and the prevention of Heresies better then the condemnation of them and upon this ground conclude by your own very consequence That not only a general Councel nor only the Pope but all the Patriarchs Archbishops Bishops Pastors Fathers nay all the men in the world are infallible If you say now as I am sure you will that this Conclusion is most gross and absurd against sense and experience then must also the ground be false from which it evidently and undeniably followes viz that that course of dealing with men seems alwayes more fit to Divine providence which seems most fit to humane reason 129. And so likewise That there should men succeed the Apostles which could shew themselves to be their successors by doing of Miracles by speaking all kind of languages by delivering men to Satan as S. Paul did Hymenaeus and the incestuous Corinthian it is manifest in human reason it were incomparably more fit and useful for the decision of Controversies than that the successour of the Apostles should have none of these gifts and for want of the signs of Apostleship be justly questionable whether he be his successour or no and will you now conclude That the Popes have the gift of doing Miracles as well as the Apostles had 130. It were in all reason very useful and requisite that the Pope should by the assistance of Gods Spirit be freed from the vices and passions of men lest otherwise the Authority given him for the good of the Church he might imploy as divers Popes you well know have done to the disturbance and oppression and mischief of it And will you conclude from hence That Popes are not subject to the sins and passions of other men That there never have been ambitious covetous lustful tyrannous Popes 131. Who sees not that for mens direction it were much more beneficial for the Church that Infallibility should be setled in the Popes Person than in a General Councel That so the means of deciding Controversies might be speedy easie and perpetual whereas that of general Councels is not so And will you hence infer that not the Church Representative but the Pope is indeed the infallible Judg of Controversies Certainly if you should the Sorbon Doctors would not think this a good Conclusion 132. It had been very commodious one would think that seeing either Gods pleasure was the Scripture should be translated or else in his Providence he knew it would be so that he had appointed some men for this business and by his Spirit assisted them in it that so we might have Translations as Authentical as the Original yet you see God did not think fit to do so 133. It had been very commodious one would think that the Scripture should have been at least for all things necessary a Rule plain and perfect and yet you say it is both imperfect and obscure even in things necessary 134. It had been most requisite one would think that the Copies of the Bibles should have been preserved free from variety of readings which makes men very uncertain in many places Which is the Word of God and which is the Errour or presumption of man and yet we see God hath not thought fit so to provide for us 135. Who can conceive but that an Apostolike Interpretation of all the difficult places of Scripture would have been strangely beneficial to the Church especially there being such danger in mistaking the sense of them as is by you pretended and God in his Providence foreseeing that the greatest part of Christians would not accept of the Pope for the Judge of Controversies And yet we see God hath not so ordered the matter 136. Who doth not see that supposing the Bishop of Rome had been appointed Head of the Church and Judge of Controversies that it would have been infinitely beneficial to the Church perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible that in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received this one Proposition had been set down in Terms The Bishops of Rome shall be alwayes Monarchs of the Church and they either alone or with their adherents the Guides of Faith and the Judges of Controversies that shall arise amongst Christians This if you will deal ingenuously you cannot but acknowledge for then all true Christians would have submitted to him as willingly as to Christ himself neither needed you and your Fellows have troubled your self to invent so many Sophisms for the proof of it There would have been no more
That The Jewish Church retained Infallibility in her self and therefore it is unjustly and unworthily done of him to deprive the Church of Christ of it That the Jews had sometimes an infallible miraculous direction from God in some cases of moment he doth affirm and had good warrant but that the Synagogue was absolutely infallible he no where affirms and therefore it is unjustly and unworthily done of you to obtrude it upon him And indeed how can the Infallibility of the Synagogue be conceived but only by setling it in the High-Priest and the company adhering and subordinate unto him And whether the High-Priest was Infallible when he believed not Christ to be the Messias but condemned and excommunicated them that so professed and caused him to be crucified for saying so I leave it to Christians to judge But then suppose God had been so pleased to do as he did not to appoint the Synagogue an Infallible Guide Could you by your rules of Logick constrain him to appoint such an one to Christians also or say unto him that in wisdom he could not do otherwise Vain man that will be thus alwaystying God to your imaginations It is well for us that he leaves us not without directions to him but if he will do this sometime by living Guides sometime by written Rules What is that to you May not he do what he will with his own 142. And whereas you say for the further enforcing of this Argument that there is greater reason to think the Church should be infallible than the Synagogue because to the Synaggoue all Laws and Ceremonies c. were more particularly and minutely delivered than in the new Testament is done our Saviour leaving particulars to the determination of the Church But I pray walk not thus in generality but tell us what particulars If you mean particular Rites and Ceremonies and orders for government we grant it and you know we do so Our Saviour only hath left a general injunction by S. Paul Let all things be done Decently and in Order But what Order is fittest i. e. what Time what Place what Manner c. is fittest that he hath left to the discretion of the Governours of the Church But if you mean that he hath only concerning matters of Faith the subject in Questistion prescribed in general that we are to hear the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to believe The Church being nothing else 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 believe Besides it is so apparently false that I wonder you could content your self or think we should be contented with a bare saying without any shew or pretence of proof 143. As for D. Potter's Objection against this Argument That as well you might infer that Christians must have all one King because the Jews had so For ought I can perceive notwithstanding any thing answered by you it may stand still in force though the truth is it is urged by him not against the Infallibility but the Monarchy of the Church For whereas you say The disparity is very clear He that should urge this Argument for one Monarch over the whole world would say that this is to deny the Conclusion and reply unto you that there is disparity as matters are now ordered but that there should not be so For that there was no more reason to believe that the Ecclesiastical Government of the Jews was a Pattern for the Ecclesiastical Government of Christians than the Civil of the Jews for the Civil of the Christians He would tell you that the Church of Christ and all Christian Commonwealths and Kingdoms are one and the same thing and therefore he sees no reason why the Synagogue should be a Type and Figure of the Church and not of the Commonwealth He would tell you that as the Church succeeded the Jewish Synagogue so Christian Princes should succeed to Jewish Magistrates That is the Temporal Governours of the Church should be Christians He would tell you that as the Church is compared to a House a Kingdom an Army a Body so all distinct Kingdoms might and should be one Army one Family c. and that it is not so is the thing he complains of And therefore you ought not to think it enough to say It is not so but you should shew why it should not be so and why this Argument will not follow The Jews had one King therefore all Christians ought to have as well as this The Jews had one High-Priest over them all therefore all Christians also ought to have He might tell you moreover that the Church may have one Master one General one Head one King and yet he not be the Pope but Christ He might tell you that you beg the Question in saying without proof that it is necessary to salvation that all whether Christians or Churches have recourse to one Church if you mean by one Church one particular Church which is to govern and direct all others and that unless you mean so you say nothing to the purpose And besides he might tell you and that very truly that it may seem altogether as available for the Temporal good of Christians to be under one Temporal Prince or Commonwealth as for their salvation to be subordinate to one Visible Head I say as necessary both for the prevention of the effusion of the Blood of Christians by Christians and for the defence of Christendom from the hostile invasions of Turks and Pagans And from all this he might inferr that though now by the fault of men there were in several Kingdoms several Laws Governments and Powers yet that it were much more expedient that there were but one Nay not only expedient but necessary if once your ground be setled for a general Rule that what kind of government the Jews had that the Christians must have And if you limit the generality of this Proposition and frame the Argument thus What kind of Ecclesiastical government the Jews had that the Christians must have But They were governed by one High-Priest Therefore These must be so He will say that the first Proposition of this Syllogism is altogether as doubtful as the Conclusion and therefore neither fit nor sufficient to prove it until it self be proved And then besides that there is as great reason to believe this That what kind of Civil government the Jews had that the Christians must have And so D. Potter's Objection remains still unanswered That there is as much reason to conclude a necessity of one King over all Christian Kingdoms from the Jews having one King as one Bishop over all Churches from their being under one High-Priest 144. Ad. § 24. Nether is this discourse confirmed by Irenaeus at all Whether by this discourse you mean that immediatly foregoing of the Analogy between the Church and the Synagogue to which this speech
of Irenaeus alledged here by you is utterly and plainly impertinent Or whether by this discourse you mean as I think you do not your Discourse but your Conclusion which you discourse on that is that Your Church is the Infallible Judge in Controversies For neither hath Irenaeus one syllable to this purpose neither can it be deduced out of what he says with any colour of consequence For first in saying What if the Apostles had not left Scripture ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition And in saying That to this order many Nations yield assent who believe in Christ having Salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit of GOD without Letters or Ink and diligently keeping ancient Tradition Doth he not plainly shew that the Tradition he speaks of is nothing else but the very same that is written nothing but to believe in Christ To which whether Scripture alone to them that believe it be not a sufficient guide I leave it to you to judge And are not his words just as if a man should say If God had not given us the light of the Sun we must have made use of Candles and Torches If we had no eyes we must have felt out our way If we had no legs we must have used crutches And doth not this in effect import that while we have the Sun we need no Candles While we have our eyes we need not feel out our way While we enjoy our legs we need not crutches And by like reason Irenaeus in saying If we had no Scripture we must have followed Tradition and they that have none do well to do so Doth he not plainly import that to them that have Scripture and believe it Tradition is unnecessary Which could not be if the Scripture did not contain evidently the whole Tradition Which whether Irenaeus believed or no these words of his may inform you Non enim per alios c. we have received the disposition of our Salvation from no others but from them by whom the Gospel came unto us Which Gospel truly the Apostles first preached and afterwards by the will of God delivered in writing to us to be the Pillar and Foundation of our Faith Upon which place Bellarmine's two Observations and his acknowledgment ensuing upon them are very considerable and as I conceive as home to my purpose as I would wish them His first Notandum is That in the Christian Doctrin some things are simply necessary for the Salvation of all men as the knowledge of the Articles of the Apostle's Creed and besides the knowledge of the ten Commandments and some of the Sacraments Other things are not so necessary but that a man may be saved without the explicit knowledge and belief and profession of them His second Note is That those things which were simply necessary the Apostles were wont to preach to all men But of other things not all to all but some things to all to wit those things which were profitable for all other things only to Prelates and Priests These things premised he acknowledgeth That all those things were written by the Apostles which are necessary for all and which they were wont openly to preach to all But that other things were not all written And therefore when Irenaeus says that the Apostles wrote what they preached in the World it is true saith he and not against Traditions because they preached not to the People all things but only those things which were necessary or profitable for them 145. So that at the most you can infer from hence but only a suppositive necessity of having an infallible Guide and that grounded upon a false supposition in case we had no Scripture but an absolute necessity hereof and to them who have and believe the Scripture which is your Assumption cannot with any colour from hence be concluded but rather the contrary 146. Neither because as He says it was then easie to receive the Truth from God's Church then in the Age next after the Apostles Then when all the Ancient and Apostolique Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentals of Faith Will it therefore follow that now 1600 years after when the ancient Churches are divided almost into as many Religions as they are Churches every one being the Church to it self and Heretical to all other that it is as easie but extreamly difficult or rather impossible to find the Church first independently of the true Doctrin and then to find the truth by the Church 147. As for the last clause of the sentence it will not any whit advantage but rather prejudice your Assertion Neither wil I seek to avoid the pressure of it by saying that he speaks of small Questions and therefore not of Questions touching things necessary to Salvation which can hardly be called small Questions But I will favour you so far as to suppose that saying this of small Questions it is probable he would have said it much more of the Great but I will answer that which is most certain and evident and which I am confident you your self were you as impudent as I believe you modest would not deny That the Ancient Apostolique Churches are not now as they were in Irenaeus his time then they were all at Unity about matters of Faith which Unity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common Fountain and that no other than of Apostolique Preaching And this is the very ground of Tertullian's so often mistaken Prescription against Heretiques Variâsse debuerat Errer Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos unum est non est erratum sed traditum If the Churches had erred they could not but have varied but that which is one among so many came not by Error but Tradition But now the case is altered and the mischief is that these ancient Churches are divided among themselves and if we have recourse to them one of them will say This is the way to heaven another that So that now in place of receiving from them certain and clear truths we must expect nothing but certain and clear contradictions 148. Neither will the Apostle's depositing with the Church all things belonging to truth be any proof that the Church shall certainly keep this depositum entire and sincere without adding to it or taking from it for this whole depositum was committed to every particular Church nay to every particular man which the Apostles converted And yet no man I think will say that there was any certainty that it should be kept whole and inviolate by every man and every Church It is apparent out of Scripture it was committed to Timothy and by him consigned to other faithful men and yet S. Paul thought it not superfluous earnestly to exhort him to the careful keeping of it which exhortation you must grant had been vain and superfluous if the not keeping of it had been impossible And therefore though Irenaeus says The Apostles fully deposited
first you content not your selves with a moral certainty of the things you believe nor with such a degree of assurance of them as is sufficient to produce obedience to the condition of the new Covenant which is all that we require God's Spirit if he please may work more a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence But neither God doth nor man may require of us as our duty to give a greater assent to the conclusion than the premisses deserve to build an Infallible Faith upon Motives that are only highly credible and not infallible as it were a great and heavy building upon a foundation that hath not strength proportionable But though God require not of us such unreasonable things You do and tell men They cannot be saved unless they believe your Proposals with an infallible Faith To which end they must believe also your Propounder your Church to be simply Infallible Now how is it possible for them to give a rational assent to the Churches infallibility unless they have some infallible means to know that she is infallible Neither can they infallibly know the infallibility of this means but by some other and so on for ever unless they can dig so deep as to come at length to the Rock that is to settle all upon something evident of it self which is not so much as pretended But the last resolution of all is into Motives which indeed upon examination will scarce appear probable but are not so much as avouched to be any more than very credible For example if I ask you Why you do believe Transubstantiation What can you answer but because it is a Revelation of the Prime Verity I demand again How can you assure your self or me of that being ready to embrace it if it may appear to be so And what can you say but that you know it to be so because the Church says so which is infallible If I ask What mean you by your Church You can tell me nothing but the company of Christians which adhere to the Pope I demand then further Why should I believe this company to be the infallible Propounder of Divine Revelation And then you tell me that there are many Motives to induce a man to this belief But are these Motives lastly infallible No say you but very credible Well let them pass for such because now we have not leisure to examine them Yet methinks seeing the Motives to believe the Churches infallibility are only very credible it should also be but as credible that your Church is Infallible and as credible and no more perhaps somewhat less that her proposals particularly Transubstantiation are Divine Revelations And me-thinks you should require only a Moral and modest assent to them and not a Divine as you call it and infallible Faith But then of these Motives to the Churches Infallibility I hope you will give us leave to consider and judge whether they be indeed Motives and sufficient or whether they be not Motives at all or not sufficient or whether these Motives or inducements to your Church be not impeached and opposed with Compulsives and enforcements from it or lastly Whether these Motives which You use be not indeed only Motives to Christianity and not to Popery give me leave for distinction-sake to call your Religion so If we may not judge of these things How can my judgment be moved with that which comes not within its cognizance If I may then at least I am to be a Judg of all these Controversies 1. Whether every one of these Motives be indeed a Motive to any Church 2. If to some whether to Your 3. If to Yours whether sufficient or insufficient 4. Whether other Societies have not as many and as great Motives to draw me to them 5. Whether I have not greater reason to believe you do err than that you cannot And now Sir I pray let me trouble You with a few more Questions Am I a sufficient Judge of these Controversies or no If of these why shall I stay here why not of others Why not of all Nay doth not the true examining of these few contain and lay upon me the examination of all What other Motives to your Church have you but your Notes of it Bellarmine gives some 14. or 15. And one of these fifteen contains in it the examination of all Controversies and not only so but of all uncontroverted Doctrines For how shall I or can I know the Church of Rome's conformity with the Ancient Church unless I know first what the Ancient Church did hold and then what the Church of Rome doth hold and lastly whether they be conformable or if in my judgment they seem not conformable I am then to think the Church of Rome not to be the Church for want of the Note which she pretends is proper and perpetual to it So that for ought I can see Judges we are and must be of all sides every one for himself and God for us all 155. Ad § 26. I answer This Assertion that Scripture alone is Judge of all Controversies in Faith if it be taken properly is neither a Fundamental nor Unfundamental point of Faith nor no point of Faith at all but a plain falshood It is not a Judge of Controversies but a Rule to judge them by and that not an absolutely perfect Rule but as perfect as a written Rule can be which must always need something else which is either evidently true or evidently credible to give attestation to it and that in this case is Universal Tradition So that Universal Tradition is the Rule to judge all Controversies by But then because nothing besides Scripture comes to us with as full a stream of Tradition as Scripture Scripture alone and no unwritten Doctrin nor no Infallibility of any Church having attestation from Tradition truly Universal for this reason we conceive as the Apostles persons while they were living were the only Judges of Controversies so their Writings now they are dead are the only Rule for us to judge them by There being nothing unwritten which can go in upon half so fair cards for the Title of Apostolike Tradition as these things which by the confession of both Sides are not so I mean the Doctrine of the Millenaries and of the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants 156. Yet when we say The Scripture is the only Rule to judge all Controversies by me-thinks you should easily conceive that we would be understood of all those that are possible to be judged by Scripture and of those that arise among such as believe the Scripture For if I had a Controversie with an Atheist whether there were a God or no I would not say that the Scripture were a Rule to judge this by seeing that doubting whether there be a God or no he must needs doubt whether the Scripture be the Word of God or if he does not he grants the Question and is not the man we speak of
they might be saved God requiting of us under pain of damnation only to believe the verities therein contained and not the divine Authority of the Books wherein they are contained Not but that it were now very strange and unreasonable if a man should believe the matter of these Books and not the Authority of the Books and therefore if a man should profess the not-believing of these I should have reason to fear he did not believe that But there is not always an equal necessity for the belief of those things for the belief whereof there is an equal reason We have I believe as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eighth King of England as that Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt of or dâ—sbelieve that it were most unreasonably done of him yet it were no mortal sin nor no sin at all God having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all which reason induceth them to believe Therefore as an Executor that should perform the whole will of the dead should fully satisfie the Law though he did not believe that Parchment to be his written Will which indeed is so So I believe that he who believes all the particular Doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles 160. This disourse whether it be rational and concluding or no I submit to better judgment but sure I am that the Corollary which you draw from this Position that this Point is not Fundamental is very inconsequent that is that we are uncertain of the truth of it because we say The whole Church much more particular Churches and private men may err in points not Fundamental A pretty sophism depending upon this Principle that whosoever possibly may err he cannot be certain that he doth not err And upon this ground what shall hinder me from concluding that seeing you also hold that neither particular Churches nor private men are infallible even in Fundamentals that even the Fundamentals of Christianity remain to you uncertain A Judge may possibly err in judgment can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right A Traveller may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtful whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber Or can our London-Carrier have no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in the way to London These you see are right worthy consequences and yet they are as like your own as an egg to an egg or milk to milk 161. And for the self same reason you say we are not certain that the Church is not Judge of Controversies But now this self same appears to be no reason and therefore for all this we may be certain enough that the Church is no Judge of Controversies The ground of this sophism is very like the former viz. that we can be certain of the falshood of no propositions but these only which are damnable errors But I pray good Sir give me your opinion of these The Snow is black the Fire is cold that M. Knot is Arch-Bishop of Toledo that the whole is not greater than a part of the whole that twice two make not four In your opinion good Sir are these damnable Heresies Or because they are not so have we no certainty of the falshood of them I beseech you Sir to consider seriously with what strange captions you have gone about to delude your King and your Country and if you be convinced they are so give glory to God and let the world know it by your deserting that Religion which stands upon such deceitful foundations 162. Besides you say among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the year 1633. to the Questions Whether the Church have Authority to determine Controversies of Fâ—ith And to interpret holy Scripture The Answer to both is â—ffirmative But what now if I should tell you that in the year 1632. among publique Conclusions defended in Doway one was That God predeterminates men to all their actions good bad and indifferent Will you think your self obliged to be of this opinion If you will say so If not do as you would be done by Again me-thinks so subtil a man as you are should easily apprehend a wide difference between Authority to do a thing and an Absolute The former the Doctor together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion that is an Authority of determining Controversies of Faith according to plain and evident Scripture and Universal Tradition and Infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule As if there should arise an Heretique that should call in question Christ's Passion and Resurrection the Church had Authority to decide this Controversie and infallible direction how to do it and to excommunicate this man if he should persist in error I hope you will not deny but that the Judges have Authority to determine Criminal and Civil Controversies and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determination Infallible while they proceed according to Law and if they do so but not infallibly certain that they shall ever do so But that the Church should be infallibly assisted by God's Spirit to decide rightly all emergent Controversies even such as might be held diversly of divers men Salva compage fidei and that we might be absolutely certain that the Church should never fail to decree the truth whether she used means or no whether she proceed according to her Rule or not or lastly that we might be absolutely certain that she would never fail to proceed according to her Rule this the Defender of these Conclusions said not and therefore said no more to your purpose than you have all this while that is just nothing 163. Ad § 27. To the place of S. Austin alledged in this Paragraph I Answer First that in many things you will not be tried by S. Augustin's judgement nor submit to his Authority not concerning Appeals to Rome not concerning Transubstantiation not touching the use and worshipping of Images not concerning the State of Saint's souls before the day of Judgment not touching the Virgin Marie's freedom from actual and original sin not touching the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants not touching the damning Infants to hell that die without Baptism not touching the knowledge of Saints departed not touching Purgatory not touching the fallibility of Councels even general Councels not touching perfection and perspicuity of Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation not touching Auricular Confession not touching the half-Communion not touching prayers in an unknown tongue In these things I say you
will not stand to S. Austin's judgment and therefore can with no reason or equity require us to do so in this matter 2. To S. Augustine in heat of disputation against the Donatists and ransacking all places for Arguments against them we oppose S. Austin out of this heat delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmly and moderately where he says In iis quae apretè posita sunt in sacris Scripturis omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent fidem moresque vivendi 3. We say he speaks not of the Roman but the Catholike Church of far greater extent and therefore of far greater credit and authority than the Roman Church 4. He speaks of a point not expressed but yet not contradicted by Scripture whereas the errors we charge you with are contradicted by Scripture 5. He says not that Christ hath recommended the Church to us for an infallible definer of all emergent Controversies but for a credible witness of ancient Tradition Whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the practice of the Church understand of all places and ages though he be thought to resist our Saviour what is that to us who cast off no practices of the Church but such as are evidently post-nate to the time of the Apostles and plainly contrary to the practice of former and purer times Lastly it is evident and even to Impudence it self undeniable that upon this ground of believing all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ Error was held for example the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants and that in S. Austin's time and that by S. Austin himself and therefore without controversie this is no certain ground for truth which may support falshood as well as truth 164. To the Argument wherewith you conclude I answer That though the Visible Church shall always without fail propose so much of God's Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes add to this revelation things superfluous nay hurtful nay in themselves damnable though not unpardonable and sometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable and therefore it is possible without sin to resist in some things the Visible Church of Christ But you press us farther and demand What visible Church was extant when Luther began whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church As if it must of necessity either be Protestant or Roman or Roman of necessity if it were not Protestant Yet this is the most usual fallacy of all your Disputers by some specious Arguments to perswade weak men that the Church of Protestants cannot be the true Church and thence to inferr that without doubt it must be the Roman But why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greek Church as well as the Roman there being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your own unless it be that she is poor and oppressed by the Turk and you are in glory and splendor 165. Neither is it so easie to be determined as you pretend That Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole visible Church in matters of Faith neither is it so evident that the Visible Church may not fall into such a state wherein she may be justly opposed And lastly for calling the distinction of points into Fundamental and not Fundamental an Evasion I believe you will find it easier to call it so than to prove it so But that shall be the issue of the Controversie in the next Chapter CHAP. III. That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental is neither pertinent nor true in our present Controversie And that the Catholique Visible Church cannot err in either kind of the said Points THis distinction is abused by Protestants to many purposes of theirs and therefore if it be either untrue or impertinent as they understand and apply it the whole edifice built thereon must be ruinous and false For if you object their bitter and continued discords in matters of Faith without any means of agreement they instantly tell you as Charity Mistaken plainly shews that they differ only in Points not Fundamental If you convince them even by their own Confessions that the Ancient Fathers taught divers Points held by the Roman Church against Protestants they reply that those Fathers may nevertheless be saved because those errors were not Fundamental If you will them to remember that Christ must alwayes have a Visible Church on earth with administration of Sacraments and succession of Pastors and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman whose Communion and Doctrine Luther then forsook and for that cause must be guilty of Schism and Heresie they have an Answer such as it is that the Catholique Church cannot perish yet may err in Points not Fundamental and therefore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors under pain of Damnation as if sorsooth it were Damnable to hold an error not Fundamental nor Damnable If you wonder how they can teach that both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved in their several Professions they salve this contradiction by saying that we both agree in all Fundamental Points of Faith which is enough for salvation And yet which is prodigiously strange they could never be induced to give a Catalogue what Points in particular be Fundamental but only by some general description or by referring us to the Apostles Creed without determining what Points therein be Fundamental or not Fundamental for the matter and in what sense they be or be not such And yet concerning the meaning of divers Points contained or reduced to the Creed they differ both from us and among themselves And indeed it being impossible for them to exhibit any such Catalogue the said distinction of Points although it were pertinent and true cannot serve them to any purpose but still they must remain uncertain whether or not they disagree from one another from the ancient Fathers and from the Catholique Church in Points Fundamental which is to say they have no certainty whether they enjoy the substance of Christian Faith without which they cannot hope to be saved But of this more hereafter 2. And to the end that what shall be said concerning this distinction may be better understood we are to observe that there be two precepts which concern the vertue of Faith or our obligation to believe divine Truths The one is by Divines called Affirmative whereby we are obliged to have a positive explicit belief of some chief Articles of Christian Faith The other is temed Negative which strictly binds us not to disbelieve that is not to believe the contrary of any one Point sufficiently represented to our understandings as revealed or spoken by Almighty God The said Affirmative Precept according to the nature of such commands injoyns some Act to
Supremacy to be an essential Point of Faith O freedom of the new Gospel Hold with Catholiques the Pope or with Protestants the King or with Puritans neither Pope nor King to be Head of the Church all is one you may be saved Some as Castalio (p) Vid Gul. Reginald Calv. Turcis l. 2. c. 6. and the whole Sect of the Academical Protestants hold that Doctrins about the Supper Baptism the state and office of Christ how he is one with his Father the Trinity Predestination and divers other such questions are not necessary to Salvation And that you may observe how ungrounded and partial their Assertions be Perkins teacheth that the Real presence of our Saviour's Body in the Sacrament as it is believed by Catholiques is a Fundamental Error and yet affirmeth the Consubstantiation of Lutherans not to be such notwithstanding that divers chief Lutherans to their Consubstantiation joyn the prodigious Heresie of Ubiquitation D. Usher in his Sermon of the Unity of the Catholique Faith grants Salvation to the Aethiopians who yet with Christian Baptism joyn Circumcision D. Potter (q) Pag. 113 114. Morton in his Treatise of the Kingdom of Israel p. 94. cites the Doctrin of some whom he termeth men of great learning and judgment that all who profess to love and honour JESUS CHRIST are in the visible Christian Church and by Catholiques to be reputed Brethren One of these men of great learning and judgment is Thomas Morton by D. Potter cited in his Margent whose love and honour to Jesus Christ you may perceive by this saying that the Churches of Arians who denied our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God because they do hold the foundation of the Gospel which is Faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God and Saviour of the world And which is more it seemeth by these charitable men that for being a member of the Church it is not necessary to believe one only God For D. Potter (r) Pag. 121. among the arguments to prove Hookers and Morton's opinion brings this The people of the ten Tribes after their defection notwithstanding their gross corruption and Idolatry remained still a true Church We may also as it seemeth by these mens reasoning deny the Resurrection and yet be members of the true Church For a learned man saith D. Potter (s) Pag. 122. in behalf of Hooker's and Morton's opinion was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our bodies Dear Saviour What times do we behold If one may be a member of the true Church and yet deny the Trinity of the Persons the Godhead of our Saviour the necessity of Baptism if we may use Circumcision and with the worship of God joyn Idolatry wherein do we differ from Turks and Jews or rather are we not worse than either of them If they who deny our Saviour's Divinity might be accounted the Church of God How will they deny that savour to those ancient Heretiques who denied our Saviour's true humanity and so the total denial of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church S. Hilary (t) Comment in Mat. cap. 16. maketh it of equal necessity for Salvation that we believe our Saviour to be true God and true Man saying This manner of Confession we aâ—e to hold that we remember him to be the Son of God and the Son of Man because the one without the other can give no hope of Salvation And yet D. Potter saith of the aforesaid doctrin of Hooker and Morton The (u) Pag. 123. Reader may be pleased to approve or reject it as he shall find cause And in another place (w) Pag. 253. he sheweth so much good liking of this Doctrin that he explicateth and proveth the Churches perpetual Visibility by it And in the second Edition of his Book he is careful to declare and illustrate it more at large than he had done before howsoever this sufficiently sheweth that they have no certainty what Points be Fundamental As for the Arians in particular the Author whom D. Potter cites for a moderate Catholique but is indeed a plain Heretique or rather Atheist Lucian-like jesting at all Religion (x) A moderate examination c. cap. 1. panlò post initium placeth Arianism among Fundamental Errors Buâ— contrarily an English Protestant Divine masked under the name of Irenaeus Philalethes in a little Book in Latine intituled Dissertatio de pace concordia Ecclesiae endeavoureth to prove that even the denial of the Blessed Trinity may stand with Salvation Divers Protestants have taught that the Roman Church erreth in Fundamental Points But D. Potter and others teach the contrary which could not happen if they could agree what be Fundamental Points You brand the Donatists with the note of an Error in the matter (y) Pag. 126. and the nature of it properly heretical because they taught that the Church remained only with them in the part of Donatus And yet many Protestants are so far from holding that Doctrin to be a Fundamental Error that themselves go further and say that for divers ages before Luther there was no true Visible Church at all It is then too too apparent that you have no agreement in specifying what be Fundamental Points neither have you any means to determine what they be for if you have any such means Why do you not agree You tell us The Creed contains all Points Fundamental which although it were true yet you see it serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge and agreement in such Points And no wonder For besides what I have said already in the beginning of this Chapter and am to deliver more at large in the next after so much labour and paper spent to pâ—ove that the Creed contains all Fundamental Points you conclude It remains (a) Pag. 241. very probable that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those Fundamental truths whereof consists the Unity of Faith and of the Catholique Church Very probable Then according to all good Logick the contrary may remain very probable and so all remain as full of uncertainty as before The whole Rule say you and the sole Judge of your Faith must be Scripture Scripture doth indeed deliver divine Truths but seldom doth qualifie them or declare whether they be or be nor absolutely necessary to Salvation You fall (b) Pag. 215. heavy upon Charity Mistaken because he demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamental Points which yet you are obliged in conscience to do if you be able For without such a Catalogue no man can be assured whether or no be have Faith sufficient to Salvation And therefore take it not in all part if we again and again demand such a Catalogue And that you may see we proceed fairly I will perform on our behalf what we request of you and do here deliver a Catalogue wherein
they judge aright and that they proceed according to the Evidence that is given when they condemn a Thief or a murderer to the Gallows A Traveller is not always certain of his way but often mistaken and doth it therefore follow that he can have no assurance that Charing-cross is his right way from the Temple to White-Hall The ground of your Error here is your not distinguishing between Actual Certainty and Absolute Infallibility Geometricians are not infallible in their own Science yet they are very certain of those things which they see demonstrated And Carpenters are not Infallible yet certain of the straightness of those things which agree with their Rule and Square So though the Church be not infallibly certain that in all her Definitions whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters she shall proceed according to her Rule yet being certain of the Infallibility of her Rule and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it she may be certain of the Truth of some particular Decrees and yet not certain that she shall never decree but what is true 27. Ad § 12. But if the Church may err in points not fundamental she may err in proposing Scripture and so we cannot be assured whether she have not been deceived already The Church may err in her Proposition or custody of the Canon of Scripture if you understand by the Church any present Church of one denomination for example the Roman the Greek or so Yet have we sufficient certainty of Scripture not from the bare testimony of any present Church but from Universal Tradition of which the testimony of any present Church is but a little part So that here you fall into the Fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For in effect this is the sense of your Argument Unless the Church be infallible we can have no certainty of Scripture from the Authority of the Church Therefore unless the Church be infallible we can have no certainty hereof at all As if a man should say If the Vintage of France miscarry we can have no Wine from France Therefore if that Vintage miscarry we can have no Wine at all And for the incorruption of Scripture I know no other rational assurance we can have of it than such as we have of the incorruption of other ancient Books that is the consent of ancient Copies such I mean for the kind though it be far greater for the degree of it And if the Spirit of God give any man any other Assurance hereof this is not rational and discursive but supernatural and infused And Assurance it may be to himself but no Argument to another As for the infallibility of the Church it is so far from being a proof of Scriptures Incorruption that no proof can be pretended for it but incorrupted places of Scripture which yet are as subject to corruption as any other and more likely to have been corrupted if it had been possible than any other and made to speak as they do for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath been a long time to bring all under their Authority Now then if any man should prove the Scriptures uncorrupted because the Church says so which is infallible I would demand again touching this very thing That there is an Infallible Church seeing it is not of it self evident how shall I be assured of it And what can he answer but that the Scripture says so in these and these places Hereupon I would ask him how shall I be assured that the Scriptures are incorrupted in these places seeing it is possible and not altogether improbable that these men which desire to be thought Infallible when they had the government of all things in their own hands may have altered them for their purpose If to this he answer again that the Church is infallible and therefore cannot do so I hope it would be apparent that he runs round in a circle and proves the Scriptures incorruption by the Churches infallibility and the Churches infallibility by the Scriptures incorruption and that is in effect the Churches infallibility by the Churches infallibility and the Scriptures incorruption by the Scriptures incorruption 28. Now for your Observation that some Books which were not always known to be Canonical have been afterwards received for such But never any Book or Syllable defined for Canonical was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphal I demand touching the first sort Whether they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonical or not If not seeing the whole Faith was preached by the Apostles to the Church and seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations How can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canonical And how can you pretend that your Church which makes this an Article of Faith is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a Divine Truth which is not revealed by God If they were How then is the Church an infallible keeper of the Canon of Scripture which hath suffered some Books of Canonical Scripture to be lost and others to lose for a long time their being Canonical at least the necessity of being so esteemed and afterwards as it were by the law of Postliminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalness unto them If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church the point was sufficiently discussed and therefore your Churche's omission to teach it for some Ages as an Article of Faith nay degrading it from the number of Articles of Faith and putting it among disputable problems was surely not very laudable If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation and therefore her presumption in proposing it as such is inexcusable 19. And then for the other part of it that never any Book or Syllable defined for Canonical was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphal Certainly it is a bold Asseveration but extremely false For I demand The Book of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom the Epistle of St. James and to the Hebrews were they by the Apostles approved for Canonical or no If not With what face dare you approve them and yet pretend that all your doctrin is Apostolical Especially seeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rational discourse from any other defined by them If they were approved by them this I hope was a sufficient definition and therefore you were best rub your forehead hard and say that these Books were never questioned But if you do so then I shall be bold to ask you what Books you meant in saying before Some Books which were not always known to be Canonical have been afterwards received Then for the Book of Macchabees I hope you will say it was defined for Canonical before S. Gregorie's time and yet he lib. 19. Moral c. 13. citing a testimony out of it prefaceth to it
Trents profession To receive them and the written Word with like affection of Piety are now rejected and neglected by the Church of Rome For example Immersion in Baptism Tasting a mixture of milk and honey presently after Abstaining from Baths for a week after Accounting it an impiâ—ty to pray kneeling on the Lord's Day or between Easter and Pentecost I say having reckoned up these and other Traditions in Chap 3. He adds another in the 4. of the Veiling of Women And then adds Since I find no law for this it follows that Tradition must have given this observation to custom which shall gain in time Apostolique Authority by the interpretation of the reason of it By these examples therefore it is declared That the observing of unwritten Tradition being confirmed by custom may be defended The perseverance of the observation being a good testimony of the goodness of the Tradition Now Custom even in civil affairs where a Law is wanting passeth for a Law Neither is it material on which it is grounded Scripture or reason seeing reason is commendation enough for a Law Moreover if Law be grounded on reason all that must be Law which is so grounded A quocunque productum Whosoever is the producer of it Do ye think it is not lawful Omni fideli for every faithful man to conceive and constitute Provided he constitute only what is not repugnant to Gods will what is conducible for discipline and available to salvation seeing the Lord says Why even of our selves judge ye not what is right And a little after This reason now demand saving the respect of the Tradition A quocunque Traditore censetur nec Authorem respiciens sed Authoritatem From whatsoever Tradition it comes neither regard the Author but the Authority Quicunque Traditor Any Author whatsoever is Founder good enough for them And who can secure us that Humane inventions and such as came à quocunque Traditore might not in a short time gain the reputation of Apostolique Seeing the Direction then was (b) Hier. Pracepta majorum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat 45. No less you say is S. Chrysostom for the infallible Traditions of the Church But you were to prove the Church infallible not in her Traditions which we willingly grant if they be as Universal as the Tradition of the undoubted Books of Scripture is to be as infallible as the Scripture is for neither doth being written make the Word of God the more infallible nor being unwritten make it the less infallible Not therefore in her Universal Traditions were you to prove the Church infallible but in all her Decrees and definitions of Controversies To this Point when you speak you shall have an Answer but hitherto you do but wander 46. But let us see what S. Chrysostom says They the Apostles delivered not all things in writing who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it and these also are worthy of belief Yes if we knew what they were But many things are worthy of belief which are not necessary to be believed As that Julius Caesar was Emperour of Rome is a thing worthy of belief being so well testified as it is but yet it is not necessary to be believed a man may be saved without it Those many works which our Saviour did which S. John supposes would not have been contained in a world of Books if they had been written or if God by some other means had preserved the knowledge of them had been as worthy to be believed and as necessary as those that are written But to shew you how much more a faithful keeper Records are than Report those few that were written are preserved believed those infinitely more that were not written are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men And seeing God in his Providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them he hath freed us from the Obligation of believing them for every Obligation ceaseth when it becomes impossible Who can doubt but the Primitive Christians to whom the Epistles of the Apostles were written either of themselves understood or were instructed by the Apostles touching the sense of the obscure places of them These Traditive Interpretations had they been written and dispersed as the Scriptures were had without question been preserved as the Scriptures are But to shew how excellent a Keeper of the Tradition the Church of Rome hath been or even the Catholique Church for want of writing they are all lost nay were all lost within a few ages after Christ So that if we consult the Ancient Interpreters we shal hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them Cardinal Perron in his Discourse of Traditions having alledged this place for them Hold the Traditions c. tells us We must not answer that S. Paul speaks here only of such Traditions which though not in this Epist to the Thess yet were afterwards written and in other Books of Scripture because it is upon occasion of Tradition touching the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist which was never written that he lays this injunction upon them to hold the Traditions Well let us grant this Argument good and concluding and that the Church of the Thessalonians or the Catholique Church for what S. Paul writ to one Church he writ to all were to hold some unwritten Traditions and among the rest what was the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist But what if they did not perform their duty in this point but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church Shal we not conclude that seeing God would not suffer any thing necessary to Salvation to be lost and he hath suffered this Tradition to be lost therefore the knowledge or belief of it though it were a profitable thing yet it was not necessary I hope you will not challenge such Authority over us as to oblige us to impossibilities to do that which you cannot do your selves It is therefore requisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed before you require obedience unto it Are you able then to instruct us so well as to be fit to say unto us Now ye know what witholdeth Or do you your selves know that ye may instruct us Can ye or dare you say this or this was this hinderance which S. Paul here meant and all men under pain of damnation are to believe it Or if you cannot as I am certain you cannot go then and vaunt your Church for the only Watchful Faithful Infallible Keeper of the Apostles Traditions when here this very Tradition which here in particular was deposited with the Thessalonians and the Primitive Church you have utterly lost it so that there is no footstep or print of it remaining which with Divine Faith we may rely upon Blessed therefore be the goodness of God who seeing that what was not written was in such
