Copartners to be guilty of that crime and sheweth in what manner they might with great ease and quietness have rectified their consciences about the pretended errors of the Church S. Cyprian say you was a peaceable (l) Pag. 124. and modest man dissented from others in his judgement but without any breach of Charity condemned no man much less any Church for the contrary opinion He believed his own Opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others but lest them to their liberty Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding Did they censure no man much less any Church S. Cyprian believed his own Opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others You believe the Points wherein Luther differs from us not to be fundamental or necessary and why do you not thence infer the like THEREFORE he should not have proceeded to censure others In a word since their disagreement from us concerned only Points which were not fundamental they should have believed that they might have been deceived as well as the whole visible Church which you say may erre in such Points and therefore their Doctrins being not certainly true and certainly not necessary they could not give sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church 42. In other places you write so much as may serve us to prove that Luther and his followers ought to have deposed and rectified their consciences As for example when you say When the Church (m) Pag. 105. hath declared herself in any matter of opinion or of rites her declaration obliges all her children to peace and external obedience Nor is it fit or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgment to the publique as Luther and his fellows did He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason and very modestly still containing himself within the dutiful respect which he oweth but if he will factiously advance his own conceits his own conceits and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture and despise the Church so far as to cut off her Communion he may be justly branded and condemned for a Schismatique yea and an Heretique also in some degree and in foro exteriori though his opinion were true and much more if it be false Could any man even for a Fee have spoken more home to condemn your Predecessors of Schism or Heresie Could they have stronger Motives to oppose the Doctrin of the Church and leave her Communion than evidence of Scripture And yet according to your own words they should have answered and rectified their conscience by your Doctrin that though their opinion were true and grounded upon evidence of Scripture or Reason yet it was not lawful for any private maâ— to oppose his judgment to the publique which obligeth all Christians to peace and external obedience and if they cast off the Communion of the Church for maintaining their own Conceits they may be branded for Schismatiques and Heretiques in some degree et in foro exteriori that is all other Christians ought so to esteem of them and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you and they also are obliged to behave themselves in the face of all Christian Churches as if indeed they were not Reformers but Schismatiques and Heretiques or as Pagans and Publicans I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will do a deed of Charity by putting you in minde into what Labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some Points of Faith and yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he have evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man to dissemble against his conscience or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture How much more coherently do Catholiques proceed who believe the universal infallibility of the Church and from thence are assured that there can be no evidence of Scripture or reason against her definitions nor any just cause to forsake her Communion M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man yeelds as much as we have alleadged out of you The will of God is saith he to have (n) In his preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiastical Policy Sect. 6. Pag. 28. them do whatsoever the sentence of judiciall and final decision shall determine yea though it seem in their private opinion to swarve utterly from that which is right Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was which he transgressing must of necessity be guilty of Schism And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the universal infallibility of the Church or else drive men into the perplexities and labyrinths of dissembling against their conscience whereof now I speak Not unlike to this is your Doctrin delivered elsewhere Before the Nicene Councel say you many (o) Pag. 132. good Catholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists that the Baptism of Heretiques was ineffectual and with the Novatians that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners These errors therefore if they had gone no further were not in themselves Heretical especially in the proper and most heavy or bitter sense of that word neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration Her intention was to silence all disputes and to settle peace and unity in her government to which all wise and peacable men submitted whatsoever their opinion was And those factious people for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition were very justly branded for Schismatiques For us the Mistaker will never prove that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church c. and therefore he doth unjustly charge us either with Schism or Heresie These words manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her Declarations Doctrins and Commands imposed upon them for silencing all disputes and setling peace and Vnity in the government and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient are justly charged with Schism and Heresie And it is to be observed that you grant the Donatists to have been very justly branded for Schismatiques although their opposition against the Church did concerne as you hold a Point not Fundamental to the Faith and which according to S. Augustin cannot be proved out of Scripture alone and therefore either doth evidently convince that the Church is universally infallible even in Points not Fundamental or else that it is Schism to oppose her Declarations in those very things wherein she may erre and consequently that Luther and his fellowes were Schismatiques by opposing the visible Church of Points not Fundamental though it were untruly supposed that she erred in such Points But by the
obedience and as our Saviour said of some so the Scripture could it speak I believe would say to you Why call ye me Lord Lord and do not that which I command you Cast away the vain and arrogant pretence of infallibility which makes your errors incurable Leave picturing God and worshipping him by pictures Teach not for Doctrin the commandements of men Debarr not the Laity of the Testament of Christ's Blood Let your publique Prayers and Psalms and Hymns be in such language as is for the edification of the Assistents Take not from the Clergy that liberty of Marriage which Christ hath left them Do not impose upon men that Humility of worshipping Angels which S. Paul condemns Teach no more proper sacrifices of Christ but one Acknowledg them that die in Christ to be blessed and to rest from their labours Acknowledge the Sacrament after Consecration to be Bread and Wine as well as Christs body and bloud Acknowledg the gift of continency without Marriage not to be given to all Let not the weapons of your warfare be carnal such as Massacres Treasons Persecutions and in a word all means either violent or fraudulent These and other things which the Scripture commands you do and then we shall willingly give you such Testimony as you deserve but till you do so to talk of estimation respect and reverence to the Scripture is nothing else but talk 2. For neither is that true which you pretend That we possess the Scripture from you or take it upon the integrity of your Custody but upon Universal Tradition of which you are but a little part Neither if it were true that Protestants acknowledged The integrity of it to have been guarded by your alone Custody were this any argument of your reverence towards them For first you might preserve them entire not for want of Will but of Power to corrupt them as it is a hard thing to poyson the Sea And then having prevailed so farr with men as either not to look at all into them or but only through such spectacles as you should please to make for them and to see nothing in them though as cleer as the sun if it any way made against you you might keep them entire without any thought or care to conform your doctrin to them or reform it by them which were indeed to reverence the Scriptures but out of a perswasion that you could qualify them well enough with your glosses and interpretations and make them sufficiently conformable to your present Doctrin at least in their judgement who were prepossessed with this perswasion that your Church was to Judge of the sense of Scripture not to be judged by it 3. For whereas you say No cause imaginable could avert your will for giving the function of supreme and sole Judge to holy Writ but that the thing is impossible and that by this means controversies are increased and not ended you mean perhaps That you can or will imagine no other cause but these But sure there is little reason you should measure other mens imaginations by your own who perhaps may be so clouded and vailed with prejudice that you cannot or will not see that which is most manifest For what indifferent and unprejudicate man may not easily conceive another cause which I do not say does but certainly may pervert your wills and avert your understandings from submitting your Religion and Church to a tryall by Scripture I mean the great and apparent and unavoidable danger which by this means you would fall into of losing the Opinion which men have of your Infallibility and consequently your power and authority over mens consciences and all that depends upon it So that though Diana of the Ephesians be cryed up yet it may be feared that with a great many among you though I censure or judge no man the other cause which wrought upon Demetrius and the Craftsmen may have with you also the more effectual though more secret influence and that is that by this craft we have our living by this craft I mean of keeping your Proselytes from an indifferent tryal of your Religion by Scripture and making them yield up and captivate their judgement unto yours Yet had you only said de facto that no other cause did avert your own will from this but only these which you pretend out of Charity I should have believed you But seeing you speak not of your self but of all of your Side whose hearts you cannot know and profess not only That there is no other cause but that No other is imaginable I could not let this passe without a censure As for the impossibility of Scriptures being the sole Judge of Controversies that is the sole Rule for men to judge them by for we mean nothing else you only affirm it without proof as if the thing were evident of it self And therefore I conceiving the contrary to be more evident might well content my self to deny it without refutation Yet I cannot but desire you to tell me If Scripture cannot be the Judge of any Controversie how shall that touching the Church and the Notes of it be determined And if it be the sole Judge of this one why may it not of others Why not of All Those only excepted wherein the Scripture it self is the subject of the Question which cannot be determined but by natural reason the only principle beside Scripture which is common to Christians 4. Then for the Imputation of increasing contentions and not ending them Scripture is innocent of it as also this opinion That controversies are to be decided by Scripture For if men did really and sincerely submit their judgements to Scripture and that only and would require no more of any man but to do so it were impossible but that all Controversies touching things necessary and very profitable should be ended and if others were continued or increased it were no matter 5. In the next words we have direct Boyes-play a thing given with one hand and taken away with the other an acknowledgment made in one line and retracted in the next We acknowledg say you Scripture to be a perfect rule for as much as a Writing can be a Rule only we deny that it excludes unwritten Tradition As if you should have said We acknowledg it to be as perfect a Rule as a Writing can be only we deny it to be as perfect a Rule as a writing may be Either therefore you must revoke your acknowledgment or retract your retractation of it for both cannot possibly stand together For if you will stand to what you have granted That Scripture is as perfect a Rule of Faith as a writing can be you must then grant it both so Compleat that it needs no addition and so evident that it needs no interpretation For both these properties are requisite to a perfect Rule and a writing is capable of both these properties 6. That both these properties are requisite to a perfect Rule
they might be saved God requiting of us under pain of damnation only to believe the verities therein contained and not the divine Authority of the Books wherein they are contained Not but that it were now very strange and unreasonable if a man should believe the matter of these Books and not the Authority of the Books and therefore if a man should profess the not-believing of these I should have reason to fear he did not believe that But there is not always an equal necessity for the belief of those things for the belief whereof there is an equal reason We have I believe as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eighth King of England as that Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt of or dâ—sbelieve that it were most unreasonably done of him yet it were no mortal sin nor no sin at all God having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all which reason induceth them to believe Therefore as an Executor that should perform the whole will of the dead should fully satisfie the Law though he did not believe that Parchment to be his written Will which indeed is so So I believe that he who believes all the particular Doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles 160. This disourse whether it be rational and concluding or no I submit to better judgment but sure I am that the Corollary which you draw from this Position that this Point is not Fundamental is very inconsequent that is that we are uncertain of the truth of it because we say The whole Church much more particular Churches and private men may err in points not Fundamental A pretty sophism depending upon this Principle that whosoever possibly may err he cannot be certain that he doth not err And upon this ground what shall hinder me from concluding that seeing you also hold that neither particular Churches nor private men are infallible even in Fundamentals that even the Fundamentals of Christianity remain to you uncertain A Judge may possibly err in judgment can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right A Traveller may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtful whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber Or can our London-Carrier have no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in the way to London These you see are right worthy consequences and yet they are as like your own as an egg to an egg or milk to milk 161. And for the self same reason you say we are not certain that the Church is not Judge of Controversies But now this self same appears to be no reason and therefore for all this we may be certain enough that the Church is no Judge of Controversies The ground of this sophism is very like the former viz. that we can be certain of the falshood of no propositions but these only which are damnable errors But I pray good Sir give me your opinion of these The Snow is black the Fire is cold that M. Knot is Arch-Bishop of Toledo that the whole is not greater than a part of the whole that twice two make not four In your opinion good Sir are these damnable Heresies Or because they are not so have we no certainty of the falshood of them I beseech you Sir to consider seriously with what strange captions you have gone about to delude your King and your Country and if you be convinced they are so give glory to God and let the world know it by your deserting that Religion which stands upon such deceitful foundations 162. Besides you say among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the year 1633. to the Questions Whether the Church have Authority to determine Controversies of Fâ—ith And to interpret holy Scripture The Answer to both is â—ffirmative But what now if I should tell you that in the year 1632. among publique Conclusions defended in Doway one was That God predeterminates men to all their actions good bad and indifferent Will you think your self obliged to be of this opinion If you will say so If not do as you would be done by Again me-thinks so subtil a man as you are should easily apprehend a wide difference between Authority to do a thing and an Absolute The former the Doctor together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion that is an Authority of determining Controversies of Faith according to plain and evident Scripture and Universal Tradition and Infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule As if there should arise an Heretique that should call in question Christ's Passion and Resurrection the Church had Authority to decide this Controversie and infallible direction how to do it and to excommunicate this man if he should persist in error I hope you will not deny but that the Judges have Authority to determine Criminal and Civil Controversies and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determination Infallible while they proceed according to Law and if they do so but not infallibly certain that they shall ever do so But that the Church should be infallibly assisted by God's Spirit to decide rightly all emergent Controversies even such as might be held diversly of divers men Salva compage fidei and that we might be absolutely certain that the Church should never fail to decree the truth whether she used means or no whether she proceed according to her Rule or not or lastly that we might be absolutely certain that she would never fail to proceed according to her Rule this the Defender of these Conclusions said not and therefore said no more to your purpose than you have all this while that is just nothing 163. Ad § 27. To the place of S. Austin alledged in this Paragraph I Answer First that in many things you will not be tried by S. Augustin's judgement nor submit to his Authority not concerning Appeals to Rome not concerning Transubstantiation not touching the use and worshipping of Images not concerning the State of Saint's souls before the day of Judgment not touching the Virgin Marie's freedom from actual and original sin not touching the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants not touching the damning Infants to hell that die without Baptism not touching the knowledge of Saints departed not touching Purgatory not touching the fallibility of Councels even general Councels not touching perfection and perspicuity of Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation not touching Auricular Confession not touching the half-Communion not touching prayers in an unknown tongue In these things I say you
faith between the Lutherans the rigid Calvinists and Protestants of England So that if Luther were in the right those other Protestants who invented Doctrins far different from his and divided themselues from him must be reputed Schismatiques and the like argument may proportionably be aplyed to their further divisions and subdivisions Which reason I yet urge more strongly out of D. Potter (g) Pag. 20. who affirmes that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the errors of the Roman Church a reconciliation is impossible and damnable And yet he teacheth that their differnce from the Roman Church is not in Fundamental Points Now since among Protestants there is such diversity of belief that one denieth what the other affirmeth they must be convicted in conscience that one part is in error at least not Fundamental and if D. Potter will speak consequently that a reconciliation between them is impossible and damnable and what greater division or Schism can there be than when one part must judge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible and damnable 39. Out of all which premisses this Conclusion followes That Luther and his followers were Schismatiques from the universal visible Church from the Pope Christs vicar on earth and Successour to S. Peter from the particular Diocess in which they received Baptism from the Country or Nation to which they belonged from the Bishop under whom they lived many of them from the Religious Oâ—der in which they were professed from one another And Lastly from a mans self as much as is possible because the self-same Protestant to day is convicted in conscience that his yesterday's Opinion was an error as D. Potter knows a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant with whom therefore a reconciliation according to D. Potter's grounds is both impossible and damnable 40. It seems D. Potters last refuge to excuse himself and his Brethren from Schism is because they proceeded according to their conscience dictating an obligation under damnation to forsake the errors maintained by the Church of Rome His words are Although we confess the (h) Pag. 81. Church of Rome to be in some sense a true Church and her errours to some men not damnable yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she erres in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors 41. I answer It is very strange that you judge us extreamly Uncharitable in saying Protestants cannot be saved while your self avouch the same of all learned Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse If this your pretence of conscience may serve what Schiâ—matique in the Church what popular seditious brain in a Kingdom may not alledge the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from Schism or Sedition No man wishes them to do any thing against their conscience but we say that they may and ought to rectifie and depose such a conscience which is easie for them to do even according to your own affirmation that we Catholiques want no means necessary to Salvation Easie to do Nay not to do so to any man in his right wits must seem impossible For how can these two apprehensions stand together In the Roman Church I enjoy all means necessary to Salvation and yet I cannot hope to be saved in that Church or Who can enjoyn in one brain not crackt these Assertions After due examination I judge the Roman errors not to be in themselves fundamental or damnable and yet I judge that according to true reason it is damnable to hold them I say according to true reason For if you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedy but that you must rectifie your erring conscience by your other judgment that her errors are not fundamental nor damnable And this is no more Charity than you daily afford to such other Protestants as you term Brethren whom you cannot deny to be in some errors unless you will hold That of contradictory Propositions both may be true and yet you do not judge it damnable to live in their Communion because you hold their errors not to be fundamental You ought to know that according to the Doctrin of all Divines there is great difference between a speculative perswasion and a practical dictamen of conscience And therefore although they had in speculation conceived the visible Church to err in some doctrins of themselves not damnable yet with that speculative judgment they might and ought to have entertained this practical dictamen that for Points nor substantial to Faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could break the bond of Charity by breaking unity in God's Church You say that hay and stubble (i) Pag. 155. and such unprofitable stuffe as are corruptions in Points not fundamental laid on the roof destroyes not the house whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation And you would think him a mad man who to be rid of such stuffe would set his house on fire that so he might walk in the light as you teach that Luther was obliged to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light not without a combustion formidable to the whole Christian world rather than bear with some errors which did not destroy the foundation of Faith And as for others who entred in at the breach first made by Luther they might and ought to have guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis delivered in these words Indeed it is a matter of great (k) Adv. haeres c. 27. moment and both most profitable to be learned and necessary to be remembred and which we ought again and again to illustrate and inculcate with weighty heaps of examples that almost all Catholiques may know that they ought to receive the Doctors with the Church and not forsake the Faith of the Church with the Doctors And much less should they forsake the Faith of the Church to follow Luther Calvin and such other Novellists Moreover though your first Reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true yet they might and ought to have doubted whether they were certain because your self affirm That Infallibility was not promised to any particular Persons or Churches And since in cases of uncertainties we are not to leave our Superiour nor cast off his obedience or publiquely oppose his Decrees your Reformers might easily have found a safe way to satisfie their zealous conscience without a publique breach especially if with this their uncertainty we call to minde the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your own Brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many Ages enjoy I wish you would examine the works of your Brethren by the words your self set down to free S. Cyprian from Schism every syllable of which words convinceth Luther and his
to make them as heaven-like as they can with earthly ornaments Is this a sign that they are warping towards Popery Is this devotion in the Church of England an argument that she is coming over to the Church of Rome Sir Edwin Sands I presume every man will grant had no inclination that way yet he forty years since highly commended this part of devotion in Papists and makes no scruple of proposing it to the imitation of Protestants Little thinking that they who would follow his counsel and endeavour to take away this disparagement of Protestants and this glorying of Papists should have been censured for it as making way and inclining to Popery His words to this purpose are excellent words and because they shew plainly that what is now practised was approved by zealous Protestants so long ago I will here set them down 23. This one thing I cannot but highly commend in that sort and order They spare nothing which either cast can perform in enriching or skill in adorning the Temple of God or to set out his Service with the greatest pompe and magnificence that can be devised And although for the most part much basenesse and childishnesse is predominant in the Masters and Contrivers of their Ceremonies yet this outward state and glory being well disposed doth ingender quicken increase and nourish the inward reverence respect and devotion which is due unto Soveraign Majesty and Power And although I am not ignorant that many men well reputed have embraced the thrifty opinion of that Disciple who thought all to be wasted that was bestowed upon Christ in that sort and that it were much better bestowed upon him or the poor yet with an eye perhaps that themselves would be his quarter-Almoners notwithstanding I must confesse it will never sink into my heart that in proportion of reason the allowance for furnishing out of the service of God should be measured by the scant and strict rule of meer necessity a proportion so low that nature to other most bountiful in matter of necessity hath not failed no not the most ignoble creatures of the world and that for our selves no measure of heaping but the most we can get no rule of expence but to the utmost pompe we list Or that God himself had so enriched the lower parts of the world with such wonderfull varieties of beauty and glory that they might serve only to the pampering of mortall man in his pride and that in the Service of the high Creator Lord and Giver the outward glory of whose higher pallace may appear by the very lamps that we see so far off burning gloriously in it only the simpler baser cheaper lesse noble lesse beautiful lesse glorious things should be imployed Especially seeing as in Princes Courts so in the Service of God also this outward state and glory being well disposed doth as I have said ingender quicken increase and nourish thâ—â—ward reverence respect and devotion which is due to so Soveraign Majesty and Power Which those whom the use thereof cannot perswade unto would easily by the want of it be brought to confesse for which cause I crave leave to be excused by them herein if in Zeal to the common Lord of all I choose rather to commend the vertue of an enemy than to flatter the vice and imbecillity of a friend And so much for this matter 24. Again what if the names of Priests and Altars so frequent in the ancient Fathers though not in the now Popish sense be now resumed and more commonly used in England than of late times they were that so the colourable argument of their conformity which is but nominal with the ancient Church and our inconformity which the Governours of the Church would not have so much as nominal may be taken away from them and the Church of England may be put in a state in this regard more justifiable against the Romane than formerly it was being hereby enabled to say to Papists whensoever these names are objected we also use the names of Priests and Altars and yet believe neither the corporal Presence nor any Proper and propitiatory Sacrifice 25. What if Protestants be now put in minde that for exposition of Scripture they are bound by a Canon to follow the ancient Fathers which whosoever doth with sincerity it is utterly impossible he should be a Papist And it is most falsly said by you that you know that to some Protestants I clearly demonstrated or ever so much as undertook or went about to demonstrate the contrary What if the Centurists be censured somewhat roundly by a Protestant Divine for aâ—â—ming that the keeping of the Lord's day was a thing indifferent for two hundred years Is there in all this or any part of it any kind of proof of this scandalous Calumny 26. As for the points of Doctrine wherein you pretend that these Divines begin of late to falter and to comply with the Church of Rome upon a due examination of particulars it will presently appear First that part of them always have been and now are held constantly one way by them as the Authority of the Church in determining Controversies of faith though not the infallibility of it That there is Inherent Justice though so imperfect that it cannot justifie That there are Traditions though none necessary That charity is to be preferred before knowledge That good Works are not properly meritorious And lastly that Faith alone justifies though that faith justifies not which is alone And secondly for the remainder that they every one of them have been anciently without breach of charity disputed among Protestants such for example were the Questions about the Pope's being the Antichrist The lawfulness of some kind of prayers for the dead The Estate of the Fathers Souls before Christ's Ascension Freewill Predestination Universal grace The possibility of keeping God's Commandments The use of Pictures in the Church Wherein that there hath been anciently diversity of opinion amongst Protestants it is justified to my hand by a Witness with you beyond exception even your great friend M. Breerly whose care exactness and fidelity you say in your Preface is so extraordinary great Consult him therefore Tract 3. Sect. 7. of his Apology And in the 9 10 11 14 24 26 27 37. Subdivisions of that Section you shall see as in a mirror your self proved an egregious Calumniator for charging Protestants with innovation and inclining to Popery under pretence forsooth that their Doctrine begins of late to be altered in these points Whereas M. Breerly will inform you They have been anciently and even from the beginning of the Reformation controverted amongst them though perhaps the stream and current of their Doctors run one way and only some brook or rivulet of them the other 27. And thus my Friends I suppose are clearly vindicated from your scandals and calumnies It remains now that in the last place I bring my self fairly off from your foul aspersions that so my Person may
