a more full spectacle of them which may serve to prove that disunion which hee goes about to confute and to confute that union which hee goes about to prove SECT II. Wherein severall heads and springs of division amongst the Papists are opened 1. The controverted Supremacie of the Pope or Councels 2. Their affected ambiguity in deciding controversies 3. The great number of Questions purposely left undecided 4. The opposition betwixt the Preachers and publick Professors of that Church IN the view of this division wee may first take notice That there is an opposition and division even betweene this supposititious Head of unity and his members and even in this radicall and head-point Whether hee be the Head of unity or not for the Head is divided from much of the Body and the Body within it selfe even about the Head The Pope hee will bee above the Councell and the Councell is thought by many to bee above the Pope And this hath beene decided by Councels and by them the Councell was set above the Pope which indeed agrees much better with the Councell in the Acts and with Saint Paul to the Ephesians lately alledged yea it was made hereticall to deny this Supremacy of the Councell above the Pope And if that the Head of unity bee divided into two how can two Heads bring men onenesse yea how can two Heads but divide the Church into two Bodies It is an undeniable truth That two Masters opposing each other can never cause unity in their servants he that is at unity with some fellow-servants by cleaving to the one Master is at division with others that cleave to the other And they that maâ—e the Councell the Head and root of unity as the Councell of Constance and Basil and many that followed them especially in France how must they not needs differ from those that make the Pope to be Head and Lord of unity by a controlling power over the Councell And accordingly in those points which the Councell decreeth as by a supreme power and the Pope againe dissolves as by a supreme power how can Romists be at unity that are divided in the different beliefes of these two Supremacies Even in that point resolved in Basil That it is hereticall to beleeve the Pope not to be subject to the Councell how is it possible that Romists should bee at unity of whom a part beleeves and a part beleeves it not yea each seeme Hereticks thereby unto the other And thus if in the roote of unity there bee division how great is this division and who can shew how ever this division can bee reconciled by Romists For if there be a free Councell no doubt such a Councell will decree the Pope to be subject to it as they have good reason from Scripture and Antiquity But if the Pope be free and may command the Councell who can expect but that the Pope shall judge for himselfe and subject Councels to his headship and infallibility Behold the great Citie divided into great parts and division growing even from their roote of unity Againe many members of this Head of unity are at division about the Popes earthly Supremacy some hold that hee may onely excommunicate Kings and then can doe no more his power being meerly spirituall others hold that after excommunication hee can depose Kings yea cause their subjects to kill them a weighty controversie and hardly to be decided amongst Papists but onely by the unity of Kings agreeing together to depose Popes Againe in some things hee takes power to dispense and in the same things his Doctors say he hath not power to dispense A paterne of which opposition we may plainly and actually see in the Popes Bull of Dispensation to Henry the eighth for marrying his Brothers wife and the Testimonies under Universitie Seales of the Doctors denying him the power of this Dispensation These and the like questions concerning the power of this Head of unity make division betweene the Head and members and make division betweene the members themselves Secondly wee see divisions doe againe arise from this Head of unity because this Head leaves many things of controversie so doubtfully decided in Councels that their very decisions breed controversies And what unity is to be expected from such a Head who by decisions gives occasion of dissentions and leaves division when he sits of purpose in his Chaire under pretence of making unity So wee know Vega and Catharinus against Soto and upon the Popes Decree in the Councell of Trent entred into mighty Controversies and no wonder for it was a speciall craft in that Councell to use such generall words as might be large enough to hold two differing opinions in them and so leave the controversies not reconciled but still at liberty and distance And now againe where is that vaine shift or rather blasphemous abuse of Scripture in saying that Papists by submission to the Popes Church doe captivate themselves to the obedience of Faith and so keepe unity when the Pope having judged and they submitting to his judgement are yet in division What is this but by submitting to their meanes of unity to be still at division If the Head of unity by deciding make division how endlesse and incurable is that division Thirdly This Head of unity leaves divers controversies wholly undecided so that as it hath not been untold by some of his owne hee doth as it were leave strife and division to them In their Schoole writers bee farre more differences then disputations because divers in one disputation and perchance in one neere a thousand disputations yea in some points foure of five severall opinions each confuting one another and these not of light matters only but of many if not of all the Cavaliers prime points The catholick Church Justification of soules Communion of Saints Purgatory Indulgences Yea Doctor Iohn White in his way to the true Church Digr 24. undertaketh to demonstrate that there is no one point denied or affirmed against us wherein Papists doe not vary amongst themselves and of these differences he gives there divers patternes And many more are to bee seene in Bishop Mortons catholick Apologie And this division hath bin so deadly that we read that the Dominicans have charged the Franciscans with heresie and the Franciscans at length had the burning of foure Dominicans Let us hear a strong Dominican and a cathedrall Professor describing the differences of these Romists even to the charging one another with heresie It often fals out that one Divine doth most constantly affirm that he hath a Theologicall demonstration for some point of doctrine and that hee deduceth it by evident consequence from the sacred Scriptures and the traditions of the Fathers But then another on the contrary doth most certainly affirme that hee hath a Theologicall demonstration that this is heresie and an error in faith and that the contrary is deduced from scriptures by evident consequence Hence he saith of the
the Church which is the Cavaliers point to be proved by this place for he denyeth many doctrines and fundamentall ones of the Law and the Prophets yea of God himselfe The next place doth much accuse the Cavaliers need of Allegations and yet withall excuseth him not from an indeavour to deceive his Reader The place alledged by him is this Quod apud multos c. That which is found to be one amongst so many is not to be thought to have crept in by errour but to have beene commended by Tradition The place cited is this Quod apud multos unum invenitur non est erratum sed traditum That which is one among so many is not an errour but a thing delivered The question in hand was concerning the rule of Faith or the Creed as the Reader may see by comparing the thirteenth chapter where the Creed is rehearsed and the end of the one and twentieth where he saith That it remained for him to shew whether the doctrine in the former rule came from the delivery or if you will Tradition so it bee not a Tradition beyond that which is written for there is no such in this rule of faith of the Apostles And having refuted these objections That the Apostles delivered not all and that they knew not all he comes after to this objection That the â—hurches did not purely reteine what the Apostles delivered and thus hee refells this objection Age nunc omnes erraverint deceptus sit Apostolus de Testimonio reddendo Nullam respexerit Spiritus sanctus uti eam in veritatem deduceret ad hoc missus à Christo ad hoc postulatus de Patre ut esset doctor veritatis neglexerit officium Dei Villicus Christi vicarius sinens Ecclesias aliter interim intelligere aliter credere quod ipse pâ—r Apostolos praedicabat Ecquid verisimile est ut tot ac tanâ—a in unam Fidem erraverint Nullus inter multos eventus est uâ—us exitus Varâ—asse debuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum â—aeterùm quod apud multos unum invenitur non est erratum sed traditum Whereof the summe is this that though the Holy Ghost the Vicar of Christ had not looked to his office of leading the Church into truth yet there is no likelihood that so many Churches had erred into one Faith But the Faith wherein there is such unity among many should not be an errour but a Truth delivered by the Apostles Now this place is so far from saying that all Churches agreed in sin all points beyond and besides the Creed that it speaks onely of their agreement in the rules of Faith and doctrine of the Creed And he saith that such an agreement comes not by errour which commonly is divers but by one uniforme delivery and doctrine of the Apostles So the Cavalier is still to seeke for a necessary unity in every smal doctrine and in points without the Creed Cyrill is mainly for the Protestants even as himselfe alledgeth him For we agreeably affirme That to be the Catholick Church which teacheth without defect all things necessary to salvation And in the doctrine of faith such things necessary to salvation are points fundamentall Cyprian comes or is rather drawne in next against his will and meaning and thus the Author produceth him The Church being stricken through by the light of our Lord doth send her beames throughout the whole world But yet that light which is cast so far abroad is but one and the same Shee spreads her branches over the whole earth after a plentifull manner Shee extends her flowing streames with great aboundance and to a great distance But yet is Shee one Head and one Root and one Mother who is fruitfull by such store of issue Now I thinke it were needlesse to help a Reader to take this place from the Author For it is plaine to every eye that this place speakes not of the unity of the Church in all points of doctrine but of their unity in one Love and one mysticall Body So that this place is not onely unserviceable to the Author but serves much against him and his lady Mother who cuts off noble and excellent members of the Church from her or rather her selfe from the Church if they doe not submit to her universall Tyranny Cyprian it seemes hath not said enough and therefore he must say more but indeed lesse Let us see how the Cavalier rather teacheth him then suffereth him to speake The same S. also speaking of the sin of Core Dathan and Abiram implies that the one Church must not onely be entirely beleeved but followed also in all her doctrines and directions For hee saith that though Core Dathan and Abiram did beleeve and worship one God and lived in the same Law and Religion with Moses and Aaron yet because they divided themselves from the rest by Schisme resisting their Governours and Priests they were swallowed up quick into Hell Here first wee may observe how hee tells his Reader what hee would have Cyprian say for hee saith not that Cyprian doth speake it plainely but the S. implyes and what doth he imply That the Church must not onely bee intirely beleeved but followed also in all her doctrines and directions But did Core Dathan and Abiram differ from Moses and Aaron in doctrine His owne place denyes it which saith They did beleeve and worship one God and lived in Moses his Law and Religion with Moses and Aaron And the place further assignes the true fault Division by Schisme They denyed the authority of those whom God had placed to be Governours over them Just the same sinne into which Pope Pius the fifth drew the English Papists by his Bull so that this place makes exceedingly against Romish doctrine of rebellion against Princes such as those of the North and in Ireland But let me give the Author one question at parting Was Aaron to bee followed in all his doctrines and directions what doth the Author think of this doctrine concerning the Calfe These be thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt Saint Basill is next produced thus speaking in Theod. They who are well instructed in holy writ permit not one syllable of divine doctrine to be betrayed or yeelded up but are willing to embrace any kinde of death for the defence thereof if need require Hereupon the Author thus commenteth That man of God had beene sollicited by some to relent for a time to yeeld though it were but to a little he refused in such sort as you have seene and he did it with much disdaine to be attempted in that kinde Now let the Reader see here the fairenesse of our Author Hee speakes of Basils not yeelding to a little and what was this little Denying the sonne of God to be God of one substance with the Father Is this a little Surely he should be a great Hereticke that should deny
this little So that this being not a little but a great point S. Basill doth not speak against us but for us who sayes that in these great points there should be no difference Now it might be called little by some not for the little weight of the point but for the litte odds in the sound of the word so that in the little difference of a syllable the great point lay affirmed or denyed And indeed it were better that death were imbraced then any such point of divine doctrine should bee betrayed Besides â—s there a desire on our side of betraying or delivering up any lesser points of divine doctrine but rather a charitable hope that men may be saved though differing in opinion concerning some lesser matters by not knowing that they be divine doctrines or not reaching to them by a weake and inferiour degree of a faith But who so will truely judge our maine quarrell with Romists hee shall finde it to be a defence of divine doctrine against humane fictions and traditions And Romists most grossely offend against the words and example of S. Basil who permit many syllables of the divine doctrine in the second Commandement forbidding worship of imâ—ges to be left out of their Catechismes and the divine doctrine of halfe a Sacrament to be denyed and made voyd to the people and the divine doctrine of praying in a known tongue in the Church to be actually betrayed Saint Gregory Nazianzen is next who as our Author saith thus delivers himselfe Nothing can be more dangerous then those hereticks who when they run straight through all the rest doe yet with one word as with some drop of poyson infect the true and sincere faith of our Lord. If this Champion had gotten this place by his owne knowledge he could not well but take notice that the sincere faith whereof Gregory speaks is the faith contained in the Nicene Creed which Creed is set at the head of the Tractate and accordingly the one word of which hee speaks as being dangerous to the faith is the word that giveth not to Christ one Substance with the Father This word Nazianzen often names in this discourse so that the Cavalier could not well oversee it if hee had seene the place yea hee saith plainly that it lets in the Arian heresie And if it be thus this Champion is yet far from his Conclusion by this Antecedent which must thus lead the way It is most dangerous to differ in one word of the Creed which concernes a point fundamentall even the Deity of Christ therefore it is most dangerous to differ in points out of the Creed which are extra-fundamentall and of the Popes decreeing But let Romists look whether this place doe not fight against them who thrusting the word Roman after or into the word Catholick have drawne the soules of too many to beleeve in the Pope or Popish Church in stead of God and so have changed the very foundation of their faith Saint Hierome must have the same answer no man denying but that for some one word or two contrary to the faith or Creede in points fundamentall many heresies have been and ought to bee cast out of the Church It followes Saint Leo saith That out of the Catholick Church there is nothing pure According to that of the Apostle Whatsoever is not of faith is sinne But what doth this here where the question is not Whether they sin that be out of the catholick Church but Whether they be out of the catholick Church that differ in any smal point of doctrine from some other members of the same Church But because this place wants help hee adds a second If it be not one it is no faith at all We acknowledge there is but one saving and fundamentall Faith in Christ Iesus as but one Baptisme and this faith was once delivered to the Saints and the Saints still doe so uniformely receive it as that they who have any other fundamentall faith have none at all But if Romists will have faith to bee one in all points then by this Popes doctrine they have no faith for their faith is not one in all points with the one faith once delivered to the Saints nor with the faith in the time of Leo for in that one faith there was no worship of Images no universall Monarchy of the Pope no worship of Bread The Cavaliers first place of Augustine I am loth to bring forth to spare both the Cavalier and the Reader It is somewhat long but very short of the Cavaliers mark it proves against the Donatists That the Church in earth and the Church in heaven are not two Churches but one But who denyes this yea who denyes the true Church on earth to bee but one and this is the Protestants maine businesse to keep it one though differing in some lesser points of doctrine And it is our Authors businesse to breake this unity even by this place which he produceth under a shew of proving unity but not proving by it such an unity as by it hee may make a division hee is faine to set a second Buttresse to support his wall of separation Thus hee reareth it To shew moreover by the judgement of Saint Augustine that the Church in her doctrine was to be truly one hee spake thus of the Donatists who called upon the same God preached the same â—ospel sung the same Psalmes had the same Baptisme observed the same Easter and the like in those things they were with mee yet not wholly with mee in schisme not with mee in heresie not with me in a few not with mee but in regard they were not with mee in a few their being with mee in many could not help them If the Cavalier had gone on in his Allegation the very next words would have given him an answer to the objection which hee drew out of the former for those words say that the one thing wherein they were not one was Charity And the want of this hee proves out of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 13. to make all the rest unprofitable But our question is not of want of charity but of differing in some small point of faith True it is that this uncharitablenesse was back'd with an error which hee called an heresie That the Catholick Church was onely in the part of Donatus and so as Saint Augustine infers that the Church was not catholick But let our Author remember That this voucheth an Article of the Creede as denyed by the Donatists but with the denyall of any such Article he cannot charge us But yet that their error did not kill nor cut them off all from being truly of the Church except the error were accompanied with the want of that one thing which was true charity we have great probabilities if not proofes out of Optatus and Saint Augustine the former of which commonly calls them brethren and the later denies not but some of them might be