danger to be lost took order that what was necessary should be written Saint Chrysostom's counsel therefore of accounting the Churches Traditions worthy of belief we are willing to obey And if you can of any thing make it appear that it is Tradition we will seek no farther But this we say withall that we are perswaded you cannot make this appear in any thing but only the Canon of Scripture and that there is nothing now extant and to be known by us which can put in so good plea to be the unwritten Word of God as the unquestioned Books of Canonical Scripture to be the written Word of God 47. You conclude this Paragraph with a sentence of S. Austins who says The Church doth not approve nor dissemble nor do these things which are against Faith or good life and from hence you conclude That it never hath done so nor ever can do so But though the argument hold in Logick à non posse ad non esse yet I never heard that it would hold back à non esse ad non posse The Church cannot do this therefore it does not follows with good consequence but The Church doth not this therefore it shall never do it nor can never do it this I believe will hardly follow In the Epistle next before to the same Januarius writing of the same matter he hath these words It remains that the thing you enquire of must be of that third kind of things which are different in divers places Let every one therefore do that which he finds done in the Church to which he comes for none of them is against Faith or good manners And why do you not infer from hence that no particular Church can bring up any Custom that is against Faith or good manners Certainly this Consequence hath as good reason for it as the former If a man say of the Church of England what S. Austin of the Church that she neither approves nor dissembles nor doth any thing against Faith or good manners would you collect presently that this man did either make or think the Church of England infallible Furthermore it is observable out of this and the former Epistle that this Church which did not as S. Austin according to you thought approve or dissemble or do any thing against faith or good life did yet tolerate and dissemble vain superstitions and humane presumptions and suffer all places to be full of them and to be exacted as nay more severely than the Commandments of God himself This Saint Austin himself professeth in this very Epistle This saith he I do infinitely grieve at that many most wholsom precepts of the divine Scripture are little regarded and in the mean time all is so full of so many presumptions that he is more grievously found fault with who during his octaves toucheth the earth with his naked fooot then he that shall bury his soul in drunkenness Of these he sayes That they were neither contained in Scripture decreed by Councels nor corroborated by the Custom of the Universal Church And though not against Faith yet unprofitable burdens of Christian liberty which made the condition of the Jews more tolerable then that of Christians And therefore he professeth of them Approbare non possum I cannot approve them And Ubi facultas tribuitur resecanda existimo I think they are to be cut off wheresoever we have power Yet so deeply were they rooted and spread so far through the indiscreet devotion of the people alwayes more prone to superstition than true piety and through the connivence of the Governors who should have strangled them at their birth that himself though he grieved at them and could not allow them yet for fear of offence he durst not speak against them Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons or provoking those that are turbulent I dare not freely disallow Nay the Catholique Church it self did see and dissemble and tolerate them for these are the things of which he presently says after The Church of God and you will have him speak of the true Catholique Church placed between Chaff and Tares tolerates many things Which was directly against the command of the holy Spirit given the Church by S. Paul To stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made her free and not to suffer her self to be brought in bondage to these servile burdens Our Saviour tels the Scribes and Pharisees That in vain they worshipped God teaching for Doctrines mens Commandments For that laying aside the Commandments of God they held the Traditions of men as the washing of pots and cups and many other such like things Certainly that which S. Austin complains of as the general fault of Christians of his time was parallel to this Multa saith he quae in divinis libris saluberrimè praecepta sunt minus curantur This I suppose I may very well render in our Saviour's words The Commandments of God are laid aside And then Tam multis praesumptionibus sic pleana sunt omnia All things or all places are so full of so many presumptions and those exacted with such severity nay with Tyranny that he was more severly censured who in the time of his Octaves touched the earth with his naked feet than he which drowned and buried his soul in drink Certainly if this be not to teach for Doctrines mens Commandments I know not what is And therefore these superstitious Christians might be said to worship God in vain as well as the Scribes and Pharises And yet great variety of superstitions of this kind were then already spread over the Church being different in divers places This is plain from these words of S. Austin concerning them Diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter varià ntur and apparent because the stream of them was grown so violent that he durst not oppose it Liberiùs improbare non audeo I dare not freely speak against them So that to say the Catholique Church tolerated all this and for fear of offence durst not abrogate or condemn it is to say if we judge rightly of it that the Church with silence and connivence generally tolerated Christians to worship God in vain Now how this tolerating of Universal superstition in the Church can consist with the assistance and direction of Gods omnipotent Spirit to guard it from superstition and with the accomplishment of that pretended Prophecy of the Church I have set Watchmen upon thy walls O Jerusalem which shall never hold their peace day nor night Besides how these Superstitions being thus nourished cherished and strengthened by the practice of the most and urged with great violence upon others as the Commandments of God and but fearfully opposed or contradicted by any might in time take such deep root and spread their branches so far as to pass for Universal
Customs of the Church he that does not see sees nothing Especially considering the catching and contagious nature of this sin and how fast ill weeds spread and how true and experimented that Rule is of the Historian Exempla non consistunt ubi incipiunt sed quamlibet in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem Nay that some such superstition had not already even in S. Austin's time prevailed so far as to be Consuetudine universae Ecclesiae roboratum Who can doubt that considers that the practice of Communicating Infants had even then got the credit and authority not only of an universal Custom but also of an Apostolique Tradition 48. But you will say notwithstanding all this S. Austin here warrants us that the Church can never either approve or dissemble or practise any thing against Faith or good life and so long you may rest securely upon it Yea but the same S. Austin tels us in the same place That the Church may tolerate humane presumptions and vain superstitions and those urged more severely than the Commandments of God And whether superstition be a sin or no I appeal to our Saviour's words before cited and to the consent of your Schoolmen Besides if we consider it rightly we shall find that the Church is not truly said only to tolerate these things but rather that a part and far the lesser tolerated and dissembled them in silence and a part and a far greater publiquely avowed and practised them and urged them upon others with great violence and yet continued still a part of the Church Now why the whole Church might not continue the Church and yet do so as well as a part of the Church might continue a part of it and yet do so I desire you to inform me 49. But now after all this ado what if S. Austin says not this which is pretended of the Church viz. That she neither approves nor dissembles nor practises any thing against Faith or good life but only of good men in the Church Certainly though some Copies read as you would have it yet you should not have dissembled that others read the place otherwise viz. Eccclesia multa tolerat tamen quae sunt contra Fidem bonam vitam nec bonus approbat c. The Church tolerates many things and yet what is against Faith or good life a good man will neither approve nor dissemble nor practise 50. Ad § 17. That Abraham begat Isaac is a point very far from being Fundamental and yet I hope you will grant that Protestants believing Scripture to be the Word of God may be certain enough of the truth and certainty of it For what if they say that the Catholique Church and much more themselves may possibly err in some unfundamental points is it therefore consequent they can be certain of none such What if a wiser man than I may mistake the sense of some obscure place of Aristotle may I not therefore without any arrogance or inconsequence conceive my certain that I understand him in some plain places which carry their sense before them And then for Points Fundamental to what purpose do you say That we must first know what they be before we can be assured that we cannot err in understanding the Scriptures when we pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot err but only to a sufficient certainty that we do not err but rightly understand those things that are plain whether Fundamental or not Fundamental That God is and is a Rewarder of them that seek him That there is no salvation but by faith in Christ That by Repentance from dead works and Faith in Christ Remission of sins may be obtained That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body These we conceive both true because the Scripture says so and Truths Fundamental because they are necessary parts of the Gospel whereof our Saviour says Qui non crediderit damnabitur All which we either learn from Scripture immediately or learn of those that learn it of Scripture so that neither Learned nor Unlearned pretend to know these things independently of Scripture And therefore in imputing this to us you cannot excuse your self from having done us a palpable injury 51. Ad § 18. And I urge you as mainly as you urge D. Potter and other Protestants that you tell us that all the Traditions and all the Definitions of the Church are Fundamental points and we cannot wrest from you a list in particular of all such Traditions and Definitions without which no man can tell whether or no he err in points fundamental and be capable of Salvation For I hope erring in our fundamentals is no more exclusive of Salvation than erring in yours And which is most lamentable instead of giving us such a Catalogue you also fall to wrangle among your selves about the making of it Some of you as I have said above holding some things to be matters of Faith which others deny to be so 52. Ad § 19. I answer That these differences between Protestants concerning Errors damnable and not damnable Truths fundamental and not-fundamental may be easily reconciled For either the Errour they speak of may be purely and simply involuntary or it may be in respect of the cause of it voluntary If the cause of it be some voluntary and avoidable fault the Error is it self sinful and consequently in its own nature damnable As if by negligence in seeking the Truth by unwillingness to find it by pride by obstinacy by desiring that Religion should be true which sutes best with my ends by fear of mens ill opinion or any other wordly fear or any other wordly hope I betray my self to any error contrary to any divine revealed Truth that Error may be justly styled a sin and consequently of it self to such a one damnable But if I be guilty of none of these faults but be desirous to know the Truth and diligent in seeking it and advise not at all with flesh and blood about the choice of my opinions but only with God and that Reason that he hath given me if I be thus qualified and yet through humane infirmity fall into error that error cannot be damnable Again the party erring may be conceived either to die with contrition for all his sins known and unknown or without it If he die without it this errour in it self damnable will be likewise so unto him If he die with contrition as his error can be no impediment but he may his errour though in it self damnable to him according to your doctrine will not prove so And therefore some of those Authors whom you quote speaking of Errors whereunto men were betrayed or wherein they were kept by their Fault or Vice or Passion as for the most part men are Others speaking of them as errors simply and purely involuntary and the effects of humane infirmity some as they were retracted by Contrition to use your own phrase
concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any point for fear of forsaking it in a necessary point But now that we say not this of any one determinate Church which alone can perform the office of Guide or Director but indefinitely of the Church meaning no more but this That there shall be alwaies in some place or other some Church that errs not in Fundamentals will you conclude from hence that we cannot in wisdome forsake this or that the Roman or the Greek Church for fear of erring in Fundamentals 56. Yea but you may say for I will make the best I can of all your Arguments That this Church thus unerring in Fundamentals when Luther arose was by our confession the Roman and therefore we ought not in wisdome to have departed from it in any thing I answer First that we confess no such thing that the Church of Rome was then this Church but only a Part of it and that the most corrupted and most incorrigible Secondly that if by adhering to that Church we could have been thus far secured this Argument had some shew of reason But seeing we are not warranted thus much by any priviledge of that Church that She cannot erre fundamentally but only from Scripture which assures us that she doth erre very haynously we collect our hope that the Truths she retains and the practice of them may prove an Antidote to her against the Errors which she maintains in such Persons as in simplicity of heart follow this Absalom we should then do against the light of our conscience and so sin damnably if we should not abandon the profession of her Errors though not Fundamental Neither can we thus conclude We may safely hold with the Church of Rome in all her Points for she cannot erre damnably For this is fals she may though perhaps she doth not But rather thus These Points of Christianity which have in them the nature of Antidotes against the poyson of all sinnes and errors the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted still retains therefore we hope she errs not Fundamentally but still remains a Part of the Church But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things seeing the very same Scripture which puts us in hope she errs not Fundamentally assures us that in many things and those of great moment she errs very grievously And these Errors though to them that believe them we hope they will not be pernicious yet the professing of them against conscience could not but bring to us certain Damnation As for the fear of departing from some Fundamental truths withall while we depart from her errors Haply it might work upon us if adhearing to her might secure us from it and if nothing else could But both these are false For first adhering to her in all things cannot secure us from erring in Fundamentals Because though de facto we hope she doth not erre yet we know no priviledges she hath but she may erre in them her selfe and therefore we had need have better security hereof than her bare Authority Then secondly without dependance on her at all we may be secured that we do not erre Fundamentally I mean by believing all things plainly set down in Scripture wherin all necessary and most things profitable are plainly delivered Suppose I were travelling to London and knew two wayes thither the one very safe and convenient the other very inconvenient and dangerous but yet a way to London and that I overtook a Passenger on the way who himself believed and would fain perswade me there was no other way but the worse and would perswade me to accompany him in it because I confessed his way though very inconvenient and very dangerous yet a way so that going that way we might come to our journies end by the consent of both parties but he believed my way to be none at all and therefore I might justly fear lest out of a desire of leaving the worst way I left the true and the only way If now I should not be more secure upon my own knowledge than frighted by this fallacy would you not beg me for a fool Just so might you think of us if we would be frighted out of our own knowledge by this bugbear For the only and the main reason why we believe you not to erre in Fundamentals is your holding the Doctrins of Faith in Christ and Repentance which knowing we hold as well as you notwithstanding our departure from you we must needs know that we do not erre in Fundamentals as well as we know that you in some sort do not erre in Fundamentals and therefore cannot possibly fear the contrary Yet let us be more liberal to you and grant that which can never be proved that God had said in plain terms The Church of Rome shall never destroy the Foundation but withall had said that it might and would lay much hay and stubble upon it That you should never hold any Errour destructive of salvation but yet many that were prejudicial to Edification I demand Might we have dispensed with our selves in the believing and professing these Errors in regard of the smalness of them Or had it not been a damnable sin to do so though the Errors in themselves were not damnable Had we not had as plain direction to depart from you in some things profitable as to adhere to you in things necessary In the beginning of your Book when it was for your purpose to have it so the greatness or smalness of the matter was not considerable the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all But here we must erre with you in small things for fear of losing your direction in greater and for fear of departing too far from you not go from you at all even where we see plainly that you have departed from the Truth 57. Beyond all this I say that this which you say in wisdom we are to do is not only unlawful but if we will proceed according to reason impossible I mean to adhere to you in all things having no other ground for it but because you are as we will now suppose infallible in some things that is in Fundamentals For whether by skill in Architecture a large structure may be supported by a narrow foundation I know not but sure I am in reason no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is founded And therefore if I consider what I do and be perswaded that your Infallibility is but limited and particular and partiall my adherence upon this ground cannot possibly be absolute and Universal and Total I am confident that should I meet with such a man amongst you as I am well assured there be many that would grant your Church infallible only in Fundamentals which what they are he knows not and therefore upon this only reason adheres to you in all things I say that I am confident that it may be
the Apostolique Church pretends to be so That assures us that the Spirit was promised and given to them to lead them into all saving truth that they might lead others Obj. But that Church is not now in the world and how then can it pretend to be the Guide of Faith Answ It is now in the world sufficiently to be our Guide not by the Persons of those men that were Members of it but by their Writings which do plainly teach us what truth they were led into and so lead us into the same truth Object But these writings were the writings of some particular men and not of the Church of those times how then doth that Church guide us by these writings Now these places shew that a Church is to be our Guide therefore they cannot be so avoided Answ If you regard the conception and production of these writings they were the writings of particular men But if you regard the Reception and Approbation of them they may be well called the writings of the Church as having the attestation of the Church to have been written by those that were inspired and directed by God As a Statute though penned by some one man yet being ratified by the Parliament is called the Act not of that man but of the Parliament Object But the words seem clearly enough to prove that the Church the Present Church of every Age is Universally Infallable Ans For my part I know I am as willing and desirous that the Bishop or Church of Rome should be infallible provided I might know it as they are to be so esteemed But he that would not be deceived must take heed that he take not his desire that a thing should be so for a reason that it is so For if you look upon Scripture through such spectacles as these they will appear to you of what colour pleases your fancies best and will seem to say not what they do say but what you would have them As some say the Manna wherewith the Israelites were fed in the Wilderness had in every mans mouth that very tast which was most agreeable to his palate For my part I profess I have considered them a thousand times and have looked upon them as they say on both sides and yet to me they seem to say no such matter 70. Not the first For the Church may err and yet the gates of hell not prevail against her It may err and yet continue still a true Church and bring forth Children unto God and send souls to Heaven And therefore this can do you no service without the plain begging of the point in Question viz. That every error is one of the gates of Hell Which we absolutely deny and therefore you are not to suppose but to prove it Neither is our denial without reason For seeing you do and must grant that a particular Church may hold some error and yet be still a true Member of the Church Why may not the Universal Church hold the same error and yet remain the true Universal 71. Not the Second or Third For the Spirit of Truth may be with a Man or a Church for ever and teach him all Truth And yet he may fall into some error if this all be not simply all but all of some kind which you confess to be so unquestioned and certain that you are offended with D. Potter for offering to prove it Secondly he may fall into some error even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly so that he may learn it if he will not so that he must and shall whether he will or no. Now who can ascertain me that Spirit 's teaching is not of this nature or how can you possibly reconcile it with your Doctrin of Freewill in believing if it be not of this nature Besides the word in the Original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to be a guide and directer only not to compel or necessitate Who knows not that a Guide may set you in the right way and you may either negligently mistake or willingly leave it And to what purpose doth God complain so often and so earnestly of some that had eyes to see and would not see that stopped their ears and closed their eyes lest they should hear and see Of others that would not understand lest they should do good That the light shined and the darkness comprehended it not That he came unto his own and his own received him not That light came into the world and men loved darkness more than light To what purpose should he wonder so few believed his report and that to so few his Arm was revealed And that when he comes he should no find no Faith upon Earth if his outward teaching were not of this nature that it might be followed and might be resisted And if it be then God may teach and the Church not learn God may lead and the Church be refractory and not follow And indeed who can doubt that hath not his eyes vailed with prejudice that God hath taught the Church of Rome plain enough in the Epistle to the Corinthians that all things in the Church are to be done for edification and that in any publique Prayers or Thanks-givings or Hymns or Lessons of Instruction to use a language which the assistants genâ—rally understand not is not for edification Though the Church of Rome will not learn this for fear of confessing an error and so overthrowing her Authority yet the time will come when it shall appear that not only by Scripture they were taught this sufficiently and commanded to believe it but by reason and common sense And so for the Communion in both kinds who can deny but they are taught it by our Saviour Joh. 6. in these words according to most of your own expositions Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no life in you If our Saviour speak there of the Sacrament as to them he doth because they conceive he doth so For though they may pretend that receiving in one kind they receive the blood together with the body yet they can with no face pretend that they drink it And so obey not our Saviour's injunction according to the letter which yet they profess is literally alwayes to be obeyed unless some impiety or some absurdity force us to the contrary and they are not yet arrived to that impudence to pretend that either there is impiety or absurdity in receiving the Communion in both kinds This therefore they if not others are plainly taught by our Saviour in this place But by S. Paul all without exception when he says Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this Chalice This a Man that is to examine himself is every man that can do it as is confessed on all hands And therefore it is all one as if
Lay-men but in one kind That Pictures may be worshipped That Saints are to be invocated and so in the rest and then your differences about the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation and all the rest will speedily be ended If you say the advice is good in this but not in other cases I must request you not to expect alwaies to be believed upon your word but to shew us some reason why any one thing namely the Churches Infallibility is fit to prove it self and any other thing by name the Popes Supremacy or Transubstantiation is not as fit Or if for shame you will at length confess that the Churches infallibility is not fit to decide this difference Whether the Church be infallible then you must confess it is not fit to decide all Unless you will say it may be fit to decide all and yet not fit to decide this or pretend that this is not comprehended under all Besides if you grant that your Churches Infallibility cannot possibly be well grounded upon or decided by it self then having professed before that there is no possible means besides this for us to agree hereupon I hope you will give me leave to conclude that it is impossible upon good ground for us to agree that the Roman Church is infallible For certainly light it self is not more clear than the evidence of this Syllogism If there be no other means to make men agree upon your Churches Infallibility but only this and this be no means then it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is infallible But there is as you have granted no other possible means to make men agree hereupon but only a submissive ackdowledgment of her Infallibility And this is apparently no means Therefore it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is infallible 90. Lastly to the place of S. Austin wherein we are advis'd to follow the way of Catholique Discipline which from Christ himself by the Apostles hath come down even to us and from us shall descend to all posterity I answer That the way which S. Austin spake of and the way which you commend being divers wayes and in many things clean contrary we cannot possibly follow them both and therefore for you to apply the same words to them is a vain equivocation Shew us any way and do not say but prove it to have come from Christ and his Apostles down to us and we are ready to follow it Neither do we expect demonstration hereof but such reasons as may make this more probable than the contrary But if you bring in things into your now Catholique Discipline which Christians in S. Austins time held abominable as the picturing of God and which you must and some of you do confess to have come into the Church seven hundred yeers after Christ if you will bring in things as you have done the halfe Communion with a non obstante notwithstanding Christs Institution and the practice of the Primitive Church were to the contrary If you will do such things as these and yet would have us believe that your whole Religion came from Christ and his Apostles this we conceive a request too unreasonable for modest men to make or for wise men to grant CHAP. IV. To say that the Creed contains all Points necessarily to be believed is neither pertinent to the Quâ—stion in hand nor in it self true I SAY neither pertinent nor true Not pertinent Because our Question is nor What Points are necessary to be explicitely believed but what Points may be lawfully disbelieved or rejected after sufficient Proposition that they are divine Truths You say the Creed contains all Points necessary to be believed Be it so But doth it likewise contain all Points not to be disbelieved Certainly it doth not For how many Truths are there in holy Scripture not contained in the Creed which we are not obliged distinctly and particularly to know and believe but are bound under pain of damnation not to reject as soon as we come to know that they are found in holy Scripture And we having already shewed that whatsoever is proposed by God's Church as a Point of Faith is infallibly a truth revealed by God it followeth that whosoever denyeth any such Point opposeth God's sacred testimony whether that Point be contained in the Creed or no. In vain then was your care imployed to prove that all Points of Faith necessary to be explicitely believed are contained in the Creed Neither was that the Catalogue which Charity Mistaken demanded His demand was and it was most reasonable that you would once give us a List of all Fundamentals the denyal whereof destroyes Salvation whereas the denyal of other Points not Fundamental may stand with Salvation although both these kinds of Points be equally proposed as revealed by God For if they be not equally proposed the difference will arise from diversity of the Proposal and not of the Matter fendamental or not fundamental This Catalogue only can shew how farre Protestants may disagree without breach of Unity in Faith and upon this may other matters depend according to the ground of Protestants But you will never adventure to publish such a Catalogue I say more You can not assigne any one Point so great oâ— fundamental that the denyal thereof will make a man an Heretique if it be not sufficiently propounded as a divine Truth Nor can you assigne any one Point so small that it can without heresie be rejected if once it be sufficiently represented as revealed by God 2. Nay this your instance in the Creed is not only impertinent but directly against you For all Points in the Creed are not of their own nature Fundamental as I shewed (a) Cap. 3. n. 3. before And yet it is damnable to deny any one Point contained in the Creed So that it is cleer that to make an error damnable it is not necessary that the matter be of it self fundamental 3. Moreover you cannot ground any certainty upon the Creed it self unless first you presuppose that the Authority of the Church is universally infallible and consequently that it is damnable to oppose her Declarations whether they concerne matters great or small contained or not contained in the Creed This is clear Because we must receive the Creed it self upon the credit of the Church without which we could not know that there was any such thing as that which We call the Apostles Creed and yet the Arguments whereby you endeavour to prove that the Creed contains all Fundamental Points are grounded upon supposition that the Creed was made either by the Apostles themselves or by the (b) Pag. 216. Church of their times from them which thing we could not certainly know if the succeeding and still continued Church may err in her Traditions neither can we be assured whether all Fundamental Articles which you say were out of the Scriptures summed and contracted into the Apostles
pretended proof out of the Acts that the Apostles revealed to the Church the whole counsel of God keeping (d) Act. 20 27. back nothing with your gloss needful for our Salvation is no proof unless you still beg the question and coâ—suppose that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church is contained in the Creed And I wonder you do not reflect that those words were by S. Paul particularly directed to Pastors and Governors of the Church as is clear by the other words He called the Ancients of the Church And afterward Take heed to your selves and to the whole stock wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church And your self say that more knowledge is (e) Pag. 244. necessary in Bishops and Priests to whom is committed the government of the Church and the care of souls than in vulgar Laicks Do you think that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed Said they nothing of the Sacraments Commandements Duties of Hope Charity c. 25. Upon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other Objection To say the whole faith of those times (f) Pag. 225 223. is not contained in the Apostles Creed is all one as if a man should say This is not the Apostles Creed but a part of it For the Faith of the Apostles is not all one with that which we commonly call their Creed Did not I pray you S Mathew and S John believe their writings to be Canonical Scripture and yet their writings are not mentioned in the Creed It is therefore more than clear that the Faith of the Apostles is of larger extent than the Apostles Creed 26 To your demand Why amongst many things of equal necessity to be believed the Apostles should (g) Pag. 223. so distinctly set down some and be altogether silent of others I answer That you must answer your own demand For in the Creed there be divers Points in their nature not fundamental or necessary to be explicitely and distinctly believed as above we shewed Why are these Points which are not fundamental expressed rather than other of the same quality Why our Saviours descent to Hell and Burial expressed and not his Circumcision his Manifestation to the three Kings working of Miracles c. Why did they not express Scriptures Sacraments and all Fundamental Points of Faith tending to practice as well as those which rest in belief Their intention was particularly to deliver such Articles as were fittest for those times concerning the Deity Trinity and Messias as heretofore I have declared leaving many things to be taught by the Catholique Church which in the Creed we all profess to believe Neither doth it follow as you infer That as well nay better they might have given no Article but that of the Church and sent us to the Church for all the rest For in setting down others besides that and not all they make us believe we have all when (h) Pag. 223. we have not all For by this kind of arguing what may not be deduced One might quite contrary to your inference say If the Apostles Creed contain all Points necessary to Salvation what need we any Church to teach us and consequently what need of the Article concerning the Church What need we the Creeds of Nice Constantinople c. Superfluous are you Catechisms wherein besides the Articles of the Creed you adde divers others particulars These would be poor consequences and so is yours But shall I tell you newes For so you are pleased to esteem it We grant your inference thus far That our Saviour Christ referred us to his Church by her to be taught and by her alone For she was before the Creed and Scripture And she to discharge this imposed office of instructing us hath delivered us the Creed but not it alone as if nothing else were to be believed We have besides it holy Scripture we have unwritten Divine Apostolical Ecclesiastical Traditions It were a childish Argument The Creed contains not all things which are necessary to be believed Ergo it is not profitable Or The Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient means Ergo she must teach us without all means without Creeds without Councils without Scripture c. If the Apostles had expressed no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must have taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other means as in fact we have even the Apostles Creed from the Tradition of the Church It you will believe you have all in the Creed when you have not all it is not the Apostles or the Church that makes you so believe but it is your own error whereby you will needs believe that the Creed must contain all For neither the Apostles nor the Church nor the Creed it self tell you any such matter and what necessity is there that one means of instruction must involve whatsoever is contained in all the rest We are not to recite the Creed with anticipated perswasions that it must contain what we imagine it ought for better maintaining some opinions of our own but we ought to say and believe that it contains what we find in it of which one Article is to believe the Catholique Church surely to be taught by her which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the Creed and in particular we may learn of her what Points be contained in the Creed what otherwise and so we shall not be deceived by beliving we have all in the Creed when we have not all and you may in the same manner say As well nay better the Apostles might have given us no Articles at all as have left out Articles tending to practice For in setting down one sort of Articles and not the other they make us believe we have all when we have not all 27. To our Argument that Baptism is not contained in the Creed D. Potter besides his answer that Sacraments belong rather to practice than faith which I have already confuted and which indeed maketh against himself and serveth only to shew that the Apostles intended not to comprize all Points in the Creed which we are bond to believe adds that the Creed of (i) Pag. 237. Nice expressed Baptism by name confess one Baptism for the remission of sins Which answer is directly against himself and manifestly proves that Baptism is an Article of Faith and yet is not contained in the Apostles Creed neither explicitly nor by any necessary consequence from other Articles expressed therein If to make it an Article of Faith be sufficient that it is contained in the Nicene Council he will find that Protestants maintain many errors against faith as being repugnant to definitions of general Councils as in particular that the very Council of Nice which saith M. Whitgift (k) In his defence pag. 330. is of all wise and learned men reverenced esteemed and embraced next unto the Scriptures themselves decreed that to those
you desire and therefore that I should disease my self or my Reader with a punctual examination of it may seem superfluous First that which you would have and which your Arguments wholly drive at is this That the Creed doth not contain all main and principal points of Faith of all sorts whether they be speculative or practical where they contain matter of simple belief or whether they contain matter of practice and obedience This D. Potter grants page 215.235 And you grant that he grants it § 8. Where your words are even by D. Potter's own confession it the Creed doth not comprehend Agenda or things belonging to practice as Sacraments Commandements the Acts of Hope and duties of Charity And if you will inferr from hence that therefore C.M. hath no reason to rest in the Apostles Creed as a perfect catalogue of Fundamentals and a full satisfaction to his demand I have without any offence of D. Potter granted as much if that would content you But seeing you go on and because his assertion is not as neither is it pretended to be a total satisfaction to the demand casheer it as impertinent and nothing towards it here I have been bold to stop your proceeding as unjust and unreasonable For as if you should request a Friend to lend you or demand of a debtor to pay you a hundred pounds and he could or should let you have but fifty this were not fully to satisfie your demand yet sure it were not to do nothing towards it Or as this rejoynder of mine though it be not an answer to all your Book but only to the First considerable Part of it and so much of the Second as is material and falls into the first yet I hope you will not deal so unkindly with me◠as for this reason to condemn it of impertinence So D. Potter being demanded a Catalogue of Fundamentals of Faith and finding them of two kinds and those of one kind summ'd up to his hand in the Apostles Creed and this Creed consigned unto him for such a summary by very great Authority if upon these considerations he hath intreated his Demander to accept of thus much in part of payment of the Apostles Creed as a sufficient Summary of these Articles of Faith which are meerly Credenda me-thinks he hath little reason to complain that he hath not been fairly and squarely dealt with Especially seeing for full satisfaction by D. Potter and all Protestants he is referred to Scripture which we affirm contains evidently all necessary points of Faith and rules of obedience and seeing D. Potter in this very place hath subjoyned though not a Catalogue of Fundamentals which because to some more is Fundamental to others less to others nothing at all had been impossible yet such a comprehension of them as may serve every one that will make a conscionable use of it instead of a Catalogue For thus he says It seems to be Fundamental to the Faith and for the salvation of every Member of the Church that he acknowledg and believe all such Points of Faith whereof he may be sufficiently convinced that they belong to the Doctrin of Jesus Christ This general rule if I should call a Catalogue of Fundamentals I should have a President for it with you above exception I mean your Self for Chap. 3. § 19. just such another Proposition you have called by this name Yet because it were a strange figure of speech I forbear it only I will be bold to say that this Assertion is as good a Catalogue of Fundamentals as any you will bring of your Church Proposals though you take as much time to do it as he that undertook to make an Ass speak 20. I come now to shew that you also have requited D. Potter with a mutual courteous acknowledgment of his Assertion That the Creed is a sufficient Summary of all the necessary Articles of Faith which are meerly Credenda 21. First then § 8. you have these words It cannot be denyed that the Creed is most full and compleat to that purpose for which the holy Apostles inspired by God meant that it should serve and in that manner as they did intend it which was not to comprehend all particular Points of Faith but such general heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the Faith of Christ to Jews and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easily learned and remembred These words I say being fairly examined without putting them on the rack will amount to a full acknowledgment of D. Potters Assertion But before I put them to the question I must crave thus much right of you to grant me this most reasonable postulate that the Doctrine of Repentance from dead works which S. Paul saith was one of the two only things which he preacht and the Doctrin of Charity without which the same S. Paul assures us that the knowledge of all mysteries and all faith is nothing were Doctrins more necessary and requisite and therefore more fit to be preacht to Jews and Gentiles than these under what Judge our Saviour suffered that he was buryed and what time he rose again which you have taught us cap. 3. § 2. for their matter and nature in themselves not to be Fundamental 22. And upon this grant I will ask no leave to conclude that whereas you say the Apostles Creed was intended for a comprehension of such heads of faith as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith of Christ c. You are now for fear of too much debasing those high Doctrins of Repentance and Charity to restrain your Assertion as D. Potter doth his and though you speak indefinitely to say you meant it only of those heads of Faith which are meerly Credenda And then the meaning of it if it have any must be this That the Creed is full for the Apostles intent which was to comprehend all such general heads of Faith which being points of simple belief were most fit and requisite to be preached to Jews and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easily learned and remembred Neither I nor you I believe can make any other sense of your words then this And upon this ground thus I subsume But all the points of belief which were necessary under pain of damnation for the Apostles to preach and for those to whom the Gospel was preached particularly to know and believe were most fit and requisite nay more then so necessary to be preached to all both Jews and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easily learned and remembred Therefore the Apostle's intent by your confession was in this Creed to comprehend all such points And you say The Creed is most full and compleat for the purpose which they intended The Major of this Syllogism is your own The Minor I should think needs no proof yet because all men may not be of my mind I will prove it by
relie Do not you cite Scripture or Tradition or both on both sides And do you not pretend that both these are the infallible Truths of Almighty God 51. You close up this Section with a fallacy proving forsooth that we destroy by our confession the Church which is the house of God because we stand only upon Fundamental Articles which cannot make up the whole fabrick of the Faith no more than the foundation of a house alone can be a house 52. But I hope Sir you will not be difficult in granting that that is a house which hath all the necessary parts belonging to a house Now by Fundamental Articles we mean all those which are necessary And you your self in the very leaf after this take notice that D. Potter doth so Where to this Question How shall I know in particular which Points be and which be not Fundamental You scurrilously bring him in making this ridiculous answer Read my Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. There you shall find that Fundamental Doctrins are such Catholick Verities as principally and essentially pertain to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved All which words he used not to tell what Points be Fundamental as you dishonestly impose upon him but to explain what he meant by the word Fundamental May it please you therefore now at last to take notice that by Fundamental we mean all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect Salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamental to Salvation Unless you will you say that more is necessary than that which is necessary 53. Ad § 19. This long discourse so full of un-ingenuous dealing with your adversary perhaps would have done reasonably in a Farce or a Comedy and I doubt not but you have made your self and your courteous Readers good sport with it But if D. Potter or I had been by when you wrote it we should have stopt your carere at the first starting and have put you in mind of these old School-Proverbs Ex falso supposito sequitur quodlibet and Uno absurdo dato sequuntur mille For whereas you suppose first that to a man desirous to save his soul and requiring whose direction he might rely upon the Doctors answer would be Upon the truly Catholick Church I suppose upon better reason because I know his mind that he would advise him to call no man Master on Earth but according to Christs command to rely upon the direction of God himself If he should enquire where he should find this direction He would answer him In his Word contained in Scripture If he should enquire what assurance he might have that the Scripture is the Word of God He would answer him that the doctrin it self is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God nec vox hominem sonat and that they which wrote and delivered it confirmed it to be the Word of God by doing such works as could not be done but by power from God himself For assurance of the Truth hereof he would advise him to rely upon that which all wise men in all matters of belief rely upon and that is the consent of Ancient Records and Universal Tradition And that he might not instruct him as partial in this advice he might farther tell him that a Gentleman that would be nameless that has written a Book against him called Charity maintained by Catholiques though in many things he differ from him yet agrees with him in this that Tradition is such a principle as may be rested in and which requires no other proof As indeed no wise man doubts but there was such a man as Julius Caesar or Cicero that there are such Cities as Rome or Constantinople though he have no other assurance for the one or the other but only the speech of people This tradition therefore he would counsel him to rely upon and to believe that the Book which we call Scripture was confirmed abundantly by the works of God to be the Word of God Believing it the Word of God he must of necessity believe it true and if he believe it true he must believe it contains all necessary direction to eternal happiness because it affirms it self to do so Nay he might tell him that so far is the whole Book from wanting any necessary direction to his eternal Salvation that one only Author that hath writ but too little Books of it S. Luke by name in the beginning of his Gospel and in the beginning of his Story shews plainly that he alone hath written at least so much as is necessary And what they wrote they wrote by Gods direction for the direction of the world not only for the Learned but for all that would do their true endeavour to know the will of God and to do it therefore you cannot but conceive that writing to all and for all they wrote so as that in things necessary they might be understood by all Besides that here he should find that God himself has engaged himself by promise that if he would love him and keep his Commandements and pray earnestly for his Spirit and be willing to be directed by it he should undoubtedly receive it even the Spirit of Truth which shall lead him into all truth that is certainly at least into all necessary Truths and suffer him to fal into no pernicious error The sum of his whole direction to him briefly would be this believe the Scripture to be the Word of God use your true endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it and then you may rest securely that you are in the true way to eternal happiness This is the substance of that Answer which the Doctor would make to any man in this case and this is a way so plain that fools unless they will cannot err from it Because not knowing absolutely all truth nay not all profitable truth and being feee from err our but endeavouring to know the truth and obey it and endeavouring to be free from err our is by this way made the only condition of Salvation As for your supposition That he would advise such a man to rely upon the Catholique Church for the finding out the doctrin of Christ he utterly disclaims it and truly very justly There being no certain way to know that any Company is a true Church but only by their professing the true doctrin of Christ And therefore as it is impossible I should know that such a company of Philosophers are Peripateticks or Stoicks unless I first know what was the doctrin of the Peripateticks and Stoicks so is it impossible that I should certainly know any company to be the Church of Christ before I know what is the doctrin of Christ the Profession whereof constitutes the visible Church the