the Roman Doctrin have to abuse the World To the fourth All those were not a See this acknowledged by Bellar. de Script Eccles in Philastrio By Petavius Animad in Epiph. de inscrip operis By S. Austin Lib. de Haer. Haer. 80. Heretiques which by Philastrius Epiphanius or S. Austin were put in the Catalogue of Heretiques To the fifth Kings and Nations have been and may be converted by men of contrary Religions To the sixth The Doctrin of Papists is confessed by Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points To the seventh The Pastors of a Church cannot but have authority from it to Preach against the abuses of it whether in Doctrin or Practice if there be any in it Neither can any Christian want an ordinary commission from God to do a necessary work of Charity after a peaceable manner when there is no body else that can or will do it In extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed If some Christian Lay-man should come into a Countrey of Infidels and had ability to perswade them to Christianity Who would say he might not use it for want of Commission To the eighth Luther's conference with the Devil might be for ought I know nothing but a melancholy Dream If it were reall the Devil might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keep him constant to it Or that others would make his disswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists do and be afraid of following Luther as confessing himself to have been perswaded by the Devill To the ninth Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault than Protestants Even this very Author in this very Pamphlet hath not so many leaves as falsifications and calumnies To the tenth Let all men believe the Scripture and that only and endeavour to believe it in the true sense and require no more of others and they shall find this not only a better but the only means to suppress Heresie and restore Unity For he that believes the Scripture sincerely and endeavours to believe it in the true sense cannot possibly be an Heretique And if no more than this were required of any man to make him capable of the Churches Communion then all men so qualified though they were different in opinion yet notwithstanding any such difference must be of necessity one in Communion The AUTHOR of CHARITY MAINTAINED His Preface to the READER GIve me leave good Reader to inform thee by way of Preface of three Points The first concerns D. Potters Answer to Charity Mistaken The second relates to this Reply of mine And the third contains some Premonitions or Prescriptions in case D. Potter or any in his behalf think fit to Rejoyn 2. For the first point concerning D. Potters Answer I say in general reserving particulars to their proper places that in his whole Book he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question which was Whether both Catholiques and Protestants can be saved in their several professions And therefore Charity Mistaken judiciously pressing those particulars wherein the difficulty doth precisely consist proves in general that there is but one true Church that all Christians are obliged to hearken to her that she must be ever visible and infallible that to separate ones self from her communion is Schism and to dissent from her Doctrin is Heresie though it be in points never so few or never so small in their own nature and therefore that the distinction of points Fundamental and not Fundamental is wholly vain as it is applyed by Protestants These I say and some other general grounds Charity Mistaken handles and out of them doth clearly evince that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation on both sides and therefore since it is apparent that Catholiques and Protestants disagree in very many points of faith they both cannot hope to be saved without repentance and consequently as we hold that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation so must they also believe that we cannot be saved if they judge their own Religion to be true and ours to be false And whosoever disguizeth this truth is an enemy to souls which he deceives with ungrounded false hopes of Salvation in different Faiths and Religions And this Charity Mistaken performed exactly according to that which appears to have been his design which was not to descend to particular disputes and D. Potter affectedly does namely Whether or no the Roman-Church be the only true Church of Christ and much lesse Whether general Councels be infallible whether the Pope may erre in his Decrees common to the whole Church whether he be above a General Council whether all points of Faith be contained in Scripture whether Faith be resolved into the authority of the Church as into his last formal Object and Motive and least of all did he discourse of Images Communion under both kinds publique service in an unknown Tongue Seven Sacraments Sacrifice of the Masse Indulgences and Index Expurgatorius All which and divers other articles D. Potter as I said draws by violence into his Book and he might have brought in Pope Joan or Antichrist or the Jews who are permitted to live in Rome which are common Themes for men that want better matter as D. Potter was fain to fetch in the aforesaid Controversies that so he might dazle the eyes and distract the minde of the Reader and hinder him from perceiving that in his whole answer he uttereth nothing to the purpose and point in question which if he had followed closely I dare well say he might have dispatched his whole Book in two or three sheets of paper But the truth is he was loath to affirm plainly that generally both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved and yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to have any true Church before Luther except the Roman and such as agreed with her and consequently that they cannot hope for Salvation if they deny it to us he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of language and to fill up his Book with Points which make nothing to the purpose Wherein he is lesse excusable because he must grant that those very particulars to which he digresseth are not Fundamental errors though it should be granted that they be Errors which indeed are Catholique Verities For since they bâ— not Fundamental not destructive of Salvation what imports it Whether we hold them or no for as much as concerns our possibility to be saved 3. In one thing only he will perhaps seem to have touched the point in question to wit in his distinction of points Fundamental and not Fundamental because some may think that a difference in points which are not Fundamental breaks not the Unity of Faith and hinders not the hope of Salvation in persons so disagreeing And yet in this very distinction he never speaks to the purpose indeed but
will assure him that if he keep himself to the point of every diffficulty and not weary the Reader and overcharge his margent with unnecessary quotations of Authors in Greek and Latine and sometime also in Italian and French together with Proverbs Sentences of Poets and such Grammatical stuff nor affect to cite a multitude of our Catholique School-Divines to no purpose at all his Book will not exceed a competent size nor will any man in reason be offended with that length which is regulated by necessity Again before he come to set down his answer or propose his Arguments let him consider very well what may be replyed and whether his own objections may not be retorted against himself as the Reader will perceive to have hapned often to his disadvantage in my Reply against him But especially I expect and Truth it self exacts at his hand that he speak clearly and distinctly and not seek to walk in darkness so to delude and deceive his Reader now saying and then denying and alwayes speaking with such ambiguity as that his greatest care may seem to consist in a certain Art to find a shift as his occasions might chance either now or hereafter to require and as he might fall out to be urged by diversity of several Arguments And to the end it may appear that I deal plainly as I would have him also do I desire that he declare himself concerning these points 11. First whether our Saviour Christ have not alwayes had and be not ever to have a visible true Church on earth and whether the contrary Doctrine be not a damnable heresie 12. Secondly what visible Church there was before Luther disagreeing from the Roman Church and agreeing with the pretended Church of Protestants 13. Thirdly Since he will be forced to grant That there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as agreed with her when Luther first appeared whether it doth not follow that she hath not erred Fundamentally because every such error destroyes the nature and beeing of the Church and so our Saviour Christ should have had no visible Church on earth 14. Fourthly if the Roman Church did not fall into any Fundamental error let him tell us how it can be damnable to live in her Communion or to maintain errors which are known and confessed not to be Fundamental or damnable 15. Fiftly if her Errors were not damnable nor did exclude salvation how can they be excused from Schism who forsook her Communion upon pretence of errors which were not damnable 16. Sixthly if D. Potter have a minde to say That her Errors are Damnable or Fundamental let him do us so much charity as to tell us in particular what those Fundamental errors be But he must still remember and my self must be excused for repeating it that if he say The Roman Church erred Fundamentally he will not be able to shew that Christ our Lord had any visible Church on earth when Luther appeared and let him tell us How Protestants had or can have any Church which was universal and extended herself to all ages if once he grant that the Roman Church ceased to be the true Church of Christ and consequently how they can hope for Salvation if they deny it to us 17. Seventhly whether any one Error maintained against any one Truth though never so small in it self yet sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by Almighty God do not destroy the Nature and Unity of Faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding Salvation 18. Eighthly if this be so how can Lutherans Calvinists Swinglians and all the rest of disagreeing Protestants hope for Salvation since it is manifest that some of them must needs err against some such truth as is testified by Almighty God either Fundamental or at least not Fundamental 19. Ninthly we constantly urge and require to have a particular Catalogue of such Points as he cals Fundamental A Catalogue I say in particular and not only some general definition or description wherein Protestants may perhaps agree though we see that they differ when they come to assign what Points in particular be Fundamental and yet upon such a particular Catalogue much depends as for example in particular Whether or no a man do not err in some Point Fundamental or necessary to Salvation and whether or no Lutherans Calvinists and the rest do disagree in Fundamentals which if they do the same heaven cannot receive them all 20. Tenthly and lastly I desire that in answering to these Points he would let us know distinctly what is the Doctrine of the Protestant English Church concerning them and what he utters only as his own private opinion 21. These are the Questions which for the present I find it fit and necessary for me to ask of D. Potter or any other who will defend his cause or impugne ours And it will be in vain to speak vainly and to tell me that a Fool may ask more questions in an hour than a Wise man can answer in a year with such idle Proverbs as that For I ask but such questions as for which he gives occasion in his Book and where he declares not himself but after so ambiguous and confused a manner as that Truth it self can scarce tell how to convince him so but that with ignorant and ill judging men he will seem to have somewhat left to say for himself though Papists as he cals them and Puritans should presse him contrary wayes at the same time and these questions concern things also of high importance as whereupon the knowledge of God's Church and true Religion and consequently Salvation of the soul depends And now because he shall not taxe me with being like those men in the Gospel whom our blessed Lord and Saviour charged with laying heavy burdens upon other mens shoulders who yet would not touch them with their finger I oblige my self to answer upon any demand of his both to all these Questions if he find that I have not done it already and to any other concerning matter of Faith that he shall ask And I will tell him very plainly what is Catholique Doctrin and what is not that is what is defined or what is not defined and rests but in discussion among Divines 22. And it will be here expected that he perform these things as a man who professeth learning should do not flying from questions which concern things as they are considered in their own nature to accidental or rare circumstances of ignorance incapacity want of means to be instructed erroneous conscience and the like which being very various and different cannot be well comprehended under any general Rule But in delivering general Doctrins we must consider things as they be ex natura rei or per se loquendo as Divines speak that is according to their natures if all circumstances concurr proportionable thereunto As for example some may for a time have invincible
the Protestant English Church in these Points and what my private opinion Which shall be satisfied when the Church of England hath expressed her self in them or when you have told us what is the Doctrine of your Church in the Question of Predetermination or the Immaculate Conception 29. Ad 21 22. § These answers I hope in the judgement of indifferent men are satisfactory to your Questions though not to you For I have either answered them or given you a reason why I have not Neither for ought I can see have I flitted from things considered in their own nature to accidental or rare Circumstances but told you my opinion plainly what I thought of your Errors in themselves and what as they were qualified or malignified with good or bad circumstances Though I must tell you truly that I see no reason the Question being of the damnableness of Error why you should esteem ignorance incapacity want of means to be instructed accidental and rare Circumstances As if knowledge capacity having means of Instruction concerning the truth of your Religion or ours were not as rare and unusual in the adverse part of either as Ignorance Incapacity and want of means of instruction Especially how erroneous Conscience can be a rare thing in those that err or how unerring Conscience is not much more rare I am not able to apprehend So that to consider men of different Religions the subject of this Controversie in their own nature and without circumstances must be to consider them neither as ignorant nor as knowing neither as having nor as wanting means of Instruction neither as with Capacity nor without it neither with erroneous nor yet with unerring conscience And then what judgement can you pronounce of them all the goodness and badness of an Action depending on the Circumstances Ought not a Judge being to give sentence of an Action to consider all the Circumstances of it or is it possible he should judge rightly that doth not so Neither is it to purpose That Circumstances being various cannot be well comprehended under any general rule For though under any general rule they cannot yet under many general rules they may be comprehended The Question here is you say Whether men of different Religions may be saved Now the subject of this Question is an ambiguous term and may be determined and invested with diverse and contrary Circumstances and accordingly contrary judgements are to be given of it And who then can be offended with D. Potter for distinguishing before he defines the want whereof is the chief thing that makes defining dangerous Who can find fault with him for saying If through want of means of instruction incapacity invincible or probable ignorance a man die in error he may be saved But if he be negligent in seeking Truth unwilling to find it either doth see it and will not or might see it and will not that his case is dangerous and without repentance desperate This is all that D. Potter says neither rashly damning all that are of a different opinion from him nor securing any that are in matter of Religion sinfully that is willingly erroneous The Author of this Reply I will abide by it says the very same thing neither can I see what adversary he hath in the main Question but his own shadow and yet I know not out of what frowardness finds fault with D. Potter for affirming that which himself affirms And to cloud the matter whereas the Question is Whether men by ignorance dying in error may be saved he would have them considered neither as erring nor ignorant And when the question is whether The Errors of Papists be damnable to which we answer That to them that do or might know them to be errors they are damnable to them that do not they are not He tels us that this is to change the state of the Question whereas indeed it is to state the Question and free it from ambiguity before you answer it and to have recourse to Accidental Circumstances as if Ignorance were accidental to error or as if a man could be considered as in error and not be considered as in ignorance of the Truth from which he errs Certainly Error against a Truth must needs presuppose a nescience of it unless you will say that a man may at once resolve for a Truth and resolve against it assent to it and dissent from it know it to be true and believe it not to be true Whether Knowledg and Opinion touching the same thing may stand together is made a Question in the Schools But he that would question Whether knowing a thing and doubting of it much more whether knowing it to be true and believing it to be false may stand together deserves without question no other Answer but laughter Now if Error and Knowledge cannot consist then Error and Ignorance must be inseparable He then that professeth your errors may well be considered either as knowing or as Ignorant But him that does err indeed you can no more conceive without ignorance than Long without Quantity Vertuous without Quality a Man and not a living Creature to have gone ten miles and not to have gone five to speak sense and not to speak For as the latter in all these is implyed in the former so is Ignorance of a Truth supposed in Error against it Yet such a man though not conceivable without ignorance simply may be very well considered either as with or without voluntary and sinful Ignorance And he that will give a wise answer to this Question Whether a Papist dying a Papist may be saved according to God's ordinary proceeding must distinguish him according to these several considerations and say He may be saved If his Ignorance were either invincible or at least unaffected and probable if otherwise without repentance he cannot To the rest of this Preface I have nothing to say saving what hath been said but this That it is no just exception to an argument to call it vulgar and thred-bare Truth can neither be too common nor super-annuated nor Reason ever worn out Let your Answers be solid and pertinent and we will never finde fault with them for being old or common The FIRST PART CHAP. I. The State of the Question with a summary of the Reasons for which amongst men of different Religions one Side only can be saved NEver is malice more indiscreet than when it chargeth others with imputation of that to which it self becomes more liable even by that very act of accusing others For though guiltiness be the effect of some error yet usually it begets a kind of Moderation so far forth as not to let men cast such aspersions upon others as must apparently reflect upon themselves Thus cannot the Poet endure that Gracchus Quis tulerit Gracchum c. who was a factious and unquiet man should be inveighing against Sedition And the Roman Orator rebukes Philosophers who to wax glorious superscribed their Names
whosoever persist in Division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church are guilty of Schism and Heresie That in regard of the Precept of Charity towards one's self Protestants are in state of sin while they remain divided from the Roman Church To all these Assertions I will content my self for the present to oppose this one That not one of them all is true Only I may not omit to tell you that if the first of them were as true as the Pope himself desires it should be yet the Corollary which you deduce from it would be utterly inconsequent That Whosoever denies any Point proposed by the Church is injurious to God's Divine Majesty as if He could deceive or be deceived For though your Church were indeed as Infallible a Propounder of Divine Truths as it pretends to be yet if it appeared not to me to be so I might very well believe God most true and your Church most false As though the Gospel of S. Matthew be the Word of God yet if I neither knew it to be so nor believed it I might believe in God and yet think that Gospel a Fable Hereafter therefore I must entreat you to remember that our being guilty of this impiety depends not only upon your being but upon our knowing that you are so Neither must you argue thus The Church of Rome is the Infallible Propounder of Divine Verities therefore he that opposeth Her calls God's Truth in Question But thus rather The Church of Rome is so and Protestants know it to be so therefore in opposing her they impute to God that either he deceives them or is deceived himself For as I may deny something which you upon your knowledge have affirmed and yet never disparage your honesty if I never knew that you affirmed it So I may be undoubtedly certain of God's Omniscience and Veracity and yet doubt of something which he hath revealed provided I do not know nor believe that he hath revealed it So that though your Church be the appointed witness of God's Revelations yet until you know that we know she is so you cannot without foul calumny impute to us That we charge God blasphemously with deceiving or being deceived You will say perhaps That this is directly consequent from our Doctrine That the Church may err which is directed by God in all her Proposals True if we knew it to be directed by him otherwise not much less if we believe and know the contrary But then if it were consequent from our Opinion have you so little Charity as to say that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their Opinions Such Consequences I mean as they do not own but disclaim and if there were a necessity of doing either would much rather forsake their Opinion than imbrace those Consequences What opinion is there that draws after it such a train of portentous blasphemies as that of the Dominicans by the judgement of the best Writers of your own Order And will you say now that the Dominicans are justly chargeable with all those Blasphemies If not seeing our case take it at the worst is but the same why should not your judgment of us be the same I appeal to all those Protestants that have gone over to your Side whether when they were most averse from it they did ever deny or doubt of God's Omniscience or Veracity whether they did ever believe or were taught that God did deceive them or was deceived himself Nay I provoke to you your self and desire you to deal truly and to tell Us whether you do in your heart believe that we do indeed not believe the eternal Veracity of the eternal Verity And if you judge so strangely of us having no better ground for it than you have or can have we shall not need any farther proof of your uncharitableness towards us this being the extremity of true uncharitableness If not then I hope having no other ground but this which sure is none at all to pronounce us damnable Heretiques you will cease to do so and hereafter as if your ground be true you may do with more Truth and Charity collect thus They only err damnably who oppose what they know God hath testified But Protestants sure do not oppose what they know God hath testified at least we cannot with Charity say they do Therefore they either do not err damnably or with Charity we cannot say they do so 13. Ad. § 17. Protestants you say according to their own grounds must hold that of persons contrary in whatsoever Point of Belief one part only can be saved therefore it is strangely done of them to charge Papists with want of Charity for holding the same The Consequence I acknowledge but wonder much what it should be that lays upon Protestants any necessity to do so You tell us it is their holding Scripture the sole Rule of Faith For this you say obligeth them to pronounce them damned that oppose any least Point delivered in Scripture This I grant If they oppose it after sufficient declaration so that either they know it to be contained in Scripture or have no just probable Reason and which may move an honest man to doubt Whether or no it be there contained For to oppose in the first case in a man that believes the Scripture to be the Word of God is to give God the lye To oppose in the second is to be obstinate against Reason and therefore a sin though not so great as the former But then this is nothing to the purpose of the necessity of damning all those that are of contrary belief and that for these Reasons First because the contrary belief may be touching a Point not at all mentioned in Scripture and such Points though indeed they be not matters of Faith yet by men in variance are often over-valued and esteemed to be so So that though it were damnable to oppose any Point contained in Scripture yet Persons of a contrary belief as Victor and Polycrates S. Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved because their contrary belief was not touching any Point contained in Scripture Secondly because the contrary belief may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous and with probability capable of divers senses and in such cases it is no marvel and sure no sin if several men go several ways Thirdly because the contrary belief may be concerning Points wherein Scripture may with so great probability be alledged on both sides which is a sure note of a Point not-necessary that men of honest and upright hearts true lovers of God and of Truth such as desire above all things to know God's will and to do it may without any fault at all some go one way and some another and some and those as good men as either of the former suspend their judgments and expect some Elias to solve doubts and reconcile repugnancies Now in all such Questions one side or other which
nothing that is material and considerable pass without some stricture or animadversion 30. You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is God's Word is the Church and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. § 8. Let the Reader consult the place and he shall find that he and M. Hooker have been much abused both by you here and by M. Breerly and others before you and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose but very much directly to the contrary There he tells us indeed That ordinaly the first Introduction and probable Motive to the belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded that in the same place he plainly denies His words are Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it self is Divine and Sacred The Question then being by what means we are taught this * Some answer so but he doth not some answer that to learn it we have no other way than Tradition As namely that so we believe because we from our Predecessors and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied and by experience we all know that (a) The first outward Motive not the last assurance whereon we rest the first outward Motive leading men to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of God's Church For when we know (b) The whole Church that he speaks of seems to be that particular Church wherein a man is bred and brought up and the Authority of this he makes an Argument which presseth a man's modesty more than his reason And in saying It seems impudent to be of a contrary mind without cause he implies There may be a just cause to be of a contrary mind and that then it were no impudence to be so the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof (c) Therefore the Authority of the Church is not the pause whereon we rest we had need of more assurance and the intâ—insâ—cal Arguments afford â—t the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing (d) Somewhat bâ—t not much until it be backed and inforced by farther reason it self therefore is not the farthest reason and the last resolution somewhat with us before doth now much more prevail when the very thing hath ministred farther reason If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture and our own perswasion which Scripture it self hath setled may be proved a truth infallible (e) Observe I pray Our perswasion and the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture may be proved true Therefore neither or them was in his account the farthest proof In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to relie upon the Scriptures endeavoured still to maintain the Authority of the Books of God by Arguments such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable if they judge thereof as they should Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard even by such kind of proofs so to manifest and clear that Point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent Principle such as all men acknowledg to be true (f) Natural reason thâ—n built on principles common to all men is the last resolution unto which the Churches Authority is but the first inducement By this time I hope the Reader sees sufficient proof of what I said in my Reply to your Preface that M. Breerelie's great ostentation of exactness is no very certain Argument of his fidelity 31. But seeing the belief of Scripture is a necessary thing and cannot be proved by Scripture How can the Church of England teach as she doth Art 6. That all things necessary are contained in Scripture 32. I have answered this already And here again I say That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be That all the Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in Scripture That is all the material objects of our Faith whereof the Scripture is none but only the means of conveying them unto us which we believe not finally and for it self but for the matter contained in it So that if men did believe the Doctrine contained in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous Nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aims at is the belief of the Gospel the Covenant between God and Man the Scripture he hath provided as a means for this end and this also we are to believe but not as the last Object of our Faith but as the Instrument of it When therefore we subscribe to the 6 Art you must understand that by Articles of Faith they mean the final and ultimate Objects of it and not the Means and instrumental Objects and then there will be no repugnance between what they say and that which Hooker and D. Covel and D. Whitaker and Luther here say 33. But Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of Holy Scripture Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. James Kemnitius and other Lutherans the second of Peter the second and third of John The Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of James of Jude and the Apocalyps Therefore without the Authority of the Church no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonical 34. So also the Ancient Fathers and not only Fathers but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the Authority of the very same Books and by their difference shewed they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church For had they done so they must have agreed all with that Church and consequently among themselves Now I pray tell me plainly Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonical or had they not If they had not it seems there is no great harm or danger in not having such a certainty whether some Books be Canonical or no as you require If they had Why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs
to whom you write though they verily think they are Christians and believe the Gospel because they assent to the truth of it and would willingly die for it yet indeed are Infidels and believe nothing The Scripture tels us The heart of man knoweth no man but the spirit of man which is in him And Who are you to take upon you to make us believe that we do not believe what we know we do But if I may think verily that I believe the Scripture and yet not believe it how know you that you believe the Roman Church I am as verily and as strongly perswaded that I believe the Scripture as you are that you believe the Church And if I may be deceived why may not you Again what more ridiculous and against sense and experience than to affirm That there are not millions amongst you and us that believe upon no other reason than their education and the authority of their Parents and Teachers and the opinion they have of them The tenderness of the subject and aptness to receive impressions supplying the defect and imperfection of the Agent And will you proscribe from heaven all those believers of your own Creed who do indeed lay the foundation of their Faith for I cannot call it by any other name no deeper than upon the authority of their Father or Master or Parish-Priest Certainly if these have no true faith your Church is very full of Infidels Suppose Xaverius by the holiness of his life had converted some Indians to Christianity who could for so I will suppose have no knowledge of your Church but from him and therefore must last of all build their faith of the Church upon their opinion of Xaverius Do these remain as very Pagans after their conversion as they were before Are they brought to assent in their souls and obey in their lives the Gospel of Christ only to be Tantaliz'd and not saved and not benefited but deluded by it because forsooth it is a man and not the Church that begets faith in them What if their motive to believe be not in reason sufficient Do they therefore not believe what they do believe because they do it upon insufficient motives They choose the Faith imprudently perhaps but yet they do choose it Unless you will have us believe that that which is done is not done because it is not done upon good reason which is to say that never any man living ever did a foolish action But yet I know not why the Authority of one holy man which apparently hath no ends upon me joyn'd with the goodness of the Christian faith might not be a far greater and more rational motive to me to imbrace Christianity than any I can have to continue in Paganism And therefore for shame if not for love of Truth you must recant this fancy when you write again and suffer true faith to be many times where your Churches infallibility hath no hand in the begetting of it And be content to tell us hereafter that we believe not enough and not go about to perswade us we believe nothing for fear with telling us what we know to be manifestly false you should gain only this Not to be believed when you speak truth Some pretty sophisms you may haply bring us to make us believe we believe nothing but wise men know that Reason against Experience is alwaies Sophistical And therefore as he that could not answer Zeno's subtilties against the existence of Motion could yet confute them by doing that which he pretended could not be done So if you should give me a hundred Arguments to perswade me because I do not believe Transubstantiation I do not believe in God and the Knots of them I could not unty yet I should cut them in pieces with doing that and knowing that I do so which you pretend I cannot do 50. In the thirteenth Division we have again much ado about nothing A great deal of stir you keep in confuting some that pretend to know Canonical Scripture to be such by the Titles of the Books But these men you do not name which makes me suspect you cannot Yet it is possible there may be some such men in the world for Gusmen de Alfarache hath taught us that The Fools hospital is a large place 51. In the fourteenth § we have very artificial jugling D. Potter had said That the Scripture he desires to be understood of those books wherein all Christians agree is a principle and needs not be proved among Christians His reason was because that needs no farther proof which is believed already Now by this you say he means either that the Scripture is one of these first Principles and most known in all Sciences which cannot be proved which is to suppose it cannot be proved by the Church and that is to suppose the Question Or he means That it is not the most known in Christianity and then it may be proved Where we see plainly That two most different things Most known in all Sciences and Most known in Christianity are captiously confounded As if the Scripture might not be the first and most known Principle in Christianity and yet not the most known in all Sciences Or as if to be a First Principle in Christianity and in all Sciences were all one That Scripture is a Principle among Christians that is so received by all that it need not be proved in any emergent Controversie to any Christian but may be taken for granted I think few will deny You your selves are of this a sufficient Testimony for urging against us many texts of Scripture you offer no proof of the truth of them presuming we will not question it Yet this is not to deny that Tradition is a Principle more known than Scripture But to say It is a Principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men 52. But It is repugnant to our practice to hold Scripture a Principle because we are wont to affirm that one part of Scripture may be known to be Canonical and may be interpreted by another Where the former device is again put in practice For to be known to be Canonical and to be interpreted is not all one That Scripture may be interpreted by Scripture that Protestants grant and Papists do not deny neither does that any way hinder but that this assertion Scripture is the word of God may be among Christians a common Principle But the first That one part of Scripture may prove another part Canonical and need no proof of its own being so for that you have produced divers Protestants that deny it but who they are that affirm it nondum constat 53. It is superfluous for you to prove out of S. Athanasius and S. Austine that we must receive the sacred Canon upon the credit of Gods Church Understanding by Church as here you explain your self The credit of Tradition And that not the Tradition of the Present
by the President of it the Cardinal S. Cruce And yet he hath written that the Councel in this Decree meant to pronounce this Translation free not simply from all Error but only from such Errors out of which any opinion pernitions to faith and manners might be collected This And radius in his defence of that Councel reports of Vega and assents to it himself Driedo in his Book of the Translation of holy Scripture hath these words very pregnant and pertinent to the same purpose The See Apostolike hath approved or accepted Hierom 's Edition not as so wholly consonant to the Original and so entire and pure and restored in all things that it may not be lawful for any man either by comparing it with the Fountain to examine it or in some places to doubt Whether or no Hierom did understand the true sense of the Scripture but only as an Edition to be preferred before all others then extant and no where deviating from the Truth in the rules of faith and good life Mariana even where he is a most earnest Advocate for the Vulgar Edition yet acknowledges the imperfection of it in these words â—â—o Eâ—â—t vulg c. 21. p. 99. The faults of the Vulgar Edition are not approved by the Decree of the Councel of Trent a multitude whereof we did collect from the variety of Copie And again We maintain that the Hebrew and Greek were by no means rejected by the Trent-Fathers And that the Latine Edition is indeed approved yet not so as if they did deny that some places might be translated more plainly some more properly whereof it were easie to produce innumerable examples And this he there professes to have learnt of Laines the then General of the Society who was a great part of that Councel present at all the Actions of it and of very great authority in it 77. To this so great authority he adds a reason of his opinion which with all indifferent men will be of a far greater authority If the Councel saith he had purposed to approve an Edition in all respects and to make it of equal authority and credit with the Fountains certainly they ought with exact care first to have corrected the Errors of the Interpreter which certainly they did not 78. Lastly Bellarmine himself though he will not acknowledge any imperfection in the Vulgar Edition yet he acknowledges that the â—ase may and does oft-times so fall out Bâ—ll de verâ—e Dâ—â—d 2. c. 12. p. 120. that it is impossible to discern which is the true reading of the Vulgar Edition but only by recourse unto the Originals and dependance upon them 79. From all which it may evidently be collected that though some of you flatter your selves with a vain imagination of the certain absolute purity and perfection of your Vulgar Edition yet the matter is not so certain and so resolved but that the best learned men amongst you are often at a stand and very doubtful sometimes whether your Vulgar Translation be true and sometimes whether this or that be your Vulgar Translation and sometimes undoubtedly resolved that your Vulgar Translation is no true Translation nor consonant to the Original as it was at first delivered And what then can be alledged but that out of your own grounds it may be inferred and inforced upon you that not only in your Lay-men but your Clergy-men and Scholars Faith and Truth and Salvation and All depends upon fallible and uncertain grounds And thus by ten several retortions of this one Argument I have endeavoured to shew you How ill you have complyed with your own advice which was to take heed of urging Arguments that might be returned upon you I should now by a direct Answer shew that it presseth not us at all but I have in passing done it already in the end of the second retortion of this Argument and thither I refer the Reader 80. Whereas therefore you exhort them that will have assurance of true Scriptures to fly to your Church for it I desire to know if they should follow your advice how they should be assured that your Church can give them any such assurance which hath been confessedly so negligent as to suffer many whole Books of Scripture to be utterly lost Again in those that remain confessedly so negligent as to suffer the Originals of these that remain to be corrupted And lastly so careless of preserving the integrity of the Copies of her Translation as to suffer infinite variety of Readings to come in to them without keeping any one perfect Copy which might have been as the Standard and Polycletus his Canon to correct the rest by So that which was the true reading and which the false it was utterly undiscernable but only by comparing them with the Originals which also she pretends to be corrupted 81. But Luther himself by unfortunate experience was at length enforced to confess thus much saying If the wordlast longer it will be again necessary to receive the Decrees of Councels by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now raign 82. And what if Luther having a Pope in his belly as he was wont to say that most men had and desiring perhaps to have his own interpretations pass without examining spake such words in heat of Argument Do you think it reasonable that we should subscribe to Luther's divinations and angry speeches Will you oblige your self to answer for all the assertions of your private Doctors If not Why do you trouble us with what Luther says and what Calvin says Yet this I say not as if these words of Luther made any thing at all for your present purpose For what if he feared or pretended to fear that the infallibility of Councels being rejected some men would fall into greater Errors than were imposed upon them be the Councels Is this to confess that there is any present visible Church upon whose bare Authority we may infallibly receive the true Scriptures and the true sense of them Let the Reader judge But in my opinion to fear a greater inconvenience may follow from the avoiding of the less is not to confess that the less is none at all 83. For D. Covel's commending your Translation What is it to the business in hand Or how proves it the perfection of it which is here contested any more than S. Augustine's commending the Italian Translation argues the perfection of that or that there was no necessity that S. Hierom should correct it D. Covel commends your Translation and so does the Bishop of Chichester and so does D. James and so do I. But I commend it for a good Translation not for a perfect Good may be good and deserve commendations and yet Better may be better And though he says that the then approved Translation of the Church of England is that which cometh nearest the Vulgar yet he does not say that it agrees exactly with it So that whereas you infer that the Truth of your Translation
Church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate to us Among many other Points in the aforesaid words we are to observe that according to this holy Father when we prove some Points not particularly contained in Scripture by the authority of the Church even in that case we ought not to be said to believe such Points without Scripture because Scripture it self recommends the Church and therefore relying on her we relie on Scripture without danger of being deceived by the obscurity of any question defined by the Church And elsewhere he saith Seeing this is (z) De Unit. Eccles c. 19. written in no Scripture we must believe the testimony of the Church which Christ declareth to speak the truth But it seems D. Potter is of opinion that this Doctrin about not-rebaptizing such as were baptized by Heretiques is no necessary Point of Faith nor the contrary an Heresie wherein he contradicteth S. Augustine from whom we have now heard that what the Church teacheth is truly said to be taught by Scripture and consequently to deny this particular Point delivered by the Church is to oppose Scripture it self Yet it he will needs hold that this Point is not Fundamental we must conclude out of S. Augustine as we did concerning the baptizing of Children that the infallibility of the Church reacheth to Points not-Fundamental The same Father in another place concerning this very question of the validity of Baptism conferred by Heretiques saith The (a) De Bapt. cont Donat. l. 5. c. 23. Apostles indeed have prescribed nothing of this but this Custom ought to be believed to be originally taken from their Tradition as there are many things that the universal Church observeth which are therefore with good reason believed to have been commanded by the Apostles although they be not written No less clear is S. Chrysostom for the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church For treating these words 2 Thes 2. Stand and hold the Traditions which you have learned whether by speech or by Epistle he saith Hence it is (b) Hom. 4. manifest that they delivered not all things by letter but many things also without writing and these also are worthy of belief Let us therefore account the Tradition of the Church so be worthy of belief It is a Tradition Seek no more Which words are so plainly against Protestants that Whitaker is as plain with S. Chrysostom saying I answer (c) De Sacra Script p. 678. that this is an inconsiderate speech and unworthy so great a Father But let us conclude with S. Augustine that the Church cannot approve any Error against Faith or good manners The Church saith he being (d) Ep. 119. placed between much chaff and cockle doth tolerate many things but yet she doth not approve nor dissemble nor do those things which are against Faith or good life 17. And as I have proved that Protestants according to their grounds cannot yield infallible assent to the Church in any one Point so by the same reason I prove that they cannot relie upon Scripture it self in any one Point of Faith Not in Points of lesser moment or not Fundamental because in such Points the Catholique Church according to D. Potter and much more any Protestant may err and think it is contained in Scripture when it is not Not in Points Fundamental because they must first know what Points be Fundamental before they can be assured that they cannot err in understanding the Scripture and consequently independently of Scripture they must foreknow all Fundamental Points of Faith and therefore they do not indeed relie upon Scripture either for Fundamental or not Fundamental Points 18. Besides I mainly urge D. Potter and other Protestants that they tell us of certain Points which they call Fundamental and we cannot wrest from them a list in particular of such Points without which no man can tell whether or no he err in Points Fundamental and be capable of Salvation And which is most lamentable instead of giving us such a Catalogue they fall to wrangle among themselves about the making of it 19. Calvin holds the (e) Instit l. 4. cap. 2. Pope's Primacy Invocation of Saints Freewill and such like to be Fundamental Errors overthrowing the Gospel Others are not of his mind as Melancthon who saith in (f) Cent. Ep. Theol. Ep. 74. the opinion of himself and other his Brethren That the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is of use or profit to this end that consent of Doctrin may be retained An agreement therefore may easily be established in this Article of the Pope's Primacy if ether Articles could be agreed upon If the Pope's Primacy be a means that consent of Doctrin may be retained first submit to it and other articles will be easily agreed upon Luther also saith of the Pope's Primacy it may be born (g) In Assertionib art 36. withall And why then O Luther did you not bear with it And how can you and your followers be excused from damnable Schism who chose rather to divide God's Church then to bear with that which you confess may be born withall But let us go forward That the Doctrin of Freewill Prayer for the dead worshipping of Images Worship and Invocation of Saints Real presence Transubstantiation Receiving under one kind Satisfaction and Merit of works and the Mass be not fundamental Errors is taught respectivè by divers Protestants carefully alledged in the Protestants (h) Tract 1. c. 2. Sect. 14. after F. Apology c. as namely by Perkins Cartwright Frith Fulke Sparke Goad Luther Reynolds Whitaker Tindal Francis Johnson with others Contrary to these is the Confession of the Christian Faith so called by Protestants which I mentioned (i) Cap. 1. v. 4. heretofore wherein we are damned unto unquenchable fire for the Doctrin of Mass Prayer to Saints and for the dead Freewill Presence at Idol-service Mans merit with such like Justification by Faith alone is by some Protestants affirmed to be the soul of the (k) Chalk in the Tower disputation the 4. dayes conference Church The only Principal origin of (l) Fox Act. Mon. p. 402. Salvation of all other Points of (m) The Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Confessions p. 253. Doctrin the chiefest and weightiest Which yet as we have seen is contrary to other Protestants who teach that merit of good works is not a Fundamental Error yea divers Protestants defend merit of good works as may be seen in (n) Tract 3. Sect. 7. under m. n. 15. Breereley One would think that the King's Supremacy for which some blessed men lost their lives was once amongst Protestants held for a Capital Point but now D. Andrews late of Winchester in his Book against Bellarmine tells us that it is sufficient to reckon it among true Doctrins And Wotton denies that Protestants (o) In his answer to a Popish pamphlet p 68. hold the King's
Supremacy to be an essential Point of Faith O freedom of the new Gospel Hold with Catholiques the Pope or with Protestants the King or with Puritans neither Pope nor King to be Head of the Church all is one you may be saved Some as Castalio (p) Vid Gul. Reginald Calv. Turcis l. 2. c. 6. and the whole Sect of the Academical Protestants hold that Doctrins about the Supper Baptism the state and office of Christ how he is one with his Father the Trinity Predestination and divers other such questions are not necessary to Salvation And that you may observe how ungrounded and partial their Assertions be Perkins teacheth that the Real presence of our Saviour's Body in the Sacrament as it is believed by Catholiques is a Fundamental Error and yet affirmeth the Consubstantiation of Lutherans not to be such notwithstanding that divers chief Lutherans to their Consubstantiation joyn the prodigious Heresie of Ubiquitation D. Usher in his Sermon of the Unity of the Catholique Faith grants Salvation to the Aethiopians who yet with Christian Baptism joyn Circumcision D. Potter (q) Pag. 113 114. Morton in his Treatise of the Kingdom of Israel p. 94. cites the Doctrin of some whom he termeth men of great learning and judgment that all who profess to love and honour JESUS CHRIST are in the visible Christian Church and by Catholiques to be reputed Brethren One of these men of great learning and judgment is Thomas Morton by D. Potter cited in his Margent whose love and honour to Jesus Christ you may perceive by this saying that the Churches of Arians who denied our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God because they do hold the foundation of the Gospel which is Faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God and Saviour of the world And which is more it seemeth by these charitable men that for being a member of the Church it is not necessary to believe one only God For D. Potter (r) Pag. 121. among the arguments to prove Hookers and Morton's opinion brings this The people of the ten Tribes after their defection notwithstanding their gross corruption and Idolatry remained still a true Church We may also as it seemeth by these mens reasoning deny the Resurrection and yet be members of the true Church For a learned man saith D. Potter (s) Pag. 122. in behalf of Hooker's and Morton's opinion was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our bodies Dear Saviour What times do we behold If one may be a member of the true Church and yet deny the Trinity of the Persons the Godhead of our Saviour the necessity of Baptism if we may use Circumcision and with the worship of God joyn Idolatry wherein do we differ from Turks and Jews or rather are we not worse than either of them If they who deny our Saviour's Divinity might be accounted the Church of God How will they deny that savour to those ancient Heretiques who denied our Saviour's true humanity and so the total denial of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church S. Hilary (t) Comment in Mat. cap. 16. maketh it of equal necessity for Salvation that we believe our Saviour to be true God and true Man saying This manner of Confession we aâ—e to hold that we remember him to be the Son of God and the Son of Man because the one without the other can give no hope of Salvation And yet D. Potter saith of the aforesaid doctrin of Hooker and Morton The (u) Pag. 123. Reader may be pleased to approve or reject it as he shall find cause And in another place (w) Pag. 253. he sheweth so much good liking of this Doctrin that he explicateth and proveth the Churches perpetual Visibility by it And in the second Edition of his Book he is careful to declare and illustrate it more at large than he had done before howsoever this sufficiently sheweth that they have no certainty what Points be Fundamental As for the Arians in particular the Author whom D. Potter cites for a moderate Catholique but is indeed a plain Heretique or rather Atheist Lucian-like jesting at all Religion (x) A moderate examination c. cap. 1. panlò post initium placeth Arianism among Fundamental Errors Buâ— contrarily an English Protestant Divine masked under the name of Irenaeus Philalethes in a little Book in Latine intituled Dissertatio de pace concordia Ecclesiae endeavoureth to prove that even the denial of the Blessed Trinity may stand with Salvation Divers Protestants have taught that the Roman Church erreth in Fundamental Points But D. Potter and others teach the contrary which could not happen if they could agree what be Fundamental Points You brand the Donatists with the note of an Error in the matter (y) Pag. 126. and the nature of it properly heretical because they taught that the Church remained only with them in the part of Donatus And yet many Protestants are so far from holding that Doctrin to be a Fundamental Error that themselves go further and say that for divers ages before Luther there was no true Visible Church at all It is then too too apparent that you have no agreement in specifying what be Fundamental Points neither have you any means to determine what they be for if you have any such means Why do you not agree You tell us The Creed contains all Points Fundamental which although it were true yet you see it serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge and agreement in such Points And no wonder For besides what I have said already in the beginning of this Chapter and am to deliver more at large in the next after so much labour and paper spent to pâ—ove that the Creed contains all Fundamental Points you conclude It remains (a) Pag. 241. very probable that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those Fundamental truths whereof consists the Unity of Faith and of the Catholique Church Very probable Then according to all good Logick the contrary may remain very probable and so all remain as full of uncertainty as before The whole Rule say you and the sole Judge of your Faith must be Scripture Scripture doth indeed deliver divine Truths but seldom doth qualifie them or declare whether they be or be nor absolutely necessary to Salvation You fall (b) Pag. 215. heavy upon Charity Mistaken because he demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamental Points which yet you are obliged in conscience to do if you be able For without such a Catalogue no man can be assured whether or no be have Faith sufficient to Salvation And therefore take it not in all part if we again and again demand such a Catalogue And that you may see we proceed fairly I will perform on our behalf what we request of you and do here deliver a Catalogue wherein
are comprised all Points by us taught to be necessary to Salvation in these words We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholique Visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God If any be of another mind all Catholiques denounce him to be no Catholique But enough of this And I go forward with the Infallibility of the Church in all Points 20. For even out of your own Doctrin that the Church cannot err in Points necessary to Salvation any wise man will infer that it behoves all who have care of their souls not to forsake her in any one Point 1. Because they are assured that although her Doctrine proved not to be true in some Point yet even according to D. Potter the Error cannot be Fundamental nor destructive of Faith and Salvation neither can they be accused of any the least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the universal Church Secondly since she is under pain of eternal damnation to be believed and obeyed in some things wherein confessedly she is indued with infallibility I cannot in wisdom suspect her credit in matters of less moment For who would trust another in matters of highest consequence and be afraid to relie on him in things of less moment Thirdly since as I said we are undoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest or Fundamental Points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those Fundamental Points be I cannot without hazard of my soul leave her in any one Point lest perhaps that Point or Points wherein I forsake her prove indeed to be Fundamental and necessary to Salvation Fourthly that Visible Church which cannot err in Points Fundamental doth without distinction propound all her Definitions concerning matters of Faith to be believed under Anathema's or Curses esteeming all those who resist to be deservedly cast out of her Communion and holding it a Point necessary to Salvation that we believe she cannot err wherein if she speak true then to deny any one point in particular which she defineth or to affirm in general that she may err puts a man into a state of damnation Whereas to believe her in such Points as are not necessary to Salvation cannot endanger Salvation and likewise to remain in her Communion can bring no great harm because she cannot maintain any damnable error or practice but to be divided from her the being Christ's Catholique Church is most certainly damnable Fifthly the true Church being in lawful and certain possession of Superiority and Power to command and require Obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grievous sin withdraw my obedience in any one unless I evidently know that the thing commanded comes not within the compass of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better inform me how far God's Church can proceed than God's Church her self Or to what Doctor can the Children and Scholars with greater reason and more security flye for direction than to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused than in cleaving to any particular Sect or Person teaching or applying Scriptures against her Doctrin or Interpretation Sixthly the fearful examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the Church upon pretence of her Errors have failed even in Fundamental Points and suffered shipwrack of their Salvation ought to deter all Christians from opposing her in any one Doctrin or practice as to omit other both ancient and modern heresies we see that divers chief Protestants pretending to reform the corruptions of the Church are come to affirm that for many ages she erred to death and wholly perished which D. Potter cannot deny to be a Fundamental Error against that Article of our Creed I believe the Catholique Church as he affirmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the Universal Church within Africa or some other small tract of soil Lest therefore I may fall into some Fundamental Error it is most safe for me to believe all the Decrees of that Church which cannot err fundamentally especially it we add That according to the Doctrin of Catholique Divines one error in Faith whether it be for the matter it self great or small destroys Faith as is shewed in Charity Mistaken and consequently to accuse the Church of any one Error is to affirm that she lost all Faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaves Christ no visible Church on earth 21. To all these Arguments I add this Demonstration D. Potter teacheth that there neither was (c) Pag. 75. nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But if the Church of Christ can err in some Points of Faith men not only may but must forsake her in those unless D. Potter will have them to believe one thing and profess another and if such errors and corruptions should fall out to be about the Churches Liturgy publique Service administration of Sacraments the like they who perceive such errors must of necessity leave her external Communion And therefore if once we grant the Church may err it followeth that men may and ought to forsake her which is against D. Potter's own words or else they are inexcusable who left the Communion of the Roman Church under pretence of errors which they grant not to be Fundamental And if D. Potter think good to answer this argument he must remember his own Doctrin to be that even the Catholique Church may err in Points not Fundamental 22. Another argument for the universal Infallibility of the Church I take out of D. Potter's own words If saith he we (d) Pag. 97. did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true unless he presuppose that the Church truly Catholique cannot err in Points not Fundamental For if she may err in such Points the Roman Church which he affirmeth to err only in Points not Fundamental may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may err in Points not Fundamental Therefore either he must acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words or else must grant that the Church truly Catholique cannot err in Points not Fundamental which is what we intended to prove 23. If Words cannot perswade you that in all Controversies you must relie upon the infallibility of the Church at least yield your assent to Deeds Hitherto I have produced Arguments drawn as it were ex natura rei from the Wisdom and Goodness of God who cannot fail to have left some infallible means to determine Controversies which as we have proved can be no other except a Visible Church infallible in all her Definitions But because both Catholiques and Protestants receive holy Scripture we may thence also prove the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concern Faith and Religion Our