of that true Church whereof Christ is the Head They are not so truly Christians of Christ as Papists of the Pope But still I inferre that when the Authour hath his two grounds granted That if Protestants and Papists bee not of that one Church wherein is salvation yet Papists are uncharitable for damning Protestants who are of that Church wherein is salvation so that neither are his grounds sufficiently secured neither if they were are Papists secured sufficiently from uncharitablenesse But after his pretended sufficient securing of his grounds either by way of supererogation or because hee was not secure of his securing hee yet brings in more proofe that we are of two Religions And now for the finall proofe of this last point according even to their practice as well as ours Let my Reader but look upon the body of their Lawes made against us and especially upon the Preambles thereof wherein they plentifully shew how hatefull an opinion they have of our Church Let him looke upon the severall Acts of State which have issued from my Lords of the Councell Let him look upon the Proclamations which have beene made and published from time to time Let him looke upon the large Commissions which have beene granted to Pursuivants whereby that scumme of the world hath beene and is enabled both to ransome and ransack us at their pleasure Surely thus farre there is little said but that many of the late Traytours against the French King may take up for a proofe that they were not of one Religion with that King because against them there issued Acts of State Proclamations Messengers or Pursuivants though all of them perchance were not the scumme of the Countrey to apprehend and ransack them But hee goes farther Let him looke upon those speeches which have beene uttered in both Houses of Parliament not onely against Professours but even the Profession it selfe of our Religion and how his most excellent Majestie hath beene importuned by their petitions to add more weight to our miseries for thus it will easily bee scene how false how rotten how superstitious how idolatrous how detestable how damnable and even destructive of all truth and goodnesse they professe themselves to esteeme our Religion And in fine that wee carry such a marke of the Beast in our foreheads as must needs in their opinion shut up the gates of heaven against us and set open the gates of hell to devoure and swallow us up So that certainly wee are no more of one Church with them in their opinion then they are of one with us in ours Here indeed hee hath many good Epithites of Popery rotten superstitious idolatrous c. but I finde one great one wanting and that is trayterous for this Epithite had a great share in the Parliamentary Complaints and Accusations of Popery But to answer his many words in few because they were answered in that which last preceded wee deny not but that which wee call Popery and Papists call their Religion that is a beleeeving in the Pope and obeying of him commanding Idolatry Treason Rebellion and whatsoever else hee shall please to decree for a point of faith is a rotten superstitious idolatrous and traiterous Religion And of this it is truely said in the prayers of the fifth of November This their Religion is Rebellion their faith is faction their practice murdering of soules and bodies But yet wee charitably hope that there are some though two few who have not so bowed the knees of their soules to this Baal of Rome that they submit their soules and faiths to him in all his idolatrous and trayterous Doctrines Decrees and Commands but being rather in Rome then of Rome are Christs and not the Popes and therefore will heare Christs voice and not the Popes when the Popes voice is the voice of a stranger and an enemy to Christ. CHAP. XII Wherein the Cavaliers tenth and last Chapter is annihilated which hee calleth a Recapitulation SECT I. The totall of the Cavaliers many nothings is cast up in two short Conclusions contrary to all that which hee hath indeavoured to prove And some additionals to that totall examined viz. The false remedies of his impertinent feare lest Papists should grow in love with the civility of Protestants THe Cavalier having said many nothings in his former discourse hee now summes up these nothings which being never so many yet it is well knowne they can amount but to nothing Wherefore not to make this work tedious by unnecessary repetitions I referre the Reader to the former severall confutations and annihilations of the particulars out of which he would here frame this Recapitulation and insteed of the Authour 's not inferred but intruded Conclusion upon forlorne and vanishing premisses this Conclusion still stands right and strong for us that since there is but one true Church and one saving faith and the Protestants notwithstanding any of this Authours hollow answerable and answered objections from difference in Sacraments Traditions c. doe hold and beleeve this saving faith and so are the true Church the Papacie and adherents thereof professing a difference and division from them so farre as to bee of another Church and faith doe excommunicate themselves most heavily even to damnation And secondly The Protestants being the true Church the Romists separating themselves from us persecuting us and pronouncing damnation against us doe herein exceeding uncharitably while they cut off hate persecute and sentence unto hell and damnation the true Church even the living members of Christ Jesus For indeed Papists can never prove against us any change of the Foundation and therefore are uncharitable in damning those who are lively stones built on that onely Foundation and corner stone Christ Jesus But as if Rome were not enough uncharitable and though the Title seemed to tell us that the Cavalier would but have recapitulated his former uncharitable speeches yet hee breakes forth into new Capitulations and Incentives of uncharitablenesse He doubts yea seemes to bee grieved that some of the Romish Communion seeing the faire and just conversation of Protestants may grow into love with them and their Religion But let the Cavalier upon better consideration remember that this is not the great and most dangerous and suspicable fault of Popery that it is so in love with Civility that for it it neglects Religion but that Popery hath so mightily depraved and corrupted Religion that Popish Religion hath destroyed Civility and fairenesse of Nature So that whereas Religion should have advanced men beyond naturall candour and fairenesse Popish Religion hath destroyed this naturall fairenesse and made them worse then men whom true Religion would have lifted up above men unto Saints an evident mark that it is not a true but a false and foule Religion This appeareth plainely in those of the powder Treason divers of which were men of candid natures and ingenuous dispositions yet by Popish Religion turned out of nature made worse then themselves and brought
and root of this very errour which damneth men that shall bee saved And indeed it is a vice not beseeming a Cavalier which hee calleth Pusillanimity An errour of â—onscience is caused by pusillanimity of heart whereby a man fears that which should not be feared according to the right judgement of reason and such a conscience is too strict and therefore to bee avoided because it causeth three evills whereof the third is this It damnes him that should be saved But thus this errour of the Cavalier being taken from him by which he thinkes he may follow his erroneous conscience in denouncing damnation to those that are saved the very sinnew and bond of his discourse is cut assunder and all his ensuing labour lost by which hee strives to prove that Protestants and Romists are divided and cannot both bee saved For though they be thus divided a Papist cannot charitably tell a saved Protestant that hee is damned because hee doth erroneously beleeve it Yet will he needs goe on to his proofes of unity though altogether unprofitable and unable to excuse Rome from the charge of being uncharitable to Protestants yea it rather aggravates his charge and makes her more uncharitable in not holding unity with so good Christians as Protestants Yet hee is resolved to goe on and to utter that which hee gathered upon this head or rather upon this word of Unity for the places which hee brings forth it seemes please him well if they doe speake of the word Unity or something neere to the sound of it though the meaning bee nothing of that unity which it concernes him even in this his walke of impertinency and wandering to pursue and prove For sometimes his Allegations seeme to prove that there should bee in the Church one Head and sometimes one Heart and Affection somtimes one Spirit But if the Author would bee pleased to remember his owne businesse he might consider that his worke is to prove that there is in the Church such an entire unity in all points of Doctrine that there can be no difference or dissent in any one point though never so small but that by this difference the unity of the Church and salvation is lost For wee deny not but there must bee one heart and one affection and one spirit in the Church and all this in and under the unity of one Head Christ Iesus Againe we acknowledge that God did found but one Church and one Religion and that without these two there is no salvation But except the Author prove that the unity of this one Church and of this one Religion consists in this that the beliefe of all must be one and the same in all points under paine of Damnation the former words of unity are meere words and not pertinent to this end neither will they make up his taske For when hee comes to his next point that this unity is broken betweene Protestants and Romists wee will presently deny that wee have any way broken that unity of faith which holds us in unity with the Church and consequently wee are still in the state of salvation and so all his errand is lost Therefore the most places being impertinent as proving that which wee deny not and indeed make nothing for him being granted hee hath two or three which by screwes are wrested toward this full unity in points of beliefe though they reach not home to it This perchance hee aymed at in other places but they would not joyne with him SECT II. The argument drawne from the authority of the High Priest among the Iewes answered A First of his unproving and impertinent places is that of Deut. 17. where as our Author saith his whole people should be subject to the determination of the High Priest for the time being and this upon no lesse then paine of death In which sentence there was to be no appeale And a little after The great authority and power which was cast upon the individuall Person of one Iudge But first if wee will reade the words of God himselfe we may see that He speaks of more then one individuall Person For Hee speakes of the Levites the Priests and the Judge And if a man will not hearken to the Priest or to the Judge that then he should dye But secondly it must bee remembred that that which the Priest or the Judge must pronounce must bee the sentence of the Law For even the Prophet must dye which shall presume to speak a word which God hath not commanded Yet thirdly wee well know That this speaking according to the Law was often neglected by the Priests and therefore they brake the Covenant of Levi and led the people into errors as hereafter more fully may bee proved And I hope this Champion will not say that the people lost their salvation if they did not hold unity with the errors of the Priests And whereas hee addeth That there could bee no Religion or Church that did not agree with this Wee take not this to bee the present Question but Whether all beleevers Proselites or Jewes did in every point by the Priests decision hold an unity of beliefe and did in no point differ Now this I thinke will never bee both affirmed and proved For not only humane Testimonies but the Scriptures themselves doe shew us that there were divers sects and opinions among them and yet they joyned together in externall unity not dividing themselves into two Religions and Churches But to put this Author out of trouble in regard of his individuall High Priest the mention of whom seemes to looke asquint on the Pope as his shadow let him remember That the High Priest was himselfe a shadow of Christ and when Christ came this shadow was abolished and when this shadow dyed it left not the Pope either heire or executor and so hee can be at best but the counterfeit of an abolished shadow And thus all this Authors labours for the High Priest are left to the Pope But see how yet it fals out more unhappily against him for after hee had made mention of the individuall High Priest his next proofe ariseth from Korah Dathan and Abiram punished for Schisme and not for Heresie and difference in Doctrine against two individuall persons Moses and Aaron SECT III. It is declared 1. That the unity of the Church may be preserved without an exact agreement in all points of doctrine 2. That the Papists exalt the Pope above God in that they hold all differences from the Popes determination to bee mortall and yet some breaches of Gods Law to bee veniall ANother place of his very impertinent to his purpose is taken or racked out of the Psalmes which differently from the originall and corrected Translations hee thus paraphraseth Hee makes them to bee all after one manner and to bee endued with the same affections and dictamens concerning Gods service But the word dictamens we leave to this Author as
being his owne and not the Texts onely wee may upon request allow this place and the next of Christs prayer for unity Iohn 17 to intend unity of affections and yet hee will bee short of his unity in all points of Doctrine And it is wel known that if this were meant the present Romists themselves have not that unity neither those who farre excelled them the ancient Martyrs and Fathers And farre more guilty are they against the prayer of Christ in maintaining division of affections towards Patriarchall Sees and many eminent parts of the catholick Church for the Pope is like Ismael his sword against every man that will not submit to his universall Supremacy And according to this dividing Spirit of the Papacie is it this Authors businesse in this worke to make a division in the Church for false proving is making even where there is an unity for is not this his employment in this Chapter and more hereafter in taking away the distinction of points fundamentall to set Christians by the eares and one to damne another for differing in every little point of doctrine For thus hee saith even soone after his former places of unity and hee would faine have Saint Matthew and Saint Mark to say so with him Whosoever should faile of beleeving any one point of Christian doctrine should be as sure of condemnation as if he had beleeved but any one or none A Foundation laid of Babel it selfe even of division and hatred in the Church of God A Position to which I cannot bee silent for Sions sake nor for my brethren and companions sake whom this Position hath often slaine with death temporall and adjudged to death eternall For let it look as smooth as it will doe you breake up the bowels of it and you shall finde it full of bloud division and damnation This even this is it which hath wrought those fearefull Massacres Treasons Excommunications Fires whereof many horrid spectacles in the second Chapter have been presented And how should it bee otherwise but that it should produce such hellish effects when it teacheth Christians for every failing in the beleefe of any one point of Christian that is in their language Romish or Popish doctrine to accompt other Christians in the state of damnation and to hate them more then heathens So that if the Pope say that the Worship of Images Prayer in an unknown tongue without understanding Rats eating the body of Christ and such other errors bee points of Christian doctrine the man that beleeves them not though hee beleeve in Christ yea all other points but one of these hath forfeited his salvation and is fallen into the odious state of a combustible heretick and of a damnable person But this Author might have beene put in minde of more mercy by one of his allegations for though Christ in the place of Matthew by him alledged willeth that all Nations bee taught to observe whatsoever hee hath commanded yet his owne fellow Romists allow that the breach of some of Christs Commands are not damnable I might alledge a Command of Christ in the Lords Supper Drinke yee all of this which as concerning the lay people they have turned into Drinke yee none of this But I will passe to other Commands such as those are which command the keeping of the morall Law Matth. 5.17.28.48 and forbid every idle thought but the breach of these Commands by inordinate thoughts or small deviations the Romists can make not mortall and damnable but veniall How comes it then that they will allow us no veniall errors and failings in small points of doctrine but any one point of Christian that is in his sense Popish doctrine not beleeved is damnably mortall Is there not in this a great piece of Popish leaven even of the wicked mystery that sinnes against Gods Commands of morall obedience may bee veniall but against the Popes Commands in the least point of doctrine are altogether mortall And doth not the reason appeare to bee this That in the breach of a morall Law as that of coveting our neighbours goods God is offended but the Pope is not hurt but by not beleeving any one point which the Pope delivers for Christian doctrine his Inâ—rrability fals to the ground and so his Supremacy And it were better according to the policie of this wicked Mystery that all the world were burned or damned or set at division then that the Papacie should fall But thus doth the Pope set himselfe above God by valuing offences against himselfe of a more damnable nature then sinnes against God But well it is withall that they shew hereby that God is yet farre more mercifull then the Pope for God they say makes little sins veniall whereas the Pope makes little errors against Popish doctrine deadly and damnable But the truth is to those that are in Christ Jesus God doth make veniall both errors in lesser points of faith which grow by ignorance blindenesse or weaknesse of faith aswell as lesser errors in life by infirmity and weaknesse Christs bloud is a propitiation for all our sinnes aswell sins in the understanding as in the will And to those who attaine to that measure of faith which knits them to Christ Jesus Christ Jesus by his bloud will make other ignorances and unbeliefes in those points of doctrine to which they cannot attain veniall and pardonable and surely our Author is hardly driven to get a shew of proof from Scripture of this doctrine of division and damnation The place of Matthew could not serve for there was only a command to the Apostles to teach all Nations to observe all Christs Commands But we have seene above out of Romists that the breach of some of Christs Commands is not damnable but veniall wherefore another place must be forced to confesse it Accordingly that of Saint Marke is set on the rack but this place speakes not of not beleeving all and every point of doctrine delivered and decreed by the Pope and his adherents but the maine scope of the place is a casting of damnation upon men for the great point of not beleeving in Christ for in the Gospel this is an usuall sense of the word beleeving especially when it stands upon life and death And it seemes this Author can bring no plain place of Scripture to prove that he who beleeves not every small point of doctrine decided by the Pope shall bee damned for if he could these places had not been so unmercifully racked toward it But thus still behold a going on of the Mystery of iniquity Unity unto salvation is urged thereby to make division unto damnation Words are taken from Christ the Head therewith to tear his body into pieces But hereof wee may make this use That when a Papist preacheth to Protestants of unity then let them expect beware of division SECT IIII. The place taken out of the 18. of Matth. is cleared which the Cavalier had perverted to the
maintenance of foure Popish grounds First The perpetuall visibility of the Church of Rome Secondly The absolute authority of this Church in judging controversies Thirdly The Inerrability of this judgement Fourthly a Necessity of submission thereunto whereby their imaginary unity is produced I Might here bee at rest for this Chapter but that this Champion besides two impertinent places one of which speaks of unity of Affection and a second of the unity of Spirit in the bond of Peace brings forth a third even the often answered place of S. Matth. which hee perverts to divers ill uses whereof this imaginary Popish unity is one For hee assayes hereby to prove the Church to be the judge of controversies to prove her visibility to prove her inerrability and thereupon he thinkes presently should follow an unity First to remove the stumbling blocke of visibility for which the Author went out of his owne way that hee might lay it in ours I answer That this Text may teach what is to bee done where there is a Church as commonly there is where there is a Brother and a Brother but it doth not teach that there shall be a Church visible in all places and at all times But notwithstanding this text a Church may be visible sometimes in one Nation and somtimes in another according to the fruitfulnesse of the people and the just pleasure of God who sometimes removeth the Gospell and the Candlesticke from a Nation that bears no fruit to another that shall beare it And so wee see that there are no Churches now to be seene where there have beene famous Churches in times past Accordingly the Church may be visible in Greece in AEthiopia in Armenia yea in England though it be not visible in Rome and so the visibility thereof may bee true though there were no Rome and no Pope So that neither this nor any other text though they say the Church is visible yet they doe not say that Rome or the Pope shall still be the visible Church but contrarily the Scripture giveth us good hope that Rome shall be invisible yea it gives us great proofe that shee is now the Scarlet Lady that persecutes the Church and is now the Mother of abominations Secondly no Scripture doth say that in time of persecution or prevailing Heresie the Church shall there bee visible where this persecution drives it into corners that it may escape the fury of it by a kinde of invisibility And when the Arian heresie had covered the face of the Earth and the Roman Bishops or Pope had subscribed to it this Scripture doth not say that then the Pope or his Adhaerents were the visible Church nor that they shall be so when the Pope turnes Antichrist For the second point that the Church is the judge of controversies I could perchance say that there appeares very probable reasons why this text doth not speak of the Churches authority in judging of controversies of faith but of her authority in admonishing her children and requiring reconciliation satisfaction from one brother to another in evident wrongs even faults without controversie For the text saith If thy Brother sinne or trespasse against thee go and tell him his fault So that there is a sinne and a fault without controversie and such a fault that the offended Brother himselfe may first judge and tell him of it that hath offended And according to this beginning may bee the proceeding that is that the two witnesses and so the Church may be not to judge of the fault whether it bee a fault or no but to witnesse and condemne the contumacy of the party in denying satisfaction and reconciliation after an evident fault And when the offending Brother will not heare the Church thus admonishing perswading and injoyning him satisfaction and reconciliation then hee is to bee cast out of that Church which hee hath thus contumaciously disobeyed Agreeable to that of S. Paul If any man obey not our word have no company with him But be it that the Church be the judge of controversies this also may bee true in Russian AEthiopian and Protestant Churches And so the Church may judge controversies though there were no Pope and where the Pope hath no power Besides the Romists themselves differ concerning the meaning of the word Church So that while wee labour in this text to finde a Judge of controversies for reconciling them wee are left unreconciled by being at controversie about the Judge of controversies mentioned in this text For some say the multitude is this Church and they have for them the most usuall acception of the word Church in that sense through the new Testament And the current of the place seems to him that way according to proportion For first the offended Brother alone was to admonish his Brother and next with one or two witnesses and lastly hee was to be admonished by the congregation So it is a doctrine of degrees from one to two and from two to many And if it be thus then the Popes power of judging controversies hath no footing here But thirdly and so withall to include and resolve the question of inerrability If the Prelates be meant by the Church which Lorca saith is the most usuall opinion amongst Romists yet doth not this place say that Romish Prelates shall have still an unerring judgement in controversies especially any single Prelate as the Pope Againe it can hardly bee thought that when a Brother hath offended a Brother this text would have him presently to call a Councell or Synod of Prelates and so complaine to many Prelates at once and so to the Church But if it be his owne Prelate of whom hee must aske doth this place promise that no Prelate shall erre in judgeing of controversies it is well known that in the Jewish Church which was undeniably the true Church before Christ Priests did not judge controversies without errour Yea God Himselfe complaineth of the contrary when he saith The Priests lippes should preserve knowledge and they should seeke the Law out of his mouth for hee is the messenger of the Lord of Hostes But Ye are departed out of the way Yee have caused many to stumble at the law Yee have corrupted the Covenant of Levi. Accordingly wee finde in the Prophets a continuall out-cry upon the Priests for mis-leading the people yea the Priests are chiefe in false judgements and injuries of the true Prophets Accordingly Pashar both prophecied lies and did cast Ieremy into the stockes for prophecying truth yea the High Priest himselfe falsly judgeth Christ to have spoken blasphemy And S. Peter tells the High Priest and his associates that they were the builders that despised the Corner stone and crucified Christ. And thus wee see it plaine in the Scripture that the Priests and Prelates did erre even when our Author ascribes that inerrability to them by which hee would prove the inerrability of Rome yea we see farther that