Belief and Obedience the invisible And therefore whereas you would have him be directed by the Catholique Church to the doctrin of Christ the contrary rather is most certain and necessary that by the fore-knowledg of the doctrin of Christ he must be directed to a certain assurance which is the Catholique Church if he mean not to choose at a venture but desire to have certain direction to it This supposition therefore being the hinge whereon your whole Discourse turns is the Minerva of your own Brain and therefore were it but for this have we not great reason to accuse you of strange immodesty in saying as you do That the whole Discourse and Inferences which here you have made are either D. Potters own direct assertions or evident consequences clearly deduced from them Especially seeing your proceeding in it is so consonant to this ill beginning that it is in a manner wholly made made up not of D. Potters assertions but your own fictions obtruded on him 54. To the next Question Cannot General Councils err You pretend he answers They may err damnably Let the Reader see the place and he shall find damnably is your addition To the third Demand Must I consult about my difficulties with every particular person of the Catholick Church You answer for him that which is most false that it seems so by his words The whole militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly err either in the whole faith or any necessary Article of it which is very certain for should it do so it should be the Church no longer But what sense is there that you should collect out of these words that every member of the militant Church must be consulted with By like reason if he had said that all men in the world cannot err If he said that God in his own person or his Angels could not erre in these matters you might have gathered from hence that he laid a necessity upon men in doubt to consult with Angels or with God in his own person or with All men in the world Is it not evident to all sober men that to make any man or men fit to be consulted with besides the understanding of the matter it is absolutely requisite that they may be spoken with And is it not apparently impossible that any man should speak with all the members of the Militant Church Or if he had spoken with them All know that he had done so Nay does not D. Potter say as much in plain terms Nay more do not you take notice that he does so in the very next words before these where you say he affirms that the Catholique Church cannot be told of private injuries unless you will perswade us there is a difference between the Catholique Church and the whole Militant Church For whereas you make him deny this of the Catholique Church united and affirm it of the Militant Church dispersed into particulars The truth is he speaks neither of united nor dispersed but affirms simply as appears to your shame by your own quotations that the Catholique Church cannot be told of private injuries and then that the whole Militant Church cannot erre But then besides that the united Church cannot be consulted and the dispersed may What a wild imagination is it and what a strange injustice was it in you to father it upon him I beseech you Sir to consider seriously how far blind zeal to your superstition hath transported you beyond all bounds of honesty and discretion and made you careless of speaking either truth or sense so you speak against D. Potter 55. Again you make him say The Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawful Council may erre damnably and from this you collect It remains then for your necessary instruction you must repair to every particular member of the Universal Church spread over the face of the earth And this is also Pergula pictoris veri nihil omnia ficta The Antecedent false not for the matter of it but that D. Potter says it And the consequence as far from it as Gades from Ganges and as coherent as a rope of Sand. A general Council may err therefore you must travel all the world over and consult with every particular Christian As if there were nothing else to be consulted with Nay as if according to the Doctrin of Protestants for so you must say there were nothing to be consulted with but only a general Council or all the World Have you never heard that Protestants say That men for their direction must consult with Scripture Nay doth not D. Potter say it often in this very Book which you are confuting Nay more in this very page out of which you take this piece of your Cento A General Council may erre damnably are there not these plain words In searches of Truth he means divine Truth God ever directs us to the infallible Rule of Truth the Scripture With what conscience then or modesty can you impose upon him this unreasonable consequence and pretend that your whole discourse is either his own direct assertions or evident consequences clearly deduced from them You add that yet he teaches as if he contradicted himself that the promises of God made to the Church for his assistance are not intended to particular persons but only to the Catholick Church which sure agrees very well with any thing said by D. Potter If it be repugnant to what you said for him falsely what is that to him 56. Neither yet is this to drive any man to desperation unless it be such a one as hath such a strong affection to this word Church that he will not go to Heaven unless he hath a Church to lead him thither For what though a Council may err and the whole Church cannot be consulted with yet this is not to send you on the Fool 's Pilgrimage for Faith and bid you go and conferre with every Christian soul man and woman by Sea and by Land close prisoner or at liberty as you dilate the matter But to tell you very briefly that Universal Tradition directs you to the Word of God and the Word of God directs you to Heaven And therefore here is no cause of desperation no cause for you to be so vain and tragical as here you would seem Yet upon Supposal you say of this miraculous pilgrimage for Faith before I have the Faith of Miracles how shall I proceed at our meeting Or how shall I know the man on whom I may securely rely And hereunto you frame this Answer for the Doctor Procure to know whether he believe all Fundamental Points of Faith Whereas in all the Doctors Book there is no such Answer to any such Question or any like it Neither do you as your custom is note any Page where it may be found which makes me suspect that sure you have some private licence to use Heretiques as you call them at your pleasure and make them answer any
and therefore it is not an abridgement of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therefore it is not an abridgement of them If you would call it now an abridgment of the Faith this would be sense and signifie thus much That all the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith are comprised in it For this is the proper duty of Abridgements to leave out nothing necessary and to take in nothing unnecessary 66. Moreover in answer to this demand you tell us that the Doctor begs the Question supposing that the Apostles believed no more than is contained in their Creed I Answer He supposes no such matter but only that they knew no more necessary Articles of simple belief than what are contained in their Creed So that here you abuse D. Potter and your Reader by taking sophistically without limitation that which is delivered with limitation 67. But this Demand of D. Potter's was equivalent to a Negation and intended for one How can it be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed than the Apostles had All one with this It cannot be necessary c. And this negation of his he inforces with many arguments which he proposes by way of interrogation thus May the Church of after Ages make the narrow way to Heaven narrower than our Saviour left it Shall it be a fault to straiten and encumber the King 's high way with publique nuisances and is it lawful by adding new Articles to the Faith to retrench any thing from the Latitude of the King of Heavens high way to eternal Happiness The yoke of Christ which he said was easie may it be justly made heavier by the Governors of the Church in after-ages The Apostles profess they revealed to the Church the whole Counsel of God keeping back nothing needful for our Salvation What tyranny then to impose any new unnecessary matters on the Faith of Christians especially as the late Popes have done under the high commanding form Qui non crediderit damnabitur If this may be done Why then did our Saviour reprehend the Pharises so sharply for binding heavy burdens and laying them on mens shoulders And why did he teach them that in vain they worshipped God teaching for Doctrines mens Traditions And why did the Apostles call it tempting of God to lay those things upon the necks of Christians that were not necessary 68. All which Interrogations seem to me to contain so many plain and convincing Arguments of the premised Assertion to all which one excepted according to the advice of the best Masters of Rhetorick in such Cases you have answered very discreetly by saying O. But when you write again I pray take notice of them and if you can devise no fair and satisfying Answer to them then be so ingenuous as to grant the Conclusion That no more can be necessary for Christians to believe now than was in the Apostles time A conclusion of great importance for the decision of many Controversies and the disburdening of the Faith of Christ from many incumbrances 69. As for that one which you thought you could fasten upon grounded on the 20. Act. 27. let me tell you plainly that by your Answering this you have shewed plainly that it was wisely done of you to decline the rest You tell D. Potter That needful for salvation is his gloss which perhaps you intended for a piece of an Answer But good Sir consult the place and you shall find that there S. Paul himself says that he kept back 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not any thing that was profitable and I hope you will make no difficulty to grant that whatsoever is needful for salvation is very profitable 70. But then you say This is no proof unless he beg the Question and suppose that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church is contained in the Creed I Answer it is not D. Potter that begs the Question but you that mistake it which is not here in this particular place Whether all Points of simple Belief necessary for the salvation of the Primitive Christians were contained in the Apostles Symbol for that and the proofs of it follow after in the next § p. 223. of D. Potter's Book but Whether any thing can be necessary for Christians to believe now which was not so from the beginning D. Potter maintains the Negative and to make good his opinion thus he argues S. Paul declared to the Ephesians the whole Counsel of God touching their Salvation Therefore that which S. Paul did not declare can be no part of the Counsel of God and therefore not necessary And again S. Paul kept back nothing from the Ephesians that was profitable Therefore he taught them all things necessary to salvation Consider this I pray a little better and then I hope you will acknowledge that here was no Petitio principii in D. Potter but rather Ignoratio Elenchi in you 71. Neither is it material that these words were particularly directed by S. Paul to the Pastors of the Church For to say nothing that the Point here issuable is not Whom he taught whether Priests or Laymen But how much he taught and whether all things necessary it appears plainly out of the Text and I wonder you should read it so negligently as not to observe it that though he speaks now to the Pastors yet he speaks of what he taught not only them but also the Laity as well as them I have kept back nothing says S. Paul that was profitable but have shewed and have taught you publikely and from house to house Testifying I pray observe both to the Jews and also to the Greeks Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ And a little after I know that ye all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God shall see my face no more Wherefore I take you to record this day that I am innocent from the blood of all men for I have kept nothing back but have shewed you all the Counsel of God And again Remember that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears Certainly though he did all these things to the Pastors among the rest nay above the rest yet without Controversie they whom he taught publikely and from house to house The Jews and Greeks to whom he testified 1. preached Faith and Repentance Those all amongst whom he went preaching the kingdom of God Those Every one whom for three years together he warned were not Bishops and Pastors only 72. Neither is this to say that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed nothing of the Sacraments Commandments c. for that is not here the point to be proved but only that they taught them all things necessary so that nothing can be necessary which they did not teach them But how much of this they put into their Creed Whether all the necessary Points of simple Belief as we
be between those that are good Christians and those that are not so But instead thereof had delivered this one Proposition which would have been certainly effectual for all the aforesaid good intents and purposes The Roman Church shall be for ever infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of Faith 84. Whereas you say If we will believe we have all in the Creed when we have not all it is not the Apostles fault but our own I tell you plainly if it be a fault I know not whose it should be but theirs For sure it can be no fault in me to follow such Guides whithersoever they lead me Now I say they have led me into this perswasion because they have given me great reason to believe it and none to the contrary The reason they have given me to believe it is because it is apparent and confest they did propose to themselves in composing it some good end or ends As that Christians might have a form by which for matter of Faith they might profess themselves Catholiques So Putean out of Tho. Aquinas That the faithful might know what the Christian people is to believe explicitly So Vincent Filiucius That being separated into divers parts of the World they might preach the same thing And that that might serve as a mark to distinguish true Christians from Infidels So Card Riclieu Now for all these for any other good intent I say it will be plainly uneffectual unless it contain at least all Points of simple Belief which are in ordinary course necessary to be explicitly known by all men So that if it be a fault in me to believe this it must be my fault to believe the Apostles wise and good men which I cannot do if I believe not this And therefore what Richardus de sancto Victore says of God himself I make no scruple at all to apply to the Apostles and to say Si error est quod credo à vobis deceptus sum If it be an error which I believe it is you and my reverend esteem of you and your actions that hath led me into it For as for your suspition That we are led into this perswasion out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own It is plainly uncharitable I know no opinion I have which I would not as willingly forsake as keep if I could see sufficient reason to enduce me to believe that it is the will of God I should forsake it Neither do I know any opinion I hold against the Church of Rome but I have more evident grounds then this whereupon to build it For let but these Truths be granted That the authority of the Scripture is independent on your Church and dependent only in respect of us upon universal Tradition That Scripture is the only Rule of Faith That all things necessary to Salvation are plainly delivered in Scripture Let I say these most certain and Divine Truths be laid for Foundations and let our superstructions be consequent and coherent to them and I am confident Peace would be restored and Truth maintained against you though the Apostles Creed were not in the World CHAP. V. That Luther Calvin their Associates and all who began or continue the Separation from the external Communion of the Roman Church are guilty of the proper and formal sin of Schism THE Searcher of all Hearts is witness with how unwilling minds we Catholiques are drawn to fasten the denomination of Schismatiques or Heretiques on them for whose souls if they employed their best blood they judge that it could not be better spent If we rejoyce that they are contristated at such titles our joy riseth not from their trouble or grief but as that of the Apostles did from the fountain of Charity because they are contristated to repentance that so after unpartial examination they finding themselves to be what we say may by God's holy grace begin to dislike what themselves are For our part we must remember that our obligation is to keep within the mean betwixt uncharitable bitterness and pernitious flattery not yielding to worldly respects nor offending Christian Modesty but uttering the substance of truth in so Charitable manner that not so much we as Truth and Charity may seem to speak according to the wholesome advice of S. Gregory Nazianzen in these divine words We do not affect peace with (a) Orat. 32. prejudice of the true doctrine that so we may get a name of being geatle and mild and yet we seek to conserve peace fighting in a lawful manner and containing our selves within our compass and the rule of Spirit And of these things my judgment is and for my part I prescribe the same law to all that deal with souls and treat of true Doctrine that neither they exasperate mens minds by harshness nor make them haughty or insolent by submission but that in the cause of Faith they behave themselves prudently and advisedly and do not in either of these things exceed the mean With whom agreeth S. Leo saying it behoveth us in such causes to be (b) Epist 8. most careful that without noise of contentions both Charity be conserved and Truth maintained 2. For better method we will handle these Points in order First we will set down the nature and essence or as I may call it the Quality of Schism In the second place the greatness and grievousness or so to term it the Quantity thereof For the Nature or Quality will tell us who may without injury be judged Schismatiques and by the greatness or quantity such as find themselves guilty thereof will remain acquainted with the true state of their soul and whether they may conceive any hope of Salvation or no. And because Schism will be found to be a division from the Church which could not happen unless there were always a visible Church we will Thirdly prove or rather take it as a Point to be granted by all Christians that in all Ages There hath been such a Visible Congregation of Faithful People Fourthly we will demonstrate that Luther Galvin and the rest did separate themselves from the Communion of that always visible Church of Christ and therefore were guilty of Schism And fifthly we will make it evident that the visible true Church or Christ out of which Luther and his followers departed was no other but the Roman Church and consequently that both they and all others who persist in the same divisions are Schismatiques by reason of their separation from the Church of Rome 1. Point The nature of Schism 3. For the first Point touching the Nature or Quality of Schism As the natural perfection of man consists in his being the Image of God his Creator by the powers of his soul so his supernatural perfection is placed in similitude with God as his last End and Felicity and by having the said spiritual faculties his Understanding and Will is linked to him
among private men as there is inequality betwixt one man and a whole kingdom so in the Church Schism is as much more grievous than Sedition in a Kingdom as the spiritual good of souls surpasseth the civil and political weal. And S. Thomas adds further and they lose the spiritual Power of Jurisdiction and if they go about to absolve from sin or to excommunicate their actions are invalid which he proves out of the Canon Novitianus Causa 7 quaest 1. which saith He that keepeth neither the Unity of spirit nor the peace of agreement and separates himself from the bond of the Church and the Colledge of Priests can neither have the Power nor dignity of a Bishop the Power also of Order for example to consecrate the Eucharist to ordain Priests c. they cannot lawfully exercise 7. In the judgment of the holy Fathers Schism is a most grievous offence S. Chrysostom (m) Hom. 11. in ep ad Eph. compares these Schismatical dividers of Christ's mystical body to those who sacrilegiously pierced his natural body saying Nothing doth so much incense God as that the Church should be divided Although we should do innumerable good works if we divide the full Ecclesiastical Congregation we shall be punished no less than they who tore his natural body For that was done to the gain of the whole world although not with that intention but this hath no profit at all but there ariseth from it most great harm These things are spoken not only to those who bear office but also to those who are governed by them Behold how neither a moral good life which conceit deceiveth many nor authority of Magistrates nor any necessity of Obeying Superiours can excuse Schism from being a most hainous offence Optatus Milevitanus (o) Lib. cont Parmen calls Schism Ingens flagitium a huge crime And speaking to the Donatists saith that Schism is evil in the highest degree even you are not able to deny No less pathetical is S. Augustine upon this subject He reckons Schismatiques amongst Pagans Heretiques and Jews saying Religion is to be sought neither in the confusion of Pagans nor (p) Lib. de vera Relig. cap. 6. in the filth of Heretiques nor in the languishing of Schismatiques nor in the Age of the Jews but amongst those alone who are called Christian Catholiques or Orthodox that is lovers of Unity in the whole body and followers of truth Nay he esteems them worse than Infidels and Idolaters saying Those whom the Donatists (q) Cont. Donatist l. 1. cap. 8. heal from the wound of Infidelity and Idolatry they hurt more grievously with the wound of Schism Let here those men who are pleased untruly to call us Idolaters reflect upon themselves and consider that this holy Father judgeth Schismatiques as they are to be worse than Idolaters which they absurdly call us And this he proveth by the example of Core Dathan and Abiram and other rebellious Schismatiques of the old Testament who were conveyed alive down into Hell and punished more openly than Idolaters No doubt saith this holy Father but (r) Ibid. l. 2. c. 6. that was committed most wickedly which was punished most severely In another place he yoketh Schism with Heresie saying upon the Eighth Beatitude Many (s) De serm Dom. in monte cap. 5. Heretiques under the name of Christians deceiving mens souls do suffer many such things but therefore they are excluded from this reward because it is not only said Happy are they who suffer persecution but there is added for Justice But where there is not sound Faith there cannot be justice Neither can Schismatiques promise to themselves any part of this reward because likewise where there is no Charity there cannot be Justice And in another place yet more effectually he saith Being out of (t) Epist 204. the Church and divided from the heap of Unity and the bond of Charity thou shouldst be Punished with eternal death though thou shouldest be burned alive for the name of Christ And in another place he hath these words If he hear not the Church let him be to (u) Cont. advers Leg. Prophet l. 2. cap. 17. thee as an Heathen or Publican which is more grievous than if he were smitten with the sword consumed with flames or cast to wilde beasts And elsewhere Out of the Catholique Church saith he one (w) De gest cum Emerit may have Faith Sacraments Orders and in sum all things except Salvation With S. Augustine his Countryman and second self in sympathy of spirit S. Fulgentius agreeth saying Believe this (x) De fide ad Pet. stedfastly without doubting that every Heretique or Schismatique 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 Alms soever he give yea though he should shed his blood for the name of Christ he cannot obtain Salvation Mark again how no moral honesty of life no good deeds no Martyrdom can without repentance avail any Schismatique for Salvation Let us also add that D. Potter saith Schism is no less (y) Pag. 42. damnable than Heresie 8. But O you Holy Learned zealous Fathers and Doctors of Gods Church out of these premises of the grievousness of Schism and of the certain damnation which it bringeth if unrepented what conclusion draw you for the instruction of Christians S. Augustine maketh this wholesome inference There is (z) Cont. Parm. l. 2. cap. 62. no just necessity to divide Unity S. Irenaeus concludeth They cannot (a) Cont. haeres l 4. cap. 62. make any so important reformation as the evil of the Schism is pernitious S. Denis of Alexandria saith Certainly (b) Apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. all things should rather be endured than to consent to the division of the Church of God those Martyrs being no less glorious that expose themselves to hinder the dismembring of the Church than those that suffer rather than they will offer sacrifice to Idols Would to God all those who divided themselves from that visible Church of Christ which was upon earth when Luther appeared would rightly consider of these things And thus much of the second Point 3. Point Perpetual Visibility of the Church 9 We have just and necessary occasion eternally to bless Almighty God who hath vouchsafed to make us members of the Catholique Roman Church from which while men fall they precipitate themselves into so vast absurdities or rather sacrilegious blasphemies as is implyed in the Doctrin of the total deficiency of the visible Church which yet is maintained by divers chief Protestants as may at large be seen in Breerely and others out of whom I will here name Jewel saying The truth was unknown (c) Apol. part 4. c. 4. divis 2. And in his defence printed Ann. 1571. Pag. 426. at that time and unheard of when Martin Luther and Ulderick
Zwinglius first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel Perkins saith We say that (d) In his Exposâ—t on upon the Creed Pag. 400. bâ—fore the dayes of Luther for the space of many hundâ—ed years an Universal Apostacy overspread the whole face of the earth and that our Protestant Church was not then visible to the world Napper upon the Revelations teacheth that from the year of (e) Propos 37. Pag 68. Christ three hundred and sixteen the Antichristian and Papistical raign hath begun raigning universally and without any debatable contradiction one thousand two hundred sixty years that is till Luther's time And that from the year of (f) Ibid. cap. 12. Pag. 161. col 3. Christ three hundred and sixteen God hath withdrawn his Visible Church from open Assemblies to the hearts of particular godly men c. during the space of one thousand two hundred threescore years And that the (g) Ibid. in cap. 11. Pag. 145. Pope and Clergy have possessed the outward Visible Church of Christians even one thousand two hundred threescore years And that the (h) Ibid. Pag. 191. true Church abode latent and invisible And Brocard (i) Fol. 110. 123. upon the Revelations professeth to joyn in opinion with Napper Fulk affirmeth that in the (k) Answer to a counterfeit Catholique Pag. 16. time of Boniface the third which was the year six hundred and seven the Church was invisible and fled into the wilderness there to remain a long season Luther saith Primò solus eram At the first (l) In praef at operum suorum I was alone Jacob Hailbronerus one of the Disputants for the Protestant Patty in the conference at Ratisbon affirmeth (m) In suo Acatholico vol. à . 15. cap. 9. p. 479 that the true Church was interrupted by Apostasie from the true Faith Calvin saith It is absurd in the very (n) Epist 141. beginning to break one from another after we have been forced to make a separation from the whole world It were over-long to alledge the words of Joannes Regius Daniel Chamierus Beza Ochimus Castalio and others to the same purpose The reason which cast them upon this wicked Doctrin was a desperate voluntary necessity because they being resolved not to acknowledge the Roman Church to be Christ's true Church and yet being convinced by all manner of evidence that for divers Ages before Luther there was no other Congregation of Christians which could be the Church of Christ there was no remedy but to affirm that upon earth Christ had no visible Church which they would never have avouched if they had known how to avoid the foresaid inconvenience as they apprehended it of submitting themselves to the Roman Church 10. Against these exterminating spirits D. Potter and other more moderate Protestants profess that Christ always had and always will have upon earth a Visible Church otherwise saith he our Lord's (o) Pag. 154. promise of her stable (p) Mat. 16.18 edification should be of no value And in another place having affirmed that Protestants have not left the Church of Rome but her corruptions and acknowledging her still to be a member of Christ's body he seeketh to clear himself and others from Schism because saith he the property (q) Pag. 76. of Schism is witness the Donatists and Lucitâ—rians to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates And if any Zâ—lots amongst us have proceeded to heavier censures their zeal may be excused but their charity and wisdom cannot be justified And elsewhere he acknowledgeth that the Roman Church hath those main and (r) Pag. 83. essential truths which give her the name and essence of a Church 11. It being therefore granted by D. Potter and the chiefest and best learned English Protestants that Christ's Visible Church cannot perish it will be needless for me in this occasion to prove it S. Augustine doubted not to say The Prophets (s) In Psal 30. Com. 2. spoke more obscurely of Christ then of the Church because as I think they did forsee in spirit that men were to make parties against the Church and that they were not to have so great strife concerning Christ therefore that was more plainly foretold and more openly prophesied about which greater contentions were to rise that it might turn to the condemnation of them who have seen it and yet gone forth And in another place he saith How do we confide (t) Epist 48. to have received manifestly Christ himself from holy Scriptures if we have not also manifestly received the Church from them And indeed to what Congregation shall a man have recourse for the affairs of his soul if upon earth there be no Visible Church of Christ Beside to imagine a company of men believing one thing in their heart and with their mouth professing the contrary as they must be supposed to do for if they had professed what they believed they would have become Visible is to dream of a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants but not to conceive a right notion of the Church of Christ our Lord. And therefore S. Augustine saith We cannot be saved unless labouring also for the (u) S. Aug. de Fide Symbolâ— c. 1. Salvation of others we profess with our mouths the same Faith which we bear in our hearts And if any man hold it lawful to dissemble and deny matters of Faith we cannot be assured but that they actually dissemble and hide Anabaptism Arianism yea Turcism and even Atheism or any other false belief under the outward profession of Calvinism Do not Protestants teach that preaching of the World and administration of Sacraments which cannot but make a Church Visible are inseparable notes of the true Church And therefore they must either grant a Visible Church or none at all No wonder then if S. Austin account this Heresie so gross that he saith against those who in his time defended the like error But this Church which (w) In Psal 101. hath been of all Nations is no more she hath perished so say they that are in not in her O impudent speech And afterward This voice so abominable so detestable so full of presumption and falshood which is sustained with no truth inlightned with no wisdom seasoned with no salt vain rash heady pernitious the holy Ghost foresaw c. And peradventure some (x) De ovib c. â— one may say there are other sheep I know not where with which I am not acquainted yet God hath care of them But he is too absurd in humane sense that can imagine such things And these men do not consider that while then deny the perpetuity of a Visible Church they destroy their own present Church according to the argument which S. Augustine urged against the Donatists in these words (y) De Bapt. cont Donat. If the Church were lost in Cyprian's we may say in Gregory's
time from whence did Donatus Luther appear From what earth did he spring From what sea is he come From what heaven did he drop And in another place How can they vaunt (z) Lib. 3. cont Parm. to have any Church if â—he have ceased ever since those times And all Divines by defining Schism to be a division from the true Church suppose that there must be a known Church from which it is possible for men to depart But enough of this in these few words 4. Point Luther and all that follow him are Schismatiques 12. Let us now come to the fourth and chiefest Point which was to examine whether Luther Calvin and the rest did not depart from the external Communion of Christ's Visible Church and by that separation became guilty of Schism And that they are properly Schismatiques clearly followeth from the grounds which we have laid concerning the nature of Schism which consists in leaving the external Communion of the Visible Church of Christ our Lord and it is clear by evidence of fact that Luther and his followers forsook the Communion of that Ancient Church For they did not so much as pretend to joyn with any Congregation which had a being before their time for they would needs conceive that no Visible Company was free from errors in Doctrin and corruption in practice And therefore they opposed the Doctrin they withdrew their obedience from the Prelates they left participation in Sacraments they changed the Liturgy of publique Service of whatsoever Church then extant And these things they pretended to do out of a perswasion that they were bound forsooth in conscience so to do unless they would participate with errors corruptions and superstitions We dare not saith D. Potter communicate (a) Pag. 68. with Rome either in her publique Liturgy which is manifestly polluted with gross superstition c. or in those corrupt and ungrounded opinions which she hath added to the Faith of Catholiques But now let D. Potter tell me with what visible Church extant before Luther he would have adventured to communicate in her publique Liturgy and Doctrin since he durst not communicate with Rome He will not be able to assign any even with any little colour of common sense If then they departed from all visible Communities professing Christ it followeth that they also left the Communion of the true visible Church which soever it was whether that of Rome or any other of which Point I do not for the present dispute Yea this the Lutherans do not only acknowledge but prove and brag of If saith a learned Lutheran there had been right (b) Georgius Milius in Aug. Confess art 7. de Eccles Pag. 137 Believers which went before Luther in his office there had then been no need of a Lutheran Reformation Another affirmeth it to be ridiculous to think that in the time (c) Bened. Morgenstern tract de Eccles Pag. 145. before Luther any had the purity of Doctrin and that Luther should receive it from them and not they from Luther Another speaketh roundly and saith It is impudency to say that many learned men (d) Conrad Schlusselb in Theol. Calvin lib. 2. fol. 130. in Germany before Luther did hold the Doctrin of the Gospel And I add That far greater impudency it were to affirm that Germany did not agree with the test of Europe and other Christian Catholique Nations and consequently that it is the greatest impudency do deny that he departed from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church spread over the whole world We have heard Calvin saying of Protestants in general We were even forced (e) Epist 141. to make a separation from the whole world And Luther of himself in particular In the beginning (f) In praefat operum suorum I was alone Ergo say I by your good leave you were at least a Schismatique divided from the Ancient Church and a member of no new Church For no sole man can constitute a Church and though he could yet such a Church could not be that glorious Company of whose number greatness and amplitude so much hath been spoken both in the old Testament and in the New 13. D. Potter endeavours to avoid this evident Argument by divers evasions but by the confutation thereof I will with God's holy assistance take occasion even out of his own Answers and grounds to bring unanswerable reasons to convince them of Schism 14. His chief Answer is That they have not left the Church but her corruption 15. I reply This answer may be given either by those furious people who teach that those abuses and corruptions in the Church were so enormous that they could not stand with the nature or being of a true Church of Christ Or else by those other more calm Protestants who affirm that those errors did not destroy the being but only deform the beauty of the Church Against both these sorts of men I may fitly use that unanswerable Dilemma which S. Augustine brings against the Donatists in these concluding words Tell me whether the (g) Lib. 2. cont Epist Gaudent cap. 7. Church at that time when you say she entertained those who were guilty of all crimes by the contagion of those sinful persons perished or perished not Answer Whether the Church perished or perished not Make choice of what you think If then she perished What Church brought forth Donatus we may say Luther But if she could not perish because so many were incorporated into her without Baptism that is without a second baptism or rebaptization and I may say without Luther's Reformation answer me I pray you what madness did more the Sect of Donatus to separate themselves from her upon pretence to avoid the communion of bad meaâ— I beseech the Reader to ponder every one of S. Augustine's words and to consider whether any thing could have been spoken more directly against Luther and his followers of what sort soever 16. And now to answer more in particular I say to those who teach that the visible Church of Christ perished for many Ages that I can easily afford them the courtesie to free them from meer Schism but all men touched with any spark of zeal to vindicate the wisdom and goodness of our Saviour from blasphemous injury cannot chuse but believe and proclaim them to be superlative Arch-heretiques Nevertheless if they will needs have the honour of Singularity and desire to be both formal Heretiques and properly Schismatiques I will tell them that while they dream of an invisible Church of men which agreed with them in Faith they will upon due reflection find themselves to be Schismatiques from those corporeal Angels or invisible men because they held external Communion with the visible Church of those times the outward Communion of which visible Church these modern hot-spurs forsaking were thereby divided from the outward Communion of their hidden Brethren and so are Separatists from the external Communion of them
with whom they agree in Faith which is Schism in the most formal and proper signification thereof Moreover according to D. Potter those boisterous Creatures are properly Schismatiques For the reason why he thinks himself and such as he is to be cleared from Schism notwithstanding their division from the Roman Church is because according to his Divinity the property of (h) Pag. 76. Schism is witness the Donatists and Luciferians to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates But those Protestants of whom we now spake cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which they separated themselves and they do it directly as the Donatists in whom you exemplifie did by affirming that the true Church had perished and therefore they cannot be cleared from Schism if you may be their Judge Consider I pray you how many prime Protestants both domestical and forraign you have at one blow struck off from hope of Salvation and condemned to the lowest pit for the grievous sin of Schism And withall it imports you to consider that you also involve your self and other moderate Protestants in the self-same crime and punishment while you communicate with those who according to your own principles are properly and formally Schismatiques For if you held your self obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errors and Corruptions which yet you confess were not Fundamental shall it not be much more damnable for you to live in Communion and Confraternity with those who defend an error of the failing of the Church which in the Donatists you confess (i) Pag. 126. to have been properly heretical against the Article of our Creed I believe the Church And I desire the Reader here to apply an authority of S. Cyprian Epist 76. which he shall find alledged in the next number And this may suffice for confutation of the aforesaid Answer as it might have relation to the rigid Calvinists 17. For Confutation of those Protestants who hold that the Church of Christ had always a being and cannot err in Points Fundamental and yet teach that she may err in matters of less moment wherein if they forsake her they would be accounted not to leave the Church but only her corruptions I must say that they change the state of our present Question not distinguishing between internal Faith and external Communion not between Schism and Heresie This I demonstrate out of D. Potter himself who in express words teacheth that the promises which our Lord hath made (k) Pag. 151. unto his Church for his assistance are intended not to any particular Persons or Churches but only to the Church Catholique and they are to be extended not to every parcel or particularity of truth but only to Points of Faith or Fundamental And afterwards speaking of the Universal Church he saith It is comfort (l) Pag. 155. enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers and conserve her on earth against all enemies but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error till she be in heaven Out of which words I observe that according to D. Potter the self-same Church which is the Universal Church remaining the Universal true Church of Christ may fall into errors and corruptions from whence it clearly followeth that it is impossible to leave the External communion of the Church so corrupted and retain external communion with the Catholique Church since the Church Catholique and the Church so corrupted is the self-same one Church or company of men And the contrary imagination talks in a dream as if the errors and infections of the Catholique Church were not inherent in her but were separate from her like to Accidents without any Subject or rather indeed as if they were not Accidents but Hypostases or Persons subsisting by themselves for men cannot be said to live in or out of the Communion of any dead creature but with persons endued with life and reason and much less can men be said to live in the Communion of Accidents as errors and corruptions are and therefore it is an absurd thing to affirm that Protestants divided themselves from the corruptions of the Church but not from the Church her self seeing the corruptions of the Church were inherent in the Church All this is made more clear if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Catholique Churches holding contrary Doctrines and divided in external Communion one of the which two Churches did triumph over all error and corruption in Doctrine and practice but the other was stained with both For to faign this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of histories which are silent of any such matter It is against D. Potter's own grounds that the Church may err in Points not Fundamental which were not true if you will imagine a certain visible Catholique Church free from error even in Points not Fundamental It contradicteth the words in which he said the Church may not hope to triumph over all error till she be in heaven It evacuateth the brag of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church and lastly It maketh Luther a Schismatique for leaving the Communion of all visible Churches seeing upon this supposition there was a visible Church of Christ free from all corruption which therefore could not be forsaken without just imputation of Schism We must therefore truly affirm that since there was but one visible Church of Christ which was truly Catholique and yet was according to Protestants stained with corruption when Luther left the external Communion of that corrupted Church he could not remain in the Communion of the Catholique Church no more than it is possible to keep company with D. Christopher Potter and not keep company with the Provost of Queens Colledge in Oxford if D. Potter and the Provost be one and the self-same man For so one should be and not be with him at the same time This very Argument drawn from the Unity of God's Church S. Cyprian urgeth to convince that Novatianus was cut ost from the Church in these words The Church is (m) Epist 76. ad Mag. One which being One cannot be both within and without If she be with Novatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with Cornelius who succeeded Fabianus by lawful ordination Novatiâ—nus is not in the Church I purposely here speak only of external Communion with the Catholique Church For in this Point there is great difference between internal acts of our understanding and will and of external deeds Our Understanding and Will are faculties as Philsophers speak abstractive and able to distinguish and as it were to part things though in themselves they be really conjoyned But real external deeds do take things in gross as they find them not separating things which in
reality are joyned together Thus one man may consider and love a sinner as he is a man friend benefactor or the like and at the same time not consider him nor love him as he is a sinner because these are acts of our Understanding and Will which may respect their objects under some one formality or consideration without reference to other things contained in the self-same objects But if one should strike or kill a sinful man he will not be excused by alledging that he killed him not as a man but as a sinner because the self-same person being a man and the sinner the external act of murder fell joyntly upon the man and the sinner And for the same reason one cannot avoid the company of a sinner and at the same time be really present with that man who is a sinner And this is our case and in this our Adversaries are egregiously and many of them affectedly mistaken For one may in some Points believe as the Church believeth and disagree from her in other One may love the truth which she holds and detest her pretended corruptions But it is impossible that a man should really separate himself from her external Communion as she is corrupted and be really within the same external Communion as she is sound because she is the self-same Church which is supposed to be sound in some things and to err in others Now our question for the present doth concern only this Point of external Communion because Schism as it is distinguished from Heresie is committed when one divides himself from the External Communion of that Church with which he agrees in Faith Whereas Heresie doth necessarily imply a difference in matter of Faith and belief and therefore to say that they left not the visible Church but her errors can only excuse them from Heresie which shall be tryed in the next Chapter but not from Schism as long as they are really divided from the external Communion of the self-same visible Church which notwithstanding those errors wherein they do in judgment dissent from her doth still remain the true Catholique Church of Christ and therefore while they forsake the corrupted Church they forsake the Catholique Church Thus then it remaineth clear that their chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the question confoundeth internal acts of the Understanding with the external Deeds doth not distinguish between Schism and Heresie and leaves this demonstrated against them That they divided themselves from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church because they conceived that she needed Reformation But whether this pretence of Reformation will acquit them of Schism I refer to the unpartial Judges heretofore (n) Numb 8. alleadged as to S. Irenaeus who plainly saith They cannot make any so important REFORMATION as the Evil of the Schism is pernitious To S. Denis of Alexandria saying Certainly all things should be endured rather than to consent to the division of the Church of God those Martyrs being no less glorious that expose themselves to hinder the dismembring of the Church then those that suffer rather than they will offer sacrifice to Idols To S. Augustine who tels us That not to hear the Church is a more grievous thing than if he were stricken with the sword consumed with flames exposed to wild Beasts And to conclude all in few words he giveth this general prescription There is no just necessity to divide unity And D. Potter may remember his own words There neither was (s) Pag. 75. nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But I have shewed that Luther and the rest departed from the Church of Christ if Christ had any Church upon earth Therefore there could be no just cause of Reformation or what else soever to do as they did and therefore they must be contented to be held for Schismatiques 18. Moreover I demand whether those corruptions which moved them to forsake the Communion of the Visible Church were in manners or doctrin Corruption in manners yields no sufficient cause to leave the Church otherwise men must go not only out of the Church but out of the world as the Apostle (t) 1 Cor. 5.10 saith Our blessed Saviour foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choise Corn and sinners with just men If then Protestants wax zealous with the Servants to pluck up the weeds let them first hearken to the wisdom of the Master Let both grow up And they ought to imitate them who as S. Augustine saith Tolerate for the good of (u) Ep. 162. Unity that which they detest for the good of equity And to whom the more frequent and foul such scandals are by so much the more is the merit of their perseverance in the Communion of the Church and the Martyrdom of their patience as the same Saint calls it If they were offended with the life of some Ecclesiastical persons must they therefore deny obedience to their Pastors and finally break with Gods Church The Pastor of Pastors teacheth us another lesson Upon the Chair of Moses (w) Mat. 33. have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you observe yee and do yee but according to their works do you not Must people except against laws and revolt from Magistrates because some are negligent or corrupt in the execurion of the same laws and performance of their office If they intended reformation of manners they used a strange means for the atchieving of such an end by denying the necessity of Confession laughing at austerity of pennance condemning the Vows of Chastity Poverty Obedience breaking Fasts c. And no less unfit were the Men than the Means I love not recrimination But it is well known to how great crimes Luther Calvin Zuinglius Beza and others of the prime Reformers were notoriously obnoxious as might be easily demonstrated by the only transcribing of what others have delivered upon that subject whereby it would appear that they were very far from being any such Apostolical men as God is wont to use in so great a work And whereas they were wont especially in the beginning of their revoult maliciously to exaggerate of the faults some Clergy men Erasmus said well Ep. ad Fratres inferior is Germaniae Let the riot lust ambition avarice of Priests and whatsoever other crimes be gathered together Heresie alone doth exceed all this filthy lake of vices Besides nothing at all was omitted by the sacred Council of Trent which might tend to Reformation of manners And finally the vices of others are not hurtful to any but such as imitate and consent to them according to the saying of S. Augustine we conserve (y) Ep. 116. innocency not by knowing the ill deeds of men but by not yielding conscent to such as we know and by not judging rashly of such faults as we know not If you answer that not corruption in
that the Church erred in Points necessary to Salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schism But others who believed that she had no damnable errors did very well yea were obliged to forsake her and which is more miraculous or rather monstrous they did well to forsake her formally and precisely because they judged that she retained all means necessary to Salvation I say because they so judged For the very reason for which he acquitteth himself and condemneth those others as Schismatiques is because he holdeth that the Church which both of them forsook is not cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation whereas those other Zelors deny her to be a member of Christs body or capable of Salvation wherein alone they disagree from D. Potter for in the effect of separation they agree only they do it upon a different motive or reason Were it not a strange excuse if a man would think â—o cloak his rebellion by alleadging that he held the person against whom he rebelleth to be his lawful Soveraign And yet D. Potter thinks himself free from Schism because he forsook the Church of Rome but yet so as that still he held her to be the true Church and to have all necessary means to Salvation But I will no further urge this most solemn foppery and do much more willingly put all Catholiques in mind what an unspeakable comfort it is that our Adversaries are forced to confess that they cannot clear themselves from Schism otherwise than by acknowledging that they do not nor cannot cut off from the hope of Salvation out Church Which is as much as if they should in plain terms say They must be damned unless we may be saved Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemn your zealous brethren of Heresie for denying the Churches perpetuity but doth not clear your self from Schism which consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of Faith as you must profess your self to agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamental Articles For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of Salvation and so condemn your self of Schism And lastly even according to this your own definition of Schism you cannot clear your self from that crime unless you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own Assertions For if you do not cut us off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation how come you to say in another place that you judge a reconciliation with us to be (k) Pag. 20. damnable That to depart from the Church of Rome there might be just and necessary (l) Pag. 77. cause That they that have the understanding and means to discover their error and neglect to use them (m) Pag. 79. we dare not flatter them say you with so easie a censure of hope of Salvation If then it be as you say a property of Schism to cut off from the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates how will you clear your self from Schism who dare not flatter us with so easie a censure and who affirm that a reconciliation with us is damnable But the truth is there is no constancy in your Assertâ—ons by reason of dâ—fficulties which press you on all sides For you are loath to affiâ—m cleerly that we may be saved lest such a grant might be occasion as in all reason it ought to be of the conversion of Protestants to the Roman Church And on the other side if you affirm that our Church erred in Points Fundamental or necessary to Salvation you know not how nor where nor among what company of men to find a perpetual visible Church of Christ before Luther And therefore your best shift is to say and unsay as your occasions command I do not examine your Assertion that it is the property of Schism to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates wherein you are mightily mistaken as appears by your own exampie of the Donatists who were most formal and proper Heretiques and not Schismatiques as Schism is a vice distinct from Heresie Besides although the Donatists and Luciserians whom you also alledge had been meer Schismatiques yet it were against all good Logick from a particular to infer a general Rule to determine what is the property of Schism 28. A third device I find in D. Potter to clear his brethren from Schism There is saith he great difference between (n) Pag. 75. a Schism from them and a Reformation of our selves 29. This I confess is a quaint subtilty by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused For what devil incarnate could meerly pretend a separation and not rather some oâ—her motive of vertue truth profit or pleasure But now fince their pretended Reformation consisted as they gave out in forsaking the corruptions of the Church the Reformation of themselves and their division from us falls out to be one and the self-same thing Nay we see that although they infinitely disagree in the particulars of their reformation yet they symbolize and consent in the general Point of forsaking our pretended corruptions An evident sign that the thing upon which their thoughts first pitched was not any particular Modell or Idaea of Religion but a setled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome Wherefore this Metaphysical speculation that they intended only to reform themselves cannot possibly excuse them from Schism unless first they be able to prove that they were obliged to depart from us Yet for as much as concernes the fact it self it is clear that Luther's revolt did not proceed from any zeal of reformation The motive which put him upon so wretched and unfortunate a work were Covetousness Ambition Lust Pride Envy and grudging that the promulgation of Indulgences was not committed to himself or such as he desired He himself taketh God to witness that he fell into these troubles casually and (o) Casu non voluntate in has turbaslincidi Deum ipsum testor against his will not upon any intention of Reformation not so much as dreaming or suspecting any change which might (p) Act. et Mon. Pag. 404. happen And he began to preach against Indulgences when he knew not what (q) Sleidan l. 16 fol. 232. the matter meant For saith he I scarcely understood (r) Sleid. lib. 13. fol. 177. then what the name of Indulgences meant In so much as afterwards Luther did much mislâ—ke of his own undertaken course oftentimes saith he wishing (Å¿) Luth in colloq mensal that I had never begun that business And Fox saith It is apparent that (t) Act. Mon. Pag pag. 404. Luther promised Cardinal Cajeran to keepe silence provided also his adversaries would do the like M. Cowper reporteth further that Luther by his letter submitted (u) Cowp in his Chronicle himself to the Pope so