Saviour speaketh clearly The Gates of Hell (e) Mat. 16. shall not prevail against her And I will ask my (f) Joan. 14. Father and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever The Spirit of Truth And But when he the Spirit of (g) Joan. 16. Truth cometh he shall teach you all Truth The Apostle saith that the Church is the Pillar and ground of (h) 1 Tim. c. 3. Truth And He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and othersome Evangelists and othersome Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the Ministry unto the edifying of the Body of Christ until we meet all into the unity of Faith and knowledge of the Son of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ that now we be not children wavering and carried about with every wind of Doctrin in the wickedness of men in craftiness to the circumvention (i) Ephes 4. of Error All which words seem clearly enough to prove that the Church is universally infallible without which unity of Faith could not be conserved against every wind of Doctrin And yet D Potter (k) Pag. 151 153. limits these promises and priviledges to Fundamental Points in which he grants the Church cannot err I urge the words of Scripture which are universal and do not mention any such restraint I alledge that most reasonable and Received Rule that Scripture is to be understood literally as it soundeth unless some manifest absurdity force us to the contrary But all will not serve to accord our different interpretation In the mean time divers of D. Potter's Brethren step in and reject his limitation as over-large and somewhat tasting of Papistry And therefore they restrain the mentioned Texts either to the Infallibility which the Apostles and other sacred Writers had in penning of Scripture or else to the invisible Church of the Elect and to them not absolutely but with a double restriction that they shall not fall damnably and finally and other men have as much right as these to interpose their opinion and interpretation Behold we are three at debate about the selfesame words of Scripture We confer divers places and Texts We consult the Originals We examine Translations We endeavour to pray heartily We profess to speak sincerely To seek nothing but Truth and Salvation of our own souls and that of our Neighbours and finally we use all those means which by Protestants themselves are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture Nevertheless we neither do or have any possible means to agree as long as we are left to our selves and when we should chance to be agreed the doubt would still remain whether the thing it self be a Fundamental Point or no And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God the lover of Souls hath left no certain infallible means to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion Our remedy therefore in these contentions must be to consult and hear Gods Visible Church with submissive acknowledgment of her Power and Infallibility in whatsoever the proposeth as a revealed Truth according to that divine advice of St. Augustine in these words If at length (l) De util cred cap. 8. thou seem to be sufficiently tossed and hast a desire to put an end to thy pains follow the way of the Catholique Discipline which from Christ himself by the Apostles hath come down even to us and from us shall descend to all posterity And though I conceive that the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental hath now been sufficiently confuted yet that no shadow of difficulty may remain I will particularly refel a common saying of Protestants that it is sufficient for Salvation to believe the Apostles Creed which they hold to be a Summary of all Fundamental Points of Faith The ANSWER to the THIRD CHAPTER Wherein it is maintained That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental is in this present Controversie good and pertinent And that the Catholique Church may err in the latter kind of the said Points 1 THis Distinction is imployed by Protestants to many purposes and therefore if it be pertinent and good as they understand and apply it the whole edifice built thereon must be either firme and stable or if it be not it cannot be for any default in this Distinction 2. If you object to them discords in matter of Faith without any means of agreement They will answer you that they want not good and solid means of agreement in matters necessary to Salvation viz. Their beliefe of all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture which who so believes must of necessity believe all things necessary to Salvation and their mutual suffering one another to abound in their several sense in matters not plainly and undoubtedly there delivered And for their agreement in all Controversies of Religion either they have means to agree about them or not If you say they have why did you before deny it If they have not means why do you find fault with them for not agreeing 3. You will say that their fault is that by remaining Protestants they exclude themselves from the means of agreement which you have and which by submission to your Church they might have also But if you have means of agreement the more shame for you that you stil disagree For who I pray is more inexcusably guilty for the omission of any duty they that either have no means to do it or else know of none they have which puts them in the same case if as they had none or they which professe to have an easie and expedite means to do it and yet still leave it undone If you had been blind saith our Saviour to the Pharisees you had had no sin but now you say you see therefore your sin remaineth 4. If you say you do agree in matters of Faith I say this is ridiculous for you define matters of Faith to be those wherein you agree So that to say you agree in matters of Faith is to say you agree in those things wherein you do agree And do not Protestants do so likewise Do not they agree in those things wherein they do agree 5. But you are all agreed that only those things wherein you do agree are matters of Faith And Protestants if they were wise would do so too Sure I am they have reason enough to do so seeing all of them agree with explicite Faith in all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture that is in all which God hath plainly revealed and with an implicite Faith in that sense of the whole Scripture which God intended whatsoever was Secondly That which you pretend is false for else why do some of you hold it against faith to take or allow the Oath of
of those that understand reason This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argument But I adde moreover that you neither have named those Protestants who held the Church to have perished for many Ages who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the Church not that the true Church but that the pure Church perished or rather that the Church perished not from its life and existence but from its purity and integrity or perhaps from its splendor and visibility Neither have you proved by any one reason but only affirmed it to be a Fundamental Error to hold that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world and abolished for a time from the face of the earth 65. But to accuse the Church of any Error in Faith is to say she lost all Faith For this is the Doctrin of Catholique Divines that one Errour in Faith destroyes Faith To which I answer that to accuse the Church of some Error in Faith is not to say she lost all Faith For this is not the Doctrin of all Catholique Divines But that he which is an Heretique in one Article may have true Faith of other Articles And the contrary is only said and not shewed in Charity Mistaken 66. Ad § 21. D. Potter saies We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things and from hence you conclude Therefore we may not depart from it in any thing And this Argument you call a Demonstration But a Fallacy à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid was not used heretofore to be called a Demonstration D. Potter says not that you may not depart from any opinion or any practice of the Church for you tell us in this very place that he sayes even the Catholique may err and every man may lawfully depart from Error He only says You may not cease to be of the Church nor depart from those things which make it so to be and from hence you infer a necessity of forsaking it in nothing Just as if you should argue thus You may not leave your friend or brother therefore you may not leave the Vice of your friend or the Errour of your brother What he sayes of the Catholique Church p. 75. the same he extends presently after to every true though never so corrupted part of it And why do you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgment can fall into any Error and call this a Demonstration too For as he sayes p. 75. That there can be no just cause to depart from the whole Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself So p. 76. he tels you That whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body forsakes the whole So that what he sayes of the one he sayes of the other and tels you that neither Universal nor particular Church so long as they continue so may be forsaken he means Absolutely no more than Christ himself may be forsaken absolutely For the Church is the body of Christ and whosoever forsakes either the body or his coherence to any one part of it must forsake his subordination and relation to the Head Therefore whosoever forsakes the Church or any Christian must forsake Christ himself 67. But then he tels you plainly in the same place That it may be lawful and necessary to depart from a Particular Church in some Doctrins and Practices And this he would have said even of the Catholike Church if there had been occasion but there was none For there he was to declare and justifie our departure not from the Catholike Church but the Roman which we maintain to be a particular Church But in other places you confess his Doctrin to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in points not Fundamental which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself And therefore you cannot with any candor interpret his words as if he had said We may not forsake the Church in any thing no more than Christ himself but only thus We may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more than Christ himself And thus we see sometimes A mountain may travel and the production may be a mouse 68. Ad § 22. But D. Potter either contradicts himself or else must grant the Church infallible Because he saies if we did not differ from the Roman we could not agree with the Catholique which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre Answer This Argument to give it the right name is an obscure and intricate Nothing And to make it appear so let us suppose in contradiction to your supposition either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church doth erre in some few things but that the Roman erres in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches Fallibility a man may truly say Unless I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therefore you must retract you imputation laid upon D. Potter or do that which you condemn in him and be driven to say that the same man may hold some errors with the Church of Rome and at the same time with the Catholique Church not to hold but condemn them For otherwise in neither of these cases is it possible for the same man at the same time to agree both with the Roman and the Catholique 69. In all these Texts of Scripture which are here alleaged in this last Section of this Chapter or in any one of them or in any other Doth God say clearly and plainly The Bishop of Rome and that Society of Christians which adheres to him shall be ever the infallible guide of Faith You will confess I presume he doth not and will pretend it was not necessary Yet if the King should tell us the Lord Keeper should judge such and such causes but should either not tell us at all or tell us but doubtfully who should be Lord-Keeper should we be any thing the nearer for him to an end of contentions Nay rather would not the dissentions about the Person who it is increase contentions rather than end them Just so it would have been if God had appointed a Church to be Judge of Controversies and had not told us which was that Church Seeing therefore God doth nothing in vain and seeing it had been in vain to appoint a Judge of Controversies and not to tell us plainly who it is and seeing lastly he hath not told us plainly no not at all who it is Is it not evident he hath appointed none Obj. But you will say perhaps if it be granted once that some Church of one denomination is the infallible Guide of Faith it will be no difficult thing to prove that yours is the Church seeing no other Church pretends to be so Answ Yes the Primitive and
pretended proof out of the Acts that the Apostles revealed to the Church the whole counsel of God keeping (d) Act. 20 27. back nothing with your gloss needful for our Salvation is no proof unless you still beg the question and coâ—suppose that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church is contained in the Creed And I wonder you do not reflect that those words were by S. Paul particularly directed to Pastors and Governors of the Church as is clear by the other words He called the Ancients of the Church And afterward Take heed to your selves and to the whole stock wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church And your self say that more knowledge is (e) Pag. 244. necessary in Bishops and Priests to whom is committed the government of the Church and the care of souls than in vulgar Laicks Do you think that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed Said they nothing of the Sacraments Commandements Duties of Hope Charity c. 25. Upon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other Objection To say the whole faith of those times (f) Pag. 225 223. is not contained in the Apostles Creed is all one as if a man should say This is not the Apostles Creed but a part of it For the Faith of the Apostles is not all one with that which we commonly call their Creed Did not I pray you S Mathew and S John believe their writings to be Canonical Scripture and yet their writings are not mentioned in the Creed It is therefore more than clear that the Faith of the Apostles is of larger extent than the Apostles Creed 26 To your demand Why amongst many things of equal necessity to be believed the Apostles should (g) Pag. 223. so distinctly set down some and be altogether silent of others I answer That you must answer your own demand For in the Creed there be divers Points in their nature not fundamental or necessary to be explicitely and distinctly believed as above we shewed Why are these Points which are not fundamental expressed rather than other of the same quality Why our Saviours descent to Hell and Burial expressed and not his Circumcision his Manifestation to the three Kings working of Miracles c. Why did they not express Scriptures Sacraments and all Fundamental Points of Faith tending to practice as well as those which rest in belief Their intention was particularly to deliver such Articles as were fittest for those times concerning the Deity Trinity and Messias as heretofore I have declared leaving many things to be taught by the Catholique Church which in the Creed we all profess to believe Neither doth it follow as you infer That as well nay better they might have given no Article but that of the Church and sent us to the Church for all the rest For in setting down others besides that and not all they make us believe we have all when (h) Pag. 223. we have not all For by this kind of arguing what may not be deduced One might quite contrary to your inference say If the Apostles Creed contain all Points necessary to Salvation what need we any Church to teach us and consequently what need of the Article concerning the Church What need we the Creeds of Nice Constantinople c. Superfluous are you Catechisms wherein besides the Articles of the Creed you adde divers others particulars These would be poor consequences and so is yours But shall I tell you newes For so you are pleased to esteem it We grant your inference thus far That our Saviour Christ referred us to his Church by her to be taught and by her alone For she was before the Creed and Scripture And she to discharge this imposed office of instructing us hath delivered us the Creed but not it alone as if nothing else were to be believed We have besides it holy Scripture we have unwritten Divine Apostolical Ecclesiastical Traditions It were a childish Argument The Creed contains not all things which are necessary to be believed Ergo it is not profitable Or The Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient means Ergo she must teach us without all means without Creeds without Councils without Scripture c. If the Apostles had expressed no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must have taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other means as in fact we have even the Apostles Creed from the Tradition of the Church It you will believe you have all in the Creed when you have not all it is not the Apostles or the Church that makes you so believe but it is your own error whereby you will needs believe that the Creed must contain all For neither the Apostles nor the Church nor the Creed it self tell you any such matter and what necessity is there that one means of instruction must involve whatsoever is contained in all the rest We are not to recite the Creed with anticipated perswasions that it must contain what we imagine it ought for better maintaining some opinions of our own but we ought to say and believe that it contains what we find in it of which one Article is to believe the Catholique Church surely to be taught by her which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the Creed and in particular we may learn of her what Points be contained in the Creed what otherwise and so we shall not be deceived by beliving we have all in the Creed when we have not all and you may in the same manner say As well nay better the Apostles might have given us no Articles at all as have left out Articles tending to practice For in setting down one sort of Articles and not the other they make us believe we have all when we have not all 27. To our Argument that Baptism is not contained in the Creed D. Potter besides his answer that Sacraments belong rather to practice than faith which I have already confuted and which indeed maketh against himself and serveth only to shew that the Apostles intended not to comprize all Points in the Creed which we are bond to believe adds that the Creed of (i) Pag. 237. Nice expressed Baptism by name confess one Baptism for the remission of sins Which answer is directly against himself and manifestly proves that Baptism is an Article of Faith and yet is not contained in the Apostles Creed neither explicitly nor by any necessary consequence from other Articles expressed therein If to make it an Article of Faith be sufficient that it is contained in the Nicene Council he will find that Protestants maintain many errors against faith as being repugnant to definitions of general Councils as in particular that the very Council of Nice which saith M. Whitgift (k) In his defence pag. 330. is of all wise and learned men reverenced esteemed and embraced next unto the Scriptures themselves decreed that to those
offered are either innocently or perhaps affectedly ignorant of the contrariety of them for men in such cases easily to swallow and digest contradictions he that denies it possible must be a meer stranger in the world 48. Ad § 18. This Paragraph consists of two immodest Untruths obtruded upon us without shew or shadow of Reason and an evident Sophism grounded upon an affected mistake of the sense of the word Fundamental 49. The first Untruth is that D. Potter makes a Church of men agreeing scarcely in one Point of Faith of men concurring in some one or few Articles of Belief and in the rest holding conceits plainly contradictory Agreeing only in this one Article that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest like to the parts of a Chimaera c. Which I say is a shameless calumny not only because D. Potter in this Point delivers not his own judgment but relates the opinion of others M. Hooker and M. Morton but especially because even these men as they are related by D. Potter to the constituting of the very Essence of a Church in the lowest degree require not only Faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of the World but also submission to his Doctrin in mind and will Now I beseech you Sir tell me ingenuously whether the Doctrin of Christ may be called without blasphemy scarcely one Point of Faith or whether it consists only of some one or few Articles of Belief Or whether there be nothing in it but only this Article That Christ is our Saviour Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Books of Scripture which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church without danger of damnation Nay is it not apparent that no man at this time can without hypocrisie pretend to believe in Christ but of necessity he must do so Seeing he can have no reason to believe in Christ but he must have the same to believe the Scripture I pray then read over the Scripture once more or if that be too much labour the New Testament only and then say whether there be nothing there but scarcely one Point of Faith But some one or two Articles of Belief Nothing but this Article only That Christ is our Saviour Say whether there be not there an infinite number of Divine Verities Divine Preecepts Divine Promises and those so plainly and undoubtedly delivered that if any sees them not it cannot be because he cannot but because he will not So plainly that whosoever submits sincerely to the Doctrin of Christ in mind and will cannot possibly but submit to these in act and performance And in the rest which it hath pleased God for reasons best known to himself to deliver obscurely or ambiguously yet thus far at least they agree that the sense of them intended by God is certainly true and that they are without passion or prejudice to endeavour to find it out The difference only is Which is that true sense which God intended Neither would this long continue if the walls of separation whereby the Devil hopes to make their Divisions eternal were pulled down and error were not supported against Truth by humane advantages But for the present God forbid the matter should be so ill as you make it For whereas you looking upon their Points of difference and agreement through I know not what strange glasses have made the first innumerable and the other scarse a number the truth is clean contrary That those Divine Verities Speculative and Practical wherein they universally agree which you will have to be but a few or but one or scarcely one amount to many millions if an exact account were taken of them And on the other side the Points in variance are in comparison but few and those not of such a quality but the Error in them may well consist with the belief and obedience of the entire Covenant ratified by Christ between God and man Yet I would not be so mistaken as if I thought the errors even of some Protestants unconsiderable things and matters of no moment For the truth is I am very fearful that some of their opinions either as they are or as they are apt to be mistaken though not of themselves so damnable but that good and holy men may be saved with them yet are too frequent occasions of our remisness and slackness in running the race of Christian Profession of our deferring Repentance and Conversion to God of our frequent relapses into sin and not seldom of security in sinning consequently though not certain causes yet too frequent occasions of many mens damnation and such I conceive all these Doctrins which either directly or obliquely put men in hope of eternal happiness by any other means saving only the narrow way of sincere and universal obedience grounded upon a true and lively Faith These errors therefore I do not elevate or extenuate an◠on condition the ruptures made by them might be composed do heartily wish that the cement were made of my dearest bloud and only not to be an Anathema from Christ Only this I say that neither are their Points of agreement so few nor their differences so many as you make them nor so great as to exclude the opposite Parties from being Members of one Church Militant and joynt-heirs of the glory of the Church Triumphant 50. Your other palpable untruth is that Protestants are far more bold to disagree even in matters of Faith than Catholique Divines you mean your own in Questions meerly Philosophical or not determined by the Church For neither do they differ at all in matters of Faith if you take the word in the highest sense and mean by matters of Faith such Doctrins as are absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed or not to be dis-believed And then in those wherein they do differ with what colour or shadow of Argument can you make good that they are more bold to disagree than you are in Questions meerly Philosophical or not determined by the Church For is there not as great repugnancy between your assent and dissent your affirmation and negation your Est Est Non Non as there is between theirs You follow your Reason in those things which are not determined by your Church and they theirs in things not plainly determined in Scripture And wherein then consists their greater their far greater boldness And what if they in their contradictory opinions pretend both to relie upon the truth of God doth this make their contradictions ever a whit the more repugnant I had always thought that all contradictions had been equally contradictions and equally repugnant because the least of them are as far asunder as Est and Non est can make them and the greatest are no farther But then you in your differences by name about Predetermination the Immaculate Conception the Pope's Infallibility upon what other motive do you
Zwinglius first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel Perkins saith We say that (d) In his Exposâ—t on upon the Creed Pag. 400. bâ—fore the dayes of Luther for the space of many hundâ—ed years an Universal Apostacy overspread the whole face of the earth and that our Protestant Church was not then visible to the world Napper upon the Revelations teacheth that from the year of (e) Propos 37. Pag 68. Christ three hundred and sixteen the Antichristian and Papistical raign hath begun raigning universally and without any debatable contradiction one thousand two hundred sixty years that is till Luther's time And that from the year of (f) Ibid. cap. 12. Pag. 161. col 3. Christ three hundred and sixteen God hath withdrawn his Visible Church from open Assemblies to the hearts of particular godly men c. during the space of one thousand two hundred threescore years And that the (g) Ibid. in cap. 11. Pag. 145. Pope and Clergy have possessed the outward Visible Church of Christians even one thousand two hundred threescore years And that the (h) Ibid. Pag. 191. true Church abode latent and invisible And Brocard (i) Fol. 110. 123. upon the Revelations professeth to joyn in opinion with Napper Fulk affirmeth that in the (k) Answer to a counterfeit Catholique Pag. 16. time of Boniface the third which was the year six hundred and seven the Church was invisible and fled into the wilderness there to remain a long season Luther saith Primò solus eram At the first (l) In praef at operum suorum I was alone Jacob Hailbronerus one of the Disputants for the Protestant Patty in the conference at Ratisbon affirmeth (m) In suo Acatholico vol. à . 15. cap. 9. p. 479 that the true Church was interrupted by Apostasie from the true Faith Calvin saith It is absurd in the very (n) Epist 141. beginning to break one from another after we have been forced to make a separation from the whole world It were over-long to alledge the words of Joannes Regius Daniel Chamierus Beza Ochimus Castalio and others to the same purpose The reason which cast them upon this wicked Doctrin was a desperate voluntary necessity because they being resolved not to acknowledge the Roman Church to be Christ's true Church and yet being convinced by all manner of evidence that for divers Ages before Luther there was no other Congregation of Christians which could be the Church of Christ there was no remedy but to affirm that upon earth Christ had no visible Church which they would never have avouched if they had known how to avoid the foresaid inconvenience as they apprehended it of submitting themselves to the Roman Church 10. Against these exterminating spirits D. Potter and other more moderate Protestants profess that Christ always had and always will have upon earth a Visible Church otherwise saith he our Lord's (o) Pag. 154. promise of her stable (p) Mat. 16.18 edification should be of no value And in another place having affirmed that Protestants have not left the Church of Rome but her corruptions and acknowledging her still to be a member of Christ's body he seeketh to clear himself and others from Schism because saith he the property (q) Pag. 76. of Schism is witness the Donatists and Lucitâ—rians to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates And if any Zâ—lots amongst us have proceeded to heavier censures their zeal may be excused but their charity and wisdom cannot be justified And elsewhere he acknowledgeth that the Roman Church hath those main and (r) Pag. 83. essential truths which give her the name and essence of a Church 11. It being therefore granted by D. Potter and the chiefest and best learned English Protestants that Christ's Visible Church cannot perish it will be needless for me in this occasion to prove it S. Augustine doubted not to say The Prophets (s) In Psal 30. Com. 2. spoke more obscurely of Christ then of the Church because as I think they did forsee in spirit that men were to make parties against the Church and that they were not to have so great strife concerning Christ therefore that was more plainly foretold and more openly prophesied about which greater contentions were to rise that it might turn to the condemnation of them who have seen it and yet gone forth And in another place he saith How do we confide (t) Epist 48. to have received manifestly Christ himself from holy Scriptures if we have not also manifestly received the Church from them And indeed to what Congregation shall a man have recourse for the affairs of his soul if upon earth there be no Visible Church of Christ Beside to imagine a company of men believing one thing in their heart and with their mouth professing the contrary as they must be supposed to do for if they had professed what they believed they would have become Visible is to dream of a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants but not to conceive a right notion of the Church of Christ our Lord. And therefore S. Augustine saith We cannot be saved unless labouring also for the (u) S. Aug. de Fide Symbolâ— c. 1. Salvation of others we profess with our mouths the same Faith which we bear in our hearts And if any man hold it lawful to dissemble and deny matters of Faith we cannot be assured but that they actually dissemble and hide Anabaptism Arianism yea Turcism and even Atheism or any other false belief under the outward profession of Calvinism Do not Protestants teach that preaching of the World and administration of Sacraments which cannot but make a Church Visible are inseparable notes of the true Church And therefore they must either grant a Visible Church or none at all No wonder then if S. Austin account this Heresie so gross that he saith against those who in his time defended the like error But this Church which (w) In Psal 101. hath been of all Nations is no more she hath perished so say they that are in not in her O impudent speech And afterward This voice so abominable so detestable so full of presumption and falshood which is sustained with no truth inlightned with no wisdom seasoned with no salt vain rash heady pernitious the holy Ghost foresaw c. And peradventure some (x) De ovib c. â— one may say there are other sheep I know not where with which I am not acquainted yet God hath care of them But he is too absurd in humane sense that can imagine such things And these men do not consider that while then deny the perpetuity of a Visible Church they destroy their own present Church according to the argument which S. Augustine urged against the Donatists in these words (y) De Bapt. cont Donat. If the Church were lost in Cyprian's we may say in Gregory's