Deum Where himselfe also makes an exact Catalogue of all the heresies which had sprung untill his time and where by the way I must needs observe in a word that hee recounts divers heresies which are held by the Protestant Church at this day and particularly that of denying prayers and sacriâ—ices for the dead and then hee concludes in the end that whosoever should hold any one of them were no Christian Catholick But here I must challenge this Champion first that hee deales not fairely with us in putting in these words In disobedience to the Church For let the world know that this is not our holding That a different opinion being held in a purposâ—d disobedience to the Church is safe or compâ—tible with unity of charity but that some different opinions in points of doctrine by darknesse of understanding or weaknesse of faith not apprehended or beleâ—ved yet not without a purposed disobedience to the Church may be compatible with unity and salvation Secondly if it were true which hee saith that unity were broken by the obstinate beliefe of any one doctrine joyned with disobedience to the Church how doth not this make against Rome which maintaineth her universall Supremacy and other errors directly against the Canons of the Church Thirdly wee deny Rome to bee that Church which the Fathers speake of Fourthly this Authors allegations make directly against his owne end and overthrow the authority of Rome which hee goes about to establish For let him speake upon his conscience and reputation Were all those heresies mentioned by Epiphanius and Augustine adjudged and condemned for heresies by the Church of Rome If not then it seemes there may bee hereticks without any judgement of the Church of Rome and there may be hereticks that hold some errors not adjudged heresies by the Church of Rome But if so then what is become of this Authors heresie described to be the obstinate beliefe of any one doctrine in disobedience to the Church the Church in the Authors sense being no other then the Church of Rome How was this Church disobeyed in those things which shee had not decreed and even his particulars of prayers and sacrifices for the dead Had the Church of Rome adjudged these at this time to bee points of faith Hee cannot say it How plaine deceit then is this to seeme to prove these to bee heresies because held in a disobedience to the Church when the Church in his Romish sense had not decreed the doctrines to bee beleeved which are contrary to these supposed heresies Let us now come to his particular citations and see yet more particularly how they make not against us but mostly against himselfe Hee begins with Saint Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 3. The Church having received this word preached and this faith as was shewed before and having spread the same over the whole world doth diligently preserve it as inhabiting one house and doth likewise beleeve those things which are taught thereby as having one soule and one heart and in the same conformity shee preaches and teaches and delivers it as possessing but one moâ—th For though there bee in the world different expressions and tongues yet the vertue and power of Tradition is but one and the same And neither those Churches which are found in Germany nor those others in Spaine nor those in France nor they which are in the Easterne parts nor they which are in Egypt nor they which are in Lybia nor they which are in the middle parts of the world doe beleeve or make tradition of doctrine any otherwise in one place then they doe in another but as that creature of God the Sunne is one and the same in the whole world so is the preaching if the Truth And those Prelates of Churches who have most power and grace of speech will deliver no other things but these for no man is above his Master neither will such an one as hath meaner Talents in speech make this doctrine and Tradition lesse but since Faith is but one and the same neither doth hee inlarge it who is able to speak much of it nor that other diminish it who speakes lesse I answer that this place is produced improperly in regard of the Point deceitfully in regard of the Reader For Irenaeus in the second Chapter next preceding had set downe a forme of Faith and a summe of chiefe Articles agreeable to our Creed And then in the third whence this allegation is taken hee saith that the Church having received this faith doth uniformly preach it and with one Mouth through all nations neither doth the more learned increase it nor the lesse learned diminish it Now this being spoken of the principall points of faith â—oth rather prove our unity in fundamentalls but not prove our Champions entire unity in inferiour points therefore it comes not home to the Authors marke but indeed he goes about to deceive the Reader when he brings it in as a proofe of that which it proves not Secondly this place makes mightily against the Papacy and that Confederacy for in the faith which Irenaeus sets downe in the foregoing chapter there is not one Article concerning the Popes Supremacy nor worshiping Images nor of praying in an unknowne tongue c. These therefore being now decreed by the Pope are inlargements of faith wherefore the Popes that thus inlarge the faith are by Irenaeus censured not to bee these Prelates of Churches who have most power and grace of speech yea not so good as the others of lesse grace but withall hee censureth them that they are above their master and their master being Christ it fits right with the saying of Paul That hee sits as God and exalts himselfe above all that is called God Hee comes next to Tertullian Tertullian shewes plainly that whosoever denyes any one doctrine of the Church rejects all for thus hee saith upon occasion Valentinus approveth some things of the Law and the Prophets some things hee disallowes that is hee disallowes all whiles he approves some The Author here also imposeth upon his Reader if wee may beleeve Tertullians learned but Romish Adnotator Pamelius For not to insist on this that the words are Omnia improbat dum quaedam reprobat he disallowes all whiles hee refuseth some from Pamelius we learne that these words are not spoken of all points of faith proposed by the Church much lesse if the Church bee taken for the Papacy but of the bookes of the Law and the Prophets which Protestants do by no meanes reject For this is Pamelius his sentence immediatly after these words Quod usque adâ—o verum agnoverunt alii scriptores ut disertis verbis scribant inter caeteros Damascenus quod vetus Testamentum reprobaverit This by other writers is said to be so true that they expresly write and Damascen among others that hee refused the old Testament And indeede hee that did deny the old Testament did deny more then one doctrine of
saved But how dangerous or deadly soever their faults were they fall directly on the Popish faction both in point of heresie schisme for they hold the like heresie to the Donatists That the Church is onely in the Popes party and accordingly by uncharitable schisme they cut off all those from their communion that are not of this party And now hee comes back againe to Irenaeus as if hee had found some new matter in him Nay Irenaeus whom I named before implies not onely that it is necessary for a true Christian Catholick to differ in no one point of the doctrine or faith from other Christians but hee must withall not beleeve any thing after a different manner that is to say upon a different motive from that for which it is beleeved by other Christians But what doth Irenaeus say being thus called back again He saith nothing for our Author only saith that hee implies just as St. Cyprian before was made to comply But what doth he imply That it is necessary for a true Christian Catholick to differ in no one point of the doctrine or faith from other Christians But is there any such sentence or implying in this Chapter Surely I doubt this Cavalier delt too much upon trust and hee whom hee trusted too much upon deceit I have read over the Chapter and can finde no such implying But I finde that which wee often object against Romists Traditions Why should wee leave the doctrine of the Prophets the Lord and his Apostles and hearken to those men when they tell us their errors The other inference from Irenaeus That a Christian must not beleeve by a different motive from that by which it is beleeved of other Christians is a point that is mortall to Popery For they making the Popes word or authority the motive of their faith herein doe differ from the motive of faith received by the Christians in Grecia Armenia and AEthiopia and so transgresse most dangerously and I doubt fundamentally against this rule produced and approved by the Author as from Irenaeus though there I cannot finde it And now after a just examination of these Allegations I cannot but inferre that There appeares a manifest losse of the cause when the places produced for proofe of it prove it not So that the Authors conclusion being no way made good by his allegations it is left still solitary forsaken and unproved And whereas hee saith For the present it may suffice to have proved the necessity of perfect unity in the Church wee must needs reply That hee hath most imperfectly proved the necessity of so perfect an unity And for the other piece of his conclusion That indeed no reason can bee given why if there bee allowed any more true Churches then one there should not be admitted aswell two thousand as two I acknowledge with him that not onely no reason can bee given of this but also of the Cavaliers speaking of no reason in this point For it is not denyed by us that there is but one true Church and if you make two you may make two thousand But wee deny that every little difference makes two Churches of one and this neither the Author hath proved neither doe his citations suffice to prove but let him here looke to himselfe and his fellow Romists whether they bee not in danger of making two thousand Churches who have made a second Church called the Church vertuall the Pope yea a third Church the Pope and his mysticall body for he is a mystery also but of iniquity which two Churches many eminent members of the Catholicke Church deny to bee that one true Church whereof they are members In the meane time Romish uncharitablenesse in damning Protestants remaines still as a proved truth seeing this Authors proofes for an imaginary perfect unity by which he undertooke to prove it an untruth doe not prove this unity and no such unity proved no untruth proved so they are still uncharitable and Protestants doe yet speake truth when they affirme their uncharitablenesse CHAP. VII A consideration of the Cavaliers fifth Chapter wherein to the great danger of the Papacy that is proved by Scriptures and Fathers which wee doe not deny That out of one true Church of Christ no salvation is to be found SECT I. This ground yeelded doth not produce any discharge whereby the Romists may be freed from uncharitablenesse in damning Protestants THe Cavalier fights on our side and against his fellowes wee are yet left in the Church notwithstanding any thing he hath said or alledged and he hath yet left salvation to us and uncharitablenesse to his owne Papacy And now we being left in the Church he goes about to prove that out of this Church there is no salvation So upon the matter hee proves that out of the Protestants Church there is no salvation But then what will become of the Papacy which will not be of one Church with saved Protestants And indeed except it were to speake for us and against the Papacy what need is there of these proofes for a point not denied by us For wee give him this at first onely for the asking That out of the onely true Church the body of Christ there is no salvation Yet will hee needs goe on to fight for a point which we confesse yea withall to fight for us against himselfe And indeede even where he would seem to fight against us hee doth it so loosely and far-off that it is hard to discerne how his blowes doe concerne us Let us see his first onset Since the Church of Christ our Lord is so truely one and but onely one it followes easily enough that no salvation can be had out of this Church and that every Heresie or Schisme is sufficient to deprive any soule thereof but yet neverthelesse to the end that men may bee wholly left without excuse or rather that they may bee the better warned to take heed in time of those miseries which otherwise they are to feele for all eternity I will strengthen also this truth by the Authoritie of some few Scriptures and Fathers of the Primitive Church for so by degrees it will easily and of it selfe appeare that wee Catholicks are not faulty in that wherewith wee are so much charged I confesse it is hard to finde out this Authors order and way his end or drift we know but the way by which he would come to it is hard to bee seene I am sure hitherto hee hath not made good his first steps in it and yet hee would seeme to proceed as if hee came neerer to his end by degrees when yet hee is still on his threshold for first though the Church of Christ be but one and it doe follow that no salvation can be had out of that one Church this as hath beene noted is no degree to the cleering of Papists uncharitablenesse in damning Protestants Againe it doth not follow that every Heresie in the Popish sense is
But wee see their errour was condemned before by Cornelius and Stephen Bishops of Rome even in the time of S. Cyprian And therefore if there bee no other reason the Donatists may escape the note of Heresie with S. Cyprian But indeede there were other reasons that might aggravate the errour of the Donatists beyond S. Cyprian and make it look more like Heresie A first may be a maintaining of their errour after much evidence and conviction by Scriptures A second because they made this errour a ground of an other errour That it was a just cause to divide from the Church because the Church differed from them in their errour This Cyprian never did for though Cyprian yeelded not obedience to the Pope having decided the point yet he held union with the Church even with those who differed from him in this point of re baptization which may be spoken to the shame both of the old Donatists and the new even the Romists that teare the Church into pieces for every little difference Thirdly the Donatists were thought thereupon to raise another errour contrary to an Article of the Creed That the Church was not Catholick and this the Cavalier might have seene in this very Treatise of Saint Austin ad quod vult Deum from whence hee fetched his former objections Lastly if any man will see the reason of Lirinensis whom this Author produceth he may thus receive it and adde it for a Corollary The Masters are absolved the Disciples are condemned c. whose wickednesse I judge to bee worthy of double hatred both because they feare not to deliver unto others the poyson of Heresie and because with profane hands they tosse the memory of holy men as ashes which were quenched and spread abroad a reviv'd opinion which should have beene buried in silence following herein the steps of their Father Cham who not onely neglected to cover the nakednesse of reverend Noe but also shewed it to others to bee derided As for the answer of Cyprian to him that made the question concerning the doctrine of Novitianus it doth not shew that they that obey not the Popish Church are Hereticks but that Hereticks are cast out of the Church for their Hereticall doctrines And such doctrines whose Authors and Abettors are for them worthily cast out of the Church are not worth the enquiry The Cavalier having passed through many untruths now comes to an impertinence fraught also with untruths Hee would faine prove that because there are some quarrells betweene some Calvinists and some Lutherans therefore Protestants are damnable Hereticks for disobeying the Pope in small matters But he knowes not how to tye this together scarcely with the Jesuiticall cart-ropes of vanity and fraud called Equivocation and mentall Reservation For neither of them doe charge the other with Heresie for disobeying the Pope yea not for disobeying the Church but as they would perswade others in their disputing vehemence for not rightly conceiving some passages of Scripture and I dare so much trust the Cavaliers honesty that he will not say that himselfe beleeves some of those slanders which himselfe produceth from Lutherans against Calvinists Such are corrupting the Scriptures concerning the glorious Trinity the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost And hee knowes or might know if he have but begunne with Bellarmines coÌ„troversies whom he names what Greâ—zer speakes of Hunnius one of the Cavaliers chiefe Authors that casts scandalls upon Calvinists in his Epistle prefixed to Bellarmines controversies For there he saith That Hunnius began a kind of writing right Lutherane that is Thrasonicall vaine-glorious furious I had almost said drunken yea he goes from the man to the kind and saith The Lutheran Preachers doe set forth their disputations as if it were upon Meade and Beere and so that they may seeme to smell of that which ariseth from both railing-slanders and madnesse Now if this testimony of Gretzer be true and whatsoever it be I thinke this Cavalier will not give this Father of his the lye then I wonder he would produce testimonies of such whose Disputations as saith his Father Gretzer smell of rayling-Slanders and madnesse So that indeed this argument seemes not to be so much a matter of earnest as of mirth even to make himselfe and his Romish Readers infernally merry with the bitternesse and contentions of christians yet it were not hard to shew patternes of such vomits of Gall brought up from Romish stomacks and indeede here they lye in sight but I had rather they should bee covered with ashes then bee stirred to annoy my Reader and my selfe with the savour of them Only I will give this Champion some animadversions one is that this is a stale objection long since dissolved by that reverend and learned prelate the ever honoured Bishop Iewell And this Bishop hath so torne this objection to ragges that I wonder this Cavalier would stoope so low as to take up such ragges which can never bee well sowed together againe and cloath his book with them A second that it were farre more like the spirit of Moses to say Why doe yee strive seeing yee are brethren then to gather this uncharitable and false Inference Because yee strive yee are not brethren I am passing from this Champions Untruths to his Truth but I cannot passe over an abominable fearefull and manifold Untruth not so much bounded in one part of this Chapter as arising from the whole For his maine drift and plot is and his words doe tell it us That let a point of doctrine bee never so fundamentall and necessary to salvation if his Popish Church doe not decide propound and command it to bee beleeved it is not heresie not to beleeve it But bee the point never so small if the Popish Church decide and command it to bee beleeved then must it bee beleeved upon paine of damnation Now what can bee said more to put the Pope above God to make him Antichrist and his followers Antichristians That which God saith may bee unbeleeved without note of heresie though it bee this maine point This is my beloved Sonne in whom I am well-pleased But if the Pope decide and command to bee beleeved that Gossips are such kinne that they cannot marry without incest not to beleeve this is certaine damnation fearefull blasphemies and unhappy Christians whose God is lesse then their Pope and whose Pope is above the highest God But as this makes way for the Mystery of iniquity so it leades fitly to the next point which is this Champions Truth wherein this Mysterie will bee more fully revealed SECT II. The Idolatrie of Papists 1. In making the Pope the foundation of Faith 2. In giving Divine worshâ—p to the Sacramentall Elements and to Images 3. In attributing the merit of salvation to their owne works is such as may sinke many of them into a damnable estate though it may bee charitably hoped of others that they are