that he might not bee compelled to recant With much more which may be seen in (w) Tract 2. cap 2. Sect. 11. subd 2. Brereley But this is sufficient to shew that Luther was far enough from intending any Reformation And if he judged a Reformation to be necessary what a huge wickedness was it in him to promise silence if his adversaries would do the like Or to submit himself to the Pope so that he might not be compelled to recant Or if the Reformation were not indeed intended by him nor judged to be necessary how can he be excused from damnable Schism And this is the true maner of Luther's revolt taken from his own acknowledgments and the words of the more ancient Protestants themselves whereby D. Potter's faltring and mincing the matter is clearly discovered and confuted Upon what motives our Country was divided from the Roman Church by King Henry the Eighth and how the Schism was continuâ—d by Queen Elizabeth I have no heart to rip up The world knoweth it was not upon any zeal of Reformation 30. But you will prove your former evasion by a couple of Similitudes If a Monaestery (x) Pag. 81 82. should reform it self and should reduce into practise ancient good discipline when others would not in this case could it in reason be charged with Schism from others or with Apostasie from its rule and order Or as in a society of men universally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from the common disease could not be therefore said to separate from the society so neither can the reformed Churches be truly accused for making a Schism from the Church seeing all they did was to reform themselves 31. I was very glad to find you in a Monastery but sorry when I perceived that you were inventing wayes how to forsake your Vocation and to maintain the lawfulness of Schism from the Church and Put case That a Monastery did confessedly observe their substantial vowes and all principal Statutes or Constitutions of the Order though with some neglect of lesser Monastical Observances And that a Reformation were undertaken not by authority of lawful Superiors but by some One or very few in comparison of the rest And those few known to be led not with any spirit of Reformation but by some other sinister intention and that the Statutes of the House were even by those busie fellowes confessed to have been time out of minde understood and practised as now they were And further that the pretended Reformers acknowledge that themselves as soon as they were gone out of their Monastery must not hope to be free from those or the like errors and corruptions for which they left their Bretheren And which is more that they might fall into more enormous crimes than they did or could do in their Monastery which we suppose to be secured from all substantial corruptions for the avoiding of which they have an infallible assistance Put I say together all these my And 's and then come with your If 's If a Monastery should reform it self c. and tell me if you could excuse such Reformers from Schâ—sm Sedition Rebellion Apostasie c what would you say of such Reformers in your Colledge or tumultuous Persons in a Kingdome Remember now your own Tenents and then reflect how fit a similitude you have picked out to prove your self a Schismatique You teach that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamental but that for all Fundamental Points she is secured from error You teach that no particular Person or Church hath any promise of assistance in Points Fundamental You and the whole world can witness that when Luther began he being but only One opposed himself to All as well subjects as superiours and that even then when he himself confessed that he had no intention of Reformation You cannot be ignorant but that many chiefe learned Protestants are forced to confess the Antiquity of our Doctrin and Practice and to several and many Controversies acknowledge that the Ancient Fathers stood on our Side Consider I say these Points and see whether your similitude do not condemn your Progenitors of Schism from God's visible Church yea and of Apostasie also from their Religious Orders if they were vowed Regulars as Luther and divers of them were 32. From the Monastery you are fled into an Hospital of persons universally infected with some disease where you finde to be true what I supposed that after your departure from your Bretheren you might fall into greater inconveniences and more infectious diseases than those for which you left them But you are also upon the Point to abandon these miserable needy persons in whose behalfe for Charities sake let me set before you these considerations If the disease neither were nor could be mortal because in that Company of men God had placed a Tree of life If going thence the sick man might by curious tasting the Tree of Knowledge eate poyson under pretence of bettering his health If he could not hope thereby to avoid other diseases like those for which he had quitted the company of the first infected men If by his departure innumerable mischiefes were to ensue could such a man without senselesseness be excused by saying that he sought to free himself from the common disease but not forsooth to separate from the society Now your self compare the Church to a man deformed with (y) Pag. 154. superfluous fingers and toes but yet who hath not lost any vital part you acknowledg that out of her society no man is secured from damnable Error and the world can bear witness what unspeakable mischiefes and calamities ensued Luther's revolt from the Church Pronounce then concerning them the same sentence which even now I have shewed them to deserve who in the maner aforesaid should separate from persons universally infected with some disease 33. But alas to what pass hath Heresie brought men who tearm themselves Christians and yet blush not to compare the beloved Spouse of our Lord the one Dove the purchase of our Saviours most precious blood the holy Catholâ—que Church I mean that visible Church of Christ which Luther sound spread over the whole world to a Monastery so disordered that it must be forsaken to the Gyant in Gath much deformed with superfluous fingers and toes to a society of men universally infected with some disease And yet all these Comparâ—sons and much worse are neither in jurious nor undeserved if once it be granted or can be proved that the visible Church of Christ may erre in any one Point of Faith although not Fundamental 34. Before I part from these similitudes one thing I must observe against the evasion of D. Potter that they left not the Church but her Corruptions For as those Reformers of the Monastery or those other who left the company of men universally infected with some disease would deny themselves to be Schismatiques or any way blame-worthy but could not deny
Mat. 18. the Church let him be to thee as a Pagan or Publican And He (b) Luk. 10.16 that despiseth you despiseth me We heard above Optatus Milevitanus saying to Parmenianus that both he and all those other who continued in the Schism begun by Majorinus did inherit their Fore-fathers Schism and yet Parmenianus was the third Bishop after Majorinus in his Sea and did not begin but only continue the Schism For saith this holy Father Caecilianus (c) Lib. 1. cont Parm. went not out of Majorinus thy Grand-father but Majorinus from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chair of Peter or Cyprian but Majorinus in whose Chair thou fittest which before Majorinus Luther had no beginning Seeing it is evident that these things passed in this manner that for example Luther departed from the Church and not the Church from Luther it is clear that you be HEIRS both of the givers up of the Bible to be burned and of SCHISMATIQUES And the Regal Power or example of Henry the Eighth could not excuse his subjects from Schism according to what we have heard out of S. Chrysostom saying Nothing doth so much provoke (d) Hom. 11. in ep ad Eph. the wrath of Almighty God as that the Church should be divided Although we should do innumerable good deeds if we divide the full Ecclesiastical Congregation we shall be punished no less than they who did rend his natural Body for that was done to the gain of the whole world though not with that intention but this hath no good in it at all but that the greatest hurt riseth from it These things are spoken not only to those who bear office but to such also as are governed by them Behold therefore how lyable both Subjects and Superiours are to the sin of Schism if they break the unity of Gods Church The words of S. Paul can in no occasion be verified more than in this of which we speak They who do such things (e) Rom. 1.31 are worthy of death and not only they that do them but they also that consent with the doers In things which are indifferent of their own nature Custom may be occasion that some act not well begun may in time come to be lawfully continued But no length of Time no Quality of Persons no Circumstance of Necessity can legitimate actions which are of their own nature unlawful and therefore division from Christs Mystical Body being of the number of those Actions which Divines teach to be intrinsecè malas evil of their own nature and essence no difference of Persons or Time can ever make it lawful D. Potter saith There neither was nor can be any cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself And who dates say that it is not damnable to continue a Separation from Christ Prescription cannot in conscience run when the first beginner and his successors are conscious that the thing to be prescribed for example goods or lands were unjustly possessed at the first Christians are not like strayes that after a certain time of wandring from their right home fall from their owner to the Lord of the Soil but as long as they retain the indelible Character of Baptism and live upon earth they are obliged to acknowledge subjection to Gods Church Humane Laws may come to nothing by discontinuance of time but the Law of God commanding us to conserve Unity in his Church doth still remain The continued disobedience of Children cannot deprive Parents of their parental right nor can the Grand-child be undutiful to his Grand-Father because his Father was unnatural to his own Parent The longer Gods Church is so disobeyed the profession of her Doctrin denyed her Sacraments neglected her Liturgy condemned her Unity violated the more grievous the fault grows to be As the longer a man withholds a due debt or retains his neighbours goods the greater injustice he commits Constancy in evil doth not extenuate but aggravate the same which by extension of time receiveth increase of strength and addition of greater malice If these mens conceits were true the Church might come to be wholly divided by wicked Schisms and yet after some space of time none could be accused of Schism nor be obliged to return to the visible Church of Christ and so there should remain no one true visible Church Let therefore these men who pretend to honour reverence and believe the Doctrin and practice of the Visible Church and to condemn their forefathers who forsook her and say They would not have done so if they had lived in the dayes of their Fathers and yet follow their example in remaining divided from her Communion consider how truly these words of our Saviour fall upon them Woe be to you because you build (f) Mar. 23. ver 29 c. the Prophets Sepulchers and garnish the monuments of just men and say If we had been in our Fathers dayes we had not been their fellows in the bloud of the Prophets Therefore you are a testimony to your own selves that you are the sons of them that killed the Prophets and fill up the measure of your Fathers 46. And thus having demonstrated that Luther his Associates and all that continue in the Schism by them begun are guilty of Schism by departing from the visible true Church of Christ it remaineth that we examin what in particular was that visible true Church from which they departed that so they may know to what Church in particular they ought to return and then we shall have performed what was proposed to be handled in the fifth Point 47. That the Roman Church I speak not for the present of the particular Diocess of Rome but of all visible Churches dispersed throughout the whole world agreeing in Faith with the Chair of Peter 5. Point Luther and the rest departed from the Roman Church whether that Sea were supposed to be in the City of Rome or in any other place That I say the Church of Rome in this sense was the visible Catholique Church out of which Luther departed is proved by your own confession who assign for notes of the Church the true Preaching of Gods Words and due administration of Sacraments both which for the substance you cannot deny to the Roman Church since you confess that she wanted nothing Fundamental or necessary to Salvation and for that very cause you think to clear your self from Schism whose property as you say is to cut off from the (g) Pag. 76. Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates Now that Luther and his fellows were born and baptized in the Roman Church and that she was the Church out of which they departed is notoriously known and therefore you cannot cut her off from the Body of Christ and hope of Salvation unless you will acknowledge your self to deserve the just imputation of Schism Neither can you deny her to be
truly Catholique by reason of pretended corruptions not Fundamental For your self avouch and endeavour to prove that the true Catholique Church may err in such Points Moreover I hope you will not so much as go about to prove that when Luther rose there was any other true visible Church disagreeeing from the Roman and agreeing with Protestants in their particular Doctrins and you cannot deny but that England in those days-agreed with Rome and other Nations with England And therefore either Christ had no visible Church upon Earth or else you must grant that it was the Church of Rome A truth so manifest that those Protestants who affirm the Roman Church to have lost the nature and being of a true Church do by inevitable consequence grant that for divers ages Christ had no visible Church on earth from which error because D. Potter disclaimeth he must of necessity maintain that the Roman Church is free from Fundamental and damnable error and that she is not cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation And if saith he any Zelols amongst us have proceeded (h) Ibid. to heavier censures their zeal may be excused but their Charity and wisdom cannot be justified 48. And to touch particulars which perhaps some may object No man is ignorant that the Grecians even the Schismatical Grecians do in most Points agree with Roman Catholiques and disagree from the Protestant Reformation They teach Transubstantiation which Point D. Potter also (i) Pag. 225. confesseth Invocation of Saints and Angels Veneration of Reliques and Images Auricular Confession enjoyned Satisfaction Confirmation with Chrism Extream Unction All the seven Sacraments Prayer Sacrifice Alms for the dead Monachism That Priests may not marry after their Ordination In which Points that the Grecians agree with the Roman Church appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines of Wittemberg intituled Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium Jeremiae Patriarchae Constantinop de Augustana consessione c. Wittembergae anno 1584. by the Protestant (k) De statu Eccles Pag. 253. Crispinus and by Sir Edwin Sands in the Relation of the State of Religion of the West And I wonder with what colour of truth to say no worse D. Potter could affirm that the Doctrins debated between the Protestants (l) Pag. 22â— and Rome are only the partial and particular fancies of the Roman Church unless happily the opinion of Transubstantiation may be excepted wherein the latter Grecians seem to agree with the Romanists Beside the Protestant Authors already cited Petrus Arcudius a Grecian and a learned Catholique Writer hath published a large Volume the Argument and Title whereof is Of the agreement of the Roman and Greek Church in the seven Sacraments As for the Heresie of the Grecians that the Holy-Ghost proceeds not from the Son I suppose that Protestants disavow them in that error as we do 49. D. Potter will not I think so much wrong his reputation as to tell us that the Waldenses Wiecliffe Huss or the like were Protestants because in some things they disagreed from Catholiques For he well knows that the example of such men is subject to these manifest exceptions They were not of all Agesâ— nor in all Countries but confined to certain places and were interrupted in Time against the notion and nature of the word Catholique They had no Ecclesiastical Hierarchy nor Succession of Bishops Priests and Pastors They differed among themselves and from Protestants also They agreed in divers things with us against Protestants They held Doctrins manifestly abusurd and damnable heresies 50. The Waldenses began not before the year 1218. so far were they from Universality of all Ages For their Doctrin first they denyed all Judgments which extended to the drawing of bloud and the Sabbath for which cause they were called In-sabbatists Secondly they taught that Lay-men and women might consecrate the Sacrament and preach no doubt but by this means to make their Master Waldo a meer lay-man capable of such functions Thirdly that Clergy-men ought to have no possessions or proprieties Fourthly that there should be no division of Parishes not Churches for a walled Church they reputed as a Barn Fifthly that men ought not to take an Oath in any case Sixthly that those persons sinned mortally who accompanyed without hope of issue Seventhly they held all things done above the girdle by kissing touching words compression of the breasts c. to be done in Charity and not against Continency Eightly that neither Priest nor civil Magistrate being guilty of mortal sin did enjoy their dignity or were to be obeyed Ninthly they condemned Princes and Judges Tenthly they assinned singing in the Church to be an hellish clamor Eleventhly they taught that men might dissemble their Religion and so accordingly they went to Catholique Churches dissembling their Faith and made Offertoâ—ies Confessions and Communions after a dissembling manner Waldo was so unlearned that saith (m) Act. Mon. â—… Pag. 628. Fox he gave rewards to certain learned men to translate the holy Scripture for him and being thus holpen did as the same Fox there reporteth conferr the form of Religion in his time to the insallible Word of God A goodly example for such as must needs have the Scripture in English to be read by every simple body with such fruit of godly Doctrine as we have seen in the foresaid gross heresies of Waldo The followers of Waldo were like their Master so unlearned that some of them saith (n) Ibid. Fox expounded the words Joan. 1. Sui eum non receperunt Swine did not receive hâ—m And to conclude they agreed in divers things with Catholiques against Protestants as may be seen in (o) Tract 2. cap. 2. sect sâ—â—…d 3. Bâ—erely 51. Neither can it be pretended that these are slanders forged by Catholiques For besides that the same things are testified by Protâ—stant writers as Illyricus Cowper and others our Authors cannot be suspected of partiality in disfavour of Protestants unless you will say perhaps that they were Prophets and some hundred years ago did both foresee that there were to be Protestants in the world and that such Protestants were to be like the Waldenses Besides from whence but from our Histories are Protestants come to know that there were any such men as the Waldenses and that in some Points they agreed with the Protestants and disagreed from them in others And upon what ground can they believe our Author for that part wherein the Waldenses were like to Protestants and imagin they lyed the rest 52. Neither could Wickliffe continue a Church never interrupted from the time of the Waldenses after whom he lived more than one hundred and fifty years to wit the year 1371. He agreed with Catholiques about the worshipping of Reliques and Images and about the Intercession of our blessed Lady the ever Immaculate Mother of God he went so far as to say It seems to me (p) In serm de Assump Mariae
of Schism it is certainly consequent that all who persist in this Division must be so likewise Which is not so certain as you pretend For they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any State Civil or Ecclesiastical do commit a great fault whereof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former State when continuance of time hath once setled the present Thus have I known some of your own Church condemn the Low-countrey men who first revolted from the King of Spain of the sin of Rebellion yet absolve them from it who now being of your Religion there are yet faithful maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the King of Spain 5. Fourthly That all those which a Christian is to esteem neighbours do concur to make one company which is the Church Which is false for a Christian is to esteem those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 6. Fifthly That all the Members of the Visible Church are by charity united into one Mystical body Which is manifestly untrue for many of them have no Charity 7. Sixthly That the Catholique Church signifies one company of faithful people which is repugnant to your own grounds For you require not true Faith but only the Profession of it to make men members of the visible Church 8. Seventhly That every Heretique is a Schismatique Which you must acknowledge false in those who though they deny or doubt of some Point professed by your Church and so are Heretiques yet continue still in the Communion of the Church 9. Eighthly That all the Members of the Catholique Church must of necessity be united in external Communion Which though it were much to be desired it were so yet certainly cannot be perpetually true For a man unjustly excommmunicated is not in the Churches Communion yet he is still a Member of the Church and divers time it hath happened as in the case of Chrysostom and Epiphanius that particular men and particular Churches have upon an overvalued difference either renounced Communion mutually or one of them separated from the other and yet both have continued Members of the Catholique Church These things are in those seven Sections either said or supposed by you untruly without all shew or pretence of proof The rest is impertinent common place wherein Protestants and the cause in hand are absolutely unconcern'd And therefore I pass to the eighth Section 10. Ad § 8. Wherein you obtrude upon us a double Fallacy One in supposing and taking for granted that whatsoever is affirmed by three Fathers must be true whereas your selves make no scruple of condemning many things of falshood which yet are maintained by more than thrice three Fathers Another in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases For whereas you say S. Austin c. 62. l. 2. cont Parm. inferrs out of the former premises That there is no necessity to divide Unity to let pass your want of diligence in quoting the 62. Chapter of that Book which hath but 23. in it to pass by also that these words which are indeed in the 11. Chapter are not inferred out of any such premises as you pretend this I say is evident that he says not absolutely that there never is or can be any necessity to divide Unity which only were for your purpose but only in such a special case as he there sets down That is When good men tolerate bad men which can do them no spiritual hurt to the intent they may not be separated from these who are spiritually good Then saith he there is no necessity to divide Unity Which very words do clearly give us to understand that it may fall out as it doth in our case that we cannot keep Unity with bad men without spiritual hurt i.e. without partaking with them in their impieties and that then there is a necessity to divide Unity from them I mean to break off conjunction with them in their impieties Which that it was S. Austin's mind it is most evident out of the 21. c. of the same Book where to Parmenian demanding How can a man remain pure being joyned with those that are corrupted he answers Very true this is not possible if he be joyned with them that is if he commit any evil with them or favour them which do commit it But if he do neither of these he is not joyned with them And presently after These two things retained will keep such men pure and uncorrupted that is neither doing ill nor approving it And therefore seeing you impose upon all men of your Communion a necessity of doing or at least approving many things unlawful certainly there lies upon us an unavoidable necessity of dividing Unity either with you or with God and whether of these is rather to be done be ye Judges 11. Irenaeus also says not simply which only would do you service there cannot possibly be any so important Reformation as to justifie a separation from them who will not reform But only they cannot make any corruption so great as is the pernitiousness of a Schism Now They here is a relative and hath an antecedent expressed in Irenaeus which if you had been pleased to take notice of you would easily have seen that what Iraeneus says falls heavy upon the Church of Rome but toucheth Protestants nothing at all For the men he speaks of are such as Propter modicas quaslibet causas for trifling or small causes divide the body of Christ such as speak of peace and make war such as strain at gnats and swallow Camels And these saith he can make no reformation of any such importance as to countervail the danger of a division Now seeing the causes of our separation from the Church of Rome are as we pretend and are ready to justifie because we will not be partakers with her in Superstition Idolatry Impiety and most cruel Tyranny both upon the bodies and souls of men Who can say that the causes of our separation may be justly esteemed Modicae quaelibet causae On the other side seeing the Bishop of Rome who was contemporary to Irenaeus did as much as in him lay cut off from the Churches unity many great Churches for not conforming to him in an indifferent matter upon a difference Non de Catholico dogmate sed de Ritu vel Ritus potiùs tempore Not about any Catholique doctrine but only a Ceremony or rather about the time of observing it so Petavius values it which was just all one as if the Church of France should excommunicate those of their own Religion in England for not keeping Christmas upon the same day with them And seeing he was reprehended sharply and bitterly for it by most of the Bishops of the world as Eusebius testifies Euseb hist l. 5. c. 24. Perron Replic 3.
l. 2. c. and as Cardinal Perron though mincing the matter yet confesseth by this very Irenaeus himself in particular admonished that for so small a cause propter tam modicam causam he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church and lastly seeing the Ecclesiastical Story of those times mentions no other notable example of any such Schismatical presumption but this of Victor certainly we have great inducement to imagine that Irenaeus in this place by you quoted had a special aim at the Bishop and Church of Rome Once this I am sure of that the place fits him and many of his successors as well as if it had been made purposely for them And this also that be which finds fault with them who separate upon small causes implies clearly that he conceived there might be such causes as were great and sufficient And that then a Reformation was to be made notwithstanding any danger of division that might ensue upon it 12. Lastly S. Denis of Alexandria says indeed and very well that all things should be rather endured than we should consent to the division of the Church I would add Rather than consent to the continuation of the division if it might be remedied But then I am to tell you that he says not All things should rather be done but only All things should rather be endured or suffered wherein he speaks not of the evil of Sin but of Pain and Misery Not of tolerating either Error or Sin in others though that may be lawful much less of joyning with others for quietness sake which only were to your purpose in the profession of Error and practice of Sin but of suffering any affliction nay even martyrdom in our own persons rather than consent to the division of the Church Omnia incommoda so your own Christo pherson enforced by the circumstances of the place translates Dionysius his words All miseries should rather be endured than we should consent to the Churches division 13. Ad § 9. In the next Paragraph you affirm two things but prove neither unless a vehement Asseveration may pass for a weak proof You tell us first That the Doctrin of the total deficiency of the visible Church which is maintained by divers chief Protestants implies in it vast Absurdity or rather sacrilegious Blasphemy But neither do the Protestants alledged by you maintain the deficiency of the Visible Church but only of the Churches visibility or of the Church as it is Visible which so acute a man as you now that you are minded of it I hope will easily distinguish Neither do they hold that the visible Church hath failed totally and from its Essence but only from its purity and that it fell into many corruptions but yet not to nothing And yet if they had held that there was not only no pure visible Church but none at all surely they had said more than they could justifie but yet they do not shew neither can I discover any such Vast absurdity or Sacrilegious Blasphemy in this Assertion You say secondly that the Reason which cast them upon this wicked Doctrin was a desperate voluntary necessity because they were resolved not to acknowledge the Roman to be the true Church and were convinced by all manner of evidence that for divers Ages before Luther there was no other But this is not to dispute but to divine and take upon you the property of God which is to know the hearts of men For why I pray might not the Reason hereof rather be because they were convinced by all manner of evidence as Scripture Reason Antiquity that all the visible Churches in the world but above all the Roman had degenerated from the purity of the Gospel of Christ and thereupon did conclude there was no visible Church meaning by no Church none free from corruption and conformable in all things to the doctrin of Christ 14 Ad § 10. Neither is there anyr epugnance but in words only between these as you are pleased to stile them exterminating Spirits those other whom out of Courtesie you intitle in your 10. § more moderâ—te Protestants For these affirming the Perpetual Visibility of the Church yet neither deny nor doubt of her being subject to manifold and grievous corruptions and those of such a nature as were they not mitigated by invincible or at least a very probable ignorance none subject to them could be saved And they on the other side denying the Churches Visibility yet plainly affirm that they conceive very good hope of the Salvation of many of their ignorant and honest Fore fathers Thus declaring plainly though in words they denyed the Visibility of the true Church yet their meaning was not to deny the perpetuity but the perpetual purity incorruption of the Visible Church 15. Ad § 11. Let us proceed therefore to your 11. Section where though D. Potter and other Protestants granting the Churches perpetual Visibility make it needless for you to prove it yet you will needs be doing that which is needless But you do it so coldly and negligently that it is very happy for you that D. Potter did grant it 16. For What if the Prophets spake more obscurely of Christ than of the Church What if they had fore-seen that greater contentions would arise about the Church than Christ Which yet he that is not a meer stranger in the story of the Church must needs know to be untrue and therefore not to be fore-seen by the Prophets What if we have manifestly received the Church from the Scriptures Does it follow from any or all these things that the Church of Christ must be always visible 17. Besides What Protestant ever granted that which you presume upon so confidently that every man for all the affairs of his soul must have recourse to some Congregation If some one Christan lived alone among Pagans in some Countrey remote from Christendom shall we conceive it impossible for this man to be saved because he cannot have recourse to any Congregation for the affairs of his soul will it not be sufficient for such a ones salvation to know the doctrin of Christ and live according to it Such fancies as these you do very wisely to take for granted because you know well 't is hard to prove them 18. Let it be as unlawful as you please to deny and dissemble matters of faith Let them that do so not be a Church but a damned crew of Sycophants What is this to the Visibility of the Church May not the Church be Invisible and yet these that are of it profess their faith No say you Their profession will make them visible Very true visible in the places where and in the times when they live and to those persons unto whom they have necessary occasion to make their profession But not visible to all or any great or considerable part of the world while they live much less conspicuous to all ages after them
Now it is a Church thus illustriously and conspicuously visible that you require by whose splendour all men may be directed and drawn to repair to her for the affairs of their souls Neither is it the Visibility of the Church absolutely but this degree of it which the most rigid Protestants deny which is plain enough out of the places of Napper cited by you in your 9 â—h Part of this Chapter Where his words are God hath withdraw his visible Church from open Assemblies to the hearts of particular godly men And this Church which had not open Assemblies he calls The Latent and Invisible Church Now I hope Papists in England will be very apt to grant men may be so farr Latent and Invisible as not to profess their faith in open Assemblies nor to proclà im it to the world and yet not deny nor dissemble it nor deserve to be esteemed a damned crew of dâ—ssembling Sycophants 19. But Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments cannot but make a Church visible and these are inseparable notes of the Church I answer they are so far inseparable that wheresoever they are there a Church is But not so but that in some cases there may be a Church where these notes are not Again these notes will make the Church visible But to whom Certainly not to all men nor to most men But to them only to whom the Word is preached and the Sacraments are administred They make the Church visible to whom themselves are visible but not to others As where your Sacraments are administred and your Doctrin preached it is visible that there is a Popish Church But this may perhaps be visible to them only who are present at these performances and to others as secret as if they had never been performed 20. But S. Austin saith It is an impudent abominable detestable speech c. to say The Church hath perished I answer 1. All that S. Austin says is not true 2. Though this were true it were nothing to your purpose unless you will conceive it all one not to be and not to be conspicuously visible 3. This very speech that the Church perished might be false and impudent in the Donatists and yet not so in the Protestants For there is no incongruity that what hath lived 500 years may perish in 1600. But. S. Austin denyed not only the actual perishing but the possibility of it and not only of its falling to nothing but of its falling into corruption I answer though no such thing appears out of those places yet I believe heat of disputation against the Donatists and a desire to over-confute them transported him so far as to urge against them more than was necessary and perhaps more than was true But were he now revived and did but confront the doctrin of after-ages with that his own experience would enforce him to change his opinion As concerning the last speech of S. Austin I cannot but wonder very much why he should think it absurd for any man to say There are sheep which he knows not but God knows and no less at you for obtruding this sentence upon us as pertinent proof of the Churches visibility 21. Neither do I see how the Truth of any present Church depends upon the Perpetual Visibility nay nor upon the perpetuity of that which is past or future For what sense is there that it should not be in the power of God Almighty to restore to a flourishing estate a Church which oppression hath made Invisible to repair that which is ruined to reform that which was corrupted or to revive that which was dead Nay what Reason is there but that by ordinary means this may be done so long as the Scriptures by Divine Providence are preserved in their Integrity and Authority As a Common-wealth though never so far collapsed and over-run with disorders is yet in possibility of being reduc'd unto its Original state so long as the Ancient Laws and Fundamental Constitutions are extant and remain inviolate from whence men may be directed how to make such a Reformation But S. Austine urges this very Argument against the Donatists and therefore it is good I answer that I doubt much of the Consequence and my Reason is because you your selves acknowledge that even General Councils and therefore much more particular Doctors though infallible in their determinations are yet in their Reasons and Arguments whereupon they ground them subject to like Passions and Errors with other men 22. Lastly whereas you say That all Divines define Schism A Division from the true Church and from thence collect That there must be a known Church from which it is possible for men to depart I might very justly question your Antecedent and desire you to consider whether Schism be not rather or at least be not as well a division of the Church as from it A separation not of a part from the whole but of some parts from the other And if you liked not this definition I might desire you to inform me in those many Schisms which have hapned in the Church of Rome which of the parts was the Church and which was divided from it But to let this pass certainly your consequence is most unreasonable For though whensoever there is a Schism it must necessarily suppose a Church existent there yet sure we may define a Schism that is declare what the word signifies for Defining is no more though at this present there were neither Schism nor Church in the world Unless you will say that we cannot tell what a Rose is or what the word Rose signifies but only in the Summer when we have Roses or that in the world to come when men shall not marry it is impossible to know what it is to marry or that the Plague is not a disease but only when some body is infected or that Adultery is not a sin unless there be Adulterers or that before Adam had a Child he knew not and God could not have told him what it was to be a Father Certainly Sir you have forgot your Metaphysicks which you so much glory in if you know not that the connexions of essential predicates with their subjects are eternal and depend not at all upon the actual existence of the thing defined This definition therefore of Schism concludes not the existence of a Church even when it is defined much less the perpetual continuance of it and least of all the continuance of it in perpetual visibility and purity which is the only thing that we deny you are to prove By this time you perceive I hope that I had reason to say that it was well for you that D. Potter granted the Churches perpetual Visibility for for ought I can perceive this Concession of his is the best stake in your hedge the best piller upon which this conclusion stands which yet is the only ground-work of your whole Accusation 23. Ad § 12.47 48 49 50 51 52 53
that those amongst you who were invincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy have their errors pardoned and their souls saved And this is all he says and this you confess to be all he says in divers places of your Book which is no more than you your self do and must affirm of Protestants and yet I believe you will not suffer us to inferr from hence that you grant Protestants to have for the substance the true preaching of the Word and due administration of the Sacraments and want nothing fundamental or necessary to salvation And if we should draw this consequence from your concession certainly we should do you injury in regard many things may in themselves and in ordinary course be necessary to salvation to those that have means to attain them as your Church generally hath which yet by accident to these which were by some impregnable impediment debarred of these means may by Gods mercy be made unnecessary 27. Lastly whereas you say that Protestants must either grant that your Church then was the visible Church or name some other disagreeing from yours and agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrin or acknowledge there was no visible Church It is all one as if to use S. Paul's similitude the head should say to the foot Either you must grant that I am the whole body or name some other member that is so or confess that there is no body To which the foot may answer I acknowledge there is a body and yet that no member beside you is this body nor yet that you are it but only a part of it And in like manner say we We acknowledge a Church there was corrupted indeed universally but yet such a one as we hope by Gods gracious acceptance was still a Church We pretend not to name any one Society that was this Church and yet we see no reason that can inforce us to confess that yours was the Church but only a part of it and that one of the worst then extant in the World In vain therefore have you troubled your self in proving that we cannot pretend that either the Greeks Waldenses Wickliffites Hussites Muscovites Armenians Georgians Abyssines were then the visible Church For all this discourse proceeds upon a false and vain supposition and begs another point in Question between us which is that some Church of one denomination and one Communion as the Roman the Greek c. must be always exclusively to all other Communions the whole visible Church And though perhaps some weak Protestant having this false principle setled in him that there was to be always some Visible Church of one denomination pure from all error in doctrin might be wrought upon prevailed with by it to forsake the Church of Protestants yet why it should induce him to go to yours rather than the Greek Church or any other which pretends to perpetual succession as well as yours that I do not understand unless it be for the reason which Aeneus Sylvius gave why more held the Pope above a Council than a Council above the Pope which was because Popes did give Bishopricks and Archbishopricks but Councils gave none and therefore suing in Forma Pauperis were not like to have their cause very well maintained For put the case I should grant of meer favour that there must be always some Church of one Denomination and Communion free from all errours in doctrin and that Protestants had not always such a Church it would follow indeed from thence that I must not be a Protestant But that I must be a Papist certainly it would follow by no better consequence than this If you will leave England you must of necessity go to Rome And yet with this wretched Fallacy have I been sometimes abused my self and known many other poor souls seduced not only from their own Church and Religion but unto yours I beseech God to open the eyes of all that love the truth that they may not always be held captive under such miserable delusions 28. We see then how unsuccessful you have been in making good your accusation with reasons drawn from the nature of the thing and which may be urged in common against all Protestants Let us come now to the Arguments of the other kind which you build upon D. Potter's own words out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince Protestants of Schism 29. But let the understanding Reader take with him but three or four short Remembrances and I dare say he shall find them upon examination not only answerable but already answered The Memorandums I would commend to him are these 30. 1. That not every separation but only a causeless separation from the external Communion of any Church is the Sin of Schism 31. 2. That Imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known errours and practising known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation and that this is the cause which Protestants alleage to justifie their separation from the Church of Rome 32. 3. That to leave the Church and to leave the external Communion of a Church at least as D. Potter understands the words is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to have those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as faith and Obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publike worship of God This little Armour if it be rightly placed I am perswaded will repel all those Batteries which you threaten shall be so furious 33. Ad § 13 14 15. The first is a sentence of S. Austine against Donatus applyed to Luther thus If the Church perished what Church brought forth Donatus you say Luther If she could not perish what madness moved the sect of Donatus to separate upon pretence to avoyd the Communion of bad men Whereunto one fair answer to let pass many others is obvious out of the second observation That this sentence though it were Gospel as it is not is impertinently applyed to Luther and Lutherans whose pretence of separation be it true or be it false was not as that of the Donatists only to avoid the Communion of bad men but to free themselves from a necessity which but by separating was unavoidable of joyning with bad men in their impieties And your not substituting Luther instead of Donatus in the later part of the Dilemma as well as in the former would make a suspicious man conjecture that you your self took notice of this exception of disparity between Donatus and Luther 34. Ad § 16. Your second onset drives only at those Protestants who hold the true Church was invisible for many ages Which Doctrin if by the true Church be understood the pure Church as you do understand it is a certain truth and it is easier for you to declaim as you do than to dispute against it But these men you say must
with you and have so ordered your Communion that either we must communicate with you in these things or nothing And for this very reason though it were granted that these Protestants held this Doctrin which you impute to them And though this Errour were as damnable and as much against the Creed as you pretend Yet after all this this-parity between you and them might make it more lawful for us to communicate with them than you because what they hold they hold to themselves and refuse not as you do to communicate with them that hold the contrary 41. Thus we may answer your Argument though both your former Suppositions were granted But then for a second answer I am to tell you that there is no necessity of granting either of them For neither do these Protestants hold the failing of the Church from its being but only from its visibility which if you conceive all one then must you conceive that the Stars fail every day and the Sun every night Neither is it certain that the doctrin of the Churches failing is repugnant to the Creed For as the truth of the Article of the remission of sins depends not upon the actual remission of any mans sins but upon Gods readiness and resolution to forgive the sins of all that believe and repent so that although unbelief or impenitence should be universal and the Faithful should absolutely fail from the children of men and the Son of Man should find no faith on the earth yet should the Article still continue true that God would forgive the sins of all that repent In like manner It is not certain that the truth of the Article of the Catholique Church depends upon the actual existence of a Catholique Church but rather upon the right that the Church of Christ or rather to speak properly the Gospel of Christ hath to be universally believed And therefore the Article may be true though there were no Church in the world In regard this notwithstanding it remains still true that there ought to be a Church and this Church ought to be Catholique For as of these two Propositions There is a Church in America and There should be a Church in America the truth of the later depends not upon truth of the former so neither does it in these two There is a Church diffused all the world over and There should be a Church diffused all the world over 42. Thirdly if you understand by errors not fundamental such as are not damnable it is not true as I have often told you that we confess your errors not fundamental 43. Lastly for your desire that I should here apply an authority of St. Cyprian alleaged in your next number I would have done so very willingly but indeed I know not how to do it for in my apprehension it hath no more to do with your present business of proving it unlawful to communicate with these men who hold the Church was not alwayes visible than In nova fert animus Besides I am here again to remember you that St. Cyprians words were they never so pertinent yet are by neither of the parts litigant esteemed any rule of faith And therefore the urging of them and such like authorities serves only to make Books great and Controversies endless 44. Ad § 17. The next Section in three long leaves delivers us this short sense That those Protestants which say they have not left the Churches external Communion but only her corruptions pretend to do that which is impossible Because these corruptions were inherent in the Churches external Communion and therefore he that forsakes them cannot but forsake this 45. Ans But Who are they that pretend they forsook the Churches corruptions and not her external communion Some there be that say they have not left the Church that is not ceased to be members of the Church but only left her corruptions some that they have not left the communion but the corruptions of it meaning the internal communion of it and conjunction with it by faith and obedience which disagree from the former only in the maner of speaking for he that is in the Church is in this kind of communion with it and he that is not in this internal communion is not in the Church Some perhaps that they left not your external communion in all things meaning that they left it not voluntarily being not fugitivi but fugati Casauâ—um in Eâ— ad Card. Perron as being willing to joyn with you in any act of piety but were by you necessitated and constrained to do so because you would not suffer them to do well with you unless they would do ill with you Now to do ill that you may do well is against the will of God which to every good man is a high degree of necessity But for such Protestants as pretend that de facto they foâ—sook your corruptions only and not your external communion that is such as pretend to communicate with you in your Confessions and Liturgies and participation of Sacraments I cannot but doubt very much that neither you nor I have ever met with any of this condition And if perhaps you were led into error by thinking that to leave the Church and to leave the external communion of it was all one in sense and signification I hope by this time you are disabus'd and begin to understand that as a man may leave any fashion or custome of a Colledge and yet remain still a member of the Colledge so a man may possibly leave some opinion or practice of a Church formerly common to himself and others and continue still a member of that Church Provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherin the essence of the Church consists Wheras peradventure this practise may be so involved with the external communion of this Church that it may be simply impossible for him to leave this practise and not to leave the Churches external communion 46 You will reply perhaps That the difficulty lies as well against those who pretend to forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church as against those who say they forsook the Churches corruptions and not her external communion And that the reason is still the same because these supposed corruptions were inherent in the whole Church and therefore by like reason with the former could not be forsaken but if the whole Church were forsaken 47. Ans A pretty Sophism and very fit to perswade men that it is impossible for them to forsake any error they hold or any vice they are subject to either peculiar to themselves or in common with others Because forsooth they cannot forsake Themselves and Vices and Errors are things inherent in themselves The deceit lies in not distinguishing between a Local and a Moral forsaking of any thing For as it were an absurdity fit for the maintainers of Transubstantiation to defend that a man may Locally and properly depart from the Accidents