truly Catholique by reason of pretended corruptions not Fundamental For your self avouch and endeavour to prove that the true Catholique Church may err in such Points Moreover I hope you will not so much as go about to prove that when Luther rose there was any other true visible Church disagreeeing from the Roman and agreeing with Protestants in their particular Doctrins and you cannot deny but that England in those days-agreed with Rome and other Nations with England And therefore either Christ had no visible Church upon Earth or else you must grant that it was the Church of Rome A truth so manifest that those Protestants who affirm the Roman Church to have lost the nature and being of a true Church do by inevitable consequence grant that for divers ages Christ had no visible Church on earth from which error because D. Potter disclaimeth he must of necessity maintain that the Roman Church is free from Fundamental and damnable error and that she is not cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation And if saith he any Zelols amongst us have proceeded (h) Ibid. to heavier censures their zeal may be excused but their Charity and wisdom cannot be justified 48. And to touch particulars which perhaps some may object No man is ignorant that the Grecians even the Schismatical Grecians do in most Points agree with Roman Catholiques and disagree from the Protestant Reformation They teach Transubstantiation which Point D. Potter also (i) Pag. 225. confesseth Invocation of Saints and Angels Veneration of Reliques and Images Auricular Confession enjoyned Satisfaction Confirmation with Chrism Extream Unction All the seven Sacraments Prayer Sacrifice Alms for the dead Monachism That Priests may not marry after their Ordination In which Points that the Grecians agree with the Roman Church appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines of Wittemberg intituled Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium Jeremiae Patriarchae Constantinop de Augustana consessione c. Wittembergae anno 1584. by the Protestant (k) De statu Eccles Pag. 253. Crispinus and by Sir Edwin Sands in the Relation of the State of Religion of the West And I wonder with what colour of truth to say no worse D. Potter could affirm that the Doctrins debated between the Protestants (l) Pag. 22â— and Rome are only the partial and particular fancies of the Roman Church unless happily the opinion of Transubstantiation may be excepted wherein the latter Grecians seem to agree with the Romanists Beside the Protestant Authors already cited Petrus Arcudius a Grecian and a learned Catholique Writer hath published a large Volume the Argument and Title whereof is Of the agreement of the Roman and Greek Church in the seven Sacraments As for the Heresie of the Grecians that the Holy-Ghost proceeds not from the Son I suppose that Protestants disavow them in that error as we do 49. D. Potter will not I think so much wrong his reputation as to tell us that the Waldenses Wiecliffe Huss or the like were Protestants because in some things they disagreed from Catholiques For he well knows that the example of such men is subject to these manifest exceptions They were not of all Agesâ— nor in all Countries but confined to certain places and were interrupted in Time against the notion and nature of the word Catholique They had no Ecclesiastical Hierarchy nor Succession of Bishops Priests and Pastors They differed among themselves and from Protestants also They agreed in divers things with us against Protestants They held Doctrins manifestly abusurd and damnable heresies 50. The Waldenses began not before the year 1218. so far were they from Universality of all Ages For their Doctrin first they denyed all Judgments which extended to the drawing of bloud and the Sabbath for which cause they were called In-sabbatists Secondly they taught that Lay-men and women might consecrate the Sacrament and preach no doubt but by this means to make their Master Waldo a meer lay-man capable of such functions Thirdly that Clergy-men ought to have no possessions or proprieties Fourthly that there should be no division of Parishes not Churches for a walled Church they reputed as a Barn Fifthly that men ought not to take an Oath in any case Sixthly that those persons sinned mortally who accompanyed without hope of issue Seventhly they held all things done above the girdle by kissing touching words compression of the breasts c. to be done in Charity and not against Continency Eightly that neither Priest nor civil Magistrate being guilty of mortal sin did enjoy their dignity or were to be obeyed Ninthly they condemned Princes and Judges Tenthly they assinned singing in the Church to be an hellish clamor Eleventhly they taught that men might dissemble their Religion and so accordingly they went to Catholique Churches dissembling their Faith and made Offertoâ—ies Confessions and Communions after a dissembling manner Waldo was so unlearned that saith (m) Act. Mon. â—… Pag. 628. Fox he gave rewards to certain learned men to translate the holy Scripture for him and being thus holpen did as the same Fox there reporteth conferr the form of Religion in his time to the insallible Word of God A goodly example for such as must needs have the Scripture in English to be read by every simple body with such fruit of godly Doctrine as we have seen in the foresaid gross heresies of Waldo The followers of Waldo were like their Master so unlearned that some of them saith (n) Ibid. Fox expounded the words Joan. 1. Sui eum non receperunt Swine did not receive hâ—m And to conclude they agreed in divers things with Catholiques against Protestants as may be seen in (o) Tract 2. cap. 2. sect sâ—â—…d 3. Bâ—erely 51. Neither can it be pretended that these are slanders forged by Catholiques For besides that the same things are testified by Protâ—stant writers as Illyricus Cowper and others our Authors cannot be suspected of partiality in disfavour of Protestants unless you will say perhaps that they were Prophets and some hundred years ago did both foresee that there were to be Protestants in the world and that such Protestants were to be like the Waldenses Besides from whence but from our Histories are Protestants come to know that there were any such men as the Waldenses and that in some Points they agreed with the Protestants and disagreed from them in others And upon what ground can they believe our Author for that part wherein the Waldenses were like to Protestants and imagin they lyed the rest 52. Neither could Wickliffe continue a Church never interrupted from the time of the Waldenses after whom he lived more than one hundred and fifty years to wit the year 1371. He agreed with Catholiques about the worshipping of Reliques and Images and about the Intercession of our blessed Lady the ever Immaculate Mother of God he went so far as to say It seems to me (p) In serm de Assump Mariae
be Heretiques because they separated from the Communion of the visible Church and therefore also from the Communion of that which they say was invisible In as much as the invisible Church communicated with the visible 35. Answ I might very justly desire some proof of that which so confidently you take for granted That there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the Truth in the days of our Fore-fathers but only such as dissembled their opinions and lived in your Communion And truly if I should say there were many of this condition I suppose I could make my Affirmative much more probable than you can make your Negative We read in Scripture that Elias conceived There was none left beside himself in the whole Kingdom of Israel who had not revolted from God and yet God himself assures us that he was deceived And if such a man a Prophet and one of the greatest erred in his judgment touching his own time and his own countrey why may not you who are certainly but a man and subject to the same passions as Elias was mistake in thinking that in former ages in some countrey or other there were not always some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal But this answer I am content you shall take no notice of and think it sufficient to tell you that if it be true that this supposed invisible Church did hypocritically communicate with the visible Church in her corruptions then Protestants had cause nay necessity to forsake their Communion also for otherwise they must have joyn'd with them in the practise of impieties and seeing they had such cause to separate they presume their separation cannot be schismatical 36. Yes you reply To forsake the external Communion of them with whom they agree in faith is the most formal and proper sin of Schism Answ Very true but I would fain know wherein I would gladly be informed whether I be bound for fear of Schism to communicate with those that believe as I do only in lawful things or absolutely in every thing whether I am to joyn with them in superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common profession of the faith wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it This is that which you would have them do or else forsooth they must be Schismatiques But hereafter I pray you remember that there is no necessity of communicating even with true Believers in wicked actions Nay that there is a necessity herein to separate from them And then I dare say even you being their judge the reasonableness of their cause to separate shall according to my first observation justifie their separation from being schismatical 37. Arg. But the property of Schism according to D. Potter is to cut off from the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates And these Protestants have this property Therefore they are Schismatiques 38. Ans I deny the Syllogism it is no better than this One Sympton of the Plague is a Feaver But such a man hath a Feaver Therefore he hath the Plague The true Conclusion which issues out of these Premisses should be this Therefore he hath one Sympton of the Plague And so likewise in the former Therefore they have one property or one quality of Schismatiques And as in the former instance The man that hath one sign of the Plague may by reason of the absence of other requisites not have the plague So these Protestants may have something of Schismatiques and yet not be Schismatiques A Tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure and a just judge that condemns a malefactor do both sentence a man to death and so for the matter do both the same thing yet the one does wickedly the other justly What 's the reason because the one hath cause the other hath not In like manner Schismatiques either always or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate The same do these Protestants and yet are not Schismatiques The reason because Schismatiques do it and do it without cause and Protestants have cause for what they do The impieties of your Church being generally speaking damnable unless where they are excus'd by ignorance and expiated at least by a general repentance In fine though perhaps it may be true that all Schismatiques do so yet universal affirmatives are not converted and therefore it follows not by any good Logick that all that do so when there is just cause for it must be Schismatiques The cause in this matter of separation is all in all and that for ought I see you never think of But if these rigid Protestants have just cause to cut off your Church from the hope of salvation How can the milder sort allow hope of Salvation to the Members of this Church Ans Distinguish the quality of the Persons censur'd and this seeming repugnance of their censures will vanish into nothing For your Church may be considered either in regard of those in whom either negligence or pride or worldly fear or hopes or some other voluntary sin is the cause of their ignorance which I fear is the case of the generality of men amongst you or in regard of those who owe their Errours from Truth to want of capacity or default of instruction either in respect of those that might know the truth and will not or of those who would know the truth but all things considered cannot In respect of those that have eyes to see and will not see or those that would gladly see but want eyes or light Consider the former sort of men which your more rigid censures seem especially to reflect upon and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy Consider the later and the mildest will not be too mild So that here is no difference but in words only neither are you flatter'd by the one nor uncharitably censur'd by the other 39. Your next blow is directed against the milder sort of Protestants who you say involve themselves in the sin of Schism by communicating with those as you call them exterminating Spirits whom you conceive your self to have proved Schismatiques And now load them further with the crime of Heresie For say you If you held your selves obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman-Church by reason of her Errours which yet you confess were not fundamental shall it not be much more damnable to live in confraternity with these who defend an Errour of the failing of the Church which in the Donatists you confess to have been properly Heretical 40. Answ You mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you only or principally by reason of your Errours and Corruption For the true reason according to my third Observation is not so much because you maintain Errours and Corruption as because you impose them and will allow your Communion to none but to those that will hold them
pardon the errours of an erring Church yet certainly it is not his will that we should err with the Church or if we do not that we should against conscience profess the errours of it 71. Ad § 24. But Schismatiques from the Church of England or any other Church with this very Answer that they forsake not the Church but the errours of it may cast off from themselves the imputation of Schism Ans True they may make the same Answer and the same defence as we do as a murtherer can cry Not guilty as well as an innocent person but not so truly nor so justly The question is not what may be pretended but what can be proved by Schismatiques They may object errours to other Churches as well as we do to yours but that they prove their accusation so strongly as we can that appears not To the Priests and Elders of the Jews imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles Saint Peter and St. John answered They must obey God rather than men The three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer Give me now any factious Hypocrite who makes Religion the pretence and cloak of his Rebellion and Who sees not that such a one may answer for himself in those very formal words which the holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of And yet I presume no Christian will deny but this Answer was good in the mouth of the Apostles and Martyrs though it were obnoxious to be abused by Traytors and Rebels Certainly therefore it is no good consequence to say Schismatiques may make use of this Answer therefore all that do make use of it are Schismatiques But moreover it is to be observed that the chief part of our defence that you deny your communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrin cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grant their Communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered 72. But the forsaking the Roman Church opens a way to innumerable Sects and Schisms and therefore it must not be forsaken Ans We must not do evil to avoid evil neither are all courses presently lawful by which inconveniences may be avoided If all men would submit themselves to the chief Mufty of the Turks it is apparent there-would be no divisions yet unity is not to be purchased at so dear a rate It were a thing much to be desired that there were no divisions yet difference of opinions touching points controverted is rather to be chosen than unanimous concord in damned errours As it is better for men to go to heaven by divers ways or rather by divers paths of the same way than in the same path to go on peaceably to hell Amica Pax magis amica Veritas 73. But there can be no just cause to forsake the Church so the Doctor grants who notwithstanding teacheth that the Church may err in points not fandamental therefore neither is the Roman Church to be forsaken for such errours Ans There can be no just cause to forsake the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is to cease being a member of the Church This I grant if it will do you any service But that there can be no just cause to forsake the Church in some things or to speak more properly to forsake some opinions and practices which some true Church retains and defends this I deny and you mistake the Doctor if you think he affirms it 74. Ad § 26 27. What prodigious doctrins say you are these Those Protestants who believe that your Church erred in points necessary to salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schism But others c. Prodigious doctrins indeed But who I pray are they that teach them Where does D. Potter accuse those Protestants of damnable Schism who left your Church because they hold it erroneous in necessary points What Protestant is there that holds not that you taught things contrary to the plain precepts of Christ both Ceremonial in mutilating the Communion and Moral in points of Superstition and Idolatry and most bloody tyranny which is without question to err in necessary matters Neither does D. Potter accuse any man of Schism for holding so if he should he should call himself a Schismatique Only he says such if there be any such as affirm that ignorant souls among you who had no means to know the truth cannot possibly be saved that their wisdom and charity cannot be justified Now you your self have plainly affirmed That ignorant Protestants dying with contrition may be saved and yet would be unwilling to be thought to say that Protestants err in no points necessary to salvation For that may be in it self and in ordinary course where there are means of knowledge necessary which to a man invincibly ignorant will prove not necessary Again where doth D. Potter suppose as you make him that there were other Protestants who believed that your Church had no errours Or where does he say they did well to forsake her upon this ridiculous reason because they judged that she retained all means necessary to salvation Do you think us so stupid as that we cannot distinguish between that which D. Potter says and that which you make him say He vindicates Protestants from Schism two ways The one is because they had just and great and necessary cause to separate which Schismatiques never have because they that have it are no Schismatiques For schism is always a causeless separation The other is because they did not joyn with their separation an uncharitable damning of all those from whom they did divide themselves as the manner of Schismatiques is Now that which he intends for a circumstance of our separation you make him make the cause of it and the motive to it And whereas he says Though we separate from you in some things yet we acknowledge your Church a member of the body of Christ and therefore are not Schismatiques You make him say most absurdly We did well to forsake you because we judged you a member of the body of Christ Just as if a brother should leave his brothers company in some ill courses and should say to him Herein I forsake you yet I leave you not absolutely for I acknowledge you still to be my brother and shall use you as a brother And you perverting his speech should pretend that he had said I leave your company in these il courses and I do well to do so because you are my brother so making that the cause of leaving him which indeed is the cause that he left him no farther 75. But you say The very reason for which he acquitteth himself from Schism is because he holds that the Church which they forsook is not cut off from the Body of Christ Ans This is true But can you not perceive a
difference between justifying his separation from Schism by this reason and making this the reason of his separation If a man denying obedience in some unlawful matter to his lawful Soveraign should say to him Herein I disobey you but yet I am no Rebel because I acknowledg you my Soveraign Lord and am ready to obey you in all things lawful should not he be an egregious Sycophant that should accuse him as if he had said I do well to disobey you because I acknowledge you my lawful Soveraign Certainly he that joyns this acknowledgment with his necessitated obedience does well but he that makes this consideration the reason of disobedience doth ill Urge therefore this as you call it most solemn foppery as far as you please For every understanding Reader will easily perceive that this is no foppery of D. Potters but a calumny of yours from which he is as far as he is from holding yours to be the true Church whereas it is a sign of a great deal of Charity in him that he allows you to be a Part of it 76. And whereas you pretend to find such unspeakable comfort herein that we cannot clear our selves from Schism otherwise than by acknowledging that they do not nor cannot cut off your Church from the hope of salvation I beseech you to take care that this false comfort cost you not too dear For why this good opinion of God Almighty that he will not damn men for errour who were without their own fault ignorant of the truth should be any consolation to them who having the key of knowledge will neither use it themselves nor permit others to use it who have eyes to see and will not see who have ears to hear and will not hear this I assure you passeth my capacity to apprehend Neither is this to make our salvation depend on yours but only ours and yours not desperately inconsistent nor to say we must be damn'd unless you may be saved but that we assure our selves if our lives be answerable we shall be saved by our knowledge And that we hope and I tell you again Spes est rei incertae nomen that some of you may possibly be saved by occasion of their unaffected Ignorance 77. For our brethren whom you say we condemn of heresie for denying the Churches perpetuity we know none that do so unless you conceive a corrupted Church to be none at all and if you do then for ought I know in your account we must be all Heretiques for all of us acknowledge that the Church might be corrupted even with errours in themselves damnable and not only might but hath been 78. But Schism consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith Now we must profess you say that we agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamental Articles Therefore we are Schismatiques Ans Either in your Major by all points of faith you mean all fundamental points only or all simply and absolutely If the former I deny your Major for I may without all schism divide from that Church which errs in any point of faith Fundamental or otherwise if she require the profession of this Error among the conditions of her Communion Now this is our case If the later I deny the syllogism as having manifestly four tearms and being cosen-german to this He that obeys God in all things is innocent Titius obeys God in some things Therefore he is innocent 79. But they who judge a reconciliation with the Church of Rome to be damnable they that say there might be just and necessary cause to depart from it and that they of that Church which have understanding and means to discover their Errour and neglect to use them are not to be slattered with hope of salvation they do cut off that Church from the body of Christ and the hope of salvation and so are Schismatiques but D. Potter doth the former therefore he is a schismatique Ans No he doth not not cut off that whole Church from the hope of salvation not those members of it who were invincibly or excusably ignorant of the truth but those only who having understanding and means to discover their errour neglect to use them Now these are not the whole Church and therefore he that supposing their impenitence cuts these off from hope of salvation cannot be justly said to cut off that whole Church from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation 80. Ad § 28 29. Whereas D. Potter says There is a great difference between a Schism from them and a Reformation of our selves this you say is a quaint subtilty by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused It seems then in your judgment that theeves and adulterers and murtherers and traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants that they did no hurt to others but only reform themselves But then methinks it is very strange that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schism that to this day never any Theef or Murtherer should have been heard of to make use of this Apologie And then for Schismatiques I would know Whether Victor Bishop of Rome who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not consorming to his Church in keeping Easter whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius upon pretence that himself was elected Bishop of Rome when indeed he was not whether Felicissimus and his Crew that went out of the Church of Carthage and set up Altar against Altar because having fallen in persecution they might not be restored to the peace of the Church presently upon the intercession of the Confessours whether the Donatists who divided from and damned all the World because all the World would not excommunicate them who were accused only and not convicted to have been Traditors of the sacred Books whether they which for the slips and infirmities of others which they might and ought to tolerate or upon some difference in matters of Order and Ceremony or for some Errour in Doctrin neither pernitious nor hurtful to Faith or Piety sepatate themselves from others or others from themselves or lastly whether they that put themselves out of the Churches unity and obedience because their opinions are not approved there but reprehended and confuted or because being of impious conversation they are impatient of their Churches censure I would know I say whether all or any of these may with any face or without extream impudency put in this plea of Protestants and pretend with as much likelyhood as they that they did not separate from others but only reform themselves But suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own defence falsely doth it follow by any good Logick that therefore this Apology is not to be imployed by Protestants who may say so truly We make say they no Schism from you but only a reformation of our selves This you reply
particular States and Churches but the immortalizing the greater more lamentable divisions of Christendom and the world And therefore what can follow from it but perhaps in the judgement of carnal policy the temporal benefit and tranquillity of temporal States and Kingdoms but the infinite prejudice if not the desolation of the Kingdom of Christ And therefore it well becomes them who have have their portions in this life who serve no higher State than that of England or Spain or France nor this neither any further than they may serve themselves by it who think of no other happiness but the preservation of their own fortunes and tranquillity in this world who think of no other means to preserve States but human power and Machivilian policy and believe no other Creed but this Regi aut Civitati imperium habenti nihil injustum quod utile Such men as these it may become to maintain by worldly power and violence their State-instrument Religion For if all be vain and false as in their judgment it is the present whatsoever is better than any because it is already setled an alteration of it may draw with it change of States and the change of State the subversion of their fortune But they that are indeed servants and lovers of Christ of Truth of the Church and of Mankind ought with all courage to oppose themselves against it as a common enemy of all these They that know there is a King of Kings and Lord of Lords by whose will and pleasure Kings and Kingdoms stand and fall they know that to no King or State any thing can be profitable which is unjust and that nothing can be more evidently unjust than to force weak men by the profession of a Religion which they believe not to lose their own eternal happiness out of a vain and needless fear lest they may possibly disturb their temporal quietness There being no danger to any State from any mans opinion unless it be such an opinion by which disobedience to authority or impiety is taught or licenc'd which sort I confess may justly be punished as well as other faults or unless this sanguinary doctrin be joyn'd with it That it is lawful for him by human violence to enforce others to it Therefore if Protestants did offer violence to other mens consciences and compel them to embrace their Reformation I excuse them not much less if they did so to the sacred Persons of Kings and those that were in authority over them who ought to be so secur'd from violence that even their unjust und tyrannous violence though it may be avoided according to that of our Saviour When they persecute you in one City flie into another yet may it not be resisted by opposing violence against it Protestants therefore that were guilty of this crime are not to be excused and blessed had they been had they chosen rather to be Martyrs than Murderers to die for their religion rather than to fight for it But of all the men in the world you are most unfit to accuse them hereof against whom the souls of the Martyrs from under the Altar cry much lowder than against all their other Persecutors together Who for these many ages together have daily sacrificed Hecatombs of innocent Christians under the name of Heretiques to blind zeal and furious superstition Who teach plainly that you may propagate your Religion whensoever you have power by deposing of Kings and invasion of Kingdoms and think when you kill the adversaries of it you do God good service But for their departing corporally from them whom mentally they had forsaken For their forsaking the external Communion and company of the unreformed part of the Church in their superstitions and impieties thus much of your accusation we embrace and glory in it And say though some Protestants might offend in the maner or degree of their separation yet certainly their separation it self was not Schismatical but innocent and not only so but just and necessary And as for your obtruding upon D. Potter that he should say There neither was nor could be just cause to do so no more than to depart from Christ himself I have shewed divers times already that you deal very injuriously with him confounding together Departing from the Church and Departing from some general opinions and practises which did not constitute but vitiate not make the Church but marr it For though he saies that which is most true that there can be no just cause to depart from the Church that is to cease being a member of the Church no more than to depart from Christ himself in as much as these are not divers but the same thing yet he nowhere denies but there might be just and necessary cause to depart from some opinions and practices of your Church nay of the Catholique Church And therefore you do vainly to inferr that Luther and his followers for so doing were Schismatiques 97. Ad § 35. I answer in a word that neither are Optatus his sayings rules of Faith and therefore not fit to determine Controversies of Faith And then that Majorinus might well be a Schismatique for departing from Caecilianus and the Chayr of Cyprian and Peter without cause and yet Luther and his followers who departed from the Communion of the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of their own Diocess be none because they had just and necessary cause of their departure For otherwise they must have continued in the profession of known Errors and the practice of manifest Corruptions 98. Ad § 36 In the next Section you tel us that Christ our Lord gave S. Peter and his successors authority over his whole Militant Church And for proof hereof you first referre us to Brerely citing exactly the places of such chief Protestants as have confessed the antiquity of this point Where first you fall into the Fallacy which is called Ignoratio Elenchi or mistaking the Question for being to prove this point true you only prove it ancient Which to what purpose is it when both the parties litigant are agreed that many errors were held by many of the ancient Doctors much more ancient than any of those who are pretended to be confessed by Protestants to have held with you in this matter and when those whom you have to do with and whom it is vain to dispute against but out of Principles received by them are all peremptory that though novelty be a certain note of falshood yet no Antiquity less than Apostolical is a certain note of truth Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend that Protestants did confess the Fathers against them in this point For the point here issuable is not Whether S. Peter were head of the Church Nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church Nor whether he had authority over it given him by the Church But whether by Divine right and by Christs appointment he were Head