saved who avoyd the mortall infection of these points and what caution must be used to preserve this Charity from crossing with Truth HAving discovered many Untruths in at least foure maine points of this Chapter wee are come to a fifth point whose truth is so powerfull that it overcomes mee and makes mee to acknowledge with the Author That it divides Protestants and right Romists so farre as salvation and damnation And I must cleere either side from uncharitablenesse in saying that these who faile in this point are in a state of damnation And it is very true that hee promiseth That this Reason strikes at the roote which is taken from the nature and propertie of Faith The point is this That whosoever doth give his faith and assent to all the Articles of Christian doctrine yet if hee doe it not upon the right and infallible motive hee hath no saving Faith Now hereunto wee subjoyne That true and right Papists or Romists doe not beleeve upon the true and infallible motive Therefore they can have no saving Faith And indeed though they have many and pernitious errors yet this is the great and generall error that makes up the Mystery of iniquity which wee call the Papacie and the Papists call the Church For the ordinary motive of faith in those who are the right and naturall members of the Head of that Mysterie is to beleeve the Articles of Faith because the Church whose mouth head and spirit is the Pope propounds and commands them to bee beleeved And this Author saith that the onely true and infallible ground is The Revelation of Almighty God and the proposition and direction of the Church Wherein first hee joyneth the Church with God in this ground of Faith and so gives as it were halfe of the ground of Faith to the Church from God and makes it halfe unsafe and damnable But even this halfe hee seemes elsewhere wholly to take away and so to leave men wholly to bee damned by a Faith wholly grounded on a motive which cannot raise a saving and supernaturall Faith for hee saith That if the Church hath not decided propounded and commanded a doctrine to bee beleeved by her children a man may thinke and doe as hee sees cause without incurring the crime of heresie Thus wee see that the Revelation of God is not a motive of Faith of it selfe but the Church is the motive of beleeving Gods Revelation so first wee see the Church to put God aside and to take place of him and knowing who is the Head Heart if not the Whole of this Church wee finde him just in his owne place and that is lifting himselfe up above all that is called God And secondly wee see the deadly motive and ground of Faith proposed by Papists to Popish soules even the word of a man and a Man of sinne on whom whatsoever Faith is finally grounded it can give nothing but damnation Neither are wee put by other Papists to lay pieces together to prove this their damning motive of Faith for besides the common voice of the people that they beleeve as the Church beleeves wee have before heard that the Rhemists acknowledge the Popes to bee an Order of Governors to whom wee are bound to cleave in Religion and to obey in all things And thereupon they infer that A Papist is a Christian man a childe of the Church and subject to Christs Vicar So the Christianity of a Papist and his being a child of the Church depends on his cleaving to the Pope and obeying him in all things But yet againe we may see it more acknowledged in their Writers Lorca brings forth Medina affirming that The Testimonie of the Church doth so farre partake of being the formall object or motive of faith that the utmost resolution of faith is into the authoritie of the Church and the proofes produced for it are to bee heard in the common language of Romists If it bee asked why thou beleevest the Trinity in Unity and thou answer Because God saith it It will then bee demanded of thee how thou knowest that God saith it thou hast no other Answer left but this Because the Church saith it and so are they taught in the Catechisme and so answer both the learned and unlearned Behold the common answer and common faith of Romists Now this object of faith being man and not God it cannot raise that supernaturall and saving faith whose object is the prime Veritie even God speaking to the soules of his servants And seeing this humane faith hath so possessed Romists that their Prophets doe make the obeying and cleaving to the Pope in his doctrine the very Character of a Christian and childe of the Church this Church consisting of these children thus adhering to the Pope is against such truely affirmed not to bee the Church and so may the Homily of our Church clearely bee interpreted which denyeth the Church of Rome that is the Pope and his Adherents to bee the true Church for thus to adhere unto the Pope and to lay beliefe on him is so farre from making a true childe and member of the Church that it makes a member of the Papacie and so of Antichrist it makes a Synagogue for Sathan and Hell and not a Church for Christ and salvation And whereas this Author both in this Chapter and the beginning of the eighth objects it to us that wee condemne their doctrines and account the Church of Rome to bee the Seate of Antichrist and the Synagogue of Sathan Hee hath here seene one reason of it and it is a reason of his owne and his fellowes even because the Romish Doctors and Champions tell us that the Church of Rome is made of those children which beleeve in the Pope And this faith being humane cannot make a Church to Christ but to the Pope and thus the Pope stands in the place of Antichrist for putting Christ out of his place and stepping into it whiles thus hee makes his sheepe to heare his voice before Christs yea both herein and often otherwise against Christ. But a second Reason may bee given of their calling the Church of Rome the Synagogue of Sathan the Church of Rome being taken in a larger sense even for all those parts of mankinde that have reference to Rome For they finde this Church of Rome overspred not onely with this false and Antichristian faith but with other mortall errours and abhominations such are grosse and almost universall Idolatry in the worship of Images and especially of the Sacrament confidence in workes for justification and merit and a grosse ignorance even a not knowing of Christ which before hath beene touched Now many seeing a field overcome with these deadly and killing weeds and so overcome that they seemed to cover the face of the field they tooke it to bee a field of Weeds and not of Corne And because the usuall manner of speaking is to say that a horse is blacke and
having that saving faith the Romists shew want of charity in damning those who are saved Hee was againe out of the way in bringing his owne Romists into schisme and damnation by dividing them from Protestants which have that one saving faith And now he goes further out of the way in removing the reasons that may make for unity though by unity with Protestants Romists may avoid uncharitablenesse schisme and damnation so it seemes hee is so earnest for division and dis-union that to attaine it he will hazzard both charity and salvation to his owne fellow Romists as a high price and farre above the value of that which hee would purchase though it were the richest jewell in the world Yet on hee goes upon this adventure And whereas differences amongst Romists are brought forth to make Romists more equall to differences among Protestants or to some differences betweene Protestants and Romists and likewise to make Romists thinke there may be a spirituall unity notwithstanding some differences because notwithstanding their owne differences they affirme there is an unity among themselves this the Author thinkes too peaceable and therefore strives to take it out of the way Toward this he is willing to deny that there are such differences amongst Romists and he strives to shew that they agree even in those things wherein they differ But differ they doe and strong evidences wee have for it which may hereafter be produced Neither indeede their Poeticall Heade of unity the Pope nor any one man on earth can make the whole Church to bee inwardly of one minde and soule but onely that Lord and maker of Spirits by his owne Spirit his true and onely Vicar For that one Spirit enlightning and guiding the spirits of men with one faith of one word delivered by the ministery directed and enabled by the same one spirit can onely make a true reall internall and spirituall unity And accordingly S. Paul leading us to the unity of faith thus rightly ordereth his words toward unity One Spirit one Lord one Faith And thus hee goes on and sheweth how this one spirit of one Lord which inwardly workes this unity of faith in the Lords body outwardly also concurres to the working of it by the gifts given to the ministery For this working without in the ministery and inabling them to teach one and the same doctrine of saving faith and inwardly working in the hearts and soules of Christs members these members are brought into the unity of faith and so into one body of Christ and as in this body of Christ there are different members of different measures and capacities by the different gifts of the spirit so these different capacities doe not reach or containe one measure of divine truth Christ the Foundation and Head is made knowne to all his members for by this knowledge they become his members and so have they all unity in so much divine truth as knits them to Christ But by reason of their different measures some attaining such holy truths of which others are short there must needs bee a difference in the apprehension of those truths to which some attaine and others doe not come yet in all is a settled desire and purpose to beleeve the whole truth revealed by God if it be also revealed to them that it is the truth of God And so whatsoever force was in the Champions speech That true spirituall faith beleeveth the whole Body of divine doctrine makes not against us but for us and much more for us then for them For we upon the right motive which is God speaking in his word doe beleeve plainly whatsoever we conceive and what we doe not conceive wee beleeve in purpose and intention And thus have wee perfect unity while in the fundamentalls we have an actuall unity of faith and in the lesser points an unity of purpose and will But in this true and kindly unity one Spirit not one Pope doth cause inwardly one faith And againe that one spirit giving gifts to men not to one man outwardly bringeth to the inward unity of faith And indeede that none but the spirit the true vicar of Christ can make this solid spirituall and internall unity it appeares by the confession of the very Romish craft which hath coyned the Pope to be the head of unity For that they might make and prove him to be such they have put him into the place of the holy Ghost and made him the Vicar of Christ accordingly they say that the holy Ghost speaks by him and so the speech of the holy Ghost being infallible verity is a right ground of unity A foule errour and without ground of Scripture which never since the departure of Christ from earth tyed the holy Ghost to one man so that from him the whole Church should fetch Oracles and resolutions But indeed it is a high and blasphemous imposture which puts the Pope in place of the holy Ghost And when this man speakes it pronounceth of him as the people of Herod The voice of God and not of Man And how little this differs from Montanisme I wish Romists would consider who reduced the promise of sending the Comforter Christs Vicar as Tertullian cals him to be performed in Montanus And the very same place doe the Romists apply to the Pope which was applied to Montanus but yet thus it appeares That even they that erre in the application yet hold truth in the position That the holy Ghost is the true root of union though erroneously and blasphemously they put the Pope into his roome and make the voyce of the Pope to bee the voice of the holy Ghost And surely the Pope himselfe plainely shewes that hee doubts his owne spirituall power of making unity and therefore hee flyes to the grosse and materiall instruments of unity the Sword and Faggot And so calling downe fire on those that obey him not if he have any spirit it seems it is not that spirit which Christ said was the Evangelicall spirit of the Apostles but rather of him which is called the Destroyer And indeed this device of man to make unity of faith by one man called the Pope being thus thrust into the place of the Spirit of God as it proceeded from the spirit of errour so hath it made unity in errour as the last best of Popes Gregory the Great did in a manner prophecie but it never will make unity in solide and universall Faith and Truth for the beleevers in this counterfeit head of unity have both gotten from him an unity in many errors and have beene left in many great and weighty differences whereof there is little hope of resolving them into union the sight whereof turnes our eyes from this humane and fictitious Head of unitie to the true roote and meanes of unity set forth by the Apostle And because this Author strives to put away from mens eyes the differences which arise under this false Head of union let us shew him
other that hee erreth in the faith and the other retorts the same against him yea this happeneth not only between two particular Divines but between one Schoole and another And indeede these dissentions even to the imputation of heresie doe shame the Pope this infallible judge of controversies for not resolving them and doe almost plainly confesse that he mistrusts his owne infallibilitie and that he doubts it is scarce trusted by others for it is likely the feares either that hee shall not rightly resolve or that both sides will not quietly submit but that some of those who have that burning zeale which consumed the Dominican will bee inflamed against him for his resolutions Fourthly even against decision there is opposition and so are they at division and particularly in that great and weightie point of Idolatrie For that which the Romists call the second Councell of Nice and acknowledge to be a lawfull Councell saith plainely of Images thus Illis salutationes honorariam adorationem tribuant non tamen secundum fidem nostram veram Latriam quae solum divinae naturae competit So that Lorca after the producing of divers testimonies of this Councell thus inferreth Vis autem omnium testimoniorum consistit in hoc quod Imaginibus expressè conceditur adoratio expresse etiam eis negatur Latria And soone after Concilium non solum excludit Latriam sed explicat speciem adorationis dicit enim adorandas esse honoraria adoratione sicut Liber Evangeliorum And hereunto agreeth Pamelius speaking of this Councell as hath before beene alledged Yet Latria or divine worship being thus plainly and as Lorca 〈◊〉 expreâ—sly denied to Images by the Câ—unâ—â—ll great and learned Romists plainly say that Latria or divine worship is to be given to Images even the same worship which is due to the patterne So saith â—â—zorius and Bellarmine acknowledgeth that this was the dâ—ctrine of Alexander Aquinas Cajâ—tâ—ne Bonaventure Marsilâ—us Almaine Carthusian Capreolus and others And accordingly wee reade of a Doctor of Sivill questioned of Heresie for agreeing with the councell in denying Latria contrarie to these Doctors Upon that which hath beene said I inferre that our objection of Romish disunions yet stands firme because there are maine disunions objected by us against Rome which this Author hath not touched and so stand still strong against him among which is eminent that incurable difference of headship it selfe betweene the Pope and the Councell to which some adde the fearfull division of the Popedome when in a schisme the Papacy is two or three headed two or three sitting at once as heads of the Church and others adde the division of successive heads the one denying and annulling the acts of the other SECT III. The weaknesse of the Cavaliers answers are manifested First for Romish differences are not onely of such points as are left at liberty by this Church Secondly their pretended religious orders are so many different Sects and Fashions in the Church Thirdly the distinction of explicite and implicite faith doth fortifie the Protestants objections and no way salve them WHereas to our first objection of difference concerning varietie of opinions in some points found in their Books he gives this first answer That wheresoever they finde our Doctors to bee of a contrarie opinion they shall also finde those points in question not to have beene defined by the Church but left at libertie to bee debated and disputed as men see cause This is plainly overthrowne by that which hath been produced in our fourth observation of Romish differences For there wee see a point oppugned and denied by Romish Doctors which hath been defined yea the power of the Councell above the Pope hath beene defined by Councels and is denyed by Romists To which I may adde that the Popes power hath beene bounded within the limits of a Patriarchate by divers Councells which yet Romish Doctors doe not onely dispute against but utterly deny Besides when they object one to another de Fide The meaning of it in plaine English is this They tell their fellowes that they hold a point contrary to the definition or doctrine of the Church And whereas hee speakes of unity by referring themselves to the future definition of the Church this is no answer for the differences of those who do dispute and deny those points which by the Church are already defined for it were absurd to say that they who doe now not submit to the definition of the Church are ready to submit to it hereafter Againe for those points which have not beene defined certaine it is that for the present they are at very hot contention and difference and their resolving to obey the future definition of the Church doth no whit prove their present unity who are presently at division while the Church doth not by defining make unity betweene them Two that have a question and a quarrell upon the question and upon this quarrell kill one another may as well bee said to agree because they both would referre themselves to the next man that comes Which man not yet coming nor reconciling the difference they in the meane time notwithstanding this supposed future agreement doe presently fight and truly kill one another Except by this Popish sleight wee may truly say that these men being at full agreement and unity were divided and upon this division which was indeede an agreement did fight and kill one another True it is that it is the more shame for the Pope who hath knowne these controversies of the Dominicans and others of a long time And for a while as Vasques saith did forbid them but most wisely though not like an infallible Head of unity deferres to resolve them and so to set them at unity but gives them leave still to dispute and differ being affraid perchance on one side to run against the chiefe Disciples of Evangelicall Thomas and on the other side to lose the profit that comes by the many pretious consequences of free-will Besides when they be not agreed which is the Church that hath supreme power to decide controversies whether the Pope be above the Councell or the Councell above the Pope and if the Pope be of one opinion and the Councell of another how doth he that submits himself to the Church by this submission put himselfe into a way of unity or not rather of division And if such a submission make an unity the Protestants are at unity much better then Romists for they submit themselves to the one and undivided word of God truly opened by Apostles and Pastors endued with gifts from on high by the same spirit which endited it and was given of purpose to cause unity of faith And whereas hee gives a second plaister to that first objection of differences of points not defined that they doe not breake unity of peace nor erect Altar against Altar I say this plaister is much shorter then the sore for