of a subject and not from the subject it self So is it also against reason to deny that a man may by an usualphrase phrase of speech forsake any custom or quality good or bad either proper to himself or common to himself with any company and yet never truly or properly forsake either his company or himself Thus if all the Jesuits in the Society were given to write Sophistically yet you might leave this ill custom and yet not leave your Society If all the Citizens of a City were addicted to any vanity they might either all or some of them forsake it and yet not forsake the City If all the parts of a mans body were dirty or filthy nothing hinders but that all or some of them might clense themselves and yet continue parts of the body And what reason then in the world is there if the whole Visible Church were over-run with tares and weeds of superstitions and corruptions but that some members of it might reform themselves and yet continue still true members of the body of the Church and not be made no members but the better by their Reformation Certainly it is so obvious and sensible a Truth that this thing is possible that no man in his wits will be perswaded out of it with all the Quirks Metaphysicks in the world Neither is this to say that a man may keep company with Christopher Potter and not keep company with the Provost of Qu. Colledge Nor that a man can avoid the company of a sinner and at the same time be really present with the man who is the sinner which we leave to those Protestants of your invention who are so foolish as to pretend that a man may really separate himself from the Churches external Communion as she is corrupted and yet continue in that Churches external Communion which in this external Communion is corrupted But we that say only the whole Church being corrupted some parts of it might and did reform themselves and yet might and did continue parts of the Church though separated from the external communion of the other parts which would not reform need not trouble our selves to reconcile any such repugnance For the case put by you of keeping D. Potters company and leaving the company of the Provost of Queens Colledge and of leaving a sinners company and not the mans are nothing at all like ours But if you would speak to the point you must shew that D. Potter cannot leave being Provost of Q. Colledge without ceasing to be himself or that a sinner cannot leave his sin without ceasing to be a man or that he that is part of any society cannot renounce any Vice of that society but he must relinquish the society If you would shew any of these things then indeed I dare promise you shall find us apt enough to believe that the particular parts of the visible Church could not reform themselves but they must of necessity become no parts of it But until we see this done you must pardon us if we choose to believe sense rather than Sophistry 48. In this Paragraph you bring in the sentence of S. Cyprian whereto you refer'd us in the former but Why in a controversie of faith do you cite any thing which is confessed on all hands not to be a rule of faith Besides in my apprehension this sentence of S. Cyprian is in this place and to this purpose meerly impertinent S. Cyprians words are The Church he speaks of the particular Church or Diocess of Rome being one cannot be within and without If she be with Novatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with Cornelius who succeeded Fabianus by lawful Ordination Novatianus is not in the Church And now having related the words I am only to remember the Reader that your business was to prove it impossible For a man to forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church and to request him to tell me Whether as I said In nova fert animus had not been as much to the purpose 49. Toward the conclusion of this Section you number up your Victories and tell us That out of your discourse it remaineth cleer that this our chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the Question confoundeth internal Acts of the understanding with external dieds doth not distinguish between Schism and Heresie and leaves this demonstrated against us that they Protestants divided themselves from the communion of the Visible Catholique Church because they conceived that she needed Reformation To which Triumphs if any reply be needful then briefly thus We do not change the state of the Question but you mistake it For the Question was not Whether they might forsake the corruptions of the Church and continue in her external communion which we confess impossible because these corruptions were in her communion But the Question was Whether they might forsake sake the corruptions of the Church and not the Church but continue still the members of it And to this Question there is not in your whole discourse one pertinent syllable 50. We do not confound internal Acts of understanding with external deeds but acknowledge as you would have us that we cannot as matters now stand separate from your corruptions but we must depart from your External communion For you have so ordered things that whosoever will Communicate with you at all must communicate with you in your corruptions But it is you that will not perceive the difference between being a part of the Church and being in external Communion with all the other parts of it taking for granted that which is certainly false that no two Men or Churches divided in external communion can be both true parts of the Catholique Church 51. We are not to learn the difference between Schism and Heresie for Heresie we conceive An obstinate defence of any error against any necessary Article of the Christian faith and Schism A causless separation of one part of the Church from another But this we say That if we convince you of errors and corruptions professed and practised in your Communion then we cannot be Schismaticks for refusing to joyn with you in the profession of these Errors and the practise of these corruptions And therefore you must free either us from Schism or your selves from error at least from requiring the profession of it as a condition of your communion 52. Lastly whereas you say That you have demonstrated against us that Protestants divided themselves from the external communion of the Visible Church add which external communion was corrupted and we shall confess the accusation and glory in it But this is not that Quod erat demonstrandum but that we divided our selves from the Church that is made our selves out-lawes from it and no members of it And moreover in the Reason of our separation from the external communion of your Church you are mistaken for it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches
to me this declining D. Potter's cases and conveying others into their place is a great assurance that as they were put by him you could say nothing to them 85. But that no suspicion of tergiversation may be fastened upon me I am content to deal with you a little at your own weapons Put the case then though not just as you would have it yet with as much favour to you as in reason you can expect That a Monastery did observe her substantial vows and all Principal Statutes but yet did generally practise and also enjoyn the violation of some lesser yet obliging observances and had done so time out of mind And that some inferiour Monks more conscientious than the rest discovering this abuse should first with all earnestness sollicite their Superiours for a general and orderly reformation of these though small and venial corruptions yet corruptions But finding they hop'd and labour'd in vain to effect this should reform these faults in themselves and refuse to joyn in the practise of them with the rest of their Confraternity and persisting resolutely in such a refusal should by their Superiours be cast out of their Monastery and being not to be re-admitted without a promise of remitting from their stiffeness in these things and of condescending to others in the practise of these small faults should choose rather to continue exiles than to re-enter upon such conditions I would know whether you would condemn such men of Apostacy from the Order Without doubt if you should you would find the stream of your Casuists against you and besides involve S. Paul in the same condemnation who plainly tells us that we may not do the least evil that we may do the greatest good Put case again you should be part of a Society universally infected with some disease and discovering a certain remedy for this disease should perswade the whole company to make use of it but find the greatest part of them so farr in love with their disease that they were resolved to keep it nay so fond of it that they should make a decree that whosoever would leave it should leave their company Suppose now that your self and some few others should notwithstanding their injunction to the contrary free your selves from this disease and thereupon they should absolutely forsake and reject you I would know in this case who deserves to be condemned whether you of uncharitable desertion of your company or they of a tyrannical peevishness And if in these cases you will as I verily believe you will acquit the inferiors and condemn the superiors absolve the minor part and condemn the major then can you with no reason condemn Protestants for choosing rather to be ejected from the communion of the Roman Church than with her to persist as of necessity they were to do if they would continue in her communion in the profession of errors though not destructive of salvation yet hindring edification and in the Practise or at least approbation of many suppose not mortal but venial corruptions 86. Thirdly the Reader may be pleas'd to be advertis'd that you censure too partially the corrupt estate of your Church in comparing it to a Monastery which did confessedly observe their substantial vows and all principal Statutes of their Order and moreover was secured by an infallible assistance for the avoiding of all substantial corruptions for of your Church we confess no such matter but say plainly That she not only might fall into substantial corruptions but did so that she did not only generally violate but of all the members of her communion either in act or approbation require and exact the violation of many substantial laws of Christ both Ceremonial and Moral which though we hope it was pardonable in them who had not means to know their error yet of its own nature and to them who did or might have known their error was certainly damnable And that it was not the tything of Mint and Annise and Cummin the neglect whereof we impute unto you but the neglect of judgment justice and the weightier matters of the Law 87. Fourthly I am to represent unto you that you use Protestants very strangely in comparing them to a company who all were known to be led to their pretended Reformation not with an intent of Reformation but with some other sinister Intention which is impossible to be known of you and therefore to judge so is against Christian charity and common equity and to such a Company as acknowledge that themselves as soon as they were gone out from the Monastery that refused to reform must not hope to be free from those or the like Errors and Corruptions for which they left their Brethren seeing this very hope and nothing else moved them to leave your Communion and this speech of yours so farr as it concerns the same errors plainly destroyes it self For how can they possibly fall into the same errors by forsaking your Communion which that they may forsake they do forsake your Communion And then for other errors of the like nature and quality or more enormious than yours though they deny it not possible but by their negligence and wickedness they may fall into them yet they are so far from acknowledging that they have no hope to avoid this mischief that they proclaim to all the world that it is most prone and easie to do so to all those that fear God and love the Truth and hardly possible for them to do otherwise without supine negligence and extream impiety 88. To fit the Reddition of your perverted Simile to the Proposition of it you tell us that we teach that for all fundamental points the Church is secured from error I answer Fundamental errors may signifie either such as are repugnant to Gods command and so in their own nature damnable though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them not unpardonable or such as are not only meritoriously but remedilessly pernitious and destructive of Salvation We hope that yours and the Greek and other Churches before the Reformation had not so far apostated from Christ as to be guilty of errors of the later sort We say that not only the Catholique Church but every particular true Church so long as it continues a Church is secur'd from Fundamental errors of this kind but secur'd not absolutely by any promise of divine assistance which being not ordinarily irresistible but temper'd to the nature of the Receivers may be neglected and therefore withdrawn but by the Repugnance of any error in this sense fundamental to the essence and nature of a Church So that to speak properly not any set known company of men is secur'd that though they neglect the means of avoiding error yet certainly they shall not err in fundamentals which were necessary for the constitution of an infallible guide of faith But rather they which know what is meant by a Church are secur'd or rather certain that a Church remaining a Church
Antiquity of ours A collection of whose testimony we have without thanks to you in your Indices expurgatorii The divine Providence blessedly abusing for the readier manifestation of the Truth this engine intended by you for the subversion and suppression of it Here is no place to stand upon particulars only one general ingenuous confession of that great Erasmus may not be pass'd over in silence Non desunt magni Theologi qui nonverentur affirmare Erasm Ep. lib. 15. Ep ad Godâ—schalcum Ros Nihil esse in Luthero quin per probatos authores defendi possit There want not great Divines which stick not to affirm that there is nothing in Luther which may not be defended by good and allowed authors Whereas therefore you close up this Simile with consider these points and see whether your Similitude do not condemn your Progenitors of Schism from God's visible Church I assure you I have well considered them and do plainly see that this is not D. Potter's similitude but your own and besides that it is wholly made up of mistakes and falshoods and is at no hand a sufficient proof of this great Accusation 92. Let us come now to the second similitude of your making in the entrance whereunto you tell us that from the Monastery D. Potter is fled to an Hospital of persons Universally infected with some disease where he finds to be true what you supposed that after his departure from his Brethren he might fall into greater inconveniences and more infectious diseases than those for which he left them Thus you But to deal truly with you I find nothing of all this nor how it is consequent from any thing said by you or done by D. Potter But this I find that you have composed this your similitude as you did the former of a heap of vain Suspitions pretended to be grounded on our confessions As first that your diseases which we forsook neither were nor could be mortal whereas we assure our selves and are ready to justifie that they are and were mortal in themselves and would have been so to us if when light came to us we had loved darkness more than light And D. Potter though he hope your Church wanted no necessary vital part that is that some in your Church by ignorance might be saved yet he nothing doubts but that it is full of ulcers without and diseases within and is far from so extenuating your errors as to make them only like the superfluous fingers of the gyant of Gath. Secondly that we had no hope to avoyd other diseases like those for which we forsook your company nor to be secure out of it from damnable errors whereas the hope hereof was the only motive of our departure and we assure our selves that the means to be secured from damnable error is not to be secure as you are but carefully to use those means of avoyding it to which God hath promised and will never fail to give a blessing Thirdly that those innumerable mischiefs which followed upon the departure of Protestants were caused by it as by a proper cause whereas their doctrin was no otherwise the occasion of them than the Gospel of Christ of the division of the world The only fountain of all these mischiefs being indeed no other than your pouring out a flood of persecutions against Protestants only because they would not sin and be damn'd with you for company Unless we may add the impatience of some Protestants who not enduring to be torn in pâ—eces like sheep by a company of wolves without resistance choose rather to die like Souldiers than Martyrs 93. But you proceed and falling into a fit of admiration crie out and say thus To what pass hath Heresie brought men who blush not to compare the beloved Spouse of the Lord the only Dove c. to a Monastery that must be forsaken to the gyant in Gath with superfluous fingers But this Spouse of Christ this only Dove this purchase of our Saviours blood this Catholick Church which you thus almost deifie what is it but a Society of men whereof every particular and by consequence the whole company is or may be guilty of many sins daily committed against knowledge and conscience Now I would fain understand why one error in faith especially if not fundamental should not consist with the holiness of this Spouse this Dove this Church as well as many and great sins committed against knowledge and conscience If this be not to strain at gnats and swollow camels I would fain understand what it is And here by the way I desire you to consider whether as it were with one stroke of a spunge you do not wipe out all that you have said to prove Protestants Schismatiques for separating from your Church though supposed to be in some errors not fundamental For if any such error may make her deserve to be compared to a Monastery so disordered that it must be forsaken then if you suppose as here you do your Church in such errors your Church is so disordered that it must and therefore without question may be forsaken I mean in those her disorders and corruptions and no farther 94. And yet you have not done with those similitudes But must observe you say one thing and that is That as these Reformers of the Monastery and others who left the diseased company could not deny but that they left the said communities So Luther and the rest cannot pretend not to have left the visible Church And that D. Potter speaks very strangely when he sayes In a society of men universally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from the common disease could not be therefore said to separate from the society For if they do not separate themselves from the society of the infected persons how do they free themselves frrom the common disease To which I answer That indeed if you speak of the Reformers of a Monastery and of the Desertors of the diseased company as you put the cases that is of those which left these communities then is it as true as Gospel that they cannot deny but that they left the said communities But it appears not to me how it will ensue hereupon That Luther and the rest cannot pretend not to have left the visible Church For to my apprehension this argument is very weak They which left some communities cannot truly deny but that they left them therefore Luther and his followers cannot deny but that they left the visible Church Where me thinks you prove little but take for granted that which is one of the greatest Questions amongst us that is That the Company which Luther left was the whole Visible Church whereas you know we say It was but a part of it and that corrupted and obstinate in her corruptions Indeed that Luther and his followers left off the Practice of those Corruptions wherein the whole Visible Church did communicate formerly which I meant when
particular States and Churches but the immortalizing the greater more lamentable divisions of Christendom and the world And therefore what can follow from it but perhaps in the judgement of carnal policy the temporal benefit and tranquillity of temporal States and Kingdoms but the infinite prejudice if not the desolation of the Kingdom of Christ And therefore it well becomes them who have have their portions in this life who serve no higher State than that of England or Spain or France nor this neither any further than they may serve themselves by it who think of no other happiness but the preservation of their own fortunes and tranquillity in this world who think of no other means to preserve States but human power and Machivilian policy and believe no other Creed but this Regi aut Civitati imperium habenti nihil injustum quod utile Such men as these it may become to maintain by worldly power and violence their State-instrument Religion For if all be vain and false as in their judgment it is the present whatsoever is better than any because it is already setled an alteration of it may draw with it change of States and the change of State the subversion of their fortune But they that are indeed servants and lovers of Christ of Truth of the Church and of Mankind ought with all courage to oppose themselves against it as a common enemy of all these They that know there is a King of Kings and Lord of Lords by whose will and pleasure Kings and Kingdoms stand and fall they know that to no King or State any thing can be profitable which is unjust and that nothing can be more evidently unjust than to force weak men by the profession of a Religion which they believe not to lose their own eternal happiness out of a vain and needless fear lest they may possibly disturb their temporal quietness There being no danger to any State from any mans opinion unless it be such an opinion by which disobedience to authority or impiety is taught or licenc'd which sort I confess may justly be punished as well as other faults or unless this sanguinary doctrin be joyn'd with it That it is lawful for him by human violence to enforce others to it Therefore if Protestants did offer violence to other mens consciences and compel them to embrace their Reformation I excuse them not much less if they did so to the sacred Persons of Kings and those that were in authority over them who ought to be so secur'd from violence that even their unjust und tyrannous violence though it may be avoided according to that of our Saviour When they persecute you in one City flie into another yet may it not be resisted by opposing violence against it Protestants therefore that were guilty of this crime are not to be excused and blessed had they been had they chosen rather to be Martyrs than Murderers to die for their religion rather than to fight for it But of all the men in the world you are most unfit to accuse them hereof against whom the souls of the Martyrs from under the Altar cry much lowder than against all their other Persecutors together Who for these many ages together have daily sacrificed Hecatombs of innocent Christians under the name of Heretiques to blind zeal and furious superstition Who teach plainly that you may propagate your Religion whensoever you have power by deposing of Kings and invasion of Kingdoms and think when you kill the adversaries of it you do God good service But for their departing corporally from them whom mentally they had forsaken For their forsaking the external Communion and company of the unreformed part of the Church in their superstitions and impieties thus much of your accusation we embrace and glory in it And say though some Protestants might offend in the maner or degree of their separation yet certainly their separation it self was not Schismatical but innocent and not only so but just and necessary And as for your obtruding upon D. Potter that he should say There neither was nor could be just cause to do so no more than to depart from Christ himself I have shewed divers times already that you deal very injuriously with him confounding together Departing from the Church and Departing from some general opinions and practises which did not constitute but vitiate not make the Church but marr it For though he saies that which is most true that there can be no just cause to depart from the Church that is to cease being a member of the Church no more than to depart from Christ himself in as much as these are not divers but the same thing yet he nowhere denies but there might be just and necessary cause to depart from some opinions and practices of your Church nay of the Catholique Church And therefore you do vainly to inferr that Luther and his followers for so doing were Schismatiques 97. Ad § 35. I answer in a word that neither are Optatus his sayings rules of Faith and therefore not fit to determine Controversies of Faith And then that Majorinus might well be a Schismatique for departing from Caecilianus and the Chayr of Cyprian and Peter without cause and yet Luther and his followers who departed from the Communion of the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of their own Diocess be none because they had just and necessary cause of their departure For otherwise they must have continued in the profession of known Errors and the practice of manifest Corruptions 98. Ad § 36 In the next Section you tel us that Christ our Lord gave S. Peter and his successors authority over his whole Militant Church And for proof hereof you first referre us to Brerely citing exactly the places of such chief Protestants as have confessed the antiquity of this point Where first you fall into the Fallacy which is called Ignoratio Elenchi or mistaking the Question for being to prove this point true you only prove it ancient Which to what purpose is it when both the parties litigant are agreed that many errors were held by many of the ancient Doctors much more ancient than any of those who are pretended to be confessed by Protestants to have held with you in this matter and when those whom you have to do with and whom it is vain to dispute against but out of Principles received by them are all peremptory that though novelty be a certain note of falshood yet no Antiquity less than Apostolical is a certain note of truth Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend that Protestants did confess the Fathers against them in this point For the point here issuable is not Whether S. Peter were head of the Church Nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church Nor whether he had authority over it given him by the Church But whether by Divine right and by Christs appointment he were Head
of the Catholique Church Now having perused Breely I cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to have concurred in opinion with you in this point And the Reader hath reason to suspect that you also out of all the Fathers could not find any one authority pertinent to this purpose for otherwise you were much to blame citing so few to make choice of such as are impertinent For let the understanding Reader peruse the 55. Epist of S. Cyprian with any ordinary attention out of which you take your first place and I am confident he shall find that he means nothing else by the words quoted by you But that in one particular Church at one time there ought to be but one Bishop and that he should be obeyed in all things lawful The non-performance whereof was one of the most ordinary causes of Heresies against the Faith and Schism from the Communion of the Church Universal He shall find secondly and that by many convincing Arguments that though he write to Cornelius Bishop of Rome yet he speaks not of him but of himself then Bishop of Carthage against whom a faction of Schismatiques had then set up another And therefore here your ingenuity is to be commended above many of your side For whereas they ordinarily abuse this place to prove that in the whole Church there ought to be but one Priest one Judge you seem somwhat diffident hereof and thereupon say That these words plainly condemn Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Universal or of every Particular Church But whether they condemn Luther is another question The question here is Whether they plainly prove the Pope's Supremacy over all other Bishops which certainly they are as far from proving as from proving the Supremacy of any other Bishop seeing it is evident they were intended not of one Bishop over the whole Catholique Church but of one Bishop in one particular Church 99. And no less impertinent is your saying out of Optatus if it be well lookt into though at the first sight it may seem otherwise because Optatus his scene happened to be Rome whereas S. Cyprians was Carthage The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular Now Optatus going upon S. Cyprians above-mentioned ground of one Bishop in one Church proves them Schismatiques for so doing and he proves it by this Argument S. Peter was first Bishop of Rome neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair understand in that City for in other places others I hope had Chairs besides S. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatique who against that one single Chair erects another understand as before in that place making another Bishop of that Diocess besides him who was lawfully elected to it 100. But yet by the way he styles S. Peter head of the Apostles and says that from thence he was called Cephas Ans Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a head whereas it is a Syriack word and signifies a stone Besides S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not have Supreme Authority over them And indeed that S. Peter should have Authority over all the Apostles and yet exercise no one act of Authority over any one of them and that they should shew to him no sign of subjection me-thinks is as strange as that a King of England for twenty five years together should do no Act of Regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it As strange methinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to do and that the Apostles after that those words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof S. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them S. Peter was the man but rather confirm it by saying the Kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them but it should not be so among them No less a wonder was it that S. Paul should so far forget S. Peter and himself as that first mentioning of him often he should do it without any title of Honour Secondly speaking of the several degrees of men in the Church he should not give S. Peter the highest but place him in equipage with the rest of the Apostles and say God hath appointed not first Peter then the rest of the Apostles but first Apostles secondly Prophets Certainly if the Apostles were all first to me it is very probable that no one of them was before the rest For by First all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sense the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must have been before every one of the rest And therefore they must be First in the other sense And therefore No man and therefore Not S. Peter must be before any of them Thirdly and Lastly that speaking of himself in particular and perhaps comparing himself with S. Peter in particular rather than any other he should say in plain terms I am in nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles But besides all this Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but in your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farr from shewing that in the judgement of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much less by divine right successor to S. Peter in this his Headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say that he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church Universal Especially seeing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundations of the Church were to be the Foundations of it and accordingly are so called in Scripture And therefore as in a Building it is incongruous that Foundations should succeed Foundations So it may be in the Church that any other Apostles should succeed the first 101. Ad § 37. The next Paragraph I might well pass over as having no Argument in it For there is nothing in it but two sayings of S. Austin which I have great reason to esteem no Argument untill you will promise me to grant whatsoever I shall prove by two sayings of S. Austin But moreover the second of these sentences
if this be a strange matter to you that which I shall tell you will be much stranger I know a man that of a moderate Protestant turn'd a Papist and the day that he did so as all things that are done are perfected some day or other and yet thinks he was no Schismatique for doing so and desires to be informed by you whether or no he was mistaken The same man afterwards upon better consideration became a doubting Papist and of a doubting Papist a confirm'd Protestant And yet this man thinks himself no more to blame for all these changes than a Travailer who using all diligence to find the right way to some remote City where he had never been as the party I speak of had never been in Heaven did yet mistake it and after find his error and amend it Nay he stands upon his justification so far as to maintain that his alterations not only to you but also from you by Gods mercy were the most satisfactory actions to himself that ever he did and the greatest victories that ever he obtained over himself and his affections to those things which in this world are most pretious as wherein for Gods sake and as he was verily perswaded out of love to the Truth he went upon a cerain expectation of those inconveniences which to ingenuous natures are of all most terrible So that though there were much weakness in some of these alterations yet certainly there was no wickedness Neither does he yield his weakness altogether without Apologie seeing his deductions were rational and out of some Principles commonly received by Protestants as well as Papists and which by his education had got possession of his understanding Ad § 40 41. D. Potter p. 81. of his Book to prove our Separation from you not only lawful but necessary hath these words Although we confess the Church of Rome in some sense to be a true Church and her errours to some men not damnable yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she errs in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errours He means not in the belief of those errours for that is presupposed to be done already for whosoever is convinc'd in Conscience that she errs hath for matter of belief forsaken that is ceased to believe those errours This therefore he meant not nor could 〈◊〉 mean but that whosoever is convinc'd in Conscience that the Church of Rome erres cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of these errours And the reason hereof is manifest because otherwise he must profess what he believes not and practise what he approves not Which is no more than your self in thesi have divers times affirmed For in one place you say It is unlawful to speak any the least untruth Now he that professeth your Religion and believes it not what else doth he but live in a perpetual lie Again in another you have called them that profess one thing and believe another a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And therefore in inveighing against Protestants for forsaking the Profession of these errours the belief whereof they had already forsaken what do you but rail at them for not being a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And lastly § 42. of this Chapter within three leaves after this whereas D. Potter grants but only a necessity of peaceable external obedience to the Declaration of the Church though perhaps erroneous provided it be in matter not of Faith but of Opinions or Rites condemning those men who by occasion of errours of this quality disturb the Churches peace and cast off her Communion Upon this occasion you come upon him with this bitter Sarcasm I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will do a deed of Charity by putting you in mind into what Labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may err in some points of Faith and yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgment or leave her Communion though he have evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man dissemble against his Conscience or externally deny Truth known to be contained in holy Scripture I answer for him No It is not he but you that would have men do so not he who says plainly that whosoever is convinc'd in Conscience that any Church errs is bound under pain of damnation to forsake her in her profession and practice of these errours but you who find fault with him and make long discourses against him for thus affirming Not he who can easily wind himself out of your Imaginary Labyrinth by telling you that he no where denyes it lawful for any man to oppose any Church erring in matter of Faith for that he speaks not of matters of Faith at all but only of Rites and Opinions And in such matters he sayes indeed at first It is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgment to the publique But he presently explains himself by saying not only that he may hold an opinion contrary to the publique resolution but besides that he may offer it to be considered of so far is he from requiring any sinful dissimulation Provided he do it with great Probability of Reason very modestly and respectfully and without separation from the Churches Communion It is not therefore in this case opposing a mans private judgment to the publique simply which the Doctor finds fault with But the degree only and malice of this Opposition opposing it factiously And not holding a mans own conceit different from the Church absolutely which here he censures But a factious advancing it and despising the Church so farr as to cast off her Communion because forsooth she errs in some opinion or useth some inconvenient though not impious Rites and Ceremonies Little reason therefore have you to accuse him there as if he required That men should dissemble against their Conscience or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture But certainly a great deal less to quarrel with him for saying which is all that here he says That men under pain of damnation are not to dissemble but if they be convinc'd in conscience that your or any other Church for the reason is alike for all errs in many things are of necessity to forsake that Church in the Profession and practice of those errours 105. But to consider your exception to this speech of the Doctors somewhat what more particularly I say your whole discourse against it is compounded of falshoods and impertinencies The first falshood is that he in these words avoucheth that no learned Catholiques can be saved Unless you will suppose that all learned Catholiques are convinc'd in conscience that your Church errs in many things It may well be fear'd that many are so convinc'd and yet profess what they believe not Many more have been and have stifled their consciences by thinking
by fraud and held by violence 108. These are the Falshoods which in this Answer offer themselves to any attentive Reader and that which remains is meer impertinence As first that a pretence of conscience will not serve to justifie Separation from being Schismatical Which is true but little to the purpose seeing it was not an erroneous perswasion much less an Hypocritical pretence but a true and well grounded conviction of conscience which D. Potter alleaged to justifie Protestants from being Schismatical And therefore though seditious men in Church and State may pretend conscience for a cloak of their rebellion yet this I hope hinders not but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience rather than the unjust commands of his tyrannous Superiours Otherwise With what colour can you defend either your own refusing the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy or the ancient Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets who oftentimes disobeyed the commands of men in authority and for their disobedience made no other but this Apology We must obey God rather than men It is therefore most apparent that this answer must be meerly impertinent seeing it will serve against the Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets and even against your selves as well as against Protestants To as little purpose is your rule out of Lyrinensis against them that followed Luther seeing they pretend and are ready to justifie that they forsook not with the Doctors the faith but only the corruption of the Church As vain altogether is that which followes That in cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our Superiour or cast off his obedience nor publiquely oppose his decrees From whence it will follow very evidently that seeing it is not a matter of faith but disputed question amongst you Whether the Oath of Allegeance be lawful that either you acknowledge not the King your Superior or do against conscience in opposing his and the Kingdoms decree requiring the taking of this Oath This good use I say may very fairly be made of it and is by men of your religion But then it is so far from being a confutation that it is rather a confirmation of D. Potter's assertion For he that useth these words Doth he not plainly import and such was the case of Protestants that we are to leave our Superiours to cast off obedience to them and publiquely to oppose their Decrees when we are certain as Protestants were that what they command God doth countermand Lastly S. Cyprians example is against Protestants impertinently and even ridiculously alleadged For what if S. Cyprian holding his opinion true but not necessary condemned no man much less any Church for holding the contrary Yet me thinks this should lay no obligation upon Luther to do so likwise seeing he held his own opinions not only true but also necessary and the doctrin of the Roman Church not only false but damnable And therefore seeing the condition and state of the parties censured by S. Cyprian and Luther was so different no marvel though their censures also were different according to the supposed merit of the parties delinquent For as for your obtruding again upon us That we believe the points of difference not Fundamental or necessary you have been often told that it is a Calumny We hold your errors as damnable in themselves as you do ours only by accident through invincible ignorance we hope they are not unpardonable and you also profess to think the same of ours 109. Ad § 42. The former part of this discourse grounded on D. Potter's words p. 105. I have already in passing examined and confuted I add in this place 1. That though the Doctor say It is not fit for any private man to oppose his judgement to the publique that is his own judgement and bare authority yet he denies not but occasions may happen wherein it may be warrantable to oppose his reason or the authority of Scripture against it and is not then to be esteem'd to oppose his own judggment to the publique but the judgement of God to the judgement of men Which his following words seem to import He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or Reason Secondly I am to tell you that you have no ground from him to enterline his words with that Interrogatory his own conceits and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture For these things are in his words opposed and not confounded and the latter not intended for a repetition as you mistake it but for an Antithesis of the former He may offer saith he his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence of Scripture But if he will factiously advance his own conceits that is say I clean contrary to your gloss Such as have not evident nor very probable ground in Scripture for these conceits are properly his own he may justly be branded c. Now that this of the two is the better gloss it is proved by your own interrogation For that imputes absurdity to D. Potter for calling them a mans own conceits which were grounded upon evidence of Scripture And therefore you have shewed little candour or equity in fastening upon them this absurd construction They not only bearing but even requiring another more fair and more sensible Every man ought to be presum'd to speak sense rather than non-sense coherently rather than contradictiously if his words be fairly capable of a better construction For M. Hooker if writing against Puritans he had said something unawares that might give advantage to Papists it were not inexcusable seeing it is a matter of such extream difficulty to hold such a temper in opposing one extream opinion as not to seem to favour the other Yet if his words be rightly consider'd there is nothing in them that will do you any service For though he saies that men are bound to do whatsoever the sentence of finall Decision shall determin as it is plain me are bound to yield such an obedience to all Courts of civil judicature yet he saies not they are bound to think that determination lawful and that sentence just Nay it is plain he saies that they must do according to the Judge's sentence though in their private opinion it seem unjust As if I be cast wrongfully in a suit at law and sentenced to pay an hundred pound I am bound to pay the mony yet I know no law of God or man that binds me in conscience to acquit the Judge of error in his sentence The question therefore being only what men ought to think it is vain for you to tell us what M. Hooker saies at all For M. Hooker though an excellant man was but a man And much more vain to tell us out of him what men ought to do for point of external obedience When in the very same place he supposeth and alloweth that in their private opinion they may think This sentence to which they
neither can deceive nor be deceived 7 By this orderly deduction our Faith cometh to be endued with those qualities which we said were requisite thereto namely Certainty Obscurity and Prudence Certainty proceeds from the infallible Testimony of God propounded and conveyed to our understanding by such a mean as is infallible in it self and to us is evidently known that it proposeth this point or that and which can manifestly declare in what sense it proposeth them which means we have proved to be only the visible Church of Christ Obscurity from the manner in which God speaks to Mankind which ordinarily is such that it doth not manifeilly shew the person who speaks nor the truth of the thing spoken Prudence is not wanting because our faith is accompanied with so many arguments of Credibility that every well disposed Understanding may and ought to judge that the doctrins so confirmed deserve to be believed as proceeding from divine Authority 8 And thus from what hath been said we may easily gather the particular nature or definition of Faith For it is a voluntary or free infallible obscure assent to some truth because it is testified by God and is sufficiently propounded to us for such which proposal is ordinarily made by the Visible Church of Christ I say Sufficiently propused by the Church not that I purpose to dispute whether the proposal of the Church enter into the formal Object or Motive of Faith or whether any error be an heresie formally and precisely because it is against the proposition of the Church as if such proposal were the formal Object of Faith which D. Potter to no purpose at all labours so very hard to disprove But I only affirm that when the Church propounds any Truth as revealed by God we are assured that it is such indeed and so it instantly grows to be a fit object for Christian faith which inclines and enables us to believe whatsoever is duly presented as a thing revealed by Almighty God And in the same manner we are sure that whosoever opposeth any doctrin proposed by the Church doth thereby contradict a truth which is testified by God As when any lawful Superiour notifies his will by the means and as it were proposal of some faithful messenger the subject of such a Superiour in performing or neglecting what is delivered by the Messenger is said to obey or disobey his own lawful Superiour And therefore because the testimony of God is notified by the Church we may and we do most truly say that not to believe what the Church proposeth is to deny God's holy word or testimony signified to us by the Church according to that saying of S. Irenaeus We need not go (m) Lib. 3. com Haeres cap. 4. to any other to seck the truth which we may easily receive from the Church 9 From this definition of faith we may also know what Heresie is by taking the contrary terms as Heresie is contrary to Faith and saying Heresie is a voluntary error against that which God hath revealed and the Church hath proposed for such Neither doth it import whether the error concern points in themselves great or small fundamental or not fundamental For more being required to an act of Vertue than of Vice if any truth though never so small may be believed by faith as scon as we know it to be testified by divine revelation much more will it be a formal Heresie to deny any least point sufficiently propounded as a thing witnessed by God 10 This divine Faith is divided into Actual and Habitual Actual faith or faith actuated is when we are in act of consideration and belief of some mysterie of Faith for example that our Saviour Christ is true God and Man c. Habitual faith is that from which we are denominated Faithful or Believers as by Actual faith they are stiled Believing This Habit of faith is a Quality enabling us most firmly to believe Objects above humane discourse and it remaineth permanently in our Soul even when we are sleeping or not thinking of any Mysterie of faith This is the first among the three Theological Vertues For Charity unites us to God as he is infinitely Good in himself Hope ties us to him as he is unspeakably Good to us Faith joyns us to him as he is the Supreme immoveable Verity Charity relies on his Goodness Hope on his Power Faith on his divine Wisdom From hence it followeth that Faith being one of the Vertues which Divines term Infused that is which cannot be acquired by humane wit or industry but are in their Nature and Essence supernatural it hath this property that it is not destroyâ—d by little and little contrarily to the Habits called acquisiti that is gotten by humane endeavour which as they are successively produced so also are they lost successively or by little and little but it must either be conserved entire or wholly destroyed And since it cannot stand entire with any one act which is directly contrary it must be totally overthrown and as it were demolished and razed by every such act Wherefore as Charity or the love of God is expelled from our soul by any one act of Hatred or any other mortal sin against his Divine Majesty and as Hope is destroyed by any one act of voluntary Desperation so Faith must perish by any one act of Heresie because every such act is directly and formally opposite thereunto I know that some sins which as Divines speak are ex genere suo in their kind grievous and moâ—tal may be much lessened and fall to be venial ob levitatem materiae because they may happen to be exercised in a matter of small consideration as for example to steal a penny is venial although Theft in his kind be a deadly sin But it is likewise true that this Rule is not general for all sorts of sins there being some so inexcusably wicked of their own nature that no smalness of matter nor paucity in number can defend them from being deadly sins For to give an instance what blasphemy against God or voluntary false Oath is not a deadly sin Certainly none at all although the salvation of the whole world should depend upon swearing such a falshood The like hapneth in our present case of Heresie the iniquity redounding to the injury of God's supreme wisdom and goodness is always great and enormous They were no precious stones which David (n) 1. Reg. 17. pickt out of the water to encounter Golias yet if a man take from the number but one and say they were but four against the Scripture affirming them to have been five he is instantly guilty of a damnable sin Why Because by this substraction of One he doth deprive God's Word and Testimony of all credit and infallibility For if either he could deceive or be deceived in any one thing it were but wisdom to suspect him in all And seeing every Heresie opposeth some Truth revealed by God it is
no wonder that no one can be excused from deadly and damnable sin for if voluntary Blasphemy and Perjury which are opposed only to the infused Moral Vertue of Religion can never be excused from mortal sin much less can Heresie be excused which opposeth the Theological Vertue of Faith 11 If any object that Schism may seem to be a greater sin than Heresie because the Vertue of Charity to which Schism is opposite is greater than Faith according to the Apostle saying Now there remain (o) 1 Cor. 13.13 Faith Hope Charity but the greater of these is Charity S. Thomas answers in these words Charity hath two Objects one principal to wit the Divine (p) 2.2 q. 39. ar 2. in corp ad 3. Goodness and another secondary namely the good of our Neighbour But Schism and other sins which are committed against our Neighbour are opposite to Charity in respect of this secondary good which is less than the object of Faith which is God as he is the Prime Verity on which Faith doth relie and therefore these sins are less than Infidelity He takes Infidelity after a general manner as it comprehends Heresie and other vices against Faith 12 Having therefore sufficiently declared wherein Heresie consists Let us come to prove that which we proposed in this Chapter Where I desire it be still remembred That the visible Catholique Church cannot err damnably as D. Potter confesseth And that when Luther appeared there was no other visible true Church of Christ disagreeing from the Roman as we have demonstrated in the next precedent Chapter 13 Now that Luther and his followers cannot be excused from formal Heresie I prove by these reasons To oppose any truth propounded by the visible true Church as revealed by God is formal Heresie as we have shewed out of the desinition of Heresie But Luther Calvin and the rest did oppose divers truths propounded by the visible Church as revealed by God yea they did therefore oppose her because she propounded as divine revealed truths things which they judged either to be false or humane inventions Therefore they committed formal Heresie 14 Moreover every Errour against any doctrin revealed by God is a damnable Heresie whether the matter in it self be great or small as I proved before and therefore either the Protestants or the Roman Church must be guilty of formal Heresie because one of them must err against the word and testimony of God but you grant perforce that the Roman Church doth not err damnably and I add that she cannot err damnably because she is the truly Catholique Church which you confess cannot err damnably Therefore Protestants must be guilty of formal Heresie 15 Besides we have shewed that the visible Church is Judge of Controversies and therefore must be infallible in all her Proposals which being once supposed it manifestly followeth that to oppose what she delivereth as revealed by God is not so much to oppose her as God himself and therefore cannot be excused from grievous Heresie 16 Again if Luther were an Heretique for those points wherein he disagreed from the Roman Church All they who agree with him in those very points must likewise be Heretiques Now that Luther was a formal Heretique I demonstrate in this manner To say that God's visible true Church is not universal but confined to one only place or corner of the world is according to your own express words (q) Pag. 126. properly Heresie against that Article of the Creed wherein we profess to believe the holy Catholique Church And you brand Donatus with heresie because he limited the universal Church to Africa But it is manifest and acknowledged by Luther himself and other chief Protestants that Luther's Reformation when it first began and much more for divers ages before was not Universal nor spread over the world but was confined to that compass of ground which did contain Luther's body Therefore his Reformation cannot be excused from formal Heresie If S. Augustine in those times said to the Donatists There are innumerable testimonies (r) Epist 50. of holy Scripture in which it appeareth that the Church of Christ is not only in Africa as these men with most impudent vanity do rave but that she is spread over the whole earth much more may it be said It appeareth by innumerable testimonies of holy Scripture that the Church of Christ cannot be confined to the City of Wittemberg or to the place where Luther's feet stood but must be spread over the whole world It is therefore most impudent vanity and dotage to limit her to Luthers Reformation In another place also this holy Father writes no less effectually against Luther than against the Donatists For having out of those words In thy seed all Nations shall be blessed proved that God's Church must be universal he saith Why (Å¿) De Unit. Eccles cap. 6. do you superadd by saying that Christ remains heir in no part of the earth except where he may have Donatus for his Coheir Give me this Universal Church if it be among you shew your selves to all Nations which we already shew to be blessed in this Seed Give us this Church or else laying aside all fury receive her from us But it is evident that Luther could not When he said At the beginning I was alone give us an universal Church Therefore happy had he been if he had then and his followers would now receive her from us And therefore we must conclude with the same holy Father saying in another place of the universal Church She hath this (t) Cont. lit Petil. lib. 1. cap. 104. most certain mark that she cannot be hidden She is then known to all Nations The Sect of Donatus is unknown to many Nations therefore that cannot be she The Sect of Luther at least when he began and much more before his beginning was unknown to many Nations therefore that cannot be she 17 And that it may yet further appear how perfectly Luther agreed with the Donatists It is to be noted that they never taught that the Catholique Church ought not to extend it self further than that part of Africa where their faction raigned but only that in fact it was so confined because all the rest of the Church was prophaned by communicating with Caecilianus whom they falsly affirmed to have been ordained Bishop by those who were Traditors or givers up of the Bible to the Persecutors to be burned yea at that very time they had some of their Sect residing in Rome and sent thither one Victor a Bishop under colour to take care of the Brethren in that City but indeed as Baronius (u) Anno 321. nu 2. Spond observeth that the world might account them Catholiques by communicating with the Bishop of Rome to communicate with whom was ever taken by the Ancient Fathers as an assured sign of being a true Catholique They had also as S. Augustin witnesseth a pretended (w) De Uâ—i Eccles c