of the Catholique Church Now having perused Breely I cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to have concurred in opinion with you in this point And the Reader hath reason to suspect that you also out of all the Fathers could not find any one authority pertinent to this purpose for otherwise you were much to blame citing so few to make choice of such as are impertinent For let the understanding Reader peruse the 55. Epist of S. Cyprian with any ordinary attention out of which you take your first place and I am confident he shall find that he means nothing else by the words quoted by you But that in one particular Church at one time there ought to be but one Bishop and that he should be obeyed in all things lawful The non-performance whereof was one of the most ordinary causes of Heresies against the Faith and Schism from the Communion of the Church Universal He shall find secondly and that by many convincing Arguments that though he write to Cornelius Bishop of Rome yet he speaks not of him but of himself then Bishop of Carthage against whom a faction of Schismatiques had then set up another And therefore here your ingenuity is to be commended above many of your side For whereas they ordinarily abuse this place to prove that in the whole Church there ought to be but one Priest one Judge you seem somwhat diffident hereof and thereupon say That these words plainly condemn Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Universal or of every Particular Church But whether they condemn Luther is another question The question here is Whether they plainly prove the Pope's Supremacy over all other Bishops which certainly they are as far from proving as from proving the Supremacy of any other Bishop seeing it is evident they were intended not of one Bishop over the whole Catholique Church but of one Bishop in one particular Church 99. And no less impertinent is your saying out of Optatus if it be well lookt into though at the first sight it may seem otherwise because Optatus his scene happened to be Rome whereas S. Cyprians was Carthage The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular Now Optatus going upon S. Cyprians above-mentioned ground of one Bishop in one Church proves them Schismatiques for so doing and he proves it by this Argument S. Peter was first Bishop of Rome neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair understand in that City for in other places others I hope had Chairs besides S. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatique who against that one single Chair erects another understand as before in that place making another Bishop of that Diocess besides him who was lawfully elected to it 100. But yet by the way he styles S. Peter head of the Apostles and says that from thence he was called Cephas Ans Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a head whereas it is a Syriack word and signifies a stone Besides S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not have Supreme Authority over them And indeed that S. Peter should have Authority over all the Apostles and yet exercise no one act of Authority over any one of them and that they should shew to him no sign of subjection me-thinks is as strange as that a King of England for twenty five years together should do no Act of Regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it As strange methinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to do and that the Apostles after that those words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof S. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them S. Peter was the man but rather confirm it by saying the Kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them but it should not be so among them No less a wonder was it that S. Paul should so far forget S. Peter and himself as that first mentioning of him often he should do it without any title of Honour Secondly speaking of the several degrees of men in the Church he should not give S. Peter the highest but place him in equipage with the rest of the Apostles and say God hath appointed not first Peter then the rest of the Apostles but first Apostles secondly Prophets Certainly if the Apostles were all first to me it is very probable that no one of them was before the rest For by First all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sense the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must have been before every one of the rest And therefore they must be First in the other sense And therefore No man and therefore Not S. Peter must be before any of them Thirdly and Lastly that speaking of himself in particular and perhaps comparing himself with S. Peter in particular rather than any other he should say in plain terms I am in nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles But besides all this Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but in your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farr from shewing that in the judgement of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much less by divine right successor to S. Peter in this his Headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say that he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church Universal Especially seeing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundations of the Church were to be the Foundations of it and accordingly are so called in Scripture And therefore as in a Building it is incongruous that Foundations should succeed Foundations So it may be in the Church that any other Apostles should succeed the first 101. Ad § 37. The next Paragraph I might well pass over as having no Argument in it For there is nothing in it but two sayings of S. Austin which I have great reason to esteem no Argument untill you will promise me to grant whatsoever I shall prove by two sayings of S. Austin But moreover the second of these sentences
seems to me to imply the contradiction of the first For to say That the Sacriledge of Schism is eminent when there is no cause of separation implies to my understanding that there may be a cause of Separation Now in the first he says plainly That this is impossible Neither doth any reconciliation of his words occurre to me but only this that in the former he speaks upon supposition that the Publique service of God wherein men are to communicate is unpolluted and no unlawful thing practiced in their communion which was so true of their communion that the Donatists who separated did not deny it And to make this answer no improbable evasion it is observable out of S. Austin and Optatus that though the Donatists at the beginning of their Separation pretended no cause of it but only that the men from whom they separated were defiled with the contagion of Traditors yet afterwards to make the continuance of it more justifiable they did invent and spread abroad this calumny against Catholiques that they set pictures upon their altars which when S. Austin comes to Answer he does not deny the possibility of the thing for that had been to deny the Catholique Church to be made up of men all which had free-will to evil and therefore might possibly agree in doing it and had he denyed this the Action of after-Ages had been his refutation Neither does he say as you would have done that it was true they placed pictures there and moreover worshipped them but yet not for their own sakes but for theirs who were represented by them Neither does he say as you do in this Chapter that though this were granted a Corruption yet were they not to separate for it What then does he Certainly nothing else but abhorr the thing and deny the imputation Which way of answering does not I confess plainly shew but yet it somewhat intimates that he had nothing else to answer and that if he could not have denyed this he could not have denyed the Donatists separation from them to have been just If this Answer to this litle Argument seem not sufficient I add moreover that if it be applyed to Luther's separation it hath the common fault of all your Allegations out of Fathers Impertinence For it is one thing to separate from the communion of the whole world another to separate form all the Communions in the world One thing to divide from them who are united among themselves another to divide from them who are divided among themselves Now the Donatists separated from the whole world of Christians united in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same maner which was a very great Argument that they could not have just cause to leave them according to that of Tertullian Variâsse debuer at error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos unum est non est Erratum sed Traditum But Luther and his followers did not so The world I mean of Christians and Catholiques was divided and subdivided long before he divided from it and by their divisions had much weakned their own authority and taken away from you this plea of S. Austin which stands upon no other Foundation but the Unity of the whole worlds Communion 102. Ad § 38. If Luther were in the right most certain those Protestants that differed from him were in the wrong But that either he or they were Schismatiques it follows not Or if it does then either the Jesuits are Schismatiques from the Dominicans or they from the Jesuits The Canonists from the Jesuits or the Jesuits from the Canonists The Scotists from the Thomists or they from the Scotists The Franciscans from the Dominicans or the Dominicans from the Franciscans For between all these the world knows that in point of Doctin there is a plain and irreconcileable contradiction and therefore one Part must be in error at least not Fundamental Thus your Argument returns upon your self and if it be good proves the Roman Church in a manner to be made up of Schismatiques But the answer to it is that it begges this very false and vain Supposition That whosoever in any point of doctrin is a Schismatique 103. Ad § 39. In the next place you number up your victories and tell us that out of these premises this conclusion follows That Luther and his followers were Schismatiques from the Visible Church the Pope the Diocess wherein they were baptized from the Bishop under whom they lived from the Countrey to which they belonged from their Religious order wherein they were professed from one another and lastly from a mans self Because the self same Protestant is convicted to day that his yesterdayes opinion was an error To which I Answer that Luther and his followers separated from many of these in some opinions and practices But that they did it without cause which only can make them Schismatiques that was the only thing you should have prov'd and to that you have not urged one reason of any moment All of them for weight and strength were cosen-germans to this pretty device wherewith you will prove them Schismatiques from themselves because the self same Protestant to day is convicted in conscience that his yesterdayes opinion was an error It seems then that they that hold errors must hold them fast and take special care of being convicted in conscience that they are in error for fear of being Schismatiques Protestants must continue Protestants and Puritans Puritans and Papists Papists nay Jewes and Turks and Pagans must remain Jews and Turks and Pagans and go on constantly to the Devil or else forsooth they must be Schismatiques and that from themselves And this perhaps is the cause that makes Papists so obstinate not only in their common superstition but also in adhering to the proper phancies of their several Sects so that it is a miracle to hear of any Jesuit that hath forsaken the opinion of the Jesuits or any Dominican that hath chang'd his for the Jesuits Whithout question this Gentleman my adversary knows none such or else methinks he should not have objected it to D. Potter That he knew a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant which is likely to be true But sure if this be all his fault he hath no reason to be ashamed of his acquaintance For possibly it may be a fault to be in errour because many times it proceeds from a fault But sure the forsaking of errour cannot be a sin unless to be in errour be a vertue And therefore to do as you do to damn men for false opinions and to call them Schismatiques for leaving them to make pertinacy in errour that is an unwillingness to be convicted or a resolution not to be convicted the form of Heresie and to find fault with men for being convicted in conscience that they are in error is the most incoherent and contradictious injustice that ever was heard of But Sir
if this be a strange matter to you that which I shall tell you will be much stranger I know a man that of a moderate Protestant turn'd a Papist and the day that he did so as all things that are done are perfected some day or other and yet thinks he was no Schismatique for doing so and desires to be informed by you whether or no he was mistaken The same man afterwards upon better consideration became a doubting Papist and of a doubting Papist a confirm'd Protestant And yet this man thinks himself no more to blame for all these changes than a Travailer who using all diligence to find the right way to some remote City where he had never been as the party I speak of had never been in Heaven did yet mistake it and after find his error and amend it Nay he stands upon his justification so far as to maintain that his alterations not only to you but also from you by Gods mercy were the most satisfactory actions to himself that ever he did and the greatest victories that ever he obtained over himself and his affections to those things which in this world are most pretious as wherein for Gods sake and as he was verily perswaded out of love to the Truth he went upon a cerain expectation of those inconveniences which to ingenuous natures are of all most terrible So that though there were much weakness in some of these alterations yet certainly there was no wickedness Neither does he yield his weakness altogether without Apologie seeing his deductions were rational and out of some Principles commonly received by Protestants as well as Papists and which by his education had got possession of his understanding Ad § 40 41. D. Potter p. 81. of his Book to prove our Separation from you not only lawful but necessary hath these words Although we confess the Church of Rome in some sense to be a true Church and her errours to some men not damnable yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she errs in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errours He means not in the belief of those errours for that is presupposed to be done already for whosoever is convinc'd in Conscience that she errs hath for matter of belief forsaken that is ceased to believe those errours This therefore he meant not nor could 〈◊〉 mean but that whosoever is convinc'd in Conscience that the Church of Rome erres cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of these errours And the reason hereof is manifest because otherwise he must profess what he believes not and practise what he approves not Which is no more than your self in thesi have divers times affirmed For in one place you say It is unlawful to speak any the least untruth Now he that professeth your Religion and believes it not what else doth he but live in a perpetual lie Again in another you have called them that profess one thing and believe another a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And therefore in inveighing against Protestants for forsaking the Profession of these errours the belief whereof they had already forsaken what do you but rail at them for not being a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And lastly § 42. of this Chapter within three leaves after this whereas D. Potter grants but only a necessity of peaceable external obedience to the Declaration of the Church though perhaps erroneous provided it be in matter not of Faith but of Opinions or Rites condemning those men who by occasion of errours of this quality disturb the Churches peace and cast off her Communion Upon this occasion you come upon him with this bitter Sarcasm I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will do a deed of Charity by putting you in mind into what Labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may err in some points of Faith and yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgment or leave her Communion though he have evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man dissemble against his Conscience or externally deny Truth known to be contained in holy Scripture I answer for him No It is not he but you that would have men do so not he who says plainly that whosoever is convinc'd in Conscience that any Church errs is bound under pain of damnation to forsake her in her profession and practice of these errours but you who find fault with him and make long discourses against him for thus affirming Not he who can easily wind himself out of your Imaginary Labyrinth by telling you that he no where denyes it lawful for any man to oppose any Church erring in matter of Faith for that he speaks not of matters of Faith at all but only of Rites and Opinions And in such matters he sayes indeed at first It is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgment to the publique But he presently explains himself by saying not only that he may hold an opinion contrary to the publique resolution but besides that he may offer it to be considered of so far is he from requiring any sinful dissimulation Provided he do it with great Probability of Reason very modestly and respectfully and without separation from the Churches Communion It is not therefore in this case opposing a mans private judgment to the publique simply which the Doctor finds fault with But the degree only and malice of this Opposition opposing it factiously And not holding a mans own conceit different from the Church absolutely which here he censures But a factious advancing it and despising the Church so farr as to cast off her Communion because forsooth she errs in some opinion or useth some inconvenient though not impious Rites and Ceremonies Little reason therefore have you to accuse him there as if he required That men should dissemble against their Conscience or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture But certainly a great deal less to quarrel with him for saying which is all that here he says That men under pain of damnation are not to dissemble but if they be convinc'd in conscience that your or any other Church for the reason is alike for all errs in many things are of necessity to forsake that Church in the Profession and practice of those errours 105. But to consider your exception to this speech of the Doctors somewhat what more particularly I say your whole discourse against it is compounded of falshoods and impertinencies The first falshood is that he in these words avoucheth that no learned Catholiques can be saved Unless you will suppose that all learned Catholiques are convinc'd in conscience that your Church errs in many things It may well be fear'd that many are so convinc'd and yet profess what they believe not Many more have been and have stifled their consciences by thinking
it an act of humility to do so Many more would have been had they with liberty and indifference of judgement examined the grounds of the Religion which they profess But to think that all the Learned of your side are actually convinc'd of errors in your Church and yet will not forsake the profession of them this is so great an uncharitableness that I verily believe D. Potter abhorres it Your next falshood is That the Doctor affirms that you Catholiques want no means of Salvation and that he judges the Roman errors not to be in themselves fundamental or damnaâ—le Which calumny I have very often confuted and in this very place it is confuted by D. Potter and confessed by your self For in the beginning of this Answer you tell us that the Doctor avouches of all Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse that they cannot be saved Certainly then he must needs esteem them to want something necessary to Salvation And then in the Doctor 's saying it is remarkable that he confesses your errors to some men not damnable which cleerly imports that according to his judgement they were damnable in themselves though by accident to them who lived and died in invincible ignorance and with repentance they might prove not damnable A Third is that these Assertions the Roman Errors are in themselves not damnable and yet it is damnable for me who know them to be errors to hold and confess them are absolutely inconsistent which is false for be the matter what it will yet for a man to tell a lie especially in matter of Religion cannot but be damnable How much more then to go on in a course of lying by professing to believe these things divine Truths which he verily believes to be falshoods and fables A fourth is that if we erred in thinking that your Church holds errors this error or erroneous conscience might be rectified and deposed by judging those errors not damnable For what repugnance is there between these two Suppositions that you do hold some errors and that they are not damnable And if there be no repugnance between them how can the belief of the later remove or destroy or it be erroneous rectifie the belief of the former Nay seeing there is a manifest consent between them how can it be avoided but the belief of the later will maintain and preserve the belief of the former For who can conjoyn in one brain not crackt pardon me if I speak to you in your own words these Assertions In the Roman Church there are errors not damnable and In the Roman Church there are no errors at all Or what sober understanding would ever think this a good collection I esteem the errors of the Roman Church not damnable therefore I do amiss to think that she erres at all If therefore you would have us alter our judgement that your Church is erroneous your only way is to shew your doctrin consonant at least not evidently repugnant to Scripture and Reason For as for this device this short cut of perswading our selves that you hold no errors because we believe your errors are not damnable assure your self it will never hold 106. A fifth falshood is That we daily do this favour for Protestants you must mean if you speak consequently to judge they have no errors because we judge they have none damnable Which the world knows to be most untrue And for our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errors the justification hereof is not so much that their errors are not damble as that they require not the belief and profession of these errors among the conditions of their communion Which puts a main difference between them and you because we may continue in their communion without professing to believe their opinions but in yours we cannot A fixt is that according to the Doctrin of all Divines there is any difference between a Speculative Perswasion of conscience of the unlawfulness of any thing and a Practical Dictamen that the same thing is unlawful For these are but diverse words signifying the same thing neither is such perswasion wholly speculative but tending to practice nor such a dictamen wholly practical but grounded upon speculation A seventh is That Protestants did only conceive in speculation that the Church of Rome erred in some doctrins and had not also a practical dictamen that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errors An eighth is that it is not lawful to separate from any Churches communion for errors not appertaning to the substance of Faith Which is not universally true but with this exception unless that Church requires the belief and profession of them The ninth is that D. Potter teacheth that Luther was bound to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light Confuted manifestly by D. Potter in this very place for by the house of God you mean the Roman Church and of her the Doctor saies That a necessity did lie upon him even under pain of damnation to forsake the Church of Rome in her errors This sure is not to say that he was obliged to forsake her for an unnecessary light The tenth is covertly vented in your intimation That Luther and his followers were the proper cause of the Christian worlds Combustion Whereas indeed the true cause of this lamentable effect was your violent persecution of them for serving God according to their conscience which if it be done to you you condemn of horrible impiety and therefore may not hope to be excused if you do it to others 107. The eleventh is that our first reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain Which is to say that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formal and express terms contains many of these opinions And the reason of this assertion is very vain for though they had not an absolute infallibility promised unto them yet may they be of some things infallibly certain As Euclide sure was not infallible yet was he certain enough that twice two were four and that every whole was greater than a part of that whole And so though Calvin and Melancthon were not infallible in all things yet they might and did know well enough that your Latine Service was condemned by Saint Paul and that the Communion in both kinds was taught by our Saviour The twelfth and last is this that your Church was in peaceable possession you must mean of her Doctrin and the Professors of it and enjoyed prescription for many ages For besides that Doctrin is not a thing that may be possessed And the professors of it were the Church it self and in nature of possessors If we speak improperly rather than the thing possessed with whom no man hath reason to be offended if they think fit to quit their own possession I say that the possession which the governours of your Church held for some ages of the party governed was not peaceable but got
by fraud and held by violence 108. These are the Falshoods which in this Answer offer themselves to any attentive Reader and that which remains is meer impertinence As first that a pretence of conscience will not serve to justifie Separation from being Schismatical Which is true but little to the purpose seeing it was not an erroneous perswasion much less an Hypocritical pretence but a true and well grounded conviction of conscience which D. Potter alleaged to justifie Protestants from being Schismatical And therefore though seditious men in Church and State may pretend conscience for a cloak of their rebellion yet this I hope hinders not but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience rather than the unjust commands of his tyrannous Superiours Otherwise With what colour can you defend either your own refusing the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy or the ancient Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets who oftentimes disobeyed the commands of men in authority and for their disobedience made no other but this Apology We must obey God rather than men It is therefore most apparent that this answer must be meerly impertinent seeing it will serve against the Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets and even against your selves as well as against Protestants To as little purpose is your rule out of Lyrinensis against them that followed Luther seeing they pretend and are ready to justifie that they forsook not with the Doctors the faith but only the corruption of the Church As vain altogether is that which followes That in cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our Superiour or cast off his obedience nor publiquely oppose his decrees From whence it will follow very evidently that seeing it is not a matter of faith but disputed question amongst you Whether the Oath of Allegeance be lawful that either you acknowledge not the King your Superior or do against conscience in opposing his and the Kingdoms decree requiring the taking of this Oath This good use I say may very fairly be made of it and is by men of your religion But then it is so far from being a confutation that it is rather a confirmation of D. Potter's assertion For he that useth these words Doth he not plainly import and such was the case of Protestants that we are to leave our Superiours to cast off obedience to them and publiquely to oppose their Decrees when we are certain as Protestants were that what they command God doth countermand Lastly S. Cyprians example is against Protestants impertinently and even ridiculously alleadged For what if S. Cyprian holding his opinion true but not necessary condemned no man much less any Church for holding the contrary Yet me thinks this should lay no obligation upon Luther to do so likwise seeing he held his own opinions not only true but also necessary and the doctrin of the Roman Church not only false but damnable And therefore seeing the condition and state of the parties censured by S. Cyprian and Luther was so different no marvel though their censures also were different according to the supposed merit of the parties delinquent For as for your obtruding again upon us That we believe the points of difference not Fundamental or necessary you have been often told that it is a Calumny We hold your errors as damnable in themselves as you do ours only by accident through invincible ignorance we hope they are not unpardonable and you also profess to think the same of ours 109. Ad § 42. The former part of this discourse grounded on D. Potter's words p. 105. I have already in passing examined and confuted I add in this place 1. That though the Doctor say It is not fit for any private man to oppose his judgement to the publique that is his own judgement and bare authority yet he denies not but occasions may happen wherein it may be warrantable to oppose his reason or the authority of Scripture against it and is not then to be esteem'd to oppose his own judggment to the publique but the judgement of God to the judgement of men Which his following words seem to import He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or Reason Secondly I am to tell you that you have no ground from him to enterline his words with that Interrogatory his own conceits and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture For these things are in his words opposed and not confounded and the latter not intended for a repetition as you mistake it but for an Antithesis of the former He may offer saith he his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence of Scripture But if he will factiously advance his own conceits that is say I clean contrary to your gloss Such as have not evident nor very probable ground in Scripture for these conceits are properly his own he may justly be branded c. Now that this of the two is the better gloss it is proved by your own interrogation For that imputes absurdity to D. Potter for calling them a mans own conceits which were grounded upon evidence of Scripture And therefore you have shewed little candour or equity in fastening upon them this absurd construction They not only bearing but even requiring another more fair and more sensible Every man ought to be presum'd to speak sense rather than non-sense coherently rather than contradictiously if his words be fairly capable of a better construction For M. Hooker if writing against Puritans he had said something unawares that might give advantage to Papists it were not inexcusable seeing it is a matter of such extream difficulty to hold such a temper in opposing one extream opinion as not to seem to favour the other Yet if his words be rightly consider'd there is nothing in them that will do you any service For though he saies that men are bound to do whatsoever the sentence of finall Decision shall determin as it is plain me are bound to yield such an obedience to all Courts of civil judicature yet he saies not they are bound to think that determination lawful and that sentence just Nay it is plain he saies that they must do according to the Judge's sentence though in their private opinion it seem unjust As if I be cast wrongfully in a suit at law and sentenced to pay an hundred pound I am bound to pay the mony yet I know no law of God or man that binds me in conscience to acquit the Judge of error in his sentence The question therefore being only what men ought to think it is vain for you to tell us what M. Hooker saies at all For M. Hooker though an excellant man was but a man And much more vain to tell us out of him what men ought to do for point of external obedience When in the very same place he supposeth and alloweth that in their private opinion they may think This sentence to which they