first there hath beene shewed a sore called difference in points defined and points de fide And by the Authors rule they that hold any one point of faith contrary to Romish definition are not of Romish faith nor Church therefore if they bee of a divers faith or Church their Altar is against the Romish Altar Secondly for their peace notwithstanding these differences I dâ—sire to know whether that should be called peace when a Dominican is burned by Franciscans and a Canon in Sevill is condemned as an Heretick for a point either not defined or defined for him by the second Councell of Nice And againe what peace is that betweene the Priests and Jesuits when the Priests call them Hereticks Traytors c. Surely hereby it seemes the peace that is among such is but a warre under the name of peace and this name or title is forced by feare of the forged but fiery and burning head of unity for even the infernall kingdome it selfe hath some bond of unity though not of verity and charity And accordingly the Papacy agreeth under a head called Abaddon and Apollyon And indeede this Author himselfe hath shewed us that where there is a difference in any point of faith upon such a difference one should be to another as Cerinthus to Saint Iohn So that if they hold communion still it seemes by his rule it is not a spirituall but a carnall communion not a communion of Saints but a communion that is faulty and whose fault is this that it is a communion But I say againe to this Author that his owne Answer will be turned against him as an unanswerable objection For if Romists being at such differences in opinions can yet hold communion one with another why do they not hold the like communion with other Christians that maintaine the like differences But herein lies a mystery and it is the mysterie of iniquity And if the Reader know it not I will bring him one that shall teach him Lorca plainly tels him that he is no heretick that beleeves contrary to any Article of faith so he do not rebell against the Church So the Pope the Church vertuall is the whole matter of Popish religion and Popish unity Beleeve the Pope and obey him in what hee saith upon his word and though you beleeve not Christs word in any Article of faith you have both faith and unity Disobey Christs command of beleeving the very Article of Christs Incarnation if you beleeve the Pope and bee the Popes good subject you shall not be an heretick Accordingly it is said of the Divines of Coleine they held an hereticall opinion in that point which the Cavalier magnifies by calling it the Justification of souls yet they were not hereticks but godly Catholicks And of Catharinus he held contrary to the Councell in the point of assurance yet was a catholick Bishop And others before named by Bellarmine contrary to the Councell of Nice in the point of Image-worship yet in being good Papists they are good Catholicks So the Pope is the summe of Popish religion and unity And is it our unhappinesse that because we beleeve not in the Pope but beleeve in Christ our beliefe in Christ will not serve our turn for religion unity and salvation But now in his Answer to the second objection somewhat like a right Cavalier of Rome he runs at Tilt against Calvin and thus he breaks his Lance on him The next objection is yet more stupid then the former and I wonder how Calvins rage against the Church could put him so farre out of his wits as that hee would ever take it into his mouth For it is hee who being pricked with our noting their want of unity towards their fellow Brethren thinks to retort it back upon us by saying that wee are not in case to object any such thing against them for asmuch as that forsooth wee have as many Sects among us as we have severall Orders of religious men and then hee reckons up Benedictines Carmelites Dominicans Franciscans and whom he will Wicked man who well knew that none of these holy Orders doth differ in any point of doctrine from any of the rest and are so farre from breaking communion with them as that still they prevent one another in all honour and good respect All this wee must take upon his bare word and his title also which he giveth to Calvin wicked Calvin yet well fare the honest Belgicks purgers for when Calvin was named they in stead of Calvin did put in studiosus so upon the matter they called him not wicked but studious Calvin But why wicked Calvin because he knew that no one of those Orders doth differ in any point of doctrine Did Calvin know this or doth any man yea the Author himselfe yet know it We come but now from the differences of Jesuites and Priests Dominicans and Franciscans c. And this Authour himselfe confesseth there that each opposeth the contrary opinion by all arguments that occurre Besides it is no new nor strange objection that divers covents have their severall Masters whom they follow Againe look on the Jesuites doctrine of killing Kings doe all Friers agree in these doctrines upon which much more justly may be cryed out wicked Mariana wicked Friar Clement wicked Barradius wicked Garnet doctrines in my opinion plainly contrary to the faith since the faith is plainly taught by the Scripture in this point And I think more hereticall it is to deny and contradict such a point being thus plainely taught in the Scripture by David Solomon Peter and Paul then to deny what the Pope hath decided by letters sent from Rome unto Trent But will you see this Authors ingenuity hee accuseth Calvin but produceth not the place whence hee taketh his accusation the neerest place that I finde is not for the Authors purpose for there Calvin retorts not the want of unity of faith among the Friars by the diversity of Sects among them But Calvin shewes That the Friars by dividing themselves from others in the Sacraments and publick Assemblies did dissolve the Communion of the Church and depart from it and excommunicate themselves And he saies that so many Ministeries as there be of this kinde so many Assemblies of schismaticks he saies not hereticks as differing in faith which troubling the Order of the Church are cut off from the lawfull fellowship of the faithfull And that this departing should not bee secret they have given to themselves divers names of Sects Neither were they ashamed to boast of that which S. Paul doth so much detest In stead of Christians wee heare some called Benedictines some Franciscans some Dominicans So that here we find neither mention of Carmelites nor indeed of differing in points of faith but of a schismaticall separation from other Christians by different sects expressed by different names And to them hee might have added Jesuits who by a more neer separation have
divided Jesus from Christ and so themselves from Christians though as it hath been told them and as it is said by a Pope from S. Paul all Christians are called ad societatem Iesu Christi to the society both of Jesus and of Christ 1 Cor. 1.9 But surely if this be the Authors place in Calvin it is likely hee hath either forgotten Calvin or was not trusted with the reading of Calvin and some one that was trusted but not trusty told him it would serve his turne and deceived him As for the wonderfull wisdome which this Author speciously sets forth in the differences of those Order That wisdome is here come to passe which Solomon condemneth when he saith Be not wise over much for humane wisdome hath so far wrought herein that Orders have been multiplied far beyond the gifts of continency yea above the good both of Church and Common wealth And so far were they as this Author saith from stripping themselves from earthly incumberances to fly fast into heaven that too much they stripped both Laiâ—y and Clergy of earthly maintenances and therewith have made to themselves fleshly incumberances But of this wisdome before hath been given to the Reader such a representation that I think it appeared to him not to be spirituall but carnall earthly and divelish if not in the invention yet in the execution and therefore for brevity thither I remit the Reader Only I wish the Author would prove what hee saith by some place of Scripture That God inspired the Founders of Orders with severall spirits and that there is a speciall spirit with which an Order was first endued especially if that Scripture were rightly applyed by Abbot Whitgift That Monkery was a plant which the heavenly Father planted not and therefore should bee pulled up by the rootes Which Prophecie was soon after fulfilled in this Land The Cavalier comes now to dismount a third objection of Protestants concerning Romish difference which ariseth as hee saith in regard of the differences betweene learned and unlearned men which hee assayeth to take away by a distinction of explicite and implicite faith in this manner A man is said to have explicite faith of any article or doctrine when he hath heard it particularly propounded to him and hath some particular knowledge thereof and gives particular assent thereunto But as for implicite faith of any article or doctrine a man is then said to have it when hee beleeves that concerning it which the Church teacheth them explicitely who are capable thereof although for his owne part he have not perhaps so much as heard of it in particular or if he did hee hath forgot it or if he did remember it he hath not capacity enough to apprehend or understand it And when he hath shewed this distinction he labours with great vehemency to prove it and affirmes That without this it would be wholly impossible to maintaine any Church in any unity of faith at all and finally concludes That this sword of ours is turned into a buckler wherewith to defend them First for the pains he takes to make good this distinction hee takes it to make good our objection and so labours for us and against himselfe for upon this distinction being grounded we ground our objection and say that this distinction leaves even the like differences amongst Romists for which they accuse and damne us and leaves no better unity among them then it leaves among us And if thus then it is both a sword in our hand to hurt them and a buckler also to defend us against them neither have they any buckler to defend themselves against this sword much lesse will this sword that wounds them become a buckler to defend the wounds which it selfe gives But the onely safe way is with that King who comes with the weake side to send Ambassadors for peace to the stronger Now to shew that this distinction being strengthened doth strengthen our objection and so is a true sword against Romists I say That in those points of faith which are beyond the explicites or fundamentals are called implicites there are differences among Romists as well as among us and these differences are not onely such as are discovered by the ell by which the faith of the unlearned is found shorter then that of the learned but the Cloth it selfe within the measure of the learned is torne into pieces and the learned themselves doe differ in the beliefe of the said points among themselves as well as from the unlearned And this hath bin shewed before and is indeed a part of D. Whites undertaking formerly mentioned I may instance in a point or two Transubstantiation is an Article of their new faith and not usually reckoned among their explicites the one part of the learned hath beleeved that the substance of Bread being abolished the Body of Christ is brought to the place of it another part beleeves that the substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christs Body which I nothing doubt was the first meaning of this new doctrine each confutes either And an unlearned man that stands by may easily being over-weighed with the reasons of both either beleeve neither or somewhat else of his owne And indeede I my selfe have asked one of their Proselites whether he would chew or teare the body of Christ with his teeth and he told me that he did not think that their Doctors would say it so also in the point of Image-worship a matter of deepe consequence and much concerning life and death yet by them left among Implicites One side of the Doctors holds a plaine worship of the Image of Christ with Latria or divine honour and others hold this honour given properly to Images to be Idolatrie and either give it improperly or give an inferiour reverence or no religious reverence at all But the unlearned man when he sees the Image set in Churches covered with gold turning his head and eyes weeping working miracls saith with the Lycaonians Gods are common to us in the shape of men and thinkes hee cannot worship God too much and therefore doth it with all his soule and all his might even with a perfect Idolatrie Now are not these differences of momeÌ„t among them in their Explicites many more such there are which it were too tedious to repeat indeed their differences must needs bee much more then ours because many of their learned Explicites are errours and in errours there can never bee a full agreement for if any one hath that good spirit which maks discovery of them he commonly is opposed and contradicted by the others errour as here the not worshippers of the Image with divine worship is opposed by the worshipper Besides he that is in the darke and sees not what to beleeve if he beleeve any thing he can but beleeve an imagination of his owne and not a reall ttuth and so must needs differ from him who seeth
the truth and beleeves it being seene As for their unlearned who walke most in the darke though sometimes it may happen two blinde men may stumble upon one path yet it is impossible but that mostly they must differ in their opinions concerning that which they know not And whereas our Author would faine make these differences to be an agreement by a resolution to beleeve what the Church teaches we have already shewed that this resolution doth no way make thē actually to agree that actually do disagree And the Canon of Sivill I think would scarcely have beleeved the Inquisitors if they had told him Wee agree with you about Image-worship because we both resolve to beleeve as the Church teacheth though we condemne you for an Heretick because wee doe not agree And indeede there is no possibility of making an actuall agreement in those lesser points because of the different capacities and degrees of faith And God in the Scripture hath not promised such an actuall agreement to all the members of the Church in all lesser points of doctrine for he hath not promised a full and uniforme discovery of them to all Yea it hath been shewed out of your owne great Doctor Stapleton by a Roman Catholick that in the discovery of small points the Church is not infallibly directed And even therefore I conceive that this distinction was first framed to give leave for that difference which necessarily followeth humane ignorance and which even by the Cavaliers confession cannot be avoided in different capacities and measures of faith And yet having acknowledged such a necessity of this distinction he both labours to deny the differences on his owne side for which this distinction was necessarily made and which the very making of it doth acknowledge and hee labours to accuse our differences which this distinction would excuse as well as his owne So it is still a sword against Romists to confound them whilest they deny their owne differences neither can the forge of Rome ever turne it to a Buckler to defend them in this deniall But it is a Buckler to us to defend us from their objecting of differences against us seeing this distinction doth both acknowledge a necessity of some lesser differences and so excuseth us And thus may wee come to a sight of the unity of faith in the Church For in the explicites that is in fundamentalls of absolute necessitie which knit unto Christ the foundation there is and ought to be an unity and this substantiall unity may cover the incurable differences in the lesser implicite points being held by Infirmity and not with Contention Scandall and Schisme For unity in fundamentalls doth take away the damning censure of differences in lesser points when there is a will of beleeving right in these points but a want of power to attaine this beliefe And so these differences in lesser points not being put upon account for the will of unity in them and for the reall unity in fundamentalls this reall unity in fundamentalls is accounted an entire or at least a solid and saving unity So that the unity is not to be reckoned from this that all doe actually agree in this beliefe of all lesser points for in divers of these points divers doe necessarily differ but because their unity in fundamentalls and a will of unity in these lesser points wherein they differ the imputation of smaller differences being thus taken away are accounted to them for an entire or at least for a sufficient unity And this truth is in not much unlike Tearmes to bee seene in Tertullian Regula quidem fidei una omninò est sola immobilis irreformabilis credendi scilicet in unicum Deum omnipotentem mundi conditorem Filium ejus Iesum Christum c. But hereof more must bee said in the following Chapters wherin the Author brings us to fundamentalls being himselfe indeed necessarily brought to them by this former distinction of Explicites and Implicites yet hee goes about to fight against that unity which is established by this distinction and against the distinction which himselfe hath established and so will bee accounted a Trespasser by destroying what hee hath built but indeede this distinction being resisted by him will resist and overthrow him In the meane time this stands still firme and unremoved That the Romists have great sharp and weighty differences among them as weighty if not farre weightier then Protestants and therefore they want charity to Protestants in damning Protestants for such differences while for the like or greater differences even de fide they are bountifull to give salvation each to other and this they doe because they are servants of one Master the Pope whose service wee wanting should indeed be no more hated for this freedome then Israel for being delivered out of the bondage of Egypt Yet both then and now wee see the Egyptians make after us with violence and malice hating us for no other fault but for our freedome from Egypt But God that then beganne and after made good his worke of deliverance I hope will do it also for us and he will be above them even in that wherein they were proud above us and cover the Sea of Rome the mother of uncharitablenesse with a Sea of confusion CHAP. X. Containing an answer to the Cavaliers eighth Chapter wherein he quarrells at the distinction of Fundamentall and not Fundamentall and is divided into three Sections SECT I. First Sheweth the Protestants separation from Rome to bee reasonable though it bee true that some in the Church of Rome may bee saved Secondly That the Papists are the faulty causes of that separation A City generally infected with the plague and a few persons onely being free will it bee thought a reasonable question to bee proposed to some that flye from this City Why doe yee flye since you know and acknowledge that all are not infected to death but some live in this City But if the King of that Citie should banish all that should say that the Plague were in the Citie yea would put them to death were it not yet a farre more unreasonable question to aske those who had given out such a report Why doe you flye that are banished and Why doe you flye that must die if you flye not Yet such are the questions of this Author in the head of this Chapter of which it seemes that the repetition might serve for a confutation It is the acknowledgement and complaint of a sonne of the Church of Rome The chiefe cause of the calamitie of the Church is to bee ascribed unto them who being puff'd up with the vaine pride of Ecclesiasticall power have proudly and contemptuously despised and driven away those who rightly and modestly admonished them c. And againe Those who speake to them of amendment that exhort them to bee healed yea that offer their helpe to effect it they not only cast out and drive from the fellowship