3. Church in the house and territory of a Spanish Lady called Lucilla who went flying out of the Catholique Church because she had been justly checked by Caecilianus And the same Saint speaking of the conference he had with Fortunius the Donatist saith Here did he first (x) Ep. 163. attempt to affirm that his Communion was spread over the whole Earth c. but because the thing was evidently false they got out of this discourse by confusion of language whereby nevertheless they sufficiently declared that they did not hold that the true Church ought necessarily to be confined to one place but only by meer necessity were forced to yield that it was so in fact because their Sect which they held to be the only true Church was not spread over the world In which point Fortunius and the rest were more modest than he who should affirm that Luther's reformation in the very beginning was spread over the whole Earth being at that time by many degrees not so far diffused as the Sect of the Donatists I have no desire to prosecure the similitude of Protestanes with Donatists by remembring that the Sect of these men was begun and promoted by the passion of Lucilla and Who is ignorant what influence two women the Mother and Daughter ministred to Protestancy in England Nor will I stand to observe their very likeness of phrase with the Donatists who called the Chair of Rome the Chair of pestilence and the Roman Church an Harlot which is D. Potter's own phrase wherein he is less excusable than they because he maintaineth her to be a true Church of Christ and therefore let him duly ponder these words of S. Augustin against the Donatists If I persecute him justly who detracts (y) Conc. super gest cum Emerit from his Neighbour why should I not presecute him who detracts from the Church of Christ and saith This is not she but this is an Harlot And least of all will I consider whether you may not be well compared to one Ticonius a Dona i st who wrote against Parmenianus likewise a Donatist who blasphemed that the Church of Christ had perished as you do even in this your Book write against some of your Protestant Brethren or as you call them Zelots among you who hold the very same or rather a worse Heresie and yet remained among them even after Parmenianus had excommunicated him as those your Zealous Brethren would proceed against you if it were in their power and yet like Ticonius you remain in their Communion and come nor into that Church which is hath been and shall ever be universal For which very cause S. Augustin complains of Ticonius that although he wrote against the Donatists yet he was of an heart (z) De doctr Christ lib. 3. cap. 30. so extremely absurd as not to forsake them altogether And speaking of the same thing in another place he observes that although Ticonius did manifestly confute them who affirmed that the Church had perished yet he saw not saith this holy Father that which in good consequence (a) Cont. Parm. l. 1. cap. 1. he should have seen that those Christians of Africa belonged to the Church spread over the whole world who remained united not with them who were divided from the communion and unity of the same world but with such as did communicate with the whole world But Parmenianus and the rest of the Donatists saw that consequence and resolved rather to settle their mind in obstinacy against the most manifest truth which Ticonius maintained than by yielding thereto to be overcome by those Churches in Africa which enjoyed the Communion of that Unity which Ticonius defended from which they had divided themselves How firly these words agree to Catholiques in England in respect of the Protestants I desire the Reader to consider But these and the like resemblances of Protestants to the Donatists I willingly let pass and only urge the main point That since Luther's Reformed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Luther and yet was because so forsooth they will needs have it in the Apostles time they must of necessity affirm heretically with the Donatists that the true and unsported Church of Christ perished and that she which remained on earth was O blasphemy an Harlot Moreover the same heresie follows out of the doctrin of D. Potter and other Protestants that the Church may err in points not fundamental because we have shewed that every errour against any one revealed truth is Heresie and damnable whether the matter be otherwise of it self great or small And how can the Church more truly be said to perish than when she is permitted to maintain a damnable Heresie Besides we will hereafter prove that by any act of Heresie all divine faith is lost and to imagine a true Church of faithful persons without any faith is as much as to fancy a living man without life It is therefore clear that Donatist-like they hold that the Church of Christ perished yea they are worse than the Donatists who said that the Church remained at least in Africa whereas Protestants must of necessity be forced to grant that for a long space before Luther she was no where at all But let us go forward to other reasons 18 The holy Scripture and Ancient Fathers do assign Separation from the Visible Church as a mark of Heresie according to that of S. John They went out (b) 2. Joan. 19. from us And Some who (c) Act. 15.24 went out from us And Out of you shall (d) Act. 20.30 arise men speaking perverse things And accordingly Vincentius Lyrinensis saith Who ever (e) Lib. adversus haer c. 34. began heresies who did not first separate himself from the Universality Antiquity and Consent of the Catholique Church But it is manifest that when Luther appeared there was no visible Church distinct from the Roman out of which she could depart as it is likewise wel known that Luther and his followers departed out of her Therefore she is no way liable to this Mark of Heresie but Protestants cannot possibly avoid it To this purpose S. Prosper hath these pithy words A Christian communicating (f) Dimid temp cap. 5. with the universal Church is a Catholique and he who is divided from her is an Heretique and Antichrist But Luther in his first Reformation could not communicate with the visible Catholique Church of those times because he began his Reformation by opposing the supposed Errors of the then visible Church we must therefore say with S. Prosper that he was an Heretique c. Which likewise is no less clearly proved out of S. Cyprian saying Not we (g) Ep. 57. ad Damas departed from them but they from us and since Heresies and Schisms are bred afterwards while they make to themselves divers Conventicles they have forsaken the head and origin of Truth 19. And that we might not remain doubtful what Separation
it is which is the mark of Heresie the Ancient Fathers tell us more in particular that it is from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of Peter And therefore D. Potter need not to be so hot with us because we say and write that the Church of Rome in that sense as she is the Mother-Church of all others and with which all the rest agree is truly called the Catholique Church S. Hierome writing to Pope Damasus saith I am in the Communion (h) Lib. 1. Apolog of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built upon that Rock Whosoever shall eat the Lamb out of this house he is prophane If any shall not be in the Ark of Noe he shall perish in the time of the deluge Whosoever doth not gather with thee doth scatter that is he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist And elsewhere Which doth he (i) Ibid. lib. 3. call his faith That of the Roman Church Or that which is contained in the Books of Origen If he answer The Roman then we are Catholiques who have translated nothing of the error of Origen And yet farther Know thou that the k Roman faith commended by the voyce of the Apostle doth not receive these delusions though an Angel should denounce otherwise than it hath once been preached S. Ambrose recounting how his Brother Satyrus inquiring for a Church wherein to give thanks for his delivery from shipwrack saith He called unto him (l) De obitu Satyri fratris the Bishop neither did he esteem any favour to be true except that of the true faith and he asked of him whether be agreed with the Catholique Bishops that is with the Roman Church And having understood that he was a Schismatique that is separated from the Roman Church he abstained from communicating with him Where we see the privâ—ledge of the Roman Church confirmed both by word and deed by doctrin and practice And the same Saint saith of the Roman Church From thence the Rites (m) Lib. 1. ep 4. ad Imperatores of Venerable Communion do flow to all Saint Cyprian saith They are bold (n) Epist 55. ad Cornel. to sail to the Chair of Peter and to the principal Church from whence Priestly Unity hath sprung Neither do they consider that they are Romans whose faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot have access Where we see this holy Father joyns together the principal Church and the Chair of Peter and affirmâ—th that falshood not only hath not had but cannot have access to that Sea And elsewhere Thou wrotest that I should send (o) Epist 52. a Copy of the same letters to Cornelius our Colleague that laying aside all sollicitude he might now be assured that thou didst communicate with him that is with the Catholique Church What think you M. Doctor of these words Is it so strange a thing to take for one and the same thing to communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome and to communicate with the Catholique Church S. Irenaeus saith Because it were long to number the succession of all Chuâ—ches (p) Lib. 3 cont haer c. 3. we declaring the Tradition and faith preached to men and coming to us by Tradition of the most great most ancient and most known Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which Tradition it hath from the Apostles coming to us by succession of Bishops we confound all those who any way either by evil complacence of themselves or vain glory or by blindness or ill opinion do gather otherwise than they ought For to this Church for a more powerful Principality it is necessary that all Churches resort that is all faithful people of what place soever in which Roman Church the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes been conserved from those who are every where Saint Augustine saith It grieves us (q) In Psal coâ—t patrâ—m Donati to see you so to lie cut off Number the Priests even from the Sea of Peter and consider in that order of Fathers who succeded to whom She is the Rock which the proud Gates of Hell do not overcome And in another place speaking of Caecilianus he saith He might contemâ— the conspiring (r) Ep. 162. multitude of his Enemies because he knew himself to be united by Communicatory letters both to the Roman Church in which the Principality of the Sea Apostolique did alwayes flourish and to other Countâ—ies from whence the Gospel came first into Africa Ancient Tertullian saith If thou be neer Italy thou hast Rome whose (s) Praescr cap. 36. Authority is nâ—er at hand to us a happy Church into which the Apostles have poured all Doctrine together with their bloud Saint Basil in a letter to the Bishop of Rome saith In very deed that which was given (t) Epist ad Pont. Rom. by our Lord to thy Piety is worthy of that must excellent voyce which procâ—â—â—med thee Blessed to wit that thou mayst discern betwixt that which is counterfeit and that which is lawful and pure and without any diminution mayest preach the faith of our Ancestours Maximâ—nianus Bishop of Constantinople about twelve hundred years ago said All the bounds of the earth who have siâ—ccrely acknowledged our Lord and Catholiques through the whole world professing the true faith look upon the power of the Bishop of Rome as upon the Sun c. For the Creator of the world amongst all men of the world elected him he speaks of S. Peter to whom he granted the Chair of Dectour to be principally possessed by a perpetual right of Priviledge that whosoever is desirous to know any Divine and profound thing may have recourse to the Oracle and Doctrin of this Instruction John Patriarch of Constantinople more than eleven hundred years ago in an Epistle to Pope Hormisda writeth thus Because (u) Epist ad Hormis P. P. the beginning of salvation is to conserve the rule of right Faith and in no wise to swarve from the Tradition of our Fore Fathers because the words of our Lord cannot fail saying Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church the proofs of deeds have made good those words because in the Sea Apostolical the Catholique Religion is alwayes conserved inviolable And again We promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred Mysteries the names of them who are excluded from the Communion of the Catholique Church that is to say who consent not fully with the Sea Apostolique Many other Authorities of the Ancient Fathers might be produced to this purpose but these may serve to shew that both the Latin and Greek Fathers held for a Note of being a Catholique or an Heretique To have been united or divided from the Sea of Rome And I have purposely alleadged only such Authorities of Fathers as speak of the priviledges of the Sea of Rome as of things permanent and depending
was to all Christians at that time to set up any Pictures in a Church to worship them as your new fashion is bruited abroad to be done in the Churches of the Catholique Church But what answer doth S. Austin and Optatus make to this Accusation Do they confess and maintain it Do they say as you would now It is true we do set Pictures upon our Altar and that not only for ornament or memory but for worship also but we do well to do so and this ought not to trouble you or affright you from our Communion What other answer your Church could now make to such an objection is very hard to imagine And therefore were your Doctrin the same with the Doctrin of the Fathers in this point they must have answered so likewise But they to the contrary not only deny the crime but abhorr and detest it To little purpose therefore do you hunt after these poor shadows of resemblances between us and the Donatists unless you could shew an exact resemblance between the present Church of Rome and the ancient which seeing by this and many other particulars it is demonstrated to be impossible that Church which was then a Virgin may be now a Harlot and that which was detraction in the Donatists may be in Protestants a just accusation 17 As ill success have you in comparing D. Potter with Tyconius whom as S. Austin finds fault with for continuing in the Donatists separation having forsaken the ground of it the Doctrin of the Churches perishing so you condemn the Doctor for continuing in their communion who hold as you say the very same Heresie But if this were indeed the Doctrin of the Donatists how is it that you say presently after that the Protestants who hold the Church of Christ perished were worse than Donatists who said that the Church remained at least in Africa These things me-thinks hang not well together But to let this pass The truth is this difference for which you would fain raise such a horrible dissention between D. Potter and his Brethren if it be well considered is only in words and the manner of expression They affirming only that the Church perished from its integrity and fell into many corruptions which he denies not And the Doctor denying only that it fell from its essence and became no Church at all which they affirm not 18 These therefore are but velitations and you would seem to make but small account of them But the main point you say is that since Luther 's Reformed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Luther and yet was in the Apostles time they must of necessity affirm heretically with the Donatists that the true unspotted Church of Christ perished and that she which remained on earth was O Blasphemy an Harlot By which words it seems you are resolute perpetually to confound True and Unspotted and to put no difference between a corrupted Church and none at all But what is this but to make no difference between a diseased and a dead man Nay what is it but to contradict your selves who cannot deny but that sins are as great stains and spots and deformities in the sight of God as errours and confess your Church to be a congregation of men whereof every particular not one excepted and consequently the generality which is nothing but a collection of them is polluted and defiled with sin You proceed 19 But say you The same heresie follows out of D. Potter and other Protestants that the Church may err in points not fundamental because we have shewed that every error against any revealed truth is Heresie and Damnable whether the matter be great or small And how can the Church more truly be said to perish than when she is permitted to maintain damnable Heresie Besides we will hereafter prove that by every act of Heresie all divine faith is lost and to maintain a true Church without any faith is to fancy a living man without life Answ What you have said before hath been answered before and what you shall say hereafter shall be confuted hereafter But if it be such a certain ground that every error against any one revealed truth is a damnable Heresie then I hope I shall have your leave to subsume That the Dominicans in your account must hold a damnable heresie who hold an error against the immaculate Conception which you must needs esteem a revealed truth or otherwise why are you so urgent and importunate to have it defined seeing your rule is Nothing may be defined unless it be first revealed But without your leave I will make bold to conclude that if either that or the contrary assertion be a revealed truth you or they chuse you whether must without contradiction hold a damnable Heresie if this ground be true that every contradiction of a revealed Truth is such And now I dare say for fear of inconvenience you will begin to temper the crudeness of your former assertion and tell us that neither of you are Heretiques because the Truth against which you err though revealed is not sufficiently propounded And so say I Neither is your doctrin which Protestants contradict sufficiently propounded For though it be plain enough that your Church proposeth it yet still me-thinks it is as plain that your Churches proposition is not sufficient and I desire you would not say but prove the contrary Lastly to your Question How can the Church more truly be said to perish than when she is permitted to maintain a damnable Heresie I Answer she may be more truly said to perish when she is not only permitted to do so but de facto doth maintain a damnable Heresie Again she may be more truly said to perish when she falls into an Heresie which is not only damnable in it self and ex natura rei as you speak but such an Heresie the belief of whose contrary Truth is necessary not only necessitate praecepti but medii and therefore the Heresie so absolutely and indispensably destructive of salvation that no ignorance can excuse it nor any general repentance without a dereliction of it can beg a pardon for it Such an heresie if the Church should fall into it might be more truly said to perish then if it fell only into some heresie of its own nature damnable For in that state all the members of it without exception all without mercy must needs perish for ever In this although those that might see the truth and would not cannot upon any good ground hope for salvation yet without question it might send many souls to heaven who would gladly have embrac'd the truth but that they wanted means to discover it Thirdly and lastly she may yet more truly be said to perish when she Apostates from â—hrist absolutely or rejects even those Truths out of which her Heresies may be reformed as if she should directly deny Jesus to be the Christ or the Scripture to be the Word of God Towards which
state of Perdition it may well be feared that the Church of Rome doth somewhat incline by her superinducing upon the rest of her errors the Doctrin of her own infallibility whereby her errors are made incurable by her pretending that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to her doctrin and not her doctrin to be judg'd of by Scripture whereby she makes the Scripture uneffectual for her Reformation 20. Ad § 18. I was very glad when I heard you say The Holy Scripture and antient Fathers do assign Separation from the visible Church as a mark of Heresie for I was in good hope that no Christian would so belie the Scripture as to say so of it unless he could have produced some one Text at least wherein this was plainly affirmed or from whence it might be undoubtedly and undeniably collected For assure your self good Sir it is a very hainous crime to say Thus saith the Lord when the Lord doth not say so I expected therefore some Scripture should have been alledged wherein it should have been said Whosoever separates from the Roman Church is an Heretique or the Roman Church is infallible or the Guide of faith or at least There shall be always some visible Church infallible in matters of faith Some such direction as this I hoped for And I pray consider whether I had not reason The Evangelists and Apostles who wrote the new Testament we all suppose were good men and very desirous to direct us the surest and plainest way to heaven we suppose them likewise very sufficiently instructed by the Spirit of God in all the necessary points of the Christian faith and therefore certainly not ignorant of this Unum Necessarium this most necessary point of all others without which as you pretend and teach all faith is no Faith that is that the Church of Rome was designed by God the guide of Faith We suppose them lastly wise men especially being assisted by the spirit of wisdom and such as knew that a doubtful and questionable Guide was for mens direction as good as none at all And after all these suppositions which I presume no good Christian will call into question is it possible that any Christian heart can believe that not One amongst them all should ad rei memoriam write this necessary doctrin plainly so much as once Certainly in all reason they had provided much better for the good of Christians if they had wrote this though they had writ nothing else Me-thinks the Evangelists undertaking to write the Gospel of Christ could not possibly have omitted any one of them this most necessary point of faith had they known it necessary S. Luke especially who plainly professes that his intent was to write all things necessary Me-thinks S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their Priviledge to them Me-thinks instead of saying Your faith is spoken of all the world over which you have no reason to be very proud of for he says the very same thing to the Thessalonians he could not have fail'd to have told them once at least in plain terms that their Faith was the Rule for all the World for ever But then sure he would have forborn to put them in fear of an impossibility as he doth in his eleventh Chapter that they also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not look to their standing might fall away to infidelity as the Jews had done Me-thinks in all his other Epistles at least in some at least in one of them he could not have failed to have given the world this direction had he known it to be a true one that all men were to be guided by the Church of Rome and none to separate from it under pain of damnation Me-thinks writing so often of Heretiques and Antichrist he should have given the world this as you pretend only sure preservative from them How was it possible that S. Peter writing two Catholick Epistles mentioning his own departure writing to preserve Christians in the faith should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended Successours the Bishops of Rome How was it possible that S. James and S. Jude in their Catholique Epistles should not give this Catholique direction Me-thinks S. John instead of saying He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God The force of which direction your glosses do quite enervate and make unavailable to discern who are the sons of God should have said He that adheres to the doctrin of the Roman Church and lives according to it he is a good Christian and by this mark ye shall know him What man not quite out of his wits if he consider as he should the pretended necessity of this doctrin that without the belief hereof no man ordinarily can be saved can possibly force himself to conceive that all these good and holy men so desirous of mens salvation and so well assured of it as it is pretended should be so deeply and affectedly silent in it and not One of them say it plainly so much as once but leave it to be collected from uncertain Principles by many more uncertain Consequences Certainly he that can judge so uncharitably of them it is no marvel if he censure other inferiour servants of Christ as Atheists and Hypocrites and what he pleases Plain places therefore I did and had reason to look for when I heard you say the holy Scripture assigns separation from the visible Church as a Mark of Heresie But instead hereof what have you brought us but meer impertinencies S. John saith of some who pretended to be Christians and were not so and therefore when it was for their advantage forsook their profession They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us Of some who before the decree of the Councel to the contrary were perswaded and accordingly taught that the convert Gentiles were to keep the Law of Moses it is said in the Acts Some who went out from us And again S. Paul in the same book forwarns the Ephesians that out of them should arise men speaking perverse things And from these places which it seems are the plainest you have you collect that separation from the Visible Church is assigned by Scripture as a Mark of Heresie Which is certainly a strange and unheard-of strain of Logick Unless you will say that every Text wherein it is said that some body goes out from some body affords an Argument for this purpose For the first place there is no certainty that it speaks of Heretiques but no Christians of Antichrists of such as denied Jesus to be the Christ See the place and you shall confess as much The second place it is certain you must not say it speaks of Heretiques for it speaks only of some who believed and taught an Error while it was yet a question and not
evident and therefore according to your doctrin no formal Heresie The third saies indeed that of the Professors of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresie But not one of them all that says or intimates that whosoever separates from the Visible Church in what state soever is certainly an heretique Heretiques I confess do always do so But they that do so are are not always Heretiques for perhaps the state of the Church may make it necessary for them to do so as Rebels always disobey the command of their King yet they which disobey a King's command which perhaps may be unjust are not presently Rebels 21 Your Allegations out of Vincentius Prosper and Cyprian are liable to these exceptions 1. That they are the sayings of men not assisted by the Spirit of God and whose Authority your selves will not submit to in all things 2. That the first and last are meerly impertinent neither of them affirming or intimating that separation from the present Visible Church is a mark of Heresie and the former speaking plainly of separation from Universality Consent and Antiquity which if you will presume without proof that we did and you did not you beg the Question For you know we pretend that we separated only from that present Church which had separated from the doctrin of the Ancient and because she had done so and so far forth as she had done so no farther And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true according to your own grounds For you say a man may be divided from the Church upon meer Schism without any mixture of Heresie And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresie Lastly a man may be divided by an unjust excommunication and be hoth before and after a very good Catholique and therefore you cannot maintain it Universally true That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretique and Antichrist 22. In the 19. § we have the Authority of eight Fathers urg'd to prove That the separation from the Church of Rome as it is the See of S. Peter I conceive you mean as it is that particular Church is the mark of Heresie Which kind of argument I might well refuse to answer unless you would first promise me that whensoever I should produce as plain sentences of as great a number of Fathers as ancient for any doctrin whatsoever that you will subscribe to it though it fall out to be contrary to the doctrin of the Roman Church For I conceive nothing in the world more unequal or unreasonable then that you should press us with such Authorities as these and think your selves at liberty from them and that you should account them Fathers when they are for you and Children when they are against you Yet I would not you should interpret this as if I had not great assurance that it is not possible for you ever to gain this cause at the tribunal of the Fathers nay not of the Fathers whose sentences are here alleadged Let us consider them in order and I doubt not to make it appear that far the greater part of them nay al of them that are any way considerable fal short of your purpose 23. S. Hierome you say writing to Pope Damasus saith I am in the Communion of the Chair of Peter c. But then I pray consider he saith it to Pope Damasus and this will much weaken the Authority with them who know how great over-truths men usually write to one another in Letters Consider again that he says only that he was then in Communion with the Chair of Peter Not that he alwayes would or of necessity must be so for his resolution to the contrary is too evident out of that which he saith elsewhere which shall be produced hereafter He says that the Church at that present was built upon that Rock but Not that only Nor that alwayes Nay his judgment as shall appear is express to the contrary And so likewise the rest of his expressions if we mean to reconcile Hierome with Hierome must be conceived as intended by him of that Bishop and Sea of Rome at that present time and in the present State and in respect of that doctrin which he there intreats of For otherwise had he conceiv'd it necessary for him and all men to conform their judgment in matters of faith to the judgment of the Bishop and Church of Rome how came it to pass that he chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrews Canonical upon the authority of the Eastern Church than to reject it from the Canon upon the authority of the Roman How comes it to pass that he dissented from the Authority of that Church touching the Canon of the Old Testament For if you say that the Church then consented with S. Hierome I fear you will lose your Fort by maintaining your Out-works and by avoiding this run into a greater danger of being forc'd to confess the present Roman Church opposite herein to the Ancient How was it possible that he should ever believe that Liberius Bishop of Rome either was or could have been brought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia Hierom. de scrip Eccl. tit Fortunatianus and brought after two years banishment to subscribe Heresie Which Act of Liberius though some fondly question being so vain as to expect we should rather believe them that lived but yesterday 1300 years almost after the thing is said to be done and speaking for themselves in their own Cause rather than the dis-interessed time-fellows or immediate-Successors of Liberius himself yet I hope they will not proceed to such a degree of immodesty as once to question Whether S. Hierome thought so And if this cannot be denyed I demand then If he had lived in Liberius his time could he or would he have written so to Liberius as he does to Damasus Would he have said to him I am in the Communion of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built upon this Rock Whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth Would he then have said the Roman faith and the Catholique were the same or that the Roman faith received no delusions no not from an Angel I suppose he could not have said so with any coherence to his own belief and therefore conceive it undeniable that what he said then to Damasus he said it though perhaps he streined too high only of Damasus and never conceiv'd that his words would have been extended to all his Predecessors and all his Successors 24. The same Answer I make to the first place of S. Ambrose viz. That no more can be certainly concluded from it but that the Catholique Bishops and the Roman Church were then at unity so that whosoever agreed with the later could not then but agree with the former But that this Rule was perpetual and that no man could ever agree with the Catholique Bishops but he must
new Observations the first that the Pope having threatned the Bishops of Asia to excommunicate them Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of Asia despised the Popes threats as it appears by the answer of the same Polycrates to Pope Victor Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Hieron in Hieron in script Eccl. in Polyer which is inserted in the writings of Eusebius and of Saint JEROM and which JEROM seemeth to approve when he saith he reports it to shew the spirit and authority of the man And the second that when the Pope pronounced anciently his Excommunications he did no other thing but separate himself from the Communion of those that he excommunicated and did not thereby separate them from the universal communion of the Church To the first then we say that so farr is this Epistle of Polycrates from abating and diminishing the Popes authority that contrariwise it greatly magnifies and exalts it For although Polycrates blinded with the love of the custom of his Nation which he believed to be grounded upon the Word of God who had assigned the fourteenth of the Moneth of March for the observation of the Pasche and upon the example of S. JOHN'S tradition maintains it obstinately Nevertheless this that he answers speaking in his own Name Exod. 12. Hieronym ubi supra and in the name of the Council of the Bishops of Asia to whom he presided I fear not those that threeaten us for my Elders have said It is better to obey God than man Doth it not shew that had it not been that be believed the Pope's threat was against the express Word of God there had been cause to fear it and he had been obliged to obey him for m who knows not that this answer It is better to obey God than men is not to be made but to those whom we were obliged to obey if their commundements were not contrary to the commandements of God And that he adds that he had called the Bishops of Asia Euseb Hist Eccl l. 5. c. 23. to a National Council being n summoned to it by the Pope doth it not insinuate that the other Councils whereof Eusebius speaks that were holden about this matter through all the Provinces of the Earth and particularly that of Palestina Bâ—da in frag de Aequinociio veâ—â—aâ— which if you believe the act that Beda said came to his hands Theophilus Archbishop of Cesarea had called by the auctority of Victor were holden at the instance of the Pope and consequently that the Pope was the first mover of the Universal Church And that the Councils of Nicea of Constantinople of Ephesus embraced the Censure of Victor and excommunicated those that observed the custom of Polycrates that was deceived in believing that the Popes commandement was against Gods commandement And that S. JEROM himself celebrates the Paschal Homilies of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria which followed the Order of Nicea concerning the Pasche doth it not justifie that when S. JEROM saith That he reports the Epistle of Polycrates to shew the spirit and authority of the man he intends by authority not authority of right but of fact that is to say the credit that Polycrates had amongst the Asians and other Quarto decimans These are the Cardinal's words the most material and considerable passages whereof to save the trouble of repetition I have noted with letters of reference whereunto my answers noted respectively with the same letters follow now in order a If Eusebius were an Arrian author it is nothing to the purpose what he writes there is no Arrianism nor any thing towards it Never any error was imputed to the Arrians for denying the Authority or the infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome Besides what Eusebius says he says out of Irenaeus Neither doth or can the Cardinal deny the story to be true and therefore he goes about by indirect Arts to foil it and cast a blurr upon it Lastly whensoever Eusebius says any thing which the Cardinal thinks for the advantage of his side he cites him and then he is no Arrian or at least he would not take that for an answer to the arguments he draws out of him b That Ruffinus was enemy to the Roman Church is said but not proved neither can it be c Eusebius says the same also of caeteri omnes Episcopi all the other Bishops That they advised Victor to keep those things that belonged to peace and unity and that they sharply reprehended Victor for having done otherwise d This is said but no offer made of any proof of it The Cardinal thinks we must take every thing upon his word They to whom the Tradition was delivered Polycrates and the Asian Bishops knew no such matter nay professed the contrary And who is more likely to know the Truth they which lived within two ages of the fountain of it or the Cardinal who lived sixteen ages after it e How can it make against those that object it seeing it is evident from Irenaeus his Reprehension that he thought Victor and the Roman Church no infallible nor sufficient Judge of what was necessary to be believed and done what not what was universal Tradition what not what was a sufficient ground of Excommunication and what not and consequently that there was no such necessity as is pretended that all other Churches should in matters of faith conform themselves to the Church of Rome f This is to suppose that Excommunication is an Act or Argument or sign of Power and Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church-Story that it was often used by Equals upon Equals and by Inferiours upon Superiours if the Equals or Inferiours thought their Equals or Superiours did any thing which deserved it g And what is this but to confess that they thought that a small cause of Excommunication and unsufficient which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient And consequently that Victor and his Part declared that to be a matter of faith and of necessity which they thought not so And where was then their conformity h True you have so expounded it but not proved nor offered any proof of your exception This also we must take upon your Authority Irenaeus speaks not one Word of any other power to which he compares or before which he preferrs the power of the Roman-Church And it is evident out of the Council of Chalcedon * Cant. 28. That all the Principality which it had was given it not by God but by the Church in regard it was seated in the Imperial City Whereupon when afterwards Constantinople was the Imperial City they decreed that that Church should have equal Priviledges and dignity and preheminence with the Church of Rome All the Fathers agreed in this Decree saving only the Legats of the Bishop of Rome shewing plainly that they never thought of any Supremacy given the Bishops of Rome by
God or grounded upon Scripture but only by the Church and therefore alterable at the Churches pleasure i This is falsely translated Convenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam every body knows signifies no more but to resort or come to the Roman Church which then there was a necessity that men should do because that the affairs of the Empire were transacted in that place But yet Irenaeus sayes not so of every Church simply which had not been true but only of the Adjacent Churches for so he expounds himself in saying To this Church it is necessary that every Church that is all the faithful round about should resort With much more reason therefore we return the Argument thus Had Irenaeus thought that all Churches must of necessity agree with the Roman how could he and all other Bishops have then pronounc'd that to be no matter of Faith no sufficient ground of Excommunication which Victor his adherents thought to be so And how then could they have reprehended Victor so much for the ill use of his power as Cardinal Perron confesses they did seeing if that was true which is pretended in this also as well as other things it was necessary for them to agree with the Church of Rome Some there are that say but more wittily than truly that all Cardinal Bellarmines works are so consonant to themselves as if he had written them in two hours Had Cardinal Perron wrote his Book in two hours sure he would not have done that here in the middle of the Book which he condemns in the beginning of it For here he urgeth a Consequence drawn from the mistaken words of Irenaeus against his lively and actual practice which Proceeding there he justly condemns of evident injustice His words are * In his Letter to Casaubon towards the end For who knows not that it is too great an injustice to alleage consequences from passages and even those ill interpreted and misunderstood and in whose Illation there is always some Paralogism hid against the express words and the lively and actual practise of the same Fathers from whom they are collected and that it may be good to take the Fathers for Adversaries and to accuse them for want of sense or memory but not to take them for Judges and to submit themselves to the observation of what they have believ'd and practised k This is nothing to the purpose he might choose these examples not as of greater force and authority in themselves but as fitter to be imployed against Victor as domestique examples are fitter and more effectual than forrain and for his omitting to press him with his own example and others to what purpose had it been to use them seeing their Letters sent to Victor from all parts wherein they reprehend his presumption shewed him sufficiently that their example was against him But besides he that reads Irenaeus his Letter shall see that in the matter of the Lent-Fast and the great variety about the celebration of it which he parallels with this of Easter he presseth Victor with the example of himself and others not Bishops of Rome Both they saith he speaking of other Bishops notwithstanding this difference retained peace among themselves and we also among our selves retain it inferring from his example that Victor also ought to do so l If the Pope's proceeding was just then the Churches of Asia were indeed and in the sight of God excommunicate and out of the state of Salvation which Irenaeus and all the other ancient Bishops never thought And if they were so why do you account them Saints and Martyrs But the truth is that these Councels did no way shew the Pope's proceedings just but rather the contrary For though they setled an uniformity in this matter yet they setled it as a matter formerly indifferent and not as a matrer of faith or necessity as it is evident out of * In ep ad Episcopos in Africa Where he clearly shews that this question was not a question was not a question of faith by saying The Council of Nice was celebrated by occasion of the Arrian Heresie and the difference about Easter In so much as they in Syria and Cilicia and Mesopotamia did differ herein from us and kept this Feast on the same day with the Jews But thanks be to God an agreement was made as concerning the Faith so also concerning this holy Feast Athanasius and consequently they rather declare Victor's proceeding unjust who excommunicated so many Churches for differing from him in an indifferent matter m It seems then Polycrates might be a Saint and a Martyr and yet think the commands of the Roman Church enjoyned upon pain of damnation contrary to the commandements of God Besides S. Peter himself the head of the Church the Vicar of Christ as you pretend made this very answer to the high Priest yet I hope you will not say he was his inferior and obliged to obey him Lastly who sees not that when the Pope commands us any thing unjust as to communicate Lay-men in one kind to use the Latin Service c. we may very fitly say to him It is better to obey God than men and yet never think of any authority he hath over us n Between requesting and summoning me-thinks there should be some difference and Polycrates says no more but he was requested by the Church of Rome to call them and did so Here then as very often the Cardinal is fain to help the dice with a false translation and his pretence being false every one must see that that which he pretends to be insinuated by it is clearly inconsequent o Polycrates was deceived if he believed it to be against Gods Commandement and the Pope deceived as much in thinking it to be Gods commandement for it was neither one nor the other but an indifferent matter wherein God had not interposed his Authority Neither did the Councel of Nice embrace the Censure of Victor by acknowledging his Excommunication to be just and well grounded for which the Cardinal neither doth pretend nor can produce any proof any way comparable to the fore-alledged words of Athanasius testifying the contrary though perventure having setled the observation and reduced it to an uniformity they might excommunicate those who afterward should trouble the Churches peace for an indifferent matter And thus much for Irenaeus 31 I come now to S. Austin and to the first place out of him where he seems to say that the Succession in the Sea of Peter was the Rock which our Saviour meant when he said Upon this Rock c. I answer first we have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof because S. Austin himself was not but retracts it as uncertain and leaves to the Reader whether he will think that or another more probable Retr l. 1. c. 26. Secondly What he says of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place he says it elsewhere of all the Successions in all other
every one Is Achaia near thee there thou hast Corinth If thou art not far from Macedonia thou hast Philippi thou hast Thessalonica If thou canst go into Asia there thou hast Ephesus If thou be adjacent to Italy thou hast Rome whose Authority is neer at hand to us in Africk A happy Church into which the Apostles powred forth all their Doctrin together with their blood c. Now I pray you Sir tell me if you can for blushing why this place might not have been urg'd by a Corinthian or Philippian or Thessalonian or an Ephesian to shew that in the judgment of Tertullian separation from any of their Churches is a certain mark of Heresie as justly and rationally as you alledge it to vindicate this priviledge to the Roman Church only Certainly if you will stand to Tertullian's judgment you must either grant the authority of the Roman Church though at that time a good Topical Argument and perhaps a better than any the Heretiques had especially in conjunction with other Apostolique Churches yet I say you must grant it perforce but a fallible Guide as well as that of Ephesus and Thessalonica and Philippi and Corinth or you must maintain the Authority of every one of these infallible as well as the Roman For though he make a Panegyrick of the Roman Church in particular and of the rest only in general yet as I have said for point of direction he makes them all equal and therefore makes them chuse you whether either all fallible or all infallible Now you will and must acknowledge that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the Churches of Ephesus or Corinth or if he did that as experience shews he erred in doing so and what can hinder but then we may say also that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the Roman Church or if he did that he erred in doing so 35 From the saying of S. Basil certainly nothing can be gathered but only that the Bishop of Rome may discern between that which is counterfeit and that which is lawful and pure and without any diminution may preach the faith of our Ancestors Which certainly he might do if ambition and covetousness did not hinder him or else I should never condemn him for doing otherwise But is there no difference between may and must Between he may do so and he cannot but do so Or doth it follow because he may do so therefore he always shall or will do so In my opinion rather the contrary should follow For he that saith you may do thus implies according to the ordinary sense of words that if he will he may do otherwise You certainly may if you please leave abusing the world with such Sophistry as this but whether you will or no of that I have no assurance 36 Your next Witness I would willingly have examined but it seems you are unwilling he should be found otherwise you would have given us your direction where we might have him Of that Maximianus who succeeded Nestorius I can find no such thing in the Councels Neither can I believe that any Patriarch of Constantinople twelve hundred years ago was so base a parasite of the Sea of Rome 37 Your last Witness John of Constantinople I confess speaks home and advanceth the Roman Sea even to heaven But I fear it is that his own may go up with it which he there professes to be all one sea with the sea of Rome and therefore his Testimony as speaking in his own case is not much to be regarded But besides I have little reason to be confident that this Epistle is not a forgery for certainly Binius hath obtruded upon us many a hundred such This though written by a Grecian is not extant in Greek but in Latin only Lastly it comes out of a supicious place an old book of the Vatican Library which Library the world knows to have been the Mint of very many Impostures 38 Ad § 20 21 22 23. The sum of your discourse in the four next Sections if it be pertinent to the Question in agitation must be this Want of succession of Bishops and Pastors holding always the same doctrin and of the forms of ordaining Bishops and Priests which are in use in the Roman Church is a certain mark of Heresie but Protestants want all these things Therefore they are Heretiques To which I answer that nothing but want of truth and holding error can make or prove any man or Church heretical For if he be a true Aristotelian or Platonist or Pyrrhonian or Epicurean who holds the doctrin of Aristotle or Plato or Pirrho or Epicurus although he cannot assign any that held it before him for many ages together why should I not be made a true and orthodox Christian by believing all the doctrin of Christ though I cannot derive my descent from a perpetual Succession that believ'd it before me By this reason you should say as well that no man can be a good Bishop or Pastor or King or Magistrate or Father that succeeds a bad one For if I may conform my will and actions to the Commandments of God why may I not embrace his doctrin with my understanding although my predecessor do not so You have above in this Chapter defin'd Faith A free Infallible obscure supernatural assent to divine Truths because they are revealed by God and sufficiently propounded This definition is very phanrastical but for the present I will let it pass and desire you to give me some piece or shadow of reason why I may not do all this without a perpetual Succession of Bishops and Pastors that have done so before me You may judge as uncharitably and speak as malitiously of me as your blind zeal to your Superstition shall direct you but certainly I know and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know that I do believe the Gospel of Christ as it is delivered in the undoubted books of Canonical Scripture as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing and I believe it upon this Motive because I conceive it sufficiently abundantly superabundantly proved to be divine Revelation and yet in this I do not depend upon any Succession of men that have alwayes believed it without any mixture of Errour nay I am fully perswaded there hath been no succession and yet do not find my self any way weakned in my faith by the want of it but so fully assured of the truth of it that not only though your Divels at Lowden do tricks against it but though an Angel from heaven should gainsay it or any part of it I perswade my self that I should not be moved This I say and this I am sure is true and if you will be so hypersceptical as to perswade me that I am not sure that I do believe all this I desire you to tell me how are you sure that you believe the Church of Rome For if