yield a passive obedience to swarve utterly from that which is right If you will draw his words to such a construction as if he had said they must think the sentence of judicial and final decision just and right though it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from what is right It is manifest you make him contradict himself and make him say in effect They must think thus though at the same time they think the contrary Neither is there any necessity that he must either acknowledge the universal infallibility of the Church or drive men into dissembling against their conscience seeing nothing hinders but I may obey the sentence of a Judge paying the money he awards me to pay or forgoing the house or land which he hath judged from me and yet withall plainly profess that in my conscience I conceive his judgement erroneous To which purpose they have a saying in France that whosoever is cast in any cause hath liberty for ten daies after to rayl at his Judges 110. This answer to this place the words themselves offered me even as they are alleaged by you But upon perusal of the place in the Author himself I find that here as else-where you and M. Brerely wrong him extreamly For mutilating his words you make him say that absolutely which he there expresly limits to some certain cases In litigious and controverted causes of such a quality saith he the will of God is to have them do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final Decision shall determine Observe I pray He saies not absolutely and in all causes this is the will of God But only in litigious causes of the quality of those whereof he there entreats In such matters as have plain Scripture or Reason neither for them nor against them and wherein men are perswaded this or that way Upon their own only probable collection In such cases This perswasion saith he ought to be fully setled in mens hearts that the will of God is that they should not disobey the certain commands of their lawful superiours upon uncertain grounds But do that which the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine For the purpose a Question there is Whether a Surplice may be worn in Divine service The Authority of Superiours injoynes this Ceremony and neither Scripture nor Reason plainly forbids it Sempronius notwithstanding is by some inducements which he confesses to be only probable let to this perswasion that the thing is unlawful The quaere is Whether he ought for matter of practice to follow the injunction of authority or his own private and only probable perswasion M. Hooker resolves for the former upon this ground that the certain commands of the Church we live in are to be obeyed in all things not certainly unlawful Which rule is your own and by you extended to the commands of all Superiors in the very next Section before this in these words In cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our Superior nor cast off his obedience or publiquely oppose his decrees And yet if a man should conclude upon you that either you make all Superiors universally infallible or else drive men into perplexities and labyrinths of doing against conscience I presume you would not think your self fairly dealt with but alleage that your words are not extended to all cases but limited to cases of uncertainty As little therefore ought you to make this deduction from M. Hooker's words which are apparently also restrained to cases of uncertainty For as for requiring a blind and an unlimited obedience to Ecclesiastical decisions universally and in all cases even when plain Texts or reason seems to controle them M. Hooker is as far from making such an Idol of Ecclesiastical Authority as the Puritans whom he writes against I grant saith he that proof derived from the authority of mans judgment is not able to work that assurance which doth grow by a stronger proof And therefore although ten thousand General Councils would set down one and the same definitive Sentence concerning any point of Religion whatsoever yet one demonstrative Reason alleaged or one manifest Testimony cited from the Word of God himself to the contrary could not chuse but over-weigh them all in as much as for them to be deceived it is not impossible it is that Demonstrative Reason or Divine Testimony should deceive And again Where as it is thought that especially with the Church and those that are called man's authority ought not to prevail It must and doth prevail even with them yea with them especially as far as equity requireth and farther we maintain it not For men to be tyed and led by authority as it were with a kind of captivity of judgment and though there be reason to the contrary not to listen to it but follow like Beasts the first in the Heard this were brutish Again That authority of men should prevail with men either against or above reason is no part of our belief Companies of learned men be they never so great and reverend are to yield unto reason the weight whereof is no whit prejudic'd by the simplicity of his person which doth alleage it but being found to be sound and good the bare opinion of men to the contrary must of necessity stoop give place Thus M Hooker in his 7. Sect. Book 2. which place because it is far distant from that which is alleaged by you the oversight of it might be excusable did you not impute it to D. Potter as a fault that he cites some clauses of some Books without reading the whole But besides in that very Sect. out of which you take this corrupted sentence he hath very pregnant words to the same effect as for the orders establish'd sith equity reason favour that which is in being till orderly judgment of decision be given against it it is but justice to exact of you and perversness in you it should be to deny thereunto your willing obedience Not that I judg it as a thing allowable for men to observe those Laws which in their hearts they are stedfastly perswaded to be against the Law of God But your perswasion in this case ye are all bound for the time to suspend and in otherwise doing ye offend against God by troubling his Church without just and necessary cause Be it that there are some reasons inducing you to think hardly of our Laws Are those Reasons demonstrative are they necessary or but meer probabilities only An argument necessary and demonstrative is such as being proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent Any one such reason dischargeth I grant the Conscience and setteth it at full liberty For the publique approbation given by the body of this whole Church unto those things which are established doth make it but probable that they are good And therefore unto a necessary proof that they are not good is must give place This plain declaration of
it is which is the mark of Heresie the Ancient Fathers tell us more in particular that it is from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of Peter And therefore D. Potter need not to be so hot with us because we say and write that the Church of Rome in that sense as she is the Mother-Church of all others and with which all the rest agree is truly called the Catholique Church S. Hierome writing to Pope Damasus saith I am in the Communion (h) Lib. 1. Apolog of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built upon that Rock Whosoever shall eat the Lamb out of this house he is prophane If any shall not be in the Ark of Noe he shall perish in the time of the deluge Whosoever doth not gather with thee doth scatter that is he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist And elsewhere Which doth he (i) Ibid. lib. 3. call his faith That of the Roman Church Or that which is contained in the Books of Origen If he answer The Roman then we are Catholiques who have translated nothing of the error of Origen And yet farther Know thou that the k Roman faith commended by the voyce of the Apostle doth not receive these delusions though an Angel should denounce otherwise than it hath once been preached S. Ambrose recounting how his Brother Satyrus inquiring for a Church wherein to give thanks for his delivery from shipwrack saith He called unto him (l) De obitu Satyri fratris the Bishop neither did he esteem any favour to be true except that of the true faith and he asked of him whether be agreed with the Catholique Bishops that is with the Roman Church And having understood that he was a Schismatique that is separated from the Roman Church he abstained from communicating with him Where we see the privâ—ledge of the Roman Church confirmed both by word and deed by doctrin and practice And the same Saint saith of the Roman Church From thence the Rites (m) Lib. 1. ep 4. ad Imperatores of Venerable Communion do flow to all Saint Cyprian saith They are bold (n) Epist 55. ad Cornel. to sail to the Chair of Peter and to the principal Church from whence Priestly Unity hath sprung Neither do they consider that they are Romans whose faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot have access Where we see this holy Father joyns together the principal Church and the Chair of Peter and affirmâ—th that falshood not only hath not had but cannot have access to that Sea And elsewhere Thou wrotest that I should send (o) Epist 52. a Copy of the same letters to Cornelius our Colleague that laying aside all sollicitude he might now be assured that thou didst communicate with him that is with the Catholique Church What think you M. Doctor of these words Is it so strange a thing to take for one and the same thing to communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome and to communicate with the Catholique Church S. Irenaeus saith Because it were long to number the succession of all Chuâ—ches (p) Lib. 3 cont haer c. 3. we declaring the Tradition and faith preached to men and coming to us by Tradition of the most great most ancient and most known Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which Tradition it hath from the Apostles coming to us by succession of Bishops we confound all those who any way either by evil complacence of themselves or vain glory or by blindness or ill opinion do gather otherwise than they ought For to this Church for a more powerful Principality it is necessary that all Churches resort that is all faithful people of what place soever in which Roman Church the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes been conserved from those who are every where Saint Augustine saith It grieves us (q) In Psal coâ—t patrâ—m Donati to see you so to lie cut off Number the Priests even from the Sea of Peter and consider in that order of Fathers who succeded to whom She is the Rock which the proud Gates of Hell do not overcome And in another place speaking of Caecilianus he saith He might contemâ— the conspiring (r) Ep. 162. multitude of his Enemies because he knew himself to be united by Communicatory letters both to the Roman Church in which the Principality of the Sea Apostolique did alwayes flourish and to other Countâ—ies from whence the Gospel came first into Africa Ancient Tertullian saith If thou be neer Italy thou hast Rome whose (s) Praescr cap. 36. Authority is nâ—er at hand to us a happy Church into which the Apostles have poured all Doctrine together with their bloud Saint Basil in a letter to the Bishop of Rome saith In very deed that which was given (t) Epist ad Pont. Rom. by our Lord to thy Piety is worthy of that must excellent voyce which procâ—â—â—med thee Blessed to wit that thou mayst discern betwixt that which is counterfeit and that which is lawful and pure and without any diminution mayest preach the faith of our Ancestours Maximâ—nianus Bishop of Constantinople about twelve hundred years ago said All the bounds of the earth who have siâ—ccrely acknowledged our Lord and Catholiques through the whole world professing the true faith look upon the power of the Bishop of Rome as upon the Sun c. For the Creator of the world amongst all men of the world elected him he speaks of S. Peter to whom he granted the Chair of Dectour to be principally possessed by a perpetual right of Priviledge that whosoever is desirous to know any Divine and profound thing may have recourse to the Oracle and Doctrin of this Instruction John Patriarch of Constantinople more than eleven hundred years ago in an Epistle to Pope Hormisda writeth thus Because (u) Epist ad Hormis P. P. the beginning of salvation is to conserve the rule of right Faith and in no wise to swarve from the Tradition of our Fore Fathers because the words of our Lord cannot fail saying Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church the proofs of deeds have made good those words because in the Sea Apostolical the Catholique Religion is alwayes conserved inviolable And again We promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred Mysteries the names of them who are excluded from the Communion of the Catholique Church that is to say who consent not fully with the Sea Apostolique Many other Authorities of the Ancient Fathers might be produced to this purpose but these may serve to shew that both the Latin and Greek Fathers held for a Note of being a Catholique or an Heretique To have been united or divided from the Sea of Rome And I have purposely alleadged only such Authorities of Fathers as speak of the priviledges of the Sea of Rome as of things permanent and depending
if you will needs comprehend all those Churches which want succession you must confess that your Church doth not only communicate with Schismatical and Heretical Churches but is also compounded of such Churches and your selves cannot avoid the note of Schismatiques or Heretiques if it were but for participating with such heretical Churches For it is impossible to retain Communion with the true Catholique Church and yet agree with them who are divided from her by Schism or Heresie because that were to affirm that for the self same time they could be within and without the Catholique Church as proportionably I discoursed in the next precedent Chapter concerning the communicating of moderate Protestants with those who maintain that Heresie of the Latency and Invisibility of Gods Church where I brought a place of S. Cyprian to this purpose which the Reader may be pleased to review in the fifth Chapter and 17 Number 22 But besides this defect in the personal Succession of Protestant Bishops there is another of great moment which is that they want the right Form of ordaining Bishops and Priests because the manner which they use is so much different from that of the Roman Church at least according to the common opinion of Divines that it cannot be sufficient for the Essence of Ordination as I could demonstrate if this were the proper place of such a Treatâ—fe and will not faâ—l to do if D. Potter give me occasion In the mean time the Reader may be pleased to read the Author (z) See Adam Tannerum tom 4. disp 7. quaest 2. dub 3. 4. cited here in the margent and the compare the form of our Ordination with that of Protestants and to remember that if the form which they use either in consecrating Bishops or in ordaining Priests be at least doubtful they can neither have undoubted Priests nor Bishops For Priests cannot be ordained but by true Bishops nor can any be a true Bishop unless he first be Priest I say their Ordination is at least doubtful because that sufficeth for my present purpose For Bishops and Priests whose Ordination is notoriously known to be but doubtful are not to be esteemed Bishops or Priests and no man without Sacriledge can receive Sacraments from them all which they administer unlawfully And if we except Baptism with manifest danger of invalidity and with obligation to be at least conditionally repeated so Protestants must remain doubtful of Remission of sins of their Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and may not pretend to be a true Church which cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests nor without due administration of Sacraments which according to Protestants is an essential note of the true Church And it is a world to observe the proceeding of English Protestants in this point of their Ordinations For first An 3. Edw. 6. cap. 2. when he was a Child about 12. years of age It was enacted that such (a) Dyer fol. 234. term Mich. 6 7. Eliz. form of making and consecrating of Bishops and Priests as by six Prelates and six other to be appointed by the King should be divised mark this word devised and set forth under the great Seal should be used and none other But after this Act was repealed 1. Mar. Sess 2. in so much as that when afterward An. 6. 7. Reg. Eliz. Bishop Bonner being endicted upon a certificate made by D. Horn a Protestant Bishop of Winchester for his refusal of the Oath of Supremacy and he excepting against the indictment because D. Horn was no Bishop all the Judges resolved that his exception was good if indeed D. Horn was not Bishop and they were all at a stand till An S. Eliz. cap. 1. the Act of Edw 6. was renewed and confirmed with a particular proviso that no man should be impeached or molested by means of any certificate by any Bishop or Archbishop made before this last Act. Whereby it is clear that they made some doubt of their own ordination and that there is nothing but uncertainty in the whole business of their Ordination which forsooth must depend upon Six Prelates the great Seal Acts of Parliament being contrary one to another and the like 23 But though they want Personal Succession yet at least they have succession of Doctrin as they say and pretend to prove because they believe as the Apostles believed This is to beg the Question and to take what they may be sure will never be granted For if they want Personal Succession and slight Ecclesiastical Tradition how will they perswade any man that they agree with the doctrin of the Apostles We have heard Tertullian saying I will prescribe (b) Sup. c. 5. against all Heretiques that there is no means to prove what the Apustles preached but by the same Churches which they founded And S. Irenaeus tells us that We may (c) L. 3. c. 5. behold the Tradition of the Apostles in every Church if men be desirous to hear the truth and we can number them who were made Bishops by the Apostles in Churches and their Successors even to us And the same Father in another place saith We ought to obey (d) L. 4. c. 43. those Priests who are in the Church who have Succession from the Apostles and who together with Succession in their Bishopricks have received the certain gift of truth S. Augustine saith I am kept in the Church (e) Contâ— epist Fundam c. 4. by the succession of Priests from the very Sea of Peter the Apostle to whom our Saviour after his Resurrection committed his sheep to be fed even to the present Bishop Origen to this purpose giveth us a good and wholsome Rule happy if himself had followed the same in these excellent words Since there be many who think (f) Praef. ad lib. Periarchon they believe the things which are of Christ and some are of different opinion from those who went before them let the preaching of the Church be kept which is delivered by the Apostles by order of Succession and remains in the Church to this very day that only is to be believed for truth which in nothing disagrees from the Tradition of the Church In vain then do these men brag of the doctrin of the Apostles unless first they can demonstrate that they enjoyed a continued succession of Bishops from the Apostles and can shew us a Church which according to S. Austin is deduced by undoubted SUCCESSION from the Sea (g) Cont. Faust cap. 2. of the Apostles even to the present Bishops 24 But yet nevertheless suppose it were granted that they agreed with the doctrin of the Apostles this were not sufficient to prove a Succession in Doctrine For Succession besides agreement or similitude doth also require a never-interrupted conveying of such doctrine from the time of the Apostles till the dayes of those persons who challenge such a Succession And so S Augustine saith we are to believe that Gospel which from the time
of the Apostles the (h) Lib. 28. cont Faust cap. 2. Church hath brought down to our days by a never-interrupted course of times and by undoubted succession of connection Now that the Reformation begun by Luther was interrupted for divers ages before him is manifest our of History and by his endeavouring a Reformation which must presuppose Abuses He cannot therefore pretend a continued Succession of that Doctrin which he sought to revive and reduce to the knowledge and practise of men And they ought not to prove that they have a Succession of doctrin because they agreee with the doctrin of the Apostles but contrarily we must infer that they agree not with the Apostles because they cannot pretend a never-interrupted succession of doctrin from the times of the Apostles till Luther And here it is not amiss to note that although the Waldeases Wickliff c. had agreed with Protestants in all points of doctrin yet they could not brag of Succession from them because their doctrin hath not been free from interruption which necessarily crosseth Succession 25 And as want of Succession of Persons and Doctrin cannot stand with that Universality of Time which is inseparable from the Catholique Church so likewise the disagreeing Sects which are dispersed throughout divers Countries and Nations cannot help towards that Universality of Place wherewith the true Church must be endued but rather such local multiplication doth more and more lay open their division and want of succession in Doctrin For the excellent Observation of S. Augustine doth punctually agree with all modern Heretiques wherein this holy Father having cited these words our of the Prophet Ezechiel (i) Cap. 24. My flocks are dispersed upon the whole face of the Earth he adds this remarkable sentence Not all Heretiques (k) Lib. de Pastorib c. 8. are spread over the face of the Earth and yet there are Heretiques spread over the whole face of the Earth some here some there yet they are wanting in no place they know not one another One Sect for example in Africa another Heresie in the East another in Egypt another in Mesopotania In divers places there are divers one Mother pride hath begot them all as our own Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all saithful people dispersed throughout the whole world No wonder then if Pride breed Dissention and Charity Union And in another place applying to Heretiques those words of the Canticles If thou know not (l) Cant. 1. thy self go forth and follow after the steps of the flocks and seed the kids he saith If thou know not thy self go (m) Ep. 48. thou forth I do not cast thee out but go thou out that it may be said of thee They went from us but they were not of us Go thou out in the steps of the flocks not in my steps but in the steps of the flocks nor of one flock but of divers and wandring flocks And feed thy Kids not as Peter to whom is said Feed thy sheep but seed thy kids in the Tabernacle of the Pastors not in the Tabernacle of the Pastor where there is one flock and one Pastor In which words this holy Father doth set down the Marks of Heresie to wit going out from the Church and Want of Unity among themselves which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme Visible Pastor and Head under Christ And so it being Proved that Protestants havâ—â— neither succession of Persons nor Doctrin nor Universality of Time or Place cannot avoid the just note of Heresie 26 Hitherto we have brought arguments to prove that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of Heresie against the Negative Precept of saith which obligeth 〈◊〉 under pain of damnation not to imbrace any one errour contrary to any Truth sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by Almighty God Which were enough to make good that among Persons who disagree in any one Point of Faith one part only can be saved Yet we will now prove that whosoever erreth in any one point doth also break the Affirmative Precept of Faith whereby we are obliged positively to believe some revealed truth with an infallible and supernatural Faith which is necessary to salvation even necessitate sinis or medii as Divines speak that is so necessary that not any after he is come to the use of Reason was or can be saved without it according to the words of the Apostle Without saith (n) Heb. 11.6 it is impossible to please God 27 In the beginning of this Chapter I shewed that to Christian Catholique faith are required Certainty Obscurity Prudence and Supernaturality All which Conditions we will prove to be wanting in the belief of Protestants even in those points which are true in themselves and to which they yield assent as happeneth in all those particulars wherein they agree with us from whence it will follow that they wanting true Divine saith want means absolutely necessary to salvation The faith of Protestants wanteth Certainty 28 And first that their belief wanteth Certainty I prove because they denying the Universal infallibility of the Church can have no certain ground to know what Objects are revealed or testified by God Holy Scripture is in it self most true and infallible but without the direction and declaration of the Church we can neither have certain means to know what Scâ—ipture is Canonical nor what Translations be faithful nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Every Protestant as I suppose is perswaded that his own opinions be true and that he hath used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer Conferring of divers Texts c. and yet their disagreements shew that some of them are deceived And therefore it is clear that they have no one certain ground whereon to relie for understanding of Scripture And seeing they hold all the Articles of Faith even concerning fundamental points upon the self same ground of Scripture interpreted not by the Churches Authority according to some other Rules which as experience of their contradictions teach do sometimes fail it is clear that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all And albeit sometime it chance to hit on the truth yet it is likewise apt to lead them to error As all Arch-heretiques believing some truths and withall divers errors upon the same ground and motive have indeed no true divine infallible faith but only a fallible humane opinion and perswasion For if the ground upon which they rely were certain it could never produce any errour 29 Another cause of uncertainty in the faith of Protestants must rise from their distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental For since they acknowledge that every error in fundamental points destroyeth the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points be fundamental it followeth that they must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamental error and so want the substance of faith