of the Church but also in many places have judged them miserably to be slain which thing seem to have given the occasion of this wretched schisme See here Rome diseased and her healers cast out that tell her of her diseases yea cruelly slaine And now if the Author be not ashamed let him aske why Protestants fly from Rome yea let him aske of Saint Iohn the Divine why men should go out of Babylon that they may not be partakers of her sins nor of her plagues and of Christ himselfe if they persecute his members in one City why should they fly into another and of the blinde man in the Gospel why doe you stay out of the Synagogue when you are cast out Surely when the Author useth these questions what will his Readers think but that hee is very unreasonable to have Protestants stay where they are cast out or where they must bee spiritually or corporally slain for staying This unreasonablenesse of his puts me in mind of a Captain who espying his enemy going up Ludgate hill faster then hee could follow him having drawn his sword called out to him and sware that if he did not stay he would kill him but the other beleeved that if he had stayed hee should bee killed and therefore went away the faster So this Cavalier when the Pope drives out Protestants before him with excommunications pestilence fire and sword hee cries after them that they shall bee damned if they stay not whereas they doubt that they shall be damned and killed if they stay indeed this was a great fault of theirs that they did not stay to be killed that by taking their death patiently the Pope might goe on with selling Indulgences and his other merchandizes quietly Yet may you heare the Cavalier even cholerick in such unreasonable questioning With what colour could certain single base and filthy men have presumed to depart from the visible Catholick Church of Christ our Lord and to erect their conventicles as they did if they had not at least professed that they could not finde salvation there Where first wee acknowledge the titles to be of the Authors meere bounty out of a Romish Treasurie of charity mistaken and because they beare the superscription of Rome we send them back to Rome as being theirs and not ours But secondly wee deny that they departed from the catholick Church for in the second Chapter we have shewed that Protestants have still communion with the catholick Church they fled not from health but from the plague not from salvation but damnation not from the whole but from the sick Neither did they fly only but were cast out and banished and not only cast out but in danger of death if they stayed except they would deny that the plague of Rome was a disease The remnant that hath salvation there they pity and love as their living brethren in a deadly Pesthouse or Israel in Egypt sweating under the burdens of brick and under the whips of Egyptian and Romish Taske-masters And whereas the Cavalier speaks of Conventicles to his griefe hee sees that they are not shut up in private Conventicles but have obtained large Congregations And being excommunicated from the Romish Synagogue as the blind man from the Jewish Iesus hath found them and vouchsafed his communion to them and he not onely converseth with them but teacheth them he hath taught their Teachers by giving them gifts from on high and hee hath taught the hearers by writing his Lawes in their hearts he hath given them the spirit of prayer and praise and they have prayed heartily against Babylon her Idolatries Invasions Treasons and being heard they have given prayses for the ruines of Babylon and the deliverances of Sion and having such encouragements from Iesus can you blame them if they meet in Congregations where Iesus thus meets with them and is in the midst of them with his grace and blessings As for this Nation whom this Authors words by the language hee writes in should chiefly concerne wee have a true Church and an orderly Reformation Cassander a better Romish Author being Judge And whereas the Cavalier accuseth at once both our straightnesse and our largenesse That being fallen into straights wee become so bountifull and large as to affirme that the differences betweene us concerne not the fundamentall points and that Romists may bee saved I thinke that the Author may misleade his Reader both in our straights and our largenesse for we are at large where he counts us in straights and wee are straighter then his words of our largenesse would seeme to import for few Protestants that I know doe say without limitation That Romists generally may bee saved yea our Author himselfe will not suffer them to bee saved though they hold fundamentals for if they hold them by a humane faith because the Pope their friend tels them so his owne doctrine will not suffer them to bee saved But indeed for those that beleeve fundamentals by a supernaturall faith wee doe say that they may bee saved by this faith But of this in the former Chapter wee have spoken more fully onely let this Authour know that wee doe it not for any straights as hee would perswade but out of largenesse even largenesse of veritie and charitie and I may returne the saying of Saint Paul to all true beleevers even in Sodome and Egypt Yee are not kept straight in us but in your selves for a recompence bee yee therefore enlarged for wee justly expect a returne of the like acknowledgement of our salvatiom from all true members of Christ and say That the denyall of it according to the Authours words Layes an heavie charge of uncharitablenesse upon the denyers SECT II. The Cavalier is angry at the distinction of matters fundamentall or not fundamentall 1. Because some Popish vanities are thereby excluded 2. Because the Popes power to make sleight matters fundamentall is denyed HEe goes on both to cleare and condemne us in this which followes This discourse of theirs and their standing so much upon fundamentall points of faith in the sense which they use is a meere Chimera but it is frequented by them through an high kinde of craft For though it bee most true That some doctrines are in themselves of farre more importance then some others because the knowledge thereof may bee necessary for the performance of some duty which is required at our hands or else because they may containe the very heads and first grounds of Christianity more then others doe and therefore doe exact a more explicite beliefe at the hands of Christians and consequently may be accounted in some respests more fundamentall c. Here though they seeme to accuse us of an high craft and of a Chimera yet withall thus farre hee acknowledgeth our Truth and cleareth it from being a Chimera That some doctrines are of farre more importance then some others containing the very heads and first grounds of Christianitie more then
others doe and therefore doe exact a more explicite beliefe and consequently may bee accounted in some respects more fundamentall This I desire the Reader to observe because this confirmeth that which hath beene formerly spoken concerning the agreement between Fundamentals and Explicites and must serve hereafter for a Confutation of his owne objections against Fundamentals In the meane time that which paines him for the present is this That wee doe not beleeve every Decree or Errour of the Pope as well as these important grounds of Christianitie for thus hee presently subjoyneth There is no doctrine at all concerning Religion the beliefe whereof is not fundamentall to my salvation if the catholick Church propound and command mee to beleeve it So the Cavaliers quarrell against us is this That wee doe not make the worship of Images kindred of Gossips and such popish vanities fundamentall to our salvation as the Articles of the Trinity and Christs Incarnation A fearfull blasphemy and which should make his heart hate his hand for writing it but they well deserve to bee given up to the beliefe of such impious errours who receive not the love of the truth revealed in the word with duâ— estimation For such will easily equall the word of Man to the word of God and will not suffer the word of God to stand for a sufficient saving verity nor a sufficient ground of unity except man give his word for the word of God and Man add his word to the word of God For if the Pope give his word for a doctrine contained in Gods word then his Popish disciples must receive it and untill that they may without heresie not beleeve it and if the Pope adde his word to the word of God Gods word is not a sufficient ground of unity but the unity made by that word is to be torne in pieces if withall we do not joyne the word of the Pope in one beliefe with it Thus is the Pope made Christs Rivall and takes the faith of the spouse from her husband to himselfe And so whereas he would accuse us of an high craft our craft is no other then that simplicity of S. Paul by which hee did labour to espouse the Church as a chaste Virgin to one Husband which was Christ But this Romish doctrine is the very craft of the old Serpent and Dragon which goes about to seduce Eve the patterne of the Church from her Husband and to marry her to the Pope or rather to make her his Adulteresse But let him remember Whoremongers and Adulterers especially such great ones God will judge Yet this would hee approve by that which followes For there is no errour in faith which may not bee made damnable by the manner of holding it when it is done so obstinately as that in defence thereof a man denyes the authority of the Catholick Church But briefly I answer First that the Church cannot make a point of faith of that which is none Secondly Stapleton tells us that the Church hath no promise to bee infallibly directed in the decision and resolution of small or light points and so the Church not having this infallible direction cannot have authority to make such points fundamentall nor to command faith to them where she hath no infallible direction in them Thirdly the Church in these lesser points not having this authority hee doth not disobey the authority of the Church who beleeveth not these points which she hath no authority to command as points of faith Fourthly if the Church were this foundation and could make a point fundamentall yet the Pope and his confederacy for whom this Author fights is not the Church Fifthly the same Popish Church hath taught and propounded many grosse errours and untruths for points of doctrine which are so farre from being fundamentall to salvation that they shake the very foundation and so are rather fundamentall to damnation But here I cannot but complaine of this Author in that hee useth craft which himselfe accuseth for while he goes about to lay the Pope the Chimera of Rome for a foundation of faith hee names him not in his whole booke but still tells us of the catholick Church let him come forth plainly out of his Covert and shew us his catholick Church even the Pope and his adherents if he be not ashamed of them and not thus draw disciples to a fancy and a piece of Poetry under the reall and reverend name of the catholick Church But this may serve as a caveat to the Reader that the Cavalier tells us of the Church when the Pope is his errand Another point whereof he seemes to be ashamed is the worship of Images which he never reckons among the doctrines of difference but if it please him he may now fitly conjoyne them together and then his discourse may runne thus If the Pope decree the worship of Images it may be fundamentall to salvation if with the deniall of Idolatrie the Popes authority bee denyed Yet our Author having spoken that which is proved to be fearfully untrue in his sense that what the Pope and his conspiracy under the name of the catholick Church doe propound and command to be beleeved is fundamentall he is bold to say This untruth is unanswerably proved by the meere catalogues of heresies which have beene made by severall Fathers of the Primitive Church and especially by S. Austin in his Treatise ad quod vult Deum which I have toucht before and which I earnestly exhort my Reader to peruse at large This is so farre from being unanswerable that it hath beene answered and our Author can never make it good that those points which hee acknowledgeth to be of little importance in themselves were there declared to bee fundamentall for being obstinately maintained against the decision command of the Pope and his Councell eâ—ther private or publick so that the Author onely makes up with boldnesse and undertaking what hee wants in evidence and proofe And as in the following piece hee preferres his Reader to the sixth and fifth Chapters so I also referre him to the answer of those Chapters and there besides other solutions hee may see that the example of Saint Cyprian makes mightily against the Popes authority since it plainly appeares that Saint Cyprian did hold the Popes fallibilitie when he plainly held the contrary to that which the Pope had decided And thus being put besides his premisses hee is also deprived of his conclusion The distinction of points of faith into fundamentall and not fundamentall doth stand still in such full truth and power that the unbeliefe of points not fundamentall doth not presently forfeit salvation though the same points bee decided by the Pope and his conspiracy much lesse doe worship of Images Prayer in an unknowne tongue salvation by merits the Popes supremacy especially taken for a foundation of faith though decided and commanded by the Pope cause damnation by being unbelieved but rather by being believed
SECT III. The Papists as much bounden to declare their Explicites as the Protestants their Fundamentalls This distinction may bee rightly used for the manifestation of our union with the Fathers to prove the perpetuall visibilitie of the Church professing the same Fundamentalls with us but unjustly objected as a ground of our severitie against Papists who are punished here as Traytors for overthrowing the foundations of State not as Hereticks for contradicting the foundations of Faith HEe goes on I should bee glad to know of the Authors of this distinction what points of their faith which are controverted betweene them and us or betweene the Lutherans and them are fundamentall and which are not fundamentall Then he sayes That a fundamentall point being such that whosoever beleeves it not cannot be saved there is nothing which more imports a man exactly to learne then what is fundamentall and what not and yet there is absolutely no one thing which hath beene so frequently and so importunately desired as that they would give in some exact List or Catalogue of all and the onely fundamentall points of faith and yet there is no one thing wherein wee are so little satisfied and which upon the matter they doe so absolutely refuse And yet as hath beene here expressed if according to their grounds a man should faile of beleeving any one fundamentall point of faith by his not knowing through their fault that the point which he beleeved not was fundamentall hee must bee sure to perish and that for ever First to his question what are fundamentalls and what not hee ought to give an answer himselfe for hee himselfe hath told us Page 74. That some doctrines are of farre more importance then others because they may containe the very heads and first grounds of Christianitie more then others doe and therefore exact a more Explicite beliefe and consequently may bee accounted in some respects more fundamentall It being then acknowledged by him that there are such doctrines of farre greater importance then others that exact a more Explicite beliefe and are more fundamentall why doth hee not answer himselfe concerning that which himselfe affirmeth and yet withall questioneth Let him truly tell us or himselfe if hee please which are those doctrines of more importance that containe the heads of Christianity and are more fundamentall and give us a List of them and wee may tell him or hee may tell himselfe an answer to his question And then also may he by this List as by a Touchstone and Rule finde what differences betweene us and any others are fundamentall and not fundamentall So that hee being herein ingaged himselfe either hee hath spoken that whereof hee cannot give an account or else askes of us an account of that which hee knowes and wherein hee can answer himselfe And indeede the Authors owne partners or rather leaders have layd the foundation of these fundamentalls in their Explicites for their Heads Articles and Grounds of Religion to which they require an Explicite beliefe are such as those which we call fundamentall yea not onely wee but the Author himselfe calleth such points more fundamentall and his owne Priests call them positively fundamentall Besides the very rules of faith mentioned and rehearsed by Tertullian and Irenaeus and other Fathers the Symboles and Creeds of Nice other Councels and of Athanasius and Lirinensis his precipua Capita or chiefe Heads yea hee hath the word fundamentall are summes and acknowledgements of such fundamentals And now how can this Authour either bee so farre uncatechised as not to know such grounds of Religion or call Protestants the authours of this distinction and how can hee object any thing against Protestants or require any thing of them but object the like against his owne Teachers yea against the Fathers of the Church and require the like of them Accordingly how can hee aske an exact List and Catalogue of Fundamentals of Protestants more then of Fathers yea of his owne Doctors and Masters And indeed let him bring an exact List and Catalogue of all the onely Articles of Faith contained in the Fathers rules of faith and an exact List of all and the onely Explicites of the Romists and hee may quickly receive a Catalogue of our Fundamentals But this Authour is here againe exceedingly out of his way and that the Title of his Chapter might tell him by the warinesse of it for his businesse is not to deny a distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals in regard of greater or lesser importance of the Articles themselves but this being granted to adjoyne and superedifie that though this distinction doe stand yet even points of lesser importance and in themselves not fundamentall may bee made fundamentall by the command and authority of the Pope So that his quarrelling at this distinction is not onely a quarrell from his errand but a quarrell against the Fathers and a quarrell against himselfe and against his fellow-Romists and if hee make quarrels against himselfe and his fellowes why may wee not leave them and him to make up their owne quarrell among themselves And accordingly whereas this Authour makes a fearfull noyse how dearely it concernes men to know which are fundamentals wee might turne him to get an answer for this out-cry from himselfe and his fellow-Romists yea from the Pope himselfe for Romists say that the Explicites are such points that hee who doth not know them cannot bee saved Then the Authours terrible words doe thus warfare against himselfe putting Explicites for Fundamentals That there is nothing in all Christian Religion which imports a man more exactly to learne then what are these Explicites without the knowledge whereof none can bee saved And an exact List and Catalogue should be given of these Explicites which yet the infallible Pope hath never given to his Papists So that if a Papist should faile of beleeving an Explicite by not knowing it to bee an Explicite hee must be sure to perish and that for ever Yet the Cavalier in wrath and warre against unity proceeds further in fighting against his owne confessed and undeniable distinction of Explicites and Fundamentals and hee so proceeds that it may easily bee seene that his anger puts out the eye of his judgement or carryes him beyond the kenne of it For thus hee saith Whereas if either they framed not the distinction of Fundamentals at all or else would clearly let men know which points alone were fundamentall then this would follow That whensoever wee should convince them in any particular Doctrine which is denyed by them and which yet was beleeved by the ancient Fathers they would bee obliged to confesse that either that point was not fundamentall which would dis-able them from railing at us for beleeving the same or else that the Fathers were of a different Religion in fundamentall points from them and that in their owne opinion those very Fathers could not bee saved which would put them to much prejudice
another way Here leaving to the Authour his owne terme of railing wherein I wonder hee should delight but that I see elsewhere hee takes pleasure in the mentioning of scurrill and blasphemous Invectives I say that some errors bee not fundamentall which are found in the Fathers and now maintained by Romists yet wee are not disabled by this distinction to reprove Romists for them for wee doe not say in this distinction that no errours should bee reproved but those which are fundamentall for even lesser errours are to bee reprehended but wee say that these errours in lesser points doe not breake the unity which by greater and more fundamentall points is made betweene Christ and his members and betweene the members themselves And secondly wee say that Romists are much more to bee reproved if they hold any errours of the Fathers now in controversie betweene us for these controverted errours have beene now by the Scriptures more evidently discovered to bee errours and it is a thing farre more worthy of blame if a man should runne into a ditch by day then if he should stumble into it by night But whatsoever exactnesse this Authour may require or imagine in this distinction this exactnesse being granted it will never make it to appeare that wee differ from the unanimous beliefe of the Fathers in the maine points mentioned in their rules of faith now called Fundamentals And for his Argument concerning the Lutherans it doth not endanger us for if the Lutherans should bee found by this distinction to differ from us in these fundamentall points which should unite them to Christ it is no hurt to us to renounce the communion of those who renounce communion with Christ. And on the other side if by it they bee found to differ from us in points not fundamentall it would bee no danger nor just disreputation to us to avow those points wherein wee differ not to bee fundamentall but wee will much rather disavow the quarrels which are made where there is no fundamentall difference The period which followes as farre as it is a true Narration of our way of making peace by this distinction with the Fathers and the Lutherans is a commendation both of the distinction and our peace-making by it But by the way I deny That Romists have brought us from denying via facti That the Fathers taught the doctrine of Praying to the Saints or for the dead in the sense and manner of Rome for the Fathers did not unanimously teach praying to Saints I am sure Saint Augustine who was above 400. yeers after Christ doth deny Saints to know ordinarily the affaires of the living which happen after their decease And for prayers for the dead in Purgatorie the Cavalier cannot shew a good patterne for more yeares then the former As for the difference in the number of Canonicall Bookes which it seemes this Author is sorrie that it is not avowed to bee fundamentall it is not altogether new but ancient and wee see it at this day in the Syriack and it were pitie to cut off from salvation all the Churches and Fathers which ever differed in this number yea he must damne many Romists if hee will make this difference fundamentall They that beleeve all necessary saving truths though they bee not fully perswaded that just so many Books were wholly indited by some one of the Apostles or Evangelists I know now how this Author may damne them if these saving truths being beleeved doe save them sure I am that in their owne Explicites or points of importance which wee call fundamentall and they say must bee knowne and beleeved under paine of damnation they doe not mention any names much lesse the number of Canonicall Bookes So it seemes by their owne doctrines the names and full number of the bookes of Scripture are none of their owne Explicites and Fundamentals but other points beleeved may serve to save such beleevers And if such may bee saved though they know not the set number of Books why would you have us to breake unitie for a point the not explicite knowing and beleeving whereof in your owne doctrine doth not exclude salvation Hee goes on and objects a second good use that wee make of points fundamentall which is a proofe of the visibility of our Church And true it is That if there have beene still a visible Roman Church which hath held points fundamental until the Reformation begun by the Protestants then is that visibility since that time still continued by us The former we leave to the Romists to prove for their owne sakes and the later we can very easily prove for our selves And whereas hee repeats but confutes not that some of ours have said that there is no necessity that the Church must have been continually visible I tell him that if this were an absurd Doctrine as he terms it they were led to this absurdity with a great shew of reason For not to run out at large into the common place of visibility when Lirinensis saith at the deluge of Arianisme The whole Romane Empire was fundamentally overthrowne and removed And we reade elsewhere the Pope himselfe was turned Hereticke where was the visibility of the Cavaliers Romish Church it selfe But I need not to dwell much on the defence of this doctrine because he only confutes it by the Epithite Absurd and because that which followes next most concernes the present businesse though this also is a rehearsall and not a confutation Some few of them affirme when they are urged by us to shew that visible Church of theirs that theirs and ours doe make but one true Church and so in shewing the visibilitie of ours they doe withall as they say shew their owne to have beene visible And these men tread in this way because they well know that no other Church but ours can indeed be shewed to have beene visible through all ages since Christ our Lord. But I must here deny his repetition if by the word Church he meane the Pope and those that have made him the foundation of their faith for these and ours wee say not to be one Church with us because they have changed the foundation But if you meane those that by beleeving fundamentalls have fastned their faith on Christ the true foundation wee allow That our Church hath beene one with them and hath been visible in their visibilitie yet avoyding this That hee can ever prove that other Churches have not beene as truly and continually visible as Rome for it will still trouble the Author to shew that the Churches of Greece and Africk have bin lesse truly visible then Rome since the Primitive times of their first conversion And now this Authoâ— being past our use of fundamentalls for visibility yet walkes on though beyond his right businesse but hee that is out of the way in his maine matter of making division to excuse Romish uncharitablenesse may well walke into by-wayes in his prosecution