should please your selves with being more than any one Sect of Christians it would presently be replied that it is uncertain whether now you are so but most certain that the time has been when you have not been so Then when the (a) Hier. Cont. Luciferianâ—s whole world wondred that it was become Arrian then when Athanasius oppos'd the world and the world Athanasius then when (b) In Thâ—od Hist l. 16. c. 2. your Liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him as a note of error answered for himself There was a time when there were but three opposed the decree of the King and yet those three were in the right and the rest in the wrong then when the Professors of error surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in proportion as the sands of the Sea do the Stars of the Heaven As (c) In ep 43 ad Vincentium S. Austin acknowledgeth then when (d) Commen torii lib. 1. c. 4. Vincentius confesseth that the poyson of the Arrians had contaminated not now some certain portion but almost the whole World then when the author of Nazianzen's life testifies That (e) In â—â—ta Nazianz. the Heresie of Arrius 〈◊〉 possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world and when Nazianzen found cause to cry out (f) In Ores Arian pro seipso Where are they who reproach us with our poverty who define the Church by the multitude and despise the little flock They have the People but we the Faith And lastly when Athanasius was so overborn with Sholes and Floods of Arrians that he was enforc'd to write a Treatise on purpose (g) To. 2. against those who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents So that if you had prov'd want of Universality even thus restrained to be an infallible note of heresie there would have been no remedie but you must have confessed that the time was when you were heretiques And besides I see not how you would have avoided this great inconvenience of laying grounds and storing up arguments for Antichrist against he comes by which he may prove his Company the true Church For it is evident out of Scripture and confessed by you that though his time be not long his dominion shall be very large and that the true Church shall be then the woman driven into the wilderness 43 Ad § 25. 26. The remainder of this Chapter if I would deal strictly with you I might let pass as impertinent to the question now disputed For whereas your argument promises that this whole Chapter shall be imployed in proving Luther and the Protestants guilty of Heresie here you desert this question and strike out into another accusation of them that their faith even of the truth they hold is not indeed true faith But put case it were not does it follow that the having of this faith makes them Heretiques or that they are therefore Heretiques because they have this faith Aristotle believed there were Intelligences which moved the Sphears he believed this with an humane perswasion and not with a certain obscure prudent supernatural faith and will you make Aristotle an Heretique because he believed so You believe there was such a man as Julius Caesar that there is such a City as Constantinople and your belief hereof has not these qualifications which you require to divine faith And will you be content that this shall pass for a sufficient proof that you are an Heretique Heresie you have defin'd above to be a voluntary error but he that believes truth though his belief be not qualified according to your mind yet sure in believing truth he believes no error and from hence according to ordinary Logick me-thinks it should follow that such a man for doing so cannot be guilty of Heresie 44 But you will say though he be not guilty of Heresie for believing these truths yet if his faith be not saving to what purpose will it be Truly very little to the purpose of Salvation as little as it is to your proving Protestants guilty of Heresie But out of our wonted indulgence let us pardon this fault also and do you the favour to hear what you can say to beget this faith in us that indeed we have no faith or at least not such a faith without which it is impossible to please God Your discourse upon this point you have I know not upon what policy dis-joynted and given us the grounds of it in the beginning of the Chapter and the superstructure here in the end Them I have already examined and for a great part of them proved them vain and deceitful I have shewed by many certain arguments that though the subject matter of our faith be in it self most certain yet that absolute certainly of adherence is not required to the essence of faith no nor to make it acceptable with God but that to both these effects it is sufficient if it be firm enough to produce Obedience and Charity I have shewed besides that Prudence is rather commendable in faith than intrinsecal and essential to it So that whatsoever is here said to prove the faith of Protestants no faith for want of certainty or for want of prudence is already answered before it is objected for the foundation being destroyed the building cannot stand Yet for the fuller refutation of all pretences I will here make good that to prove our faith destitute of these qualifications you have produc'd but vain Sophisms and for the most part such arguments as return most violently upon your selves Thus then you say 45 First that their belief wanteth certainty I prove because they denying the universal Infallibility of the Church can have no certain ground to know what objects are revealed or testified by God But if there be no other ground of certainty but your Churches infallibility upon what certain ground do you know that your Church is infallible Upon what certain ground do you know all those things which must be known before you can know that your Church is infallible As that there is a God that God hath promised his assistance to your Church in all her Decrees that the Scripture wherein this promise is extant is the word of God that those texts of Scripture which you alledge for your infallibility are incorrupted that that which you pretend is the true fense of them When you have produc'd certain grounds for all these things I doubt not but it will appear that we also may have grounds certain enough to believe our whole Religion which is nothing else but the Bible without dependance on the Churches infallibility Suppose you should meet with a man that for the present believes neither Church nor Scripture nor God but is ready and willing to believe them all if you can shew some sufficient grounds to build his faith upon will you tell such a man There are no certain grounds by which he may be converted
or there are If you say the first you make all Religion an uncertain thing If the second then either you must ridiculously perswade that your Church is infallible because it is infallible or else that there are other certain grounds besides your Churches infallibility 46. But you proced and tell us that Holy Scripture is in it self most true and infallible but without the direction and declaration of the Church we can neither have certain means to know what Scripture is Canonical nor what Translations be faithful nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Answ But all these things must be known before we can know the direction of your Church to be infallible for no other proof of it can be pretended but only some Texts of Canonical Scripture truly interpreted Therefore either you are mistaken in thinking there is no other means to know these things but your Churches infallible direction or we are excluded from all means of knowing her direction to be infallible 47 But Protestants though as you suppose they are perswaded their own opinions are true and that they have used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer conferring of Texts c. yet by their disagreement shew that some of them are deceived Now they hold all the Articles of their faith upon this only ground of Scripture interpreted by these rules and therefore it is clear that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all The first of these suppositions must needs be true but the second is apparently false I mean that every Protestant is perswaded that he hath used those means which are prescribed for understanding of Scripture But that which you collect from these suppositions is clearly inconsequent and by as good Logick you might conclude that Logick and Geometry stand upon no certain grounds that the rules of the one and the principles of the other do sometimes fail because the disagreement of Logicians and Geometricians shew that some of them are deceived Might not a Jew conclude as well against all Christians that they have no certain ground whereon to rely in their understanding of Scripture because their disagreements shew that some are deceived because some deduce from it the infallibility of a Church and others no such matter So likewise a Turk might use the same argument against both Jews and Christians and an Atheist against all Religions and a Sceptick against all Reason Might not one say Mens disagreement in Religion shews that there is no certainty in any and the other that experience of their contradictions teacheth that the rules of reason do sometimes fail Do not you see and feel how void of reason and how full of impiety your sophistry is And how transported with zeal against Protestants you urge arguments against them which if they could not be answered would overthrow not only your owne but all Religion But God be thanked the answer is easie and obvious For let men but remember not to impute the faults of men but only to men and then it will easily appear that there may be sufficient certainty in Reason in Religion in the rules of interpreting Scripture though men through their faults take not care to make use of them and so run into divers errors and dissentions 48. But Protestants cannot determine what points be fundamental and therefore must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamental error Answ By like reason since you acknowledg that every error in points defin'd and declared by your Church destroies the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points be defined it followeth that you must remain uncertain whether or no you be not in some fundamental error and so want the substance of faith without which there can be no hope of salvation Now that you are uncertain what points are defined appears from your own words c. 4. § 3. of your second Part where say you No less impertinent is your discourse concerning the difficulty to know what is Heresie For we grant that it is not alwaies easy to determine in particular occasions whether this or that Doctrin be such because it may be doubtful whether it be against any Scripture or divine Tradition or definition of the Church Neither were it difficult to extort from you this confession by naming divers Points which some of you say are defin'd others the contrary And others hang in suspense and know not what to determin But this I have done elsewhere as also I have shewed plainly enough that though we cannot perhaps say in particular Thus much and no more is fundamental yet believing all the Bible we are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamental As he that in a Receit takes twenty ingredients whereof ten only are necessary though he know not which those ten are yet taking the whole twenty he is sure enough that he has taken all that are necessary 49. Ad § 29. But that he who erreth against any one revealed truth loseth all Divine Faith is a very true doctrin delivered by Catholique Divines you mean your own with so general a consent that the contrary is wont to be censur'd as temerarious Now certainly some Protestants must do so because they hold contradictions which cannot all be true Therefore some of them at least have no divine faith Answ I pass by your weakness in urging Protestants with the authority of your Divines which yet in you might very deservedly be censur'd For when D. Potter to shew the many actual dissentions between the Romish Doctors notwithstanding their braggs of potential Unity referres to Pappus who has collected out of Bellar. their contradictions and set them down in his own words to the number of 237. and to Flacius de Sectis Controversiis Religionis Papisticae you making the very same use of M. Breerely against Protestants yet jeer and scorn D. Potter as if he offer'd you for a proof the bare authority of Pappus and Flacius and tell him which is all the Answer you vouchsafe him It is pretty that he brings Pappus and Flacius flat Heretiques to prove your many contradictions As if he had proved this with the bare authoritie the bare judgement of these men which sure he does not but with the formall words of Bellarmine faithfully collected by Pappus And why then might not we say to you Is it not prettie that you bring Breerely as flat an Heretique as Pappus or Flacius to prove the contradictions of Protestants Yet had he been so vain as to press you with the meer authority of Protestant Divines in any point me-thinks for your own sake you should have pardon'd him who here and in many other places urge us with the judgement of your Divines as with weighty arguments Yet if the authority of your Divines were even Canonical certainly nothing could be concluded from it in this matter there being not one of them who delivers for
false Church may preserve the Scripture trure as now the old Testament is preserved by the Jewes either not being arriv'd to that height of impiety as to attempt the corruption of it or not able to effect it or not perceiving or not regarding the opposition of it to her corruptions And so we might receive from you lawful Ordination and true Scriptures though you were a false Church and receiving the Scriptures from you though not from you alone I hope you cannot hinder us neither need we aske your leave to believe and obey them And this though you be a false Church is enough to make us a true one As for a Succession of men that held with us in all points of Doctrin it is a thing we need not and you have as little as we So that if we acknowledge that your Church before Luther was a true Church it is not for any ends for any dependance that we have upon you but because we conceive that in a charitable construction you may pass for a true Church Such a Church and no better as you do somtimes acknowledge Protestants to be that is a Company of men wherein some ignorant souls may be saved So that in this ballancing of Religion against Religion and Church against Church it seems you have nothing of weight and moment to put into your scale nothing but smoak and wind vain shadows and phantastical pretences Yet if Protestants on the other side had nothing to put in their Scale but those negative commendations which you are pleas'd to afford them nothing but No unity nor means to procure it no farther extent when Luther arose than Luthers body no Universality of time or place no Visibility or being except only in your Church no Succession of persons or doctrin no leader but Luther in a quarel begun upon no ground but passion no Church no Ordination no Scriptures but such as they receiv'd from you if all this were true and this were all that could be pleaded for Protestants possibly with an allowance of three grains of partiality your Scale might seem to turne But then if it may appear that part of these objections are falsely made against them the rest vainly that whatsoever of truth is in these imputations is impertinent to this trial and whatsoever is pertinent is untrue and besides that plenty of good matter may be alleadged for Protestants which is here dissembled Then I hope our cause may be good notwithstanding these pretences 55. I say then that want of Universality of time and place The invisibility or not existence of the professors of Protestant Doctrin before Luther Luther's being alone when he first opposed your Church Our having our Church Ordination Scriptures personal and yet not doctrinal Succession from you are vain and impertinent allegations against the truth of our Doctrin and Church That the entire truth of Christ without any mixture of error should be professed or believed in all places at any time or in any place at all times is not a thing evident in reason neither have we any Revelation for it And therefore in relying so confidently on it you build your house upon the sand And what obligation we had either to be so peevish as to take nothing of yours or so foolish as to take all I do not understand For whereas you say that this is to be choosers and therefore Heretiques I tell you that though all Heretiques are choosers yet all choosers are not Heretiques otherwise they also which choose your Religion must be Heretiques As for our wanting Unity and Means of proving it Luther 's opposing your Church upon meere passion Our following private men rather than the Catholique Church the first and last are meere untruths for we want not Unity nor Means to procure it in things necessary Plain places of Scripture and such as need no interpreter are our means to obtain it Neither do we follow any private men but only the Scripture the word of God as our rule and reason which is also the gift of God given to direct us in all our actions in the use of this rule And then for Luther's opposing your Church upon meere passion it is a thing I will not deny because I know not his heart and for the same reason you should not have affirmed it Sure I am whether he opposed your Church upon reason or no he had reason enough to oppose it And therefore if he did it upon passion we will follow him only in his action and not in his passion in his opposition not in the manner of it and then I presume you will have no reason to condemne us unless you will say that a good action cannot be done with reason because some body before us hath done it upon passion You see then how imprudent you have been in the choice of your arguments to prove Protestants unwise in the choice of their Religion 56. It remains now that I should shew that many reasons of moment may be alleaged for the justification of Protestants which are dissembled by you and not put into the ballance Know then Sir that when I say The Religion of Protestants is in prudence to be preferr'd before yours as on the one side I do not understand by your Religion the doctrin of Bellarmin or Baronius or any other private man amongst you nor the Doctrin of the Sorbon or of the Jesuits or of the Dominicans or of any other particular Company among you but that wherein you all agree or profess to agree the Doctrin of the Councel of Trent so accordingly on the other side by the Religion of Protestants I do not understand the Doctrin of Luther or Calvin or Melancthon nor the confession of Augusta or Geneva nor the Catechism of Heidelberg nor the Articles of the Church of England no nor the Harmony of Protestant Confessions but that wherein they all agree and which they all subscribe with a greater Harmony as a perfect rule of their faith and actions that is The BIBLE The BIBLE I say The BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants Whatsoever else they believe besides It and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of 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 own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most Schismatical presumption I for my part after a long and as I verily believe and hope impartial search of the true way to eternal hapiness do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this Rock only I see plainly and with mine own eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councels against Councels some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a Consent of Fathers of one age against a Consent of Fathers of another age the Church of one age against the Church of
another age Traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended but there are few or none to be found No Tradition but only of Scripture can derive it self from the Fountain but may be plainly prov'd either to have been brought in in such an age after Christ or that in such an age it was not in In a word there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon This therefore and this only I have reason to believe This I will profess according to this I will live and for this if there be occasion I will not only willingly but even gladly lose my life though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me Propose me any thing out of this Book and require whether I believe or no and seem it never so incomprehensible to human reason I will subscribe it with hand and heart as knowing no Demonstration can bee stronger than this God hath said so therefore it is true In other things I will take no mans Liberty of judgement from him neither shall any man take mine from me I will think no man the worse man nor the worse Christian I will love no man the less for differing in opinion from me And what measure I mete to others I expect from them again I am fully assured that God does not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than this To believe the Scripture to be God's word to endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it 57. This is the Religion which I have chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily perswaded that I have chosen wisely much more wisely than if I had guided my self according to your Churches authority For the Scripture being all true I am secur'd by believing nothing else that I shall believe no falshood as matter of faith And if I mistake the sense of Scripture and so fall into error yet am I secure from any danger thereby if but your grounds be true because endeavouring to finde the true sense of Scripture I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto me And then all necessary truth being as I have prov'd plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary Truth And he that does so if his life be answerable to his faith how is it possible he should said of Salvation 58. Besides whatsoever may be pretended to gain to your Church the credit of a Guide all that and much more may be said for the Scripture Hath your Church been ancient The Scripture is more ancient Is your Church a means to keep men at unity So is the Scripture to keep those that believe it and will obey it in unity of belief in matters necessary or very profitable and in unity of Charity in points unnecessary Is your Church universal for time or place Certainly the Scripture is more universal For all the Christians in the world those I mean that in truth deserve this name do now and alwayes have believed the Scripture to be the word of God so much of it at least as contains all things necessary whereas only you say that you only are the Church of God and all Christians besides you deny it 59. Thirdly following the Scripture I follow that whereby you prove your Churches infallibility whereof were it not for Scripture what pretence could you have or what notion could we have and by so doing tacitely confess that your selves are surer of the truth of the Scripture than of your Churches authority For we must be surer of the proof than of the thing proved otherwise it is no proof 60 Fourthly following the Scripture I follow that which must be true if your Church be true for your Church gives attestation to it Whereas if I follow your Church I must follow that which though Scripture be true may be false nay which if Scripture be true must be false because the Scripture testifies against it 61. Fifthly to follow the Scripture I have God's express warrant and command and no colour of any prohibition But to believe your Church infallible I have no command at all much less an express command Nay I have reason to fear that I am prohibited to do so in these words Call no man Master on earth They fell by infidelity Thou standest by faith Be not high minded but fear The spirit of truth the world cannot receive 62. Following your Church I must hold many things not only above reason but against it if any thing be against it whereas following the Scripture I shall believe many mysteries but no impossibilities many things above reason but nothing against it many things which had they not been reveal'd reason could never have discover'd but nothing which by true reason may be confuted many things which reason cannot comprehend how they can be but nothing which reason can comprehend that it cannot be Nay I shall believe nothing which reason will not convince that I ought to believe it For reason will convince any man unless he be of a perverse mind that the Scripture is the word of God And then no reason can be greater than this God sayes so therefore it is true 63. Following your Church I must hold many things which to any mans judgement that will give himself the liberty of judgement will seem much more plainly contradicted by Scripture than the infalliblity of your Church appears to be confirm'd by it and consequently must be so foolish as to believe your Church exempted from error upon less evidence rather than subject to the common condition of mankind upon greater evidence Now if I take the Scripture only for my Guide I shall not need to do any thing so unreasonable 64. If I will follow your Church I must believe impossibilities and that with an absolute certainty upon motives which are confess'd to be but only Prudential and probable That is with a weak foundation I must firmly support a heavy a monstrous heavy building Now following the Scripture I shall have no necessity to undergoe any such difficulties 65. Following your Church I must be servant of Christ and a subject of the King but only ad placitum Papae I must be prepar'd in mind to renounce my allegiance to the King when the Pope shall declare him an Heretique and command me not to obey him and I must be prepar'd in mind to esteem Vertue Vice and Vice Vertue if the Pope shall so determine Indeed you say it is impossible he should do the later but that you know is a great question neither is it fit my obedience to God and the King should depend upon a questionable foundation And howsoever you must grant that if by an impossible supposition the Pope's commands should be contrary to the law of Christ that they of your Religion
must resolve to obey rather the commands of the Pope than the law of Christ Whereas if I follow the Scripture I may nay I must obey my Soveraigne in lawful things though an Heretique though a Tyrant and though I do not say the Pope but the Apostles themselves nay an Angel from heaven should teach any thing against the Gospel of Christ I may nay I must denounce Anathema to him 66. Following the Scripture I shall believe a Religion which being contrary to flesh and blood without any assistance from worldly power wit or policy nay against all the power and policy of the world prevail'd and enlarg'd it self in a very short time all the world over Whereas it is too too apparent that your Church hath got and still maintains her authority over mens conscience by counterfeiting false miracles forging false stories by obtruding on the world supposititions writings by corrupting the monuments of former times and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you by Warres by Persecutions by Massacres by Treasons by Rebellions in short by all manner of carnal means whether violent or fraudulent 67. Following the Scripture I shall believe a Religion the first preachers and Professors whereof it is most certain they could have no worldly ends upon the world that they should not project to themselves by it any of the profits or honours or pleasures of this world but rather were to expect the contrary even all the miseries which the world could lay upon them On the other side the Head of your Church the pretended Successour of the Apostles and Guide of faith it is even palpable that he makes your Religion the instrument of his ambition and by it seeks to entitle himself directly or indirectly to the Monarchy of the world And besides it is evident to any man that has but halfe an eye that most of those Doctrins which you add to the Scripture do make one way or other for the honour or temporal profit of the Teachers of them 68. Following the Scripture only I shall embrace a Religion of admirable simplicity consisting in a manner wholly in the worship of God in spirit and truth Whereas your Church and Doctrin is even loaded with an infinitie of weak childish ridiculous unsavoury Superstitions and Ceremonies and full of that righteousness for which Christ shall judge the world 69. Following the Scriptures I shall believe that which Universal never-failing Tradition assures me that it was by the admitable supernatural works of God confirm'd to be the word of God whereas never any miracle was wrought never so much as a lame horse cur'd in confirmation of your Churches authority and infallibility And if any strange things have been done which may seem to give attestation to some parts of your doctrin yet this proves nothing but the truth of the Scripture which foretold that God's providence permitting it and the wickedness of the world deserving it strange signes and wonders should be wrought to confirm false doctrin that they which love not the truth may be given over to strong delusions Neither does it seem to me any strange thing that God should permit some true wonders to be done to delude them who have forged so many to deceive the world 70. If I follow the Scripture I must not promise my self Salvation without effectual dereliction and mortification of all vices and the effectual practice of all Christian Vertues But your Church opens an easier and a broader way to Heaven and though I continve all my life long in a course of sin and without the practice of any vertue yet gives me assurance that I may be lett into heaven at a postern gate even by an Act of Attrition at the hour of death if it be joyn'd with confession or by an act of Contrition without confession 71. Admirable are the Precepts of piety and humility of innocence and patience of liberality frugality temperance sobriety justice meekness fortitude constancy and gravity contempt of the world love of God and the love of mankind In a word of all vertues and against all vice which the Scriptures impose upon us to be obeyed under pain of damnation The summe whereof is in manner compriz'd in our Saviours Sermon upon the Mount recorded in the 5.6 and 7. of S. Matthew which if they were generally obeyed could not but make the world generally happy and the goodness of them alone were sufficient to make any wise and good man believe that this Religion rather than any other came from God the Fountain of all goodness And that they may be generally obeyed our Saviour hath ratified them all in the close of his Sermon with these universal Sanctions Not every one that sayeth Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdome but he that doth the will of my Father which is in Heaven and again Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them not shall be likned unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand and the rain descended and the flood came and the winds blew and it fell and great was the fall thereof Now your Church notwithstanding all this enervates and in a manner dissolves and abrogates many of these precepts teaching men that they are not lawes for all Christians but Counsels of perfection and matters of Supererogation that a man shall do well if he do observe them but he shall not sin if he observe them not That they are for them who aim at high places in heaven who aspire with the two sonnes of Zebede to the right hand or to the left hand of Christ But if a man will be content barely to go to heaven and to be a door-keeper in the house of God especially if he will be content to taste of Purgatory in the way he may obtain it at an easier purchase Therefore the Religion of your Church is not so holy nor so good as the Doctrin of Christ delivered in Scripture and therefore not so likely to come from the Fountain of holiness and goodness 72. Lastly if I follow your Church for my Guide I shall do all one as if I should follow a Company of blind men in a judgement of colours or in the choice of a way For every unconsidering man is blind in that which he does not consider Now what is your Church but a company of unconsidering men who comfort themselves because they are a great company together but all of them either out of idleness refuse the trouble of a fevere tryall of their Religion as if heaven were not worth it or out of superstition fear the event of such a tryall that they may be scrupled and staggered and disquieted by it and therefore for the most part do it not at all Or if they do it they do it negligently and hypocritically and perfunctorily rather for the satisfaction of others than themselves but certainly without indifference without liberty of judgement without a resolution to doubt of it if upon
examination the grounds of it prove uncertain or to leave it if they prove apparently false My own experience assures me that in this imputation I do you no injury but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking doubting of any part of your Doctrin among mortal sins For from hence it followes that seeing every man must resolve that he will never commit mortal sin that he must never examin the grounds of it at all for fear he should be mov'd to doubt or if he do he must resolve that no motives be they never so strong shall move him to doubt but that with his will and resolution he will uphold himself in a firm beliefe of your Religion though his reason and his understanding fail him And seeing this is the condition of all those whom you esteem good Catholiques who can deny but you are a Company of men unwilling and afraid to understand lest you should do good That have eyes to see and will not see that have not the love of truth which is only to be known by an indifferent tryall and therefore deserve to be given over to strong delusions men that love darkness more than light in a word that you are the blind leading the blind and what prudence there can be in following such Guides our Saviour hath taught us in saying If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch 73. There remains unspoken to in this Section some places out of S. Austin and some sayings of Luther wherein he confesses that in the Papacy are many good things But the former I have already considered and return'd the argument grounded on them As for Luther's speeches I told you not long since that we follow no private men and regard not much what he saies either against the Church of Rome or for it but what he proves He was a man of a vehement spirit and very often what he took in hand he did not do it but over-do it He that will justifie all his speeches especially such as he wrote in heat of opposition I believe will have work enough Yet in these sentences though he over-reach in the particulars yet what he saies in general we confess true and confess with him that in the Papacy are many good things which have come from them to us but withal we say there are many bad neither do we think our selves bound in prudence either to reject the good with the bad or to retain the bad with the good but rather conceive it a high point of wisdome to separate between the pretious and the vile to sever the good from the bad and to put the good in vessels to be kept and to cast the bad away to try all things and to hold that which is good 74. Ad § 32. Your next and last argument against the faith of Protestants is because wanting Certainty and Prudence it must also want the fourth condition Supernaturality For that being a humane perswasion it is not in the essence of it supernatural and being imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from Divine motion and so is not supernatural in respect of the cause from which it proceedeth Ans This little discourse stands wholly upon what went before and therefore must fall together with it I have proved the Faith of Protestants as certain and as prudent as the faith of Papists and therefore if these be certain grounds of supernaturality our faith may have it as well as yours I would here furthermore be inform'd how you can assure us that your faith is not your perswasion or opinion for you make them all one that your Churches Doctrin is true Or if you grant it your perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subject of it an humane perswasion I desire also to know what sense there is in pretending that your perswasion is not in regard of the object only and cause of it but in the nature or essence of it supernatural Lastly whereas you say that being imprudent it cannot come from divine motion certainly by this reason all they that believe your own Religion and cannot give a wise and sufficient reason for it as millions amongst you cannot must be condemn'd to have no supernatural faith or if not then without question nothing can hinder but that the imprudent faith of Protestants may proceed from divine motion as well as the imprudent faith of Papists 75. And thus having weighed your whole discourse and found it altogether lighter than vanity why should I not invert your conclusion and say Seeing you have not proved that whosoever errs against any one point of Faith loseth all divine Faith nor that any error whatsoever concerning that which by the Parties litigant may be esteem'd a matter of faith is a grievous sin it follows not at all that when two men hold different doctrins concerning Religion that but one can be saved Not that I deny but that the sentence of Saint Chrysostome with which you conclude this Chapter may in a good sense be true for oftimes by the faith is meant only that Doctrin which is necessary to Salvation and to say that salvation may be had without any the least thing wich is necessary to salvation implyes a repugnance and destroys it self Besides not to believe all necessary points and to believe none at all is for the purpose of salvation all one and therefore he that does so may justly be said to destroy the Gospel of Christ seeing he makes it uneffectual to the end for which it was intended the Salvation of mens soules But why you should conceive that all differences about Religion are concerning matters of faith in this high notion of the word for that I conceive no reason CHAP. VII In regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones self Protestants are in state of Sin as long as they remain separated from the Roman-Church THAT due Order is to be observed in the Theological Vertue of Charity whereby we are directed to preferre some Objects before others is a truth taught by all Divines and declared in these words of holy Scripture He hath ordered (a) Cant. 2 4 Charity in me The reason whereof is because the infinite Goodness of God which is the formal object or Motive of Charity and for which all other things are loved is differently participated by different Objects and therefore the love we bear to them for Gods sake must accordingly be unequal In the vertue of Faith the case is far otherwise because all the Objects or points which we believe do equally participate the divine Testimony or Revelation for which we believe alike all things propounded for such For it is as impossible for God to speak an untruth in a small as in a great matter And this is the ground for which we have so often affirmed that any least error against Faith is in jurious to God and destructive of Salvation 2. This order in
possibly by any sure Mark discern whether their Faith be Divine or humane or if you have any certain signe whereby they may discern whether they believe your Churches infallibility with Divine or only with humane faith I pray produce it for perhaps it may serve us to shew that our faith is divine as well as yours Moreover in affirming that Baptism in act is necessary for Infants and for men only in desire You seem to me in the later to destroy the foundation of the former For if a desire of Baptism will serve men in stead of Baptism then those words of our Saviour Unless a man be born again of water c. are not to be understood literally and rigidly of external Baptism for a desire of Baptism is not Baptism and so your foundation of the absolute necessity of Baptism is destroyed And if you may gloss the Text so far as that men may be saved by the desire without Baptism it self because they cannot have it Why should you not gloss it a litle farther that there may be some hope of the salvation of unbaptized infants to whom it was more impossible to have a desire of Baptism than for the former to have the thing it self Lastly for your Sacrament of Confession we know none such nor any such absolute necessity of it They that confess their sins and forsake them shall find mercy though they confess them to God only and not to men They that confess them both to God and men if they do not effectually and in time forsake them shall not find mercy 3. Whereas you fay that supposing these means once appointed as absolutely necessary to salvation there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them you must suppose I hope that we know them to be so appointed and that it is in our power to procure them otherwise though it may be our ill fortune to fail of the end for want of the means certainly we cannot be obliged to procure them For the rule of the Law is also the dictate of common reason and equity That no man can be obliged to what is impossible We can be obliged to nothing but by vertue of some command now it is impossible that God should command in earnest any thing which he knows to be impossible For to command in earnest is to command with an intent to be obeyed which is not possible he should do when he knows the thing commanded to be impossible Lastly whosoever is obliged to do any thing and does it not commits a fault but Infants commit no fault in not procuring to have Baptism therefore no obligation lies upon them to procure it 4. Whereas you say that if Protestants dissent from you in the point of the necessity of Baptism for infants it cannot be denyed but that our disagreement it in a point fundamental If you mean a point esteemed so by you this indeed cannot be denyed But if you mean a point that indeed is fundamental this may certainly be denyed for I deny it and say that it doth not appear to me any way necessary to Salvation to hold the truth or not to hold an errour touching the condition of these Infants This is certain and we must believe that God will not deal unjustly with them but how in particular he will deal with them concernes not us and therefore we need not much regard it 5. Whereas you say the like of your Sacrament of Penance you only say so but your proofs are wanting Lastly whereas you say This rigour ought not to seem strange or unjust in God but that we are rather to bless him for ordaining us to Salvation by any means I answer that it is true we are not to question the known will of God of injustice yet whether that which you pretend to be Gods will be so indeed or only your presumption this I hope may be question'd lawfully and without presumption and if we have occasion we may safely put you in mind of Ezechiel's commination against all those who say Thus saith the Lord when they have no certain warrant or authority from him to do so 8. Ad § 4. In the fourth Paragraph you deliver this false and wicked Doctrin that for the procuring our own salvation we are alwaies boundunder pain of mortal sin to take the safest way but for avoyding sin we are not bound to do so but may follow the opinion of any probable Doctors though the contrary way be certainly free from sin and theirs be doubtfull Which doctrin in the former part of it is apparently false For though wisdom and Charity to our selves would perswade us alwaies to do so yet many times that way which to our selves and our salvation is more full of hazard is notwithstanding not only lawful but more charitable and more noble For example to fly from a persecution and so to avoid the temptation of it may be the safer way for a mans own salvation yet I presume no man ought to condemn him of impiety who should resolve not to use his liberty in this matter but for Gods greater glory the greater honour of truth and the greater confirmation of his bretheren in the faith choose to stand out the storm and endure the fiery trial rather than avoid it rather to put his own soul to the hazard of a temptation in hope of Gods assistance to go through with it than to baulk the opportunity of doing God and his bretheren so great a service This part therefore of this Doctrin is manifestly untrue The other not only false but impious for therein you plainly give us to understand that in your judgement a resolution to avoid sin to the uttermost of your power is no necessary means of Salvation nay that a man may resolve not to do so without any danger of damnation Therein you teach us that we are to do more for the love of our selves and our own happiness than for the love of God and in so doing contradict our Saviour who expresly commands us to love the Lord our God with all our heart with all our soul and with all our strength and hath taught us that the love of God consists in avoiding sin and keeping his commandements Therein you directly cross S. Pauls doctrin who though he were a very probable Doctor and had delivered his judgement for the lawfulness of eating meats offered to Idols yet he assures us that he which should make scruple of doing so and forbear upon his scruple should not sin but only be a weak brother whereas he who should do it with a doubtful conscience though the action were by S. Paul warranted lawful yet sheuld sin and be condemn'd for so doing You pretend indeed to be rigid defenders and stout champions for the necessity of good works but the truth is you speak lies in hypocrisie and when the matter is well examin'd will appear to make your selves and your own functions necessary but obedience to
yet we might be secure enough for we should only not do something which you confess not necessary to be done We pretend and are ready to justifie out of principles agreed upon between us that in all these things you violate the manifest commandements of God and alleadge such texts of Scripture against you as if you would weigh them with any indifference would put the matter out of question but certainly you cannot with any modest deny but that at least they make it questionable On the other side you cannot with any face pretend and if you should know not how to go about to prove that there is any necessity of doing any of these things that it is unlawful not to worship pictures not to picture the Trinity not to invocate Saints and Angels not to give all men the entire Sacrament not to adore the Eucharist not to prohibit marriage not to celebrate divine service in an unknown tongue I say you neither do nor can pretend that there is any law of God which enjoyns us no nor so much as an Evangelical Counsel that advises us to do any of these things Now where no law is there can be no sin for sin is the transgression of the law It remains therefore that if your Church should forbear to do these things she must undoubtedly herein be free from all danger and suspicion of sin whereas your acting of them must be if not certainly impious without all condradiction questionable and dangerous I conclude therefore that which was to be concluded that if the safer way for avoiding sin be also as most certainly it is the safer way for avoiding damnation then certainly the way of Protestants must be more safe and the Roman way more dangerous You will say I know that these things being by your Church concluded lawful we are obliged by God though not to do yet to approve them at least in your judgement we are so and therefore our condition is as questionable as yours I answ The Authority of your Church is no common principle agreed upon between us and therefore from that you are not to dispute against us We might press you with our judgement as well and as justly as you do us with yours Besides this very thing that your Church hath determin'd these things lawful and commanded the approbation of them is that whereof she is accused by us and we maintain you have done wickedly or at least very dangerously in so determining because in these very determinations you have forsaken that way which was secure from sin and have chosen that which you cannot but know to be very questionable and doubtful and consequently have forsaken the safe way to heaven and taken a way which is full of danger And therefore although if your obedience to your Church were questioned you might flie for shelter to your Churches determinations yet when these very determinations are accused me thinks they should not be alleag'd in defence of themselves But you will say Your Church is infallible and therefore her determinations not unlawful Answ They that accuse your Church of error you may be sure do question her infallibility shew therefore where it is written that your Church is infallible and the dispute will be ended But till you do so give me leave rather to conclude thus Your Church in many of her determinations chooses not that way which is most secure from sin and therefore not the safest way to salvation than vainly to imagine her infallible and thereupon to believe though she teach not the securest way to avoid sin yet she teaches the certainst way to obtain salvation 10. In the close of this Number you say as followes If it may appear though not certain yet at least probable that Protestancy unrepented destroyes salvation and withal that there is a safer way it will follow that they are obliged by the law of Charity to that safe way Ans Make this appear and I will never perswade any man to continue a Protestant for if I should I should perswade him to continue a fool But after all these prolix discourses still we see you are at If it may appear From whence without all Ifs and And 's that appears sufficiently which I said in the beginning of the Chapter that the four first Paragraphs of this Chapter are wholly spent in an unnecessary introduction unto that which never by any man in his right wits was denyed That men in wisdome and charity to themselves are to take the safest way to eternal salvation 11. Ad § 5. In the fift you begin to make some shew of arguing and tell us that Protestants have reason to doubt in what case they stand from what you have said about the Churches universal infallibility and of her being Judge of Controversies c. Ans From all that which you have said they have reason only to conclude that you have nothing to say They have as much reason to doubt whether there can be any Motion from what Zeno saies in Aristotles Physicks as to doubt from what you have said Whether the Roman Church may possibly erre For this I dare say that not the weakest of Zeno's arguments but is stronger than the strongest of yours and that you would be more perplext in answering any one of them than I have been in answering all yours You are pleas'd to repeat two or three of them in this Section and in all probability so wise a man as you are if he would repeat any would repeat the best and therefore if I desire the Reader by these to judge of the rest I shall desire but ordinary justice 12. The first of them being put into form stands thus Every least error in faith destroys the nature of faith It is certain that some Protestants do erre And therefore they want the substance of Faith The Major of which Syllogism I have formerly confuted by unanswerable arguments out of one of your own best Authors who shewes plainly that he hath amongst you as strange as you make it many other abettors Besides if it were true it would conclude that either you or the Dominicans have no faith in as much as you oppose one another as much as Arminians and Calvinists 13. The second Argument stands thus Since all Protestants pretend the like certainty it is cleer that none of them have any certainty at all Which argument if it were good then what can hinder but this must also be so Since Protestants and papists pretend the like certainty it is cleer that none of them have any certainty at all And this too Since all Christians pretend the like certainty it is cleer that none of them have any certainty at all And thirdly this Since men of all religions pretend a like certainty it is cleer that none of them have any at all And lastly this Since oft-times they which are abused with a specious Paralogism pretend the like certainty with them which demonstrate it is
answer is a great supererogation in point of civility Nevertheless partly that I may the more ingratiate my self with you but especially that I may stop their mouths who will be apt to say that every word of yours which I should omit to speak to is an unanswerable argument I will hold my purpose of answering them more punctally and particularly 19. First then to your little parenthesis which you interline among D. Potter's words § 7. That any small error in faith destroyes all faith To omit what hath been said before I answer here what is proper for this place that S. Austin whose authority is here stood upon thought otherwise He conceived the Donatists to hold some error in faith and yet not to have no faith His words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident You are with us saith he to the Donatists Ep. 48. as Baptism in the Creed and the other Sacraments And again Super gestis cum emerit Thou hast proved to me that thou hast Faith prove to me likewise that thou hast Charity Parallel to which words are these of Optatus Amongst us and you is one Ecclesiastical conversation common lessons the same faith the same Sacraments Where by the way we may observe that in the judgement of these Fathers even Donatists though Heretiques and Scismatiques gave true Ordination the true Sacrament of Matrimony true Sacramental Absolution Confirmation the true Sacrament of the Eucharist true Extream Unction or else choose you whether some of these were not then esteem'd Sacraments But for Ordination whether he held it a Sacrament or no certainly he held that it remain'd with them entire for so he saies in express terms in his book against Parmenianus his Epistle Which Doctrin if you can reconcile with the present Doctrin of the Roman Church Eris mihi magnus Apollo 20. Whereas in the beginning of the 8. Sect. You deny that your argument drawn from our confessing the possibility of your Salvation is for simple people alone but for all men I answer Certainly whosoever is moved with it must be so simple as to think this a good and a concluding reason Some ignorant men in the Roman Church may be sav'd by the confession of Protestants which is indeed all that they confess therefore it is safe for me to be of the Roman Church and he that does think so what reason is there why he should not think this as good Ignorant Protestants may be saved by the confession of Papists by name Mr. K. therefore it is safe for me to be of the Protestant Church Whereas you say that this your argument is grounded upon an inevitable necessity for us either to grant Salvation to your Church or to entail certain damnation upon our own because ours can have no being till Luther unless yours be supposed to have been the true Church I answer This cause is no cause For first as Luther had no being before Luther and yet he was when he was though he was not before so there is no repugnance in the terms but that there might be a true Church after Luther though there were none for some ages before as since Columbus his time there have been Christians in America though before there were none for many ages For neither do you shew neither does it appear that the genetation of Churches is univocal that nothing but a Church can possibly beget a Church nor that the present being of a true Church depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all ages any more than the present being of Peripateticks or Stoicks depends upon a perpetual pedegree of them For though I at no hand deny the Churches perpetuity yet I see nothing in your book to make me understand that the truth of the present depends upon it nor any thing that can hinder but that a false Church Gods providence over-watching and over-ruling it may preserve the means of confuting their own Heresies and reducing men to truth and so raising a true Church I mean the integrity and the authority of the word of God with men Thus the Jewes preserve means to make men Christians and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants and Protestants which you say are a false Church do as you pretend preserve means to make men Papists that is their own Bibles out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be Papists Secondly you shew not nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church depends on the truth of yours For though you talk vainly as if you were the only men in the world before Luther yet the world knows that this is but talk and that there were other Christians besides you which might have perpetuated the Church though you had not been Lastly you shew not neither doth it appear that your being acknowledged in some sense a true Church doth necessarily import that we must grant Salvation to it unless by it you understand the ignorant members of it which is a very unusual Synechdoche 21. Whereas you say that Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saved I answ S. Austin himself granted that those among them who sought the Truth being ready when they found it to correct their error were not Heretiques and therefore notwithstanding their error might be saved And this is all the Charity that Protestants allow to Papists 22. Whereas you say that D. Potter having cited out of S. Austin the words of the Catholiques that the Donatists had true Baptism when he comes to the contrary words of the Donatists addes No Church no salvation Ans You wrong D. Potter who pretends not to cite S. Austins formal words but only his sense which in him is compleat and full for that purpose whereto it is alleadged by D. Potter His words are Pertilianus dixit Venite ad Ecclesiam Populi aufugiâ—e Traditores si perire non vultis Petilian saith Come to the Church yee people and flie from the Traditours if yee will not be damn'd for that yee may know that they being guilty esteem very well of our Faith Behold I Baptize these whom they have infected but they receive those whom we have Baptized Where it is plain that Petilian by his words makes the Donatists the Church and excludes the Catholiques from salvation absolutely And therefore no Church no salvation was not D. Potter's addition And whereas you say the Catholiques never yeeld that among the Donatists there was a true Church and hope of Salvation I say it appears by what I have alledged out of S. Austin that they yeelded both these were among the Donatists as much as we yeeld them to be among the Papists As for D. Potter's acknowledgement that They maintained an error in the matter and nature of it Heretical This proves them but Material Heretiques whom you do not exclude from possibility of Salvation So that all things considered this argument must be much more