of it yet I cannot deny that hee hath two Errands one to bring forth a jest upon our Fox and his followers under the names of Fox and Geese But if it had pleased this Author duly to follow this Fox in the reading of his Martyrologie he might have found out the true Fox that followes and teares and destroyes those whom our Author by a new Metamorphosis and Romish transubstantiation hath changed into Birds His second Errand he thus expresseth I finde when they are put to name their particular Professors of former ages they doe but muster up those severall single false doctrines which have bin held by other heretiks by Retaile during ten or twelve 〈◊〉 since Christ our Lord many of which doctrines togethâ—r themselves doe now professe in grosse for what other men of former times did they ever or can they ever name as men of their Religion but such as beleeved some one or two of those hereticall doctrines which now themselves embrace and wherein they are contrary to us But all this as it is not very pertinently brought in to excuse Romish uncharitablenesse so it is not very truly objected for wee can prove our doctrines which hee calls heresies by the Fathers and Scriptures and the Scriptures he cannot deny have beene beleeved above twelve ages Besides Popish Authors doe acknowledge that the Waldenses agree with Protestants in more then one or two doctrines for they are said to bee more then twenty wherein wee agree with them And though afterward this Cavalier affirmes it yet hee proves not that for other points these were expresse hereticks in the Protestants opinion neither doe we hide any fundamentall errours in them which we object against Romists But if these had not beene in the world it is most true that the maine point of Popery which is the Popes tyrannicall headship of the Catholick Church the very root of Idolatries errours and divisions hath in all ages been denyed since it was first broached But our Author is still much displeased with fundamentalls because by them wee have unity with those who have heretofore differed in some doctrines from their Papacy for saith he If it were not for this distinction no man could bee of the same Religion with any other that is not wholly of the same Religion so farre forth at the least as that he must not obstinately deny any one doctrine thereof whether it bee important more or lesse when once as hath beene said it is lawfully and sufficiently propounded and commanded to bee beleeved by the true Church as it is true and certaine when Luther rebelled from the Church of Christ our Lord nor in any age before his time there was in the whole world any one Kingdome or Countrey or City or Town or Family of men or Pastours or Flock yea or any one single person so much as of Luthers own much lesse of the now Protestant Religion which is now forsooth so farre refined beyond his Here the Cavaliers true Church being that confederacie whereof the Pope is the head hee would faine dissolve that solid unity which is made by fundamentals in Christ Jesus the true head to mak a fictitious unity in the Pope But if hee should cast off this onely true and substantiall ground of unity which knits together all the sound Churches that are at this day or ever have been through all Nations on the face of the earth since our Saviour to make an unity by agreeing under paine of damnation in all points propounded and commanded by the Pope and his Church of Rome whether important more or lesse hee shall not onely by this meanes breake the unitie of all the true Churches on earth into pieces but of Rome it selfe For to returne almost his owne words Since the Pope who hath rebelled against Christ and usurped the Headship of the Church first coined and established a Religion in Trent neither then nor in any time before there was in the whole world any one Kingdome or Country or City or Towne or Family of men or Pasture or Flocke yea or any one single person who by a supernaturall Faith which this Authour onely approves did imbrace the whole body and every Article of the Trent Religion Yea even at this day it is not received in divers parts that beare the name of the Church of Rome much lesse in Greece Armenia Syria Ethiopia most of which either know not or acknowledge not this Councell nor the Popes Supremacie All these therefore refusing any of these Articles must be torne in pieces from the body of Christ and cast into Hell fire Thus the Scarlet Whore drunke with the bloud of the Saints speaks in the right voice of the Harlot If she may not have the whole childe let it bee cut in pieces Let the Church be distracted and damned if the Pope may not be her Lord and her Tyrant And so whereas Christ was a head that gave himselfe to death to save his body from damnation is not hee an Antichrist that throwes the body of Christ into hell and damnation to make himselfe the head But in a third place hee objecteth not an use of ours but an abuse of his owne For hee abuseth his Reader in saying to him That the making of this distinction betweene Fundamentall and not Fundamentall points of Faith and the resolving not to declare which is which doth save them with a great part of the ignorant world from the imputation of rigour in their proceeding with us For how could they persecute as they doe without extreme note of cruelty But neither the making nor hiding of Fundamentalls is the cause of prosecuting Romists in this Kingdome but the cause of their punishment hath been their owne making of Treasons miraculously revealed by Gods goodnesse notwithstanding their hiding even in the vaults and depths of the earth And though there were no Fundamentalls of Religion but only Fundamentalls of State the Fundamentalls of State are very plain and cannot well be hidden which justifie the execution of Rebells and Traitours But of this some proofe hath been given in the beginning of this Booke and the Authour will call for more towards the end As for that which followes Yea or even how could they dissent without apparent impiety from our beliefe and practice of those Doctrines wherein wee have had and still have prescription of so many ages if the contrary thereof should be confessed by themselves not to be Fundamentall It is so weak that I wish that some childe and not the Cavalier had spoken it to save his reputation For will any man say that it is impiety to dissent from others in ancient errours though these errours be not Fundamentall Tertullian might have taught our Authour much more wisdome who upon the custome of an errour not very Fundamentall thus saith They that have received the holy Ghost preferre truth before custome SECT IIII. Sheweth the differences amongst Popish Divines about their
and expressing of other Articles so it is said by the Councell of Chalcedon that the Additions in the Creeds of Constantinople concerning the holy Ghost was onely that the Essence and God-head of the holy Ghost might thereby bee more cleared and expounded And Ruffinus speakes to the like effect A second reason of this variety might be the various measure of capacities Some measures of understanding and faith are small and it is not to bee denied but that some Articles which are now necessary to be particularly knowne and beleeved were then knowne onely and beleeved in grosse without danger of salvation And that there is now no toleration of lesse degrees in this kind for weaknesse of faith or shallownesse of capacity I thinke wise men scarce dare to affirme A third reason of this variety may be the various affection and intention of the designers of these heads For one perchance would be sure not to exclude any man from salvation that hath any true though never so little interest in it by the knowledge of never so few fundamentalls and therefore this man contracteth them Another hee feares lest by the lessening of them thereby to include the salvation of some others may bee excluded from salvation by not knowing or not beleeving those points which are lessened and therefore enlargeth them Now these reasons being given to defend this Authour and his fellowes against himselfe I will adde essayes of some certainty upon this variety A first That certainly so much must bee knowne and beleeved of God in Christ Jesus as may unite us to him and so make us partakers of his death and resurrection unto remission of sinnes and regeneration And therefore ordinarily his Incarnation Death and Resurrection are certainly to be knowne and beleeved Secondly That so many Heads and Articles as conduce to this union may be called Fundamentall because they knit and unite us to Christ the foundation Accordingly more of these points being knowne to one then to another and the more points working the union in one and the fewer in the other the more may be called Fundamentall to the one and the fewer to the other so a great house built on a rocke and by more stones knit unto the rocke then a lesser may bee said to have more fundamentalls then the lesser yet both have as true an union with the rocke each as other Thirdly it is good in teaching to enlarge the points as much as may be so to give a full measure of fundamentals for the largest measure of knowledge and capacity that no measure may want his fulnesse But in censuring to damnation it is good to contract the measure as much as truth will possibly give way to charity that the least measure of saving knowledge and faith be not damned Fourthly as the Teacher should enlarge his teaching so let not the Learner voluntarily shut or contract his learning knowing nor beleeving the grounds of Christianity but goe on as farre as his measure will give him leave untill hee have found Christ Jesus dwelling in his soule by his Spirit and by that Spirit witnessing to his soule that he is a Sonne of God even an heire annexed with Christ For then and onely then shalt thou have a comfortable certainty of the sufficiency of thy fundamentalls when thou feelest thy selfe an habitation of God by the Spirit Besides if God intend to lay in thee the foundations of a palace do not thou contract them into the foundations of a cottage CHAP. XI In opposition to the Cavaliers ninth Chapter containing a vaine Challenge of Protestants for not daring to declare their Fundamentalls divided into three Sections SECT I. Wherein are confuted his Cavills against the Apostles Creed as not containing all points Fundamentall THe title of this Chapter and the Chapter it selfe are at some discord For the title saith That the Protestants neither doe nor dare declare what are their fundamentall points of Faith and the Chapter even in the first words saith this It is usuall with many to affirme that the Apostles Creed containes all fundamentall points of Faith So it seemes that Protestants doe declare and doe not declare their fundamentall points and the Title beats them for not declaring and the Chapter beats them for declaring Thus the Protestants must bee beaten howsoever not indeed for declaring or for not declaring but because they are Protestants A right marke of faction which commonly makes an ill construction of all even of the good actions of those against whom it is factious But let us see how hee chastiseth us for our declaring These men when they are pressed grow soone ashamed of that opinion when they are told that in the Creed there is no mention made at all either of the Canon in holy Scripture or of the number or nature yea or so much as the name of Sacraments But let this Authour consider whether hee ought not to be ashamed who thus casting shame on Protestants casts it also on the Fathers For doe the Fathers in their rules of Faith make mention of the Canon of Scripture or the number or of the name of the Sacraments Let him survey them in Irenaeus Tertullian c. and hee shall see that they doe not And yet Tertullian saith of the rule of Faith Nihil ultra scire est omnia scire Againe doe you not thus cast shame on your own fellowes For do not many of your owne Doctors in their Explicites called by your selfe more fundamentall leave out the Canon of Scriptures and the number yea the nature and name of Sacraments If therefore they do say that it is a mortall sinne not to know explicitely these important points which are more fundamentall then may they bee ashamed to leave their Disciples in mortall sinne by not naming the Canon or number of the Sacraments explicitely to be beleeved And if you cleare them you shall cleare us also But withall give me leave to aske even in defence of these your fellowes Doe you thinke that no man can be saved that doth not know the number of Canonical Books if he beleeve the fundamentall points contained in those Books Or doe you thinke that one who was baptized in his infancy not knowing then the vertue and use of the Sacrament of Baptisme and dying before he come to the knowledge of the use of the Eucharist may not bee saved by beleeving in Christ and being regenerate by this faith Your owne Jesuite Becanus may stop your mouth when he saith That Faith is not so stirred up by the Sacraments that it is the effect of them and that otherwise the Sacraments would not profit children So till you answer him doe not require of us to bring in Sacraments as fundamentalls of that faith which is denied by your owne to be an effect of them But you are soone weary and I hope ashamed of this point and therefore wander to another not much more of kinne to
many whatsoever this Authour saith have not deprived themselves voluntarily of marriage but have taken it upon them as a yoke and burden which neither they nor their Predecessors were able to beare many sinking under it unto the very pit of Hell And let them labour with their wits and pennes so much as they can they will never by reason nor by the lives of their Priests disprove Christs truth That all men cannot receive it nor prove their owne untruth That all men can receive it And surely the Fornications Adulteries Murders and pollutions that have issued from this Law of Coelibate I doubt not cry aloud to heaven against Rome as once against Sodome for that sore to which it is condemned Hee adds further In like manner Saint Peter saith That Saint Paul in his Epistles had written certaine things which were hard to bee understood and which the unlearned and unstable did pervert to their destruction Saint Augustine declares upon this place that the places misunderstood concerned the doctrine of Iustification which some misconceived to bee by faith alone by occasion of what Saint Paul had writ to the Romanes and of purpose to countermine that errour hee saith that Saint James wrote his Epistle and proved therein that good works were absolutely necessary to the Act of Iustification Hereupon wee may observe two things the one That an errour in this point alone is by the judgement of Saint Peter to worke their destruction who imbrace it And the other That the Apostles Creede which speakes no one word thereof is no good Rule to let us know all the fundamentall points of faith To this I answer First That this Authour goes on still upon a false ground as if wee said that all errours in faith that may damne men were fundamentall and expressely against some Article of the Creede Whereas wee have often affirmed That any errour though not fundamentall may damne men that by a lively faith hold not rightly the fundamentals and so are without Christ. And it seemes that these men were not well grounded and founded by fundamentals in Christ Jesus whom Saint Peter calls unlearned and unstable and their errour the errour of the wicked A generation of vipers turne wholesome food into poyson and abuse Scriptures to their owne condemnation But secondly That faith doth not justifie but that good workes are absolutely necessarie to the Act of Iustification is most untrue and against Saint Augustine himselfe Untrue for a man is justified by faith in Christ and not by his owne merits which in your language are good workes as divers of your owne Authours affirme And a man in the instant of his Justification may dye before he hath had time to do good works and yet his Justification may be good And it is against Saint Austin even in the same place whence the former saying of Saint Peter is taken where you may find that commonly knowne sentence of his Opera sequuntur justificatum non praecedunt justificandum Good works follow justification and doe not goe before it So that whiles this Authour observes two things hee gives more then two scandalls to his Reader For first hee chargeth falsly not Saint Austin onely but Saint Iames with holding this errour That good workes were absolutely necessary to the act of justification And then secondly he will make him to say that the not holding of this errour is an errour which may worke their destruction that embrace it Yea thirdly that the Apostles Creed is no good rule to let us know all the fundamentall points of faith because it speakes no one word to teach us that the Cavaliers errour is a fundamentall point of faith Lastly his owne Doctors doe bring into their Explicites our faith in Christs passion resurrection for justification but not this his Article That good workes are absolutely necessary to the act of justification And if they doe not why doth hee require it of us in our fundamentalls SECT II. Wherein his Exceptions against the 39. Articles of Religion established in this Church are answered BUt having quarrelled in vaine with the Creed to prove the insufficiency of it for fundamentalls now hee comes to the Articles where he thus begins Others say that the Booke of the 39. Articles declares all the fundamentall points of Faith according to the Doctrine of the Church of England but this also is most absurdly affirmed For as it is true that they declare in some confused manner which yet indeed is extremely confused what the Church of England in most things beleeves so it is true that they are very carefull that they bee not too clearly understood And therefore in many Controversies whereof that Book speakes it comes not at all to the main difficulty of the question between them and us and especially in those of the Church and Free-will While the Authour speaks of a confused manner and which is extremely confused his words do returne upon himselfe and his owne discourse For that he may make his discourse confused it seemes hee makes use of this doubtfull word Declare For if wee say That the Booke of Articles declares our fundamentalls of faith wee doe not say it declares all the knots of questions which are between us and the Romists For it is well knowne there are divers controversies between us and the Romists which are not of fundamentalls And neither the Fathers in their rules of Faith neither Romists in their Explicites doe declare the knots of questions which may arise even concerning fundamentalls themselves if the fundamentalls be so expressed that their true and saving sense may bee received and beleeved by the working of that Spirit which makes Christs sheep to hear Christs voice They that thus beleeve shall bee saved though they know not all the knots which cunning and erring men doe make They that write rules of Faith Explicites and Fundamentalls doe not in the same undertake to write all knots of controversies which concerne them And the Cavalier doth not find them in his owne Doctors among their Explicites wherefore the answer which he makes for them let him take for us Secondly for his particulars of the Church and Free-will First for the Church Doth our Church hold that the visibility and inerrability of the Church are fundamentalls And if shee doe not how can this Authour accuse her for not shewing fundamentalls because she shewes not those points which she doth not hold to be fundamentall The Church is not the foundation of the Church but she her selfe is built on that onely foundation Christ Jesus And even your owne men are not agreed about making the Article of the Church one of the Explicites or at least agree not in declaring these points of controversies concerning her to be explicitely beleeved And for Free-will I might aske first Doth this Authour find in any of his Doctors this knot of Free-will for an Explicite But secondly Doth the Councell of