necessary which the latter according to their own grounds have no obligation to do nay cannot do so upon any firm and sure and infallible foundation THE CONCLVSION AND thus by God's assistance and the advantage of a good cause I am at length through a passage rather tyring than difficult arriv'd at the end of my undertaken Voyage and have as I suppose made appear to all dis-interessed and unprejudicate Readers what in the beginning I undertook that a vein of Sophistry and Calumny runs clean through this first part of your Book wherein though I never thought of the directions you have been pleas'd to give me in your Pamphlet entituled A direction to N. N. yet upon consideration of my Answer I find that I have proceeded as if I had had it alwayes before my eyes and steer'd my course by it as by a card and compass For first I have not proceeded by a meer destructive way as you call it nor objected such difficulties against your Religion as upon examination tend to the overthrow of all Religion but have shewed that the truth of Christianity is cleerly independent upon the truth of Popery and that on the other side the arguments you urge and the courses you take for the maintenance of your Religion do manifestly tend if they be closely and consequently followed to the destruction of all Religion and lead men by the hand to Atheism and Impiety whereof I have given you ocular demonstrations in divers places of my book but especially in my answer to your Direction to N. N. Neither can I discover any repugnance between any one part of my answer and any other though I have used many more judicious and more searching eyes than mine own to make if it were possible such a discovery and therefore am in good hope that though the musick I have made be but dull and flat and even downright plain-song even your curious and critical ears shall discover no discord in it but on the other side I have charg'd you frequently and very justly with manifest contradiction and retractation of your own assertions and not seldom of the main grounds you build upon and the principal conclusions which you endeavour to maintain which I conceive my self to have made apparent even to the eye c. 2. § 5. c. 3. § 88. c. 4. § 14. and 24. c. 5. § 93. c. 6. § 6 7 12 17. c. 7. § 29. and in many other parts of my Answer And though I did never pretend to defend D. Potter absolutely and in all things but only so farre as he defends Truth neither did D. Potter desire me nor any law of God or man oblige me to defend him any farther yet I do not find that I have cause to differ from him in any matter of moment particularly not concerning the infallibility of God's Church which I grant with him to be infallible in fundamentals because if it should erre in fundamentals it were not the Church Nor concerning the supernaturality of Faith which I know and believe as well as you to be the gift of God and that flesh and bloud reveal'd it not unto us but our Father which is in heaven But now if it were demanded What defence you can make for deserting Charity Mistaken in the main Question disputed between him and Dr. Potter Whether Protestancy without a particular repentance and dereliction of it destroy Salvation whereof I have convinc'd you I believe your answer would be much like that which Ulysses makes in the Metamorphosis for his running away from his friend Nestor that is none at all For Opposing the Articles of the Church of England the Approbation I presume cleers my Book from this imputation And whereas you give me a Caution that my grounds destroy not the belief of diverse Doctrins which all good Christians believe yea and of all verities that cannot be prov'd by natural reason I profess sincerely that I do not know nor believe that any ground laid by me in my whole Book is any way inconsistent with any one such Doctrin or with any verity revealed in the Word of God though never so improbable or incomprehensible to Natural Reason and if I thought there were I would deal with it as those primitive Converts dealt with their curious Books in the Acts of the Apostles For the Epistle of St. James and those other Books which were anciently controverted and are now received by the Church of England as Canonical I am so far from relying upon any Principles which must to my apprehension bring with them the denial of the authority of them that I my self believe them all to be Canonical For the overthrowing the Infallibility of all Scripture my Book is so innocent of it that the Infallibility of Scripture is the chiefest of all my grounds And lastly for Arguments tending to prove an impossibility of all Divine Supernatural Infallible Faith and Religion I assure my self that if you were ten times more a Spider than you are you could suck no such poyson from them My heart I am sure is innocent of any such intention and the Searcher of all hearts knows that I had no other end in writing this Book but to confirm to the uttermost of my ability the truth of the Divine and Infallible Religion of our dearest Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus which I am ready to seal and confirm not with my Arguments only but my Bloud Now these are the Directions which you have been pleas'd to give me whether out of a fear that I might otherwise deviate from them or out of a desire to make others think so But howsoever I have not to my understanding swarved from them in any thing which puts me in good hope that my Answer to this first Part of your Book will give even to you your self indifferent good satisfaction I have also provided though this were more than I undertook a just and punctual examination and refutation of your second Part But if you will give your consent I am resolv'd to suppress it and that for divers sufficient and reasonable considerations First because the discussion of the Controversies intreated of in the first Part if we shall think fit to proceed in it as I for my part shall so long as I have truth to reply will I conceive be sufficient employment for us though we cast off the burden of those many lesser disputes which remain behind in the Second And perhaps we may do God and his Church more service by exactly discussing and fully clearing the truth in these few â—â—an by handling many after a sleight and perfunctory manner Secondly because the addition of the Second Part whether for your purpose or mine is clearly unnecessary there being no understanding man Papist or Protestant but will confess that for as much as concerns the main question now in agitation about the saveableness of Protestants if the first part of your Book be answered there needs no reply to the Second
of the expression of this Atheism viz. not in words or opinion to deny God but which is worse in the carriage and course of our life to allow him his Attributes and yet not to fear him not to stand in awe of his power which he acknowledgeth to be infinite to distrust his Providence to sleight his Promises neglect his Threatnings which is in effect as much as in him lyeth to tear and ravish from him all his glorious Attributes by living as if God himself were less powerful less wise then himself improvident not deserving so much fear of his power or respect to his command as he would perform to a wretched mortal man that is a little richer or in some place of Authority above him 10. I need travel no further for a division to my own Text Here we may observe likewise First The cause of Atheism and by consequence all the abominable impieties that follow in the Psalm and that is Ignorance Indiscretion Inconsiderance expressed in the person of Nabal The Fool Secondly We have the expression of it not by word of mouth or writing but per motum cordis by the inclination of the heart or affections 11. In the prosecution of the former part which may very well take up and spend this Hour-glass I shall proceed thus First I will consider wherein this folly consists and that is not so much in an utter ignorance of God and his holy Word as a not making a good use of it when it is known a suffering it to lye dead to swim unprofitably in the brain without any fruit thereof in the reformation of ones life and conversation And there I will shew you The extream folly for a man to seek to increase his knowledge of his Master's will without a desire and resolution to increase proportionably in a serious active performance thereof Secondly I will propose to your consideration the extream unavoidable danger and increase of guilt that knowledge without practice brings with it To both which considerations I shall severally annex Applications to the Consciences of you my Hearers and so spend out my time 12. Now I take it for granted that I have hit right in declaring wherein the folly of Nabal in my Text consists namely in an unfruitful knowledg a knowledg that lies fallow is not exercised which if it were not allowed me I would only referr my self for proof unto some of David's Psalms and almost all his Sons Proverbs I should sin against the plenty of matter in my Text more worth our consideration if I should enlarge my self in this point Only one place of David shall suffice and that is in Psal 111.10 where he repeats that old divine Proverb made by God himself Psal 111.10 the Lord knows how long since and by him delivered to man as Job telleth us ch 28. v. 28. The Psalmists words are these The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and a good understanding have all they that do thereafter 13. I do not now exclude Ignorance from making up some part of this Fool but because the other piece of extream desperate folly is rather the sin of these days namely a barren uneffectual Knowledge Therefore I shall rather insist upon it Yet by the way I shall not fail to discover to you the danger of the other too 14. It is a pretty Observation that the Author of the Narration of the English Seminary founded in Rome has concerning the Method and Order the Devil has used in assailing and disturbing the peace and quiet of the Church with Heresies and Schisms He began saith he with the first Article of our Creed concerning one God the Father Almighty Creatour of Heaven and Earth against which in the first 300. years he armed the Simonians Menandrians Basilidians Valentinians Marcionites Manichees and Gnosticks After the 300th year he opposed the second Article concerning the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ by his beloved Servants the Noetians Sabellians Paullians Photinians and Arrians After the four hundreth year he sought to undermine the fourth fifth sixth and seventh Articles of the Incarnation Passion Resurrection Ascension and the second coming to Judgment by the Heresies of Nestorius Theodorus Eutyches Dioscorus Cnapheus Sergius c. After the eight hundred and sixtieth he assailed the eighth Article concerning the Holy-Ghost by the Heresie and Schism of the Greek Church Lastly since the year one thousand till these times his business and craft has especially expressed it self in seeking to subvert the ninth and tenth concerning the Holy Catholique Church and forgiveness of sins by the aid and Ministery of the Pontificians Anabaptists Familists and the like And with the deceipts and snares of these his cunning Ministers hath he entangled the greatest part of the now Christian world 15. But our blessed and gracious God be praised for it we and some with us have escaped as a Bird out of the snare of the Fowler the Net was broken and we were delivered The whole Doctrine of Christian Faith is restored to the Primitive lustre and integrity Nay more which is a greater happiness then God ever created to those his chosen good servants which lived in the Infancy of the Church the profession of a pure unspotted Religion is so far from being dangerous or infamous that we have the Sword of the Civil Magistrate the power and inforcement of the Laws and Statutes to maintain this our precious Faith without stain and undefiled against all Heretical and Schismatical oppugners thereof 16. If ever we forget the goodness and mercy of God in this our deliverance then let our tongues cleave to the roof of our mouths Nay if in our Songs of joyfulness and melody we remember not our escape wherewith the Lord snatched us out of Egypt and our victorious passage through a Red-Sea of Bloud and Ruin Thou O Lord wilt not hear our prayers 27. It was a seasonable admonition that the Apostle Saint Paul gave to other Gentiles after such a glorious victory and deliverance as this of our's Be not high-minded but fear Rom. 11.20 Heresie is not the only Engine that Satan is furnished with to assault and infest the Church of Christ neither is it the most dangerous He has the cunning to destroy Foundations and make no use of Heresie in the work neither You would wonder how it should be possible for the Devil to make an Orthodox Christian one perfect and studyed in all the Points of the Creed and one that can for a need maintain the Truth thereof against all gain-sayers I say it would seem strange for the Devil to make such a one to destroy and utterly demolish the very Foundations of his Faith and yet not at all to alter his opinions neither Yet that it is not only a possible contrivance but too too ordinary and familiar in these times woful Experience hath made it evident 18. The Art and cunning whereby this great work of the Devil 's is brought
they were freed from this curse into which the poor ignorant people fell How cunningly have these fooss layed a snare for their own lives 26. Alas What could the poor people think when they heard their Doctors and Magistrates men that were gods to them that sate in Moses Chair condemned of such extream folly and indiscretion What will become of us might they say if the Pharisees from whom all that we know is but a thin thrifty gleaning have so many Woes denounc'd against them for want of spiritual knowledge 27. Certain it was There were many poor souls whom the Pharisees kept out of Heaven for company Our Saviour tells them so much Ye neither go into Heaven your selves nor suffer others to go in But they were such as they had infected with their Leaven Such as made those rotten superstructions which those great Doctors built upon the Word foundations of their Faith and Hope And as certain it is that many there were upon whom God out of his gracious favour and mercy had not bestowed such piercing brains and enquiring heads as to make them acquainted with their dangerous Opinions and Traditions They were such as made better use of that little knowledg they had than to vent it in discourse or in maintaining Opinions and Tenents against the Church They heard the Word with an humble honest heart submitting themselves wholly to it and restored their Faith to its proper seat the Heart and Affections and it was fruitful in their lives and practise The wisdom of Solomon himself as long as he gave himself to Idolarty and Luxury was folly and madness to the discretion and prudence of these poor despised people 28. Thus you see The Fool that in my Text is so madd as to say There is no God may have wit enough to understand more nay in the opinion of the world may make a silly fool of him that has laid up in his heart unvaluable treasures of spiritual wisdom and knowledg And therefore the Latin Translation following St. Paul might more significantly have styled him Imprudens than Insipiens For the wisdom which is according to Godliness doth most exactly answer to that Prudence which moral Philosophers make a general over-ruling Vertue to give bounds and limits to all our Actions and to find out a temper and mean wherein we ought to walk And therefore a most learned Divine of our Church yet alive knew very well what he said when he desin'd our Faith to be A spiritual Prudence Implying that Faith bears the same office and sway in the life and practise of a Christian as Prudence of a moral honest man 29. Now saith Aristotle there may be many intemperate youthful dissolute spirits which may have an admirable piercing discerning judgment in speculative Sciences as the Mathematicks Metaphysicks and the like because the dwelling upon such contemplations does not at all cross or trouble those rude untamed passions and affections of theirs yea they may be cunning in the speculative knowledg of vertues But all this while they are notwithstanding utterly invincibly imprudent because Prudence requires not only a good discerning judgment and apprehension but a serenity and calmness in the passions 30. Therefore the same Philosopher does worthily reprehend some Ancients who called all vertues Sciences and said that each particular vertue was a several Art requiring only an enlightning or informing of the Reason and Understanding which any for a little cost and small pains-taking in frequenting the learned Lectures of Philosophers need not doubt but easily to obtain 31. This conceit of so learned a man does very well deserve our prosecution And it will not be at all swerving from the business in hand Therefore I shall shew you how the Moralist by the force of natural Reason hath framed to himself a Divinity and Religion resembling both in method and many substantial parts the glorious learning of a Christian I told you the fore-named Doctor did very well to call our Faith or Assent to supernatural Mysteries A spiritual Prudence 32. Now besides moral prudence nay before the moralist can make any use thereof or exercise it in the work of any vertue there is required another general Vertue which the Philosopher calls Universal Justice which is nothing else but a sobriety and temper in the affections whereby they are subdued and captiv'd unto well inform'd Reason So that whatsoever it commands to be done there is no rebellion no unwillingness in the Passions but they proceed readily to execution though it be never so distasteful to sense 33. Now how well does this express the nature of Charity for What else is Love but a sweet breathing of the Holy Spirit upon our Passions whereby the Holy Ghost does as it did in the beginning of Genesis incubare aquis move by a cherishing quieting vertue upon the Sea of our Passions Did not the same Spirit come to Eliah in a soft whisper He walks not in Turbine in a strong wind to raise a Tempest in our Affections Now when we have received this ipsissiman Dei particulam as Plato said of the Soul this shred or portion of the Holy Spirit which is Charity how evenly and temperately do we behave our selves to God and all the world besides How willingly and obediently do we submit our selves to the performance of whatsoever Faith out of Gods Word doth enjoyn us 34. But yet the Analogy and proportion between these two is more evident and observable That Universal Justice is no particular singular vertue neither hath it any particular singular object As other vertues have For example Temperance or Abstinence which hath to do with sensual delights and pleasures and none else But when it is determined to and fastens on the object of a particular vertue it is converted into and incorporates with that very vertue for example If I do exercise this general Habit of observing a mean and temper in things that concern diet or sensual pleasures it becomes Abstinence if upon objects of terrour it becomes Fortitude or Magnanimity Just so is it with Charity For 35. Charity is a vertue which never goes alone and is busied in solitary places being reserved and excluded from the society and communion of other Graces But it is that which seasons gives life and efficacy to all the rest without which if it were possible for me to enjoy all the Graces that the bountiful hand of God ever showred upon reasonable Creature yet if St. Paul speak truth I should be nothing worth It is that which fulfils all the Commandements This is evident to all that shall but sleightly and in haste read over 1 Cor. 13. beginning with vers 4. and so onwards 1 Cor. 13.4 c. where we may behold almost all the vertues that can be named enwrapped in one vertue of Charity and Love according to the several Acts thereof chang'd and transform'd into so many several Graces It suffereth long and so 't is Longanimity It is kind
wrought upon are meerly befool'd by the Devil or rather by themselves for so I told you that Saint James says And for an example I propos'd the learned Pharisees who for all their learning and knowledg in the Scripture yet our Saviour denounceth eight several Woes against them for being Fools and blind Guides So that the Fool in hand was not oppos'd to a Learned man but to a Prudent man And therefore a worthy Doctor of our Church did well define Faith to be A spiritual Prudence that is a knowledg sought out only for practise And there I compared Faith with moral Prudence and the fruit thereof Charity with the vertue of Universal Justice Therefore lest the very Heathen should rise up in judgment against us for not doing so much with the help and advantage of Gods Word as they could without it I did and do beseech you not to content your selves with meer knowing and hearing with only a conceit of Faith without Works for that was an ancient Heresie in the Nicolaitans whom God by name professeth an Hatred to as Eusebius tells us And for an effectual motive I told you how at the last great Tryal you shall not be catechis'd How well you can say your Creed or how many Catechisms without Book but How fruitful in works of Charity your Faith hath been And so I come to the second member of the First General namely the consideration how dangerous and grievous a burden Knowledg will be where it is fruitless and ineffectual of which briefly 43. I will once again repeat that divine sentence of the Psalmist in Psal 111.10 The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom Psal 111.10 and a good understanding have all they that do thereafter i.e. Till a man put his knowledg in practise he is so farr from being a good man that he is scarse a man hath not the understanding of a man till he do till he fall a work he was wiser a great deal before he gained his knowledg Knowledg alone is a goodly purchase in the mean time It is so worthy a purchase that as it should seem by our Saviours account till a man have obtained some competency in knowledg he hath gotten no right to the Kingdom of Darkness and Hell 44. For certainly no man can justly challenge damnation but he that is burdened with Sin Now he that hath no knowledg but is utterly blind in his understanding hath no sin that is in comparison the words are Joh. 9.39 c. And Jesus said for judgment I am come into this world Joh. 9.39 c. that they which see not might see and that they which see might be made blind Not as if Christ did imprint or inflict blindness upon any man but only occasionally that is those which walk in darkness and love it when the light comes upon them and discovers their wandring they hate it and turn their eyes from it and become more perversly and obstinately blind In the same sense that St. Paul saith Rom. 7. Sin taking occasion by the Law becomes more sinful whil'st sin is not oppos'd it goes on in its course quietly but when the Commandement comes and discovers and rebukes it it becomes furious and abominable and much more raging and violent 45. There follows Vers 40. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words and said unto him Are we blind also There is nothing in the world that a Pharisee can with less patience endure than to hear any intimation given that he may be suspected of folly And therefore they were not so sensible or conceited of some wrong received when our Saviour call'd them Generation of Vipers as they are when their wisdom and discretion are call'd in question Witness this answer when no man spake to them they suspiciously demand whether Christ in his last words meant them or no. But what answers our Saviour 46. Jesus said unto them Vers 41. If ye were blind ye should have no sin but now ye say We see therefore your sin remaineth As if he had said So little shall this supposed knowledg and wisdom that ye have profit you that you shall curse the time that ever you saw the holy Word of God and wish that all the Sermons that ever you heard all the gracious Invitations and sweet Promises which God by the ministery of his Servants the Prophets hath sent unto you had been sentences of some horrible death and torments from the mouth of a severe Judg. For your sins which otherwise had not been so insupportable now by your abusing the knowledg which God hath given you by your wilful contempt of those many invitations which have continually sounded in your ears are become as a Mountain upon you to crush you into powder You have hang'd a Milstone about your own necks which shall irrecoverably sink you into the bottomless comfortless pit whereas otherwise there might have been some hope of escape 47. And yet for all this let not any one favour and cherish himself in this conceipt That he thanks God he is ignorant enough that a very little practise will serve his turn his knowledg is not so much that it should put him to too great a labour in expressing it in the course of his life For whosoever he be that dares entertain or give way to such a thought as this is Let him be sure that if he do not know so much as God requires at his hands especially now that God hath sealed up the Scripture-Canon now that the whole Will of God is revealed this very ignorance alone will be a thousand weights to fasten him on the earth to make him sure for ever ascending to God in whom there is no darkness at all 48. For it is not so with an ignorant man as it is with one that is blind who if he will be sure not to tempt God by venturing and rushing forward in paths unknown unto him may live as long and as safe as he that is most quick-sighted No Ignorance alone though it be not active and fruitful in works of darkness is crime enough For with what colour of reason will such a one expect the reward of the Just Such a one will not doubt but that the Gates of Heaven are barr'd against the sottish blind ignorant Heathen to whom God never revealed any part of his Will yet himself may fare well enough Is not this a degree beyond madness it self What does such a one think that because he lives among religious people and such as are well acquainted with the way to Heaven that himself shall be sure to go for company Does he make no doubt of his part in the Resurrection of the Just because he was born in England or in such a year of our Lord when the Gospel flourished Nay shall it not be much more tolerable for the worst of the Heathen than for a such a man 49. For if the Heathen were left
and come short of the glory of God Thus much for the Law of Works 29. The state of mankind without Christ being so deplored so out of al hope as I told you Almighty God out of his infinite mercy and goodness by his unspeakable wisdom found out an attonement accepting of the voluntary exinanition and humiliation of his dearly beloved Son who submitted himself to be made flesh to all our natural infirmities sin only excepted and at last to dye that ignominious accursed death of the Cross for the Redemption of mankind Who in his death made a Covenant with his Father that those and only those who would be willing to submit themselves to the obedience of a new Law which he would prescribe unto mankind should for the merits of his obedience and death be justified in the sight of God have their sins forgiven them and be made heirs of everlasting glory Now that Christ's death was in order of Nature before the giving of the Gospel is I think evident by those words of St. Paul Heb. 9.16 17. where comparing the old Covenant of the Jews with that of Christ he saith Where a Testament is Heb. 9.16.16 there must of necessity be the death of the Testatour for a Testament is of force after men are dead otherwisâ— it is of no strength at all while the Testatour liveth whereupon neither the first Covenant was dedicated without bloud It was necessary therefore saith he ver 23. that the patterns of things in heaven should be purified with these i. e. with the bloud of Beasts but the heavenly things themselves with better things than those namely with the bloud of Christ 30. Which Covenant of Christ call'd in Scripture the New-Covenant the Covenant of Grace the grace of God the Law of Faith according to the nature of all Covenants being made between two parties at the least requires conditions on both sides to be perform'd and being a Covenant of Promise the conditions on man's part must necessarily go before otherwise they are no conditions at all Now man's duty is comprehended by St. Paul in this word Faith and God's promise in the word Justification And thus farr we have proceeded upon sure grounds for we have plain express words of Scripture for that which hath been said But the main difficulty remains behind and that is the true sense and meaning of these two words Faith and Justification and what respect and dependance they have one of the other Which difficulty by Gods assistance and with your Christian charitable patience I will now endeavour to dissolve 31. For the first therefore which is Faith we may consider it in several respects to wit first as referring us to and denoting the principal object of Evangelical Faith which is Christ Now if Faith be meant in this sense as by many good Writers of our Reformed Churches it is understood then the meaning of that so often repeated saying of St. Paul We are justified by Faith without the works of the Law must be We are justifi'd only for the obedience of Christ and not for our righteousness of the Law which is certainly a most Catholick Orthodox sense and not to be deny'd by any Christian though I doubt it does not express all that St. Paul intended in that Proposition Secondly Faith signifies the Act or exercise or duty of Faith as it comprehends all Evangelical Obedience call'd by St. Paul The Obedience of Faith Rom. 16.26 Rom. 16.26 4.13 9.13 10.6 The Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4 13. 9.13 10.6 And it is an inherent grace or vertue wrought in us by the powerful operation of God's Spirit Or thirdly Rom. 10.9 it may be taken for the Doctrin of Faith call'd also by him the Word of Faith Act. 20.32 Gal. 3.2 Rom. 3.27 Rom. 10.8 and the Word of Gods Grace Act. 20.32 and the hearing of Faith Gal. 3.2 In which sense as if he meant the Word St. Paul may seem to resolve us Rom. 3.27 where he saith that boasting is excluded by the Law of Faith which words are extant in the very heat of the controversie of Justification Now these senses of Faith if they be apply'd to that conclusion of St. Paul We are justified by Faith come all to one pass for in effect it is all one to say We are justifi'd by our Obedience or Righteousness of Faith and to say We are justifi'd by the Gospel which prescribes that Obedience As on the contrary to say We are justifi'd by the Law or by works prescribed by the Law is all one There is a fourth acception of Faith taken for the single Habit or Grace of Faith and apply'd to this proposition only of all Christians that I have heard of by the Belgick Remonstrants which being a new invented fancy and therefore unwarrantable yet I shall hereafter have occasion it may be to say something of it 31. St. Paul's Proposition I am perswaded excludes none of these senses it is capeble of them all But before I shew you how they may consist together I will in the first place declare of what nature that righteousness is which God by vertue of his New Covenant requires at our hands before he will make good his promise unto us First then God requires at our hands a sincere Obedience unto the substance of all Moral duties of the Old Covenant and that by the Gospel And this obedience is so necessary that it is impossible any man should be saved without it The pressing of this Doctrine takes up by much the greatest part of the Evangelical Writings Now that these Duties are not enforc'd upon us as conditions of the Old Covenant of Works is evident because by Christ we are freed from the Obligation of the Old Covenant God forbids that we should have a thought of expecting the hope of righteousness upon those terms For that Covenant will not admit of any imperfection in our works and then in what a miserable case are we There is no hope for us unless some course be taken that not only our imperfections but our sins and those of a high nature be pass'd by and overlook'd by Almighty God as if He had lost his eyes to see them or his memory to remember them 32. The substance then of the Moral Law is enjoyn'd us by the New-Covenant but with what difference I shall shew you presently And hereupon it is that our Saviour saith to the Pharisees who were willing to make any mis-construction of his Doctrine Think you that I am come to destroy the Law I by all means say we God forbid else for unless the old Law be destroy'd we are undone as long as that is alive we are dead If the Law of Works have its natural force still woe be to us Therefore that must not be Christ's meaning His intent is as if he should say Think you that I am come to destroy the righteousness of the Law to dis-oblige men from
to believers is one thing and what he requires of all men as their duty is another and what he will accept of out of grace and favour is yet another To those that believe and live according to their faith he gives by degrees the spirit of obsignation and confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but believe And to be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospel of Christ as those which heard it from Christ himself with their ears which saw it with their eyes which looked upon it and whose hands handled the Word of Life He requires of all that their Faith should be as I have said proportionable to the Motives and Reasons enforcing to it he will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of Faith if it be living and effectual unto true Obedience For he it is that will not quench the smoaking flax nor break the bruised Reed He did not reject the prayer of that distressed man that cryed unto him Lord I believe Lord help mine unbelief He commands us to receive them that are weak in faith and thereby declares that he receives them And as nothing avails with him but Faith which worketh by love So any Faith if it be but as a grain of mustard-seed if it work by love shall certainly avail with him and be accepted of him Some experience makes me fear that the faith of considering and discoursing men is like to be crackt with too much straining And that being possessed with this false Principle that it is in vain to believe the Gospel of Christ with such a kind or degree of assent as they yield to other matters of Tradition And finding that their faith of it is to them undiscernable from the belief they give to the truth of other Stories are in danger either not to believe at all thinking not at all as good as to no purpose or else though indeed they do believe it yet to think they do not and to cast themselves into wretched agonies and perplexities as fearing they have not that without which it is impossible to please God and obtain eternal happiness Consideration of this advantage which the Devil probably may make of this Fancy made me willing to insist somewhat largely upon the Refutation of it 10. I return now thither from whence I have digressed and assure you concerning the grounds afore-laid which were that there is a Rule of Faith whereby Controversies may be decided which are necessary to be decided and that this Rule is universally infallible That notwithstanding any opinion I hold touching Faith or any thing else I may and do believe them as firmly as you pretend to do And therefore you may build on in God's name for by God's help I shall always embrace whatsoever structure is naturally and rationally laid upon them whatsoever conclusion may to my understanding be evidently deduced from them You say out of them it undeniably follows That of two disagreeing in matter of Faith the one cannot be saved but by repentance or ignorance I answer by distinction of those terms two dissenting in a matter of faith For it may be either in a thing which is indeed a matter of Faith in the strictest sense that is something the Belief whereof God requires under pain of damnation And so the Conclusion is true though the Consequence of it from your former premisses either is none at all or so obscure that I can hardly discern it Or it may be as it often falls out concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of Faith is yet overvalued by the parties at variance and esteemed to be so And in this sense it is neither consequent nor true The untruth of it I have already declared in my examination of your Preface The inconsequence of it is of itself evident for Who ever heard of a wilder Collection than this God hath provided means sufficient to decide all Controversies in Religion necessary to be decided This means is universally infallible Therefore of two that differ in any thing which they esteem a matter of Faith one cannot be saved He that can find any connection between these Propositions I believe will be able to find good coherence between the deaf Plaintiff's Accusation in the Greek Epigram and the deaf Defendant's Answer and the deaf Judge's Sentence And to contrive them all into a formal Categorical Syllogism 11. Indeed if the matter in agitation were plainly decided by this infallible means of deciding Controversies and the Parties in variance knew it to be so and yet would stand out in their dissention this were in one of them direct opposition to the Testimony of God and undoubtedly a damnable sin But if you take the liberty to suppose what you please you may very easily conclude what you list For who is so foolish as to grant you these unreasonable Postulates that every emergent Controversie of Faith is plainly decided by the means of decision which God hath appointed and that of the parties litigant one is always such a convicted Recusant as you pretend Certainly if you say so having no better warrant than you have or can have for it this is more proper and formal uncharitableness than ever was charged upon you Me-thinks with much more Reason and much more Charity you might suppose that many of these Controversies which are now disputed among Christians all which profess themselves lovers of Christ and truly desirous to know his will and do it are either not decidable by that means which God hath provided and so not necessary to be decided or if they be yet not so plainly and evidently as to oblige all men to hold one way or Lastly if decidable and evidently decided yet you may hope that the erring party by reason of some veil before his eyes some excusable ignorance or unavoidable prejudice doth not see the Question to be decided against him and so opposeth not that which He doth know to be the Word of God but only that which You know to be so and which he might know were he void of prejudice Which is a fault I confess but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often and not of such a gigantique disposition as you make it to fly directly upon God Almighty and to give him the Lye to his face 12. Ad. § 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. In all this long Discourse you only tell us what you will do but do nothing Many Positions there are but proofs of them you offer none but reserve them to the Chapters following and there in their proper places they shall be examined The summ of all your Assumpts collected by your self § 16. is this That the infallible means of determining Controversies is the Visible Church That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not-Fundamental maketh nothing to the present Question That to say the Creed containeth all Fundamentals is neither pertinent nor true That
whosoever persist in Division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church are guilty of Schism and Heresie That in regard of the Precept of Charity towards one's self Protestants are in state of sin while they remain divided from the Roman Church To all these Assertions I will content my self for the present to oppose this one That not one of them all is true Only I may not omit to tell you that if the first of them were as true as the Pope himself desires it should be yet the Corollary which you deduce from it would be utterly inconsequent That Whosoever denies any Point proposed by the Church is injurious to God's Divine Majesty as if He could deceive or be deceived For though your Church were indeed as Infallible a Propounder of Divine Truths as it pretends to be yet if it appeared not to me to be so I might very well believe God most true and your Church most false As though the Gospel of S. Matthew be the Word of God yet if I neither knew it to be so nor believed it I might believe in God and yet think that Gospel a Fable Hereafter therefore I must entreat you to remember that our being guilty of this impiety depends not only upon your being but upon our knowing that you are so Neither must you argue thus The Church of Rome is the Infallible Propounder of Divine Verities therefore he that opposeth Her calls God's Truth in Question But thus rather The Church of Rome is so and Protestants know it to be so therefore in opposing her they impute to God that either he deceives them or is deceived himself For as I may deny something which you upon your knowledge have affirmed and yet never disparage your honesty if I never knew that you affirmed it So I may be undoubtedly certain of God's Omniscience and Veracity and yet doubt of something which he hath revealed provided I do not know nor believe that he hath revealed it So that though your Church be the appointed witness of God's Revelations yet until you know that we know she is so you cannot without foul calumny impute to us That we charge God blasphemously with deceiving or being deceived You will say perhaps That this is directly consequent from our Doctrine That the Church may err which is directed by God in all her Proposals True if we knew it to be directed by him otherwise not much less if we believe and know the contrary But then if it were consequent from our Opinion have you so little Charity as to say that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their Opinions Such Consequences I mean as they do not own but disclaim and if there were a necessity of doing either would much rather forsake their Opinion than imbrace those Consequences What opinion is there that draws after it such a train of portentous blasphemies as that of the Dominicans by the judgement of the best Writers of your own Order And will you say now that the Dominicans are justly chargeable with all those Blasphemies If not seeing our case take it at the worst is but the same why should not your judgment of us be the same I appeal to all those Protestants that have gone over to your Side whether when they were most averse from it they did ever deny or doubt of God's Omniscience or Veracity whether they did ever believe or were taught that God did deceive them or was deceived himself Nay I provoke to you your self and desire you to deal truly and to tell Us whether you do in your heart believe that we do indeed not believe the eternal Veracity of the eternal Verity And if you judge so strangely of us having no better ground for it than you have or can have we shall not need any farther proof of your uncharitableness towards us this being the extremity of true uncharitableness If not then I hope having no other ground but this which sure is none at all to pronounce us damnable Heretiques you will cease to do so and hereafter as if your ground be true you may do with more Truth and Charity collect thus They only err damnably who oppose what they know God hath testified But Protestants sure do not oppose what they know God hath testified at least we cannot with Charity say they do Therefore they either do not err damnably or with Charity we cannot say they do so 13. Ad. § 17. Protestants you say according to their own grounds must hold that of persons contrary in whatsoever Point of Belief one part only can be saved therefore it is strangely done of them to charge Papists with want of Charity for holding the same The Consequence I acknowledge but wonder much what it should be that lays upon Protestants any necessity to do so You tell us it is their holding Scripture the sole Rule of Faith For this you say obligeth them to pronounce them damned that oppose any least Point delivered in Scripture This I grant If they oppose it after sufficient declaration so that either they know it to be contained in Scripture or have no just probable Reason and which may move an honest man to doubt Whether or no it be there contained For to oppose in the first case in a man that believes the Scripture to be the Word of God is to give God the lye To oppose in the second is to be obstinate against Reason and therefore a sin though not so great as the former But then this is nothing to the purpose of the necessity of damning all those that are of contrary belief and that for these Reasons First because the contrary belief may be touching a Point not at all mentioned in Scripture and such Points though indeed they be not matters of Faith yet by men in variance are often over-valued and esteemed to be so So that though it were damnable to oppose any Point contained in Scripture yet Persons of a contrary belief as Victor and Polycrates S. Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved because their contrary belief was not touching any Point contained in Scripture Secondly because the contrary belief may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous and with probability capable of divers senses and in such cases it is no marvel and sure no sin if several men go several ways Thirdly because the contrary belief may be concerning Points wherein Scripture may with so great probability be alledged on both sides which is a sure note of a Point not-necessary that men of honest and upright hearts true lovers of God and of Truth such as desire above all things to know God's will and to do it may without any fault at all some go one way and some another and some and those as good men as either of the former suspend their judgments and expect some Elias to solve doubts and reconcile repugnancies Now in all such Questions one side or other which
but that they left the said Communities So Luther and the rest cannot so much as pretend not to have left the visible Church which according to them was infected with many diseases but can only pretend that they did not sin in leaving her And you speak very strangely when you say In a society of men universally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from the common disease could not be therefore said to separate from the Society For if they do not separate themselves from the Society of the infected persons how do they free themselves and depart from the common disease Do they at the same time remain in the company and yet depart from those infected creatures Wee must then say that they separate themselves from the persons though it be by occasion of the disease Or if you say they free their own pâ—rsons from the common disease yet so that they remaine still in the Company infected subject to the Superiours and Governours thereof eating and drinking and keeping publique Assemblies with them you cannot but know that Luther and your Reformers the first pretended free persons from the supposed common infection of the Romane Church did not so for they endeavoured to force the Society whereof they were parts to be healed and reformed as they were and if â—t refused they did when they had forces drive them away even their Superiours both Spirituall and Temporall as is notorious Or if they had not power to expel that supposed infected Community or Church of that place they departed from them corporally whom mentally they had forsaken before So that you cannot deny but Luther forsook the external Communion and commpany of the Catholique Church for which as your self (z) Pag. 75. confess There neither was nor can be any just cause no more than to depart from Christ himself We do therefore infer that Luther and the rest who forsook that visible Church which they found upon earth were truly and properly Schismatiques 25. Moreover it is evident that there was a division between Luther and that Church which was Visible when he arose but that Church cannot be said to have divided her self from him before whose time the was and in comparison of whom she was a Whole and he but a part therefore we must say that he divided himself and went out of her which is to be a Schismatique or Heretique or both By this argument Optatus Melivitanus proveÌ„th that not Caecilianus but Parmenianus was a Schismatique saying For Caecilianus went (a) Lib. 1. cont Parmen not out of Majorinus thy Grandfather but Majorinus from Cecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chair of Peter or Cyprian but Majorinus in whose Chayr thou sittest which had no beginning before Majorinus Since it manifestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manner it is clear that you are heirs both of the deliverers up of the holy Bible to be burned and also of Schismatiques The Whole argument of this holy Father makes directly both against Luther and all those who continue the division which he begun and proves That going out convinceth those who go our to be Schismatiques but not those from whom they depart That to forsake the Chair of Peter is Schism yea that it is Schism to erect a Chair which had no origin or as it were predecessour before it self That to continue in a division begun by others is to be Heires of Schismatiques and lastly that to depart from the Communion of a particular Church as that of S. Cyprian was is sufficient to make a man incur the guilt of Schism and consequently that although Protestants who deny the Pope to be supream Head of the Church do think by that Heresie to clear Luther from Schism in disobeying the Pope Yet that will not serve to free him from Schism as it importeth a division from the obedience or Communion of the particular Bishop Diocess Church and Country where he lived 36. But it is not the Heresie of Protestants or any other Sectaries that can deprive S. Peter and his Successors of the authority which Christ our Lord conferred upon them over his whole militant Church which is a Point confessed by learned Protestants to be of great Antiquity and for which the judgement of divers most ancient holy Fathers is reproved by them as may be seen at large in Brerely (b) Tract 1. Sect. 3. subd 10. exactly citing the places of such chief Protestants And we must say with S. Cyprian Heresies (c) Ep. 55. have sprung and Schisms been bred from no other cause then for that the Priest of God is not obeyed nor one Priest and Judge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God Which words do plainly condemn Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Universal or of every particular Church For he withdrew himself both from the obedience of the Pope and of all particular Bishops and Churches And no less clear is the said Optatus Melivitanus saying Thou canst not deny (d) Lib. 2. cont Parmen but that thou knowest that in the City of Rome there was first an Episcopal Chair placed for Peter wherein Peter the head of all the Apostles sate whereof also he was called Cephas in which one Chair Unity was to be kept by all lest the other Apostles might attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair and that he should be a Schismatique and sinner who against that one single Chair should erect another Many other authorities of Fathers might be alleadged to this purpose which â—omit my intention being not to handle particular controversies 37. Now the arguments which hitherto I have brought prove that Luther and his followers were Schismatiques without examining for as much as belongs to this Point whether or no the Church can erre in any one thing great or small because it is universally true that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the visible Church of Christ according to S. Augustin saying It is not possible (e) Ep. 48. that any may have just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations upon just cause But since indeed the Church cannot erre in any one Point of Doctrin nor can approve any corruption in manners they cannot with any colour avoid the just imputation of eminent Schism according to the verdict of the same holy Father in these words The most manifest (f) De Bapt. lib. 5. cap. 1. sacriledge of Schism is eminent when there was no cause of separation 38. Lastly I prove that Protestants cannot avoid the note of Schism at least by reason of their mutual separation from one another For most certain it is that there is very great difference for the outward face of a Church and profession of a different