that hee himselfe can by name say that we admit him So it seems wee had no great depth in hiding the name of Saint Iames which our Authour as shallow as his pen runs did so easily find But I confesse I am sorry both for him and my selfe for him that hee is troubled with working such Cob webs and for my selfe that I have the labour of sweeping them away Yet will hee needs goe on in such industrious vanities But abstracting from all these insincerities wherewith that booke of Articles is full fraught they doe not so much as say that the Articles of Doctrine which they deliver are fundamentall either all or halfe or any one thereof or that they are necessarily to be beleeved by them or the contrary damnable if it be beleeved by us But they are glad to walk in a cloud for the reasons which have been already toucht Our Author commends the booke of Articles while he calls the Insincerities of it These Insincerities that is these which before have been shewed to be invisible and no Insincerities Insincerities only in the eye of the Author which did cast the shape of them on the booke when he read it But saith he They shew not which are fundamentall and which are not Neither did they ever promise you that they would do so The fundamentalls are said to be there but no man said for ought I know that there it was shewed which are fundamentalls and which are not Your selves hold points of importance which are more fundamentall and to bee explicitely knowne and doth every Romish Councell tell you which are these points and which are not And if it doth not why doe you demand it of our Church in her Synod more then of your own Or if you can excuse your own why doe you quarrell with ours It was not the intended much lesse promised businesse of our Church there to distinguish fundamentalls from superedifications but to set downe both fundamentalls and superedifications And these being taught to her children the Spirit of Christ the foundation will discover the fundamentalls to his members and thereby settle them on Christ and further build them up by the superedifications according to their appointed measure And I have before shewed how our fundamentalls may bee discerned though I may say somewhat like to that of our Saviour to the Jewes Why of your selves discern ye not that which is right and rightly fundamentall For if you know how to find out these grounds of Christianity which must bee explicitely knowne which your selves acknowledge to be more fundamentall you may easily find out our fundamentalls so that all this is but an empty out-cry to affright the Reader with noise without reason thus to call for a designment of fundamentalls where none was undertaken and where in like case your selves do it not and to quarrell with fundamentalls which your self and yours do acknowledge Yet when Romists have agreed of the set number themselves let them send to us their Catalogue defined by a Synod and it may be we may deale with them upon exchange The Cavalier goes on Master Rogers indeed in the Analysis which hee makes of those nine and thirty Articles speakes loud enough by way of taxing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as being contrary to that of the Church of England and hee gives it 〈◊〉 many ill names as his impure spirit can devise and affirmes among other things that many Papists and namely the Franciscans blush not to affirme that S. Francis is the holy Ghost and that Christ is the Saviour of men but one mother Jane is the Saviour of women a most execrable aspersion of Postellius the Iesuite with a great deale of such base trash as this And yet his Booke is declared to have beene perused and by the lawfull Authoritie of the Church of England permitted to be publick But yet even Master Rogers himselfe is not so valiant as to tell us in particular which point of their doctrine is fundamentall to salvation and which is not True it is that Master Rogers doth very clearely and audibly speake against and condemn divers errours of the Church of Rome as being not onely contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England but to the Word of God with which commonly he confronts the errours which hee brings forth to judgement And among them hee sheweth some errours of a high nature which make Saviours of Merits and Masses and Popish Pardons yea which carry the faith of the soule from God unto man the Pope and his Councels And for ought I see hee doth not give worse names then the purest and holiest Spirit gives to the Pope who calleth him the Man of sinne and sonne of perdition c. And the impurity which this Authour at his owne costs and upon his owne word layes on him Mr Rogers layes on Rome by proofes and allegations as in divers places so particularly in the nineteenth Article Propos. 7. whereof the Title is this That the Church of Rome most shamefully hath erred in life ceremonies and matters of faith But for that to which this Authours spirit gives the ill name of base trash it is brought in as the filth of his owne Associates and testified by other Writers and therefore the basenesse of it most justly should light on them that are the first Authours of it Neither is it strange amongst Papists to make creatures to share salvation with our Saviour the hymnes concerning the milke of the blessed Virgin the bloud of Thomas the vertue of the woodden Crosse singing it aloud in the ears of the world Filthinesse and basenesse most abominable and that deserves to bee swept out of the Church with detestation and to bee carried out as the Filthinesse out of the holy Place in the Reformation of Hezekiah And why in an equall judgement should not Master Rogers his Books much rather be permitted to bee publick for naming such filthinesse with detestation then Rome allowed to bee Catholick though using such filthinesse with practicall approbation Lastly The want of valour in Master Rogers to tell us which point of our doctrine is fundamentall and which is not I thinke is no just accusation because for ought I know hee did not undertake this as his businesse neither had any Romish Cavalier yet challenged him upon this quarrell SECT III. Wherein is discovered the vanity of his boasting That the Protestant Church is unlikely to define which are the fundamentall differences betwixt them and the Papists since they scarce dare avow any difference at all HEe goes on Much lesse is there any appearance that ever the Church of England should doe it since even now wee have seene that it dares not in divers points so much as declare in publick manner that it professes the expresse contrary of what wee held Nay wee are not likely to see the fundamentall points of faith whereof they talke so loud to bee avowed by so much as either
best is hee who by a fundamentall faith is built upon Christ the true foundation can never be damned by unbeleeving any Article of faith created and coined by the Pope a counterfeit foundation And here while the Authour doth quarrell with the poornesses of the Doctour not being able to maintaine a combate with his richâ—s it seemes hee doth it with a greater poornesse For what a poore quarrelling is it with the Doctour for saying That Papists will not let Protestants to bee saved though they beleeve the same Creed except they will beleeve the same Mathematicks and govern themselves by the same Kalendar when thiâ— Authour knowes his meaning and expressed it himselfe in the words nearly preceding That the Romane Church makes â—oyes fundamentalls And might not the Pharisees thus have taken a poore exception at our Saviour for saying that they strained Gnats whereas they strained not Gnats but payed the tythe of Mint and Cummin Besides he doth not say that it is really so done but premising this When every thing must be called Foundation wee shall never know where to stop where to consist If we should beleeve their Sacrificium incruentum their unbloudy sacrifice in the Masse if we did not beleeve their Sacrificium cruentum too that there was a power in that Church to sacrifice the bloud of Kings wee should be said to be defective in a fundamentall Article If we should admit their Metaphysickes their transcendent Transubstantiation and admit their Chimiques their Purgatory fires and their Mythologie and Poetry their apparitions of soules and spirits they would bind us to their Mathematicks too and they would not let us be saved except we would reforme our Almanackes to their ten daies and reforme our clockes to their foure and twenty houres for who can tell when there is an end of Articles of faith in an arbitrary and occasionall Religion So the Doctour only shewes how such an unlimited making of fundamentalls may goe on in a perpetuall procession it having already made things not so profitable as Clocks and Kalendars Articles of faith and points fundamentall Witnesse the Service in an unknowne tongue the Lords Supper without wine c. But the Cavalier fights in earnest with this supposition and tells us that Romists doe rather governe themselves with the lesse perfect Kalendar which now is used in this place Yea hee gives a morall of this their deed letting the world see thereby how willingly we can accommodate to them in all things which belong not meerly to Religion The controversie of Kalendars I leave to the Critickes of time to bee decided and rectified in their emendatione Temporum But the argument of accommodation taken from our Almanackes is retorted by a greater argument remembred in our Almanackes For when in them wee see the Papists Treason on the fifth of November wee are thereby put in mind that Papists doe not accommodate to Protestants in all things that belong not meerly to Religion For it is not meerly a matter of Religion for a King to sit in Parliament and yet the Papists would have accommodated him by blowing him up with powder thus sitting in Parliament But the Cavalier having thus spoken to ill effect to amend the matter brings not forth the Doctours words but his saying to this effect But that the Reader may be his owne guide and the Doctour the speaker of his owne effect and the Cavaliers faire carriage may more plainly appeare I will here confront the Doctours words with the Cavaliers The Doctours words are these Call not superedifications foundations nor call not the furniture of the house foundations call not ceremoniall and rituall things essentiall parts of Religion and of the worship of God otherwise then as they imply disobedience for obedience to lawfull authority is alwaies an essentiall part of Religion The Cavalier thus repeats him That difference in beliefe in points which are not very important is not to prejudice a mans salvation unlesse by not beleeving them hee commit a disobedience withall For saith he obedience indeed is of the essence of Religion I thinke that the Cavalier seeing his face in this glasse finds that it lookes red with blushing at the mis-reporting of the Doctour The Doctour speakes of ceremonies the Cavalier reports him speaking of differences in beliefe The Doctour speakes of ceremonies commanded by lawfull authority the Cavalier of points of faith commanded by the unlawfull authority of the Pope But if it please him to remember what hath been already told him That the Church much lesse the Pope hath an Inerrability in points of small importance and where she hath no Inerrability she hath no authority Again in respect of the different capacities of the hearers all are not capable of every little point and subtlety of faith and I thinke no Pope hath power to command his disciples to beleeve that which their capacity is not able to understand But lawfull Rites or Ceremonies not being points of faith but of action and being easie to bee understood the obedience to lawfull authority in them may more concerne the essence of Religion then obedience to the Pope in those small points of faith wherein the Pope hath no unerring power and no authority to make a lawfull command for the people doe not sinfully disobey where the Pope hath no lawfull authority to command The Author having thus lost his premisses and proofes yet goes on to a conclusion which cannot but be lost in the losse of his premisses so that his concluding inferences This shall serve for discharge both of what they object against our unity in faith and of what they alledge in the behalfe of theirs And I conceive that I have sufficiently secured these two maine grounds upon which this whole discourse is turned are but commendations of a false conception and of a discourse which is turned upon grounds over-turned For neither is his first ground sufficiently secured That there is but one true Faith and one true Religion and Church out of which there is no salvation the word Out being understood in the sense of the Authour that is That if a man be out of the faith professed in the Church in the least haire part or degree that there can bee to him no salvation Nor more secured is his second ground That Catholicks and Protestants cannot possibly be accounted of that one Religion Church and Faith For as it may be true that Protestants and all Catholickes doe not agree in every small title and mite of faith yet it is most true that true Catholickes and Protestants are so entirely of one saving Faith and Religion that they are also of one Church And from these Catholickes I desire not to exclude all of the Romane Diocesse But indeed Papists whose humane faith is grounded on the Pope as their foundation being ready to beleeve Idolatry Treason or whatsoever the Pope shall decree for a matter of faith these I know not how to account members with us
Wherein a vaine boast of the Romists confidence in maintaining their Religion by Excommunications is confuted And an inconsiderate charge That treason is pretended against Papists Priests in this Realme because wee dare not avow the punishing them for heresie is retorted BUt I wonder no lesse that this Cavalier should withall boast of his Catholicke Church That shee is so farre from obliging a man that beleeves not in his heart as shee teacheth under pecuniary mulcts to repaire to her Service and Sacraments that she will by no meanes admit him thereunto till hee have first cleared himselfe of that suspicion and sufficiently shewed himselfe free from any such want of beliefe For first what kind of converts are those whom Rome from whatsoever heresie converteth by the Faggot and admits to her Sacraments And is there not very just cause to suspect that they beleeve not from the heart all that she teacheth or at least doe not sufficiently shew themselves free from any such want of beliefe when they are turned to their new faith onely by such woodden arguments Secondly it seemes this Authours Catholicke Church is not the same Catholicke Church whereof Optatus and Saint Austin were members For Catholickes of that Church did compell men to Church by penalties that did not altogether beleeve in their heart as the Church taught And wee know the Churches intent is to bring them to heare and by hearing to beleeve what shee teacheth and so to fit them for the Sacraments Thirdly Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that the Church hath used such meanes for the reducing of Heretickes and in the very terms which the Authour denieth Pecuniary mulâ—ts And whereas our Authour eftsoones speakes of Ostiarii set to keep out men of contrary beliefe what knowne Protestant in France is hindered or at least how commonly are they admitted by the imaginary Ostiarii to bee present at the Masse And in the Archdukes Court Protestants have come to the Masse and known to bee such by most notorious Papists though they came in only to see the acting of it Secondly what Ostiarii did put off Catharinus for holding contrary to Trent That a man by faith may bee sure of his salvation Or Cajetan for holding That infants dying without Baptisme might be saved Who puts off the French that hold the Councell to be above the Pope a point of faith much differing from the present faith of Rome That which followeth I thinke at the first reading may appeare to bee the meere swelling of one that hath drunke the poysoned cup in the hand of the Scarlet Lady This Church enriched and endowed with the holy Ghost proceeds like a body which knowes it selfe to belong to an omnipotent head and feares not to avow both what it saith and what it doth And as on the one side shee expresses all the suavity which can bee conceived and is most ready to wrap up the most enormious sinners of the world and the most mortall enemies which shee hath in the very bowels of her compassion if they will come to God in the way of Penance For can the Reader keep himselfe from laughter when he seeth the lofty description of this Romish fortitude and withall seeth the low pusillanimity and meannesse of the Pope taking in an Excommunication denounced against the State of Venice without penance and satisfaction and so neither avowing what it saith nor what it doth to the plain disavowing of that which this Cavalier saith Againe doth not this Church proceed much rather like a body ruled with a head possest not with a seventh vertue but with many of the seven deadly sinnes whereof a great one is Covetousnesse For doe wee not reade that which may make a modest Romist to blush when hee reades it when the Popes owne souldiers and servants fight for his supremacy a principall point of their forged and fictitious faith he by mony hath been brought from avowing what hee said for those servants and their services It followes Shee goes on so farre if shee see cause to separate them in the quality of Heretickes from her communion and proceeds not against them as against Traytors to Princes or States according to that poore shift of Protestants whose guilty consciences make them not dare though their hearts bee well bent that way to punish our Priests capitally as for a corrupt Religion but they set upon them false and impudent pretexts of Treason First We acknowledge that the Pope doth outgoe this Authour with his Excommunication for hee goes on so farre not onely when hee sees cause but when hee sees no cause to separate from his Communion even without any proofe of heresie for what cause was there seene of excommunicating the King of Navarre out of his Kingdome in the quality of an heretick who was taken for a Romist especially since it is recorded that the King of Spaine's conscience in his death-bed was not satisfied with the Pope's eye-sight of the cause but spake as seeing cause of Restitution where the Pope pretended cause of Excommunication And what cause had the Venetians given of Excommunication when their Restitution without penance shewes plainely that they were without cause excommunicated And what cause had the Pope for excommunicating Queene Elisabeth and giving away her Kingdome And whereas you say Shee proceeds not against them as against Traytors to Princes or States This is so true that I cannot confute it But to make your truth yet more true I must also add this That your Papacy proceeds against Protestants because they will not bee Traytors to Princes or States as appeares by the penance of the Irish Pilgrime formerly mentioned and by the Bull of Pius quintus where hee curseth and excommunicateth those subjects that will not bee Traytors to their Soveraigne And indeed by that Bull the Papists themselves were exceedingly troubled betweene two feares one of being tyed with the cords of this excommunication for want of Treason and another of being tyed up for Treason in obeying this Excommunication Which griefe with the remedy thereof I finde thus described by Master Hart a not unlearned Romist The Bull of Pius quintus for so much of it as is against the Queene is holden among the English Catholicks for a lawfull sentence and a sufficient discharge of her subjects fidelity and so remaines in force but in some points touching the Subjects it is altered by the present Pope For where in that Bull all her subjects are commanded not to obey her and shee being excommunicated and deposed all that doe obey her are likewise innodate and accursed which point is perillous to the Catholicks for if they obey her they bee in the Popes curse and if they disobey her they are in the Queenes danger therefore the present Pope to releeve them hath altered that part of the Bull and dispensed with them to obey and serve her without perill of Excommunication which Dispensation is to endure but till it please