without which there can be no hope of Salvation 30 And that he who erreth against any one revealed truth as certainly some Protestants must de because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true doth lose all Divine saith is a very true doctrin delivered by Catholique Divines with so general a consent that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious The Angelical Doctor S. Thomas proposeth this Question Whether (o) 23 q. â— aâ—â— 3. in corp he who denieth one Article of saith may retain saith in other Articles and resolveth that he cannot which he proveth Argumento sed contra because As deadly sin is opposite to charity so to deny one Article of saith is opposite to saith But charity doth not remain with any one deadly sin Therefore faith doth not remain after the denial of any one Article of faith Whereof he gives this farther reason Because saith he the nature of every habit doth depend upon the formal Motive and Object thereof which Motive being taken away the nature of the habit cannot remain But the formal object of saith is the supreme Truth as it is manifesied in Scriptures and in the doctrin of the Church which proceed from the same supreme Verity Whosoever therefore doth not relie upon the doctrin of the Church which proceeds from the supreme Verity manifested in Scripture as upon an infallible Rule he hath not the habit of faith but believes those things which belong to faith by some other means than by faith as if one should remember some conclusion and not know the reason of that demonstration it is clear that he hath not certain Knowledge but only Opinion Now it is manifest that he who relies on the doctrin of the Church as upon an infallible Rule will yield his assent to all that the Church teacheth For if among those things which she teacheth he hold what he will and doth not hold what he will not he doth not relie upon the doctrin of the Church as upon an infallible Rule but only upon his own will And so it is clear that an Heretique who with pertinacity denieth one Article of saith is not ready to follow the doctrin of the Church in all things And therefore it is manifest that whosoever is an Heretique in any one Article of faith concerning other Articles hath not faith but a kind of Opinion or his own Will Thus far S. Thomas And afterward A man doth believe (q) Ad. 2. all the Articles of faith for one and the self same reason to wit for the Prime Verity proposed to us in the Scripture understood aright according to the Doctrin of the Church and therefore whosoever falls from this reason or motive is totally deprived of saith From this true doctrin we are to infeâ—r that to retain or want the substance oâ— faith doth not consist in the matter or multitude of the Articles but in the opposition against God's divine testimony which is involved in every least error against faith And since some Protestants must needs eâ—r and that they have no certain rule to know why rather one than another it manifestly follows that none of them have any Certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point Moreover D. Potter being forced to confess that the Roman Church wants not the substance of faith it follows that she doth not err in any one point against faith because as we have seen out of S. Thomas every such error destroys the substance of faith Now if the Roman Church did not err in any one point of faith it is manifest that Protestants err in all those points wherein they are contrary to her And this may suffice to prove that the faith of Protestants wants Infallibility They want the second Condition of Faith Obscurity 31 And now for the second Condition of faith I say If Protestants have Certainly they want Obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or noâ— necessitating our understanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonical Scripture And the sense and meaning of these Canonical Scriptures is clear and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation Now thâ—se Principles being once supposed it clearly followeth that what Protestants believe as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true by this argument It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in the word of God is true But it is certain and evident that these Books in particular are the word of God Therefore it is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true Which Conclusion I take for a Major in a second Argument and say thus It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true But it is certain and evident that such particular Articles for example The Trinity Incarnation Original sin c. are contained in these Books Thereâ—ore it is certain and evident that these particular Objects are true Neither will it avail you to say that the said Principles are not evident by natural discourse but only to the eye of reason cleared by grace as you speak For supernatural evidence no less yea rather more draws and excludes obscurity than natural evidence doth neither can the party so enlightned be said voluntarily to caprivate his understanding to that light but rather his understanding is by a necessity made captive and forced not to disbelieve what is presented by so clear a light And therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the Apostle but an invention of your own Their faith wants Prudence 32 That the faith of Protestants wanteth the third Condition which was Prudence is deduced from all that hitherto hâ—th been said What wisdom was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient and besides which there could be demonstrated no other visible Church of Christ upon earth A Church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation endued with Succession of Bishops with Visibility and Universality of Time and Place A Church which if it be not the true Church her enemies cannot pretend to have any Church Ordination Scriptures Succession c. and are forced for their own sake to maintain her perpetual Existence and Being To leave I say such a Church and frame a Community without either Unity or means to procure it a Church which at Luther's first re-revolt had no larger extent than where his body was a Church without Universality of Place or Time A Church which can pretend no Visibility or Being except only in that former Church which it opposeth a Church void of Succession of Persons or Doctrin What wisdom was it to follow such men as Luther in an opposition against the Visible Church of Christ begun upon meer passion What wisdom is it to receive from Us a Church Ordination Scriptures
agree with the Roman Church this he sayes not nor gives you any ground to conclude from him Athanasius when he was excommunicated by Liberius agreed very ill with the Roman Church and yet you will not gainsay but he agreed well enough with the Catholique Bishops The second I am uncertain what the sense of it is and what truth is in it but most certain that it makes nothing to your present purpose For it neither affirms nor imports that separation from the Roman Church is a certain mark of Heresie For the Rights of Communion whatsoever it signifies might be said to flow from it if that Church were by Ecclesiastical Law the head of all other Churches But unless it were made so by divine Authority and that absolutely Separation from it could not be a mark of Heresie 25. For S. Cyprian all the world knows that he (b) It is confâ—ssed by Baronius Anno 238. N. 41. By Bellar. l 4. de R Pont. c. 7. Sect. Tertia ratio resolutely opposed a Decree of the Roman Bishop and all that adhered to him in the point of Rebaptizing which that Church at that time delivered as a necessary Tradition So necessary that by the Bishop of Rome Firmilianus and other Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia and generally all who persisted in the contrary opinion (c) Confessed by Baronius An 258. N. 14. 15. By Card. Perron Repl. l. 1. c. 25. were therefore deprived of the Churches Communion which Excommunication could not but involve S. Cyprian who defended the same opinion as resolutely as Firmilianus though Cardinal Perron magisterially and without all colour of proof affirm the contrary and Cyprian in particular so far cast off as for it to be pronounc'd by Stephen A false Christ (d) â—bid Again so necessary that the Bishops which were sent by Cyprian from Africk to Rome were not admitted to the Communion of ordinary conference But all men who were subject to the Bishop of Romes Authority were commanded by him not only to deny them the Churches peace and Communion but even lodging and entertainment manifestly declaring that they reckoned them among those whom S. John forbids to receive to house or to say God speed to them All these terrors notwithstanding S. Cyprian holds still his former opinion And though our of respect to the Churches peace (d) Vide Conc. Carth. apud sur To 1. he judged no man nor cut off any man from the right of Communion for thinking otherwise then he held yet he conceived Stephen and his adherents (e) Bell l. 2. de Con. c 5. Aug. ep 48. l. 1. de Bap. c. 18. to hold a pernitious error And S. Austin though disputing with the Donatists he useth some Tergiversation in the point yet confesseth elsewhere that it is not found that Cyprian did ever change his opinion And so farr was he from conceiving any necessity of doing so by submitting to the judgment of the Bishop and Church of Rome that he plainly professeth that no other Bishop but our Lord Jesus only had power to judg with authority of his judgement and as plainly intimates that Stephen for usurping such a power and making himself a judg over Bishops was little better than a Tyrant and as heavily almost he censures him and peremptorily opposes him as obstinate in error in that very place where he delivers that famous saying How can he have God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Moâ—her little doubting it seems but a man might have the Church for his Mother who stood in opposition to the Church of Rome and being farr from thinking what you fondly obtrude upon him that to be united to the Roman Church and to the Church was all one and that separation from S. Peter's Chair was a mark I mean a certain mark either of Schism or Heresie If after all this you will catch at a phrase or a complement of S. Cyprians and with that hope to perswade Protestants who know this story as well as their own name that S. Cyprian did believe that falshood could not have access to the Roman Church and that opposition to it was the brand of an Heretique may we not well expect that you will the next time you write vouch Luther and Calvin also for Abettors of this Phansie and make us poor men believe not only as you say that we have no Metaphysicks but that we have no sense And when you have done so it will be no great difficulty for you to assure us that we read no such thing in Bellarmine Bell. l. 2. de Con. c. 5. Sect. 1. Canâ—sius in Initio Gatech e Spt. die 14. as that Cyprian was always accounted in the number of Catholicks nor in Canisius that he was a most excellent Doctor and a glorious Martyr nor in your Calender that he is a Saint and a Martyr but that all these are deceptions of our sight and that you ever esteemed him a very Schismatique and an Heretique as having on him the Mark of the Beast opposition to the Chair of Peter Nay that he what ever he pretended knew believed himself to be so in as much as he knew as you pretend and esteemed this opposition to be the Mark of Heresie and knew himself to stand and stand out in such an opposition 26. But we need not seek so farr for matter to refute the vanity of this pretence Let the reader but peruse this very Epistle out of which this sentence is alleaged and he shall need no farther satisfaction against it For he shall find first that you have helped the dice a little with a false or at least with a very bold and streined Translation for S. Cyprian saith not to whom falsehood cannot have access by which many of your favourable Readers I doubt understood that Cyprian had exempted that Church from a possibility of error but to whom perfidiousness cannot have access meaning by perfidiousness in the abstract according to a common figure of speech those perfidious Schismatiques whom he there complains of and of these by a Rhetorical insinuation he says that with such good Christians as the Romans were it was not possible they should find favourable entertainment Not that he conceived it any way impossible they should do so for the very writing this Epistle and many passages in it plainly shew the contrary but because he was confident or at least would seem to be confident they never would and so by his good opinion and confidence in the Romans lay an obligation upon them to do as he presum'd they would do as also in the end of his Epistle he says even of the people of the Church of Rome that being defended by the providence of their Bishop nay by their own Vigilance sufficiently guarded they could not be taken nor deceived with the poysons of Heretiques Not that indeed he thought either this or the former any way impossible For to what
or there are If you say the first you make all Religion an uncertain thing If the second then either you must ridiculously perswade that your Church is infallible because it is infallible or else that there are other certain grounds besides your Churches infallibility 46. But you proced and tell us that Holy Scripture is in it self most true and infallible but without the direction and declaration of the Church we can neither have certain means to know what Scripture is Canonical nor what Translations be faithful nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Answ But all these things must be known before we can know the direction of your Church to be infallible for no other proof of it can be pretended but only some Texts of Canonical Scripture truly interpreted Therefore either you are mistaken in thinking there is no other means to know these things but your Churches infallible direction or we are excluded from all means of knowing her direction to be infallible 47 But Protestants though as you suppose they are perswaded their own opinions are true and that they have used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer conferring of Texts c. yet by their disagreement shew that some of them are deceived Now they hold all the Articles of their faith upon this only ground of Scripture interpreted by these rules and therefore it is clear that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all The first of these suppositions must needs be true but the second is apparently false I mean that every Protestant is perswaded that he hath used those means which are prescribed for understanding of Scripture But that which you collect from these suppositions is clearly inconsequent and by as good Logick you might conclude that Logick and Geometry stand upon no certain grounds that the rules of the one and the principles of the other do sometimes fail because the disagreement of Logicians and Geometricians shew that some of them are deceived Might not a Jew conclude as well against all Christians that they have no certain ground whereon to rely in their understanding of Scripture because their disagreements shew that some are deceived because some deduce from it the infallibility of a Church and others no such matter So likewise a Turk might use the same argument against both Jews and Christians and an Atheist against all Religions and a Sceptick against all Reason Might not one say Mens disagreement in Religion shews that there is no certainty in any and the other that experience of their contradictions teacheth that the rules of reason do sometimes fail Do not you see and feel how void of reason and how full of impiety your sophistry is And how transported with zeal against Protestants you urge arguments against them which if they could not be answered would overthrow not only your owne but all Religion But God be thanked the answer is easie and obvious For let men but remember not to impute the faults of men but only to men and then it will easily appear that there may be sufficient certainty in Reason in Religion in the rules of interpreting Scripture though men through their faults take not care to make use of them and so run into divers errors and dissentions 48. But Protestants cannot determine what points be fundamental and therefore must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamental error Answ By like reason since you acknowledg that every error in points defin'd and declared by your Church destroies the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points be defined it followeth that you must remain uncertain whether or no you be not in some fundamental error and so want the substance of faith without which there can be no hope of salvation Now that you are uncertain what points are defined appears from your own words c. 4. § 3. of your second Part where say you No less impertinent is your discourse concerning the difficulty to know what is Heresie For we grant that it is not alwaies easy to determine in particular occasions whether this or that Doctrin be such because it may be doubtful whether it be against any Scripture or divine Tradition or definition of the Church Neither were it difficult to extort from you this confession by naming divers Points which some of you say are defin'd others the contrary And others hang in suspense and know not what to determin But this I have done elsewhere as also I have shewed plainly enough that though we cannot perhaps say in particular Thus much and no more is fundamental yet believing all the Bible we are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamental As he that in a Receit takes twenty ingredients whereof ten only are necessary though he know not which those ten are yet taking the whole twenty he is sure enough that he has taken all that are necessary 49. Ad § 29. But that he who erreth against any one revealed truth loseth all Divine Faith is a very true doctrin delivered by Catholique Divines you mean your own with so general a consent that the contrary is wont to be censur'd as temerarious Now certainly some Protestants must do so because they hold contradictions which cannot all be true Therefore some of them at least have no divine faith Answ I pass by your weakness in urging Protestants with the authority of your Divines which yet in you might very deservedly be censur'd For when D. Potter to shew the many actual dissentions between the Romish Doctors notwithstanding their braggs of potential Unity referres to Pappus who has collected out of Bellar. their contradictions and set them down in his own words to the number of 237. and to Flacius de Sectis Controversiis Religionis Papisticae you making the very same use of M. Breerely against Protestants yet jeer and scorn D. Potter as if he offer'd you for a proof the bare authority of Pappus and Flacius and tell him which is all the Answer you vouchsafe him It is pretty that he brings Pappus and Flacius flat Heretiques to prove your many contradictions As if he had proved this with the bare authoritie the bare judgement of these men which sure he does not but with the formall words of Bellarmine faithfully collected by Pappus And why then might not we say to you Is it not prettie that you bring Breerely as flat an Heretique as Pappus or Flacius to prove the contradictions of Protestants Yet had he been so vain as to press you with the meer authority of Protestant Divines in any point me-thinks for your own sake you should have pardon'd him who here and in many other places urge us with the judgement of your Divines as with weighty arguments Yet if the authority of your Divines were even Canonical certainly nothing could be concluded from it in this matter there being not one of them who delivers for
all to joyn with us 8. By your leave our Argument is not as you say for simple people alone but for all them who have care to save their souls Neither is it grounded upon your Charitable Judgement as you (l) Page 81. speak but upon an inevitable necessity for you either to grant salvation to our Church or to entail certain damnation upon your own because yours can have no being till Luther unless ours be supposed to have been the true Church of Christ And since you term this Argument a Charm take heed you be none of those who according to the Prophet David do not hear the vice of him (m) Ps 57.6 who charmeth wisely But to come to the purpose Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saved And therefore you having cited out of S. Augustine the words of the Catholiques that the Donatists had true Baptism when you come to the contrary words of the Donatists you adde No Church No Salvation making the Argument to have quinq terminos without which Addition you did see it made nothing against us For as I said the Catholiques never yielded that among the Donatists there was a true Church or hope of Salvation And your self a few leaves after acknowledge that the Donatists maintained an error which was in the Matter and Nature of it properly heretical against that Article of the Creed wherein we profess to believe the holy (n) Page 126. Catholique Church and consequently you cannot allow salvationi to them as you do and must do to us And therefore the Donatists could not make the like argument agains Catholiques as Catholiques make against you who grant us salvation which we deny to you But at least you will say this Argument for the Certainty of their Baptism was like to Ours touching the Security and Certainty of our Salvation and therefore that Catholiques should have esteemed the Baptism of the Donatists more certain than their own and so have allowed Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques or sinners as the Donatists esteemed all Catholiques to be I answer No. Because it being a matter of faith that Baptism administred by Heretiques observing due Matter Forme c. is valid to rebaptize any so baptized had been both a sacriledge in reiterating a Sacrament not reiterable and a profession also of a damnable Heresy and therefore had not been more safe but certainly damnable But you confess that in the doctrin or practice of the Roman Church there is no belief or profession of any damnable error which if there were even your Church should certainly be no Church To believe therefore and profess as we do cannot exclude Salvation as Rebaptization must have done But if the Donatists could have affirmed with truth that in the opinion both of Catholiques and themselves their Baptism was good yea and good in such sort as that unless theirs was good that of the Catholiques could not be such but theirs might be good though that of the Catholiques were not and further that it was no damnable error to believe that Baptism administred by the Catholiques was not good nor that it was any Sacriledge to reiterate the same Baptism of Catholiques If I say they could have truly affirmed these things they had said somewhat which at least had seemed to the purpose But these things they could not say with any colour of truth and therefore their argument was fond and impious But we with truth say to Protestants You cannot but confess that our doctrin contains no damnable error and that our Church is so certainly a true Church that unless ours be true you cannot pretend any Yea you grant that you should be guilty of Schism if you did cut off our Church from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation But we neither do aor can grant that yours is a true Church or that within it there is hope of salvation Therefore it is safest for you to joyne with us And now against whom hath your Objection greatest force 9. But I wonder nor 〈◊〉 little and so I think will ever body else what the reason may be that you do not so much as go about to answer the argument of the Donatists which you say is all one with Ours but referre us to S. Augustine there to read it as if every one carried with him a Library or were able to examin the place in S. Augustine and yet you might be sure your Reader would be greedy to see some solid answer to an argument so often urged by us and which indeed unless you can confute it ought alone to move every one who hath care of his soul to take the safest way by incorporating himself in our Church But we may easily imagine the true reason of your silence For the answer which S. Augustin gives to the Donatists is directly against your self and the same which I have given Namely that Catholiques (o) Ad lit Petil. l. 2. cap. 108. approve the Baptism of Donatists but abhorre their heresie of Rebaptization And that as gold is good which is the Similitude used by (p) Contra Cresc lib. 1. cap. 21. S. Augustine yet not to be sought in company of theeves so though Baptism be good yet it must not be sought for in the Conventicles of Donatists But you free us from damnable heresie and yeeld us salvation which I hope is to be imbraced in whatsoever Company it is found or rather that Company is to be imbraced before all other in which all sides agree that salvation may be found We therefore must inferre that it is safest for you to seek salvation among us You had good reason to conceal S. Augustines answer to the Donatists 10. You frame another argument in our behalf and make us speak thus If Protestants believe the (q) Pag. 79. Religion of Catholiques to be a safe way to Heaven why do they not follow it which wise argument of your own you answer at large and confirme your answer by this instance The Jesuits and Dominicans hold different Opinions touching Predetermination and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Yet so that the Jesuit holds the Dominicans way safe that is his error not damnable and the Dominicans hold the same of the Jesuits Yet neither of them with good consequence can press the other to believe his opinion because by his own confession it is no damnable error 11. But what Catholique maketh such a wise demand as you put into our mouths If our Religion be a safe way to heaven that is not damnable why do you not follow it As if every thing that is good must be of necessity embraced by every body But what think you of the Argument framed thus Our Religion is safe even by your confession therefore you ought to grant that all may embrace it And yet further thus Among different Religons and contrary wayes to heaven one only can be safe But
ours by your own confession is safe whereas we hold that in yours there is no hope of salvation Therefore you may and ought to imbrace ours This is our Argument◠And if the Dominicans and Jesuits did say one to another as we say you then one of them might with good consequence press the other to believe his opinion You have still the hard fortune to be beaten with your own weapon 12. It remaineth then that both in regard of Faith and Charity Protestants are obliged to unite themselves with the Church of Rome And I may adde also in regard of the Theological Vertue of Hope without which none can hope to be saved and which you want either by excess of Confidence or defect 〈◊〉 Despaire not unlike to your Faith which I shewed to be either deficient in Certainty or excessive in Evidence as likewise according to the rigid Calvinists it is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more than weak and so much nothing that it can never be gotten For the true Theological Hope of Christians is a Hope which keeps a mean between Presumption and Desperation which moves us to work our salvation with fear and trembling which conducts us to make sure our salvation by good works as holy Scripture adviseth But contrarily Protestants do either exclude Hope by Despair with the Doctrin That our Saviour died not for all and that such want grace sufficient to salvation or else by vain Presumption grounded upon a fantastical perswasion that they are Predestinate which Faith must exclude all fear and trembling Neither can they make their Calling certain by good works who do certainly believe that before any good works they are justified and justified even by Faith alone and by that Faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified Which point some Protestants do expresly affirm to be the soul of the Church the principal Origin of salvation of all other points of Doctrin the chiefest and weightiest as already I have noted Chap. 3. n. 19. And if some Protestants do now relent from the rigour of the foresaid doctrin we must affirm that at least some of them want the Theological Vertue of Hope yea that none of them can have true Hope while they hope to be saved in the Communion of those who defend such doctrins as do directly overthrow all true Christian Hope And for as much as concerns Faith we must also inferr that they want Unity therein and consequently have none at all by their disagreement about the soul of the Church the principal Origin of salvation of all other points of Doctrin the chiefest and weightiest And if you want true Faith you must by consequence want Hope or if you hold that this point is not to be so indivisible on either side but that it hath latitude sufficient to imbrace all parties without prejudice to their salvation notwithstanding that your Brethren hold it to be the soul of the Church c. I must repeat what I have said heretofore that even by this Example it is cleer you cannot agree what points be fundamental And so to whatsoever answer you fly I press you in the same manner and say that you have no Certainty whether you agree in fundamental points or Unity and substance of Faith which cannot stand with difference in fundamentals And so upon the whole matter I leave it to be considered whether Want of Charity can be justly charged on us because we affirm that they cannot without repentance be saved who want of all other the most necessary means to salvation which are the three Theological Vertues FAITH HOPE and CHARITY 13. And now I end this first part having as I conceive complyed with my first design in that measure which Time Commodity scarcity of Books and my own small Abilities could afford which was to shew that Amongst men of different Religions one side only can be saved For since there must be some infallible Means to decide all Controversies concerning Religion and to propound truth revealed by Almighty God and this means can be no other but the Visible Church of Christ which at the time of Luther's appearance was only the Church of Rome and such as agreed with her We must conclude that whosoever opposeth himself to her definitions or forsaketh her Communion doth resist God himself whose Spouse she is and whose divine truth she propounds and therefore becomes guilty of Schism and Heresie which since Luther his Associates and Protestants have done and still continue to do it is not Want of Charity but abundance of evident cause that forceth us to declare this necessary Truth PROTESTANCY UNREPENTED DESTROIES SALVATION The ANSWER to the SEVENTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves to re-unite themselves to the Roman-Church THE first four Paragraphs of this Chapter are wholly spent in an unnecessary introduction unto a truth which I presume never was nor will be by any man in his right wits either denyed or question'd and that is That every man in Wisdom and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternal Salvation 2. The sift and sixt are nothing in a manner but references to discourses already answered by me and confuted in their proper places 3. The seventh eighth ninth tenth and eleventh have no other foundation but this false pretence That we confess the Roman Church free from damnable error 4. In the twelfth there is something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions or others to leave their communion but to prove Protestants in general to be in the state of sin while they remain separate from the Roman Church there is not one word or syllable and besides whatsoever argument there is in it for any purpose it may be as forcibly return'd upon Papists as it is urg'd against Protestants in as much as all Papists either hold the doctrin of Predetermination and absolute Election or communicate with those that do hold it Now from this doctrin what is more prone and obvious than for every natural man without Gods especial preventing grace to make this practical collection Either I am elected or not elected If I be no impiety possible can ever damne me If not no possible industry can ever save me Now whether this disjunctive perswasion be not as likely as any doctrin of any Protestants to extinguish Christian hope and filiall fear and to lead some men to dispaire others to presumption all to a wretchless and impious life I desire you ingeniously to inform mee and if you deny it assure your self you shall be contradicted and confuted by men of your own Religion and your own Society and taught at length this charitable Doctrin that though mens opinions may be charg'd with the absurd consequencs which naturally flow from them yet the men themselves are not I mean if they perceive not the consequence of these
as on the other side I shall willingly grant if I have not answered the First I cannot answer a great part of the Second Thirdly because the addition of the Second not only is unnecessary but in effect by your self confess'd to be so For in your preamble to your Second Part you tell us That the substance of the present Controversie is handled in the first and therein also you pretend to have answered the chief grounds of D. Potters book So that in replying to your Second Part I shall do little else but pursue shadows Fourthly because your Second Part setting aside Repetitions and References is in a manner made up of Disputes about particular matters which you are very importunate to have forborn as suspecting at least pretending to suspect that they were brought in purposely by D. Potter to dazle the Reader 's eyes and distract his mind that he might not see the clearness of the reasons brought in defence of the General Doctrin delivered in Charity Mistaken All which you are likely enough if there be occasion to say again to me and therefore I am resolv'd for once even to humour you so farre as to keep my discourse within those very lists and limits which your self have prescrib'd and to deal with you upon no other arguments but only those wherein you conceive your chief advantage and principal strength and as it were your Sampson's lock to lye wherein if I gain the cause clearly from you as I verily hope by Gods help I shall do it cannot but redound much to the honour of the truth maintain'd by me which by so weak a Champion can overcome such an Achilles for error even in his strongest holds For these reasons although I have made ready an answer to your Second Part and therein have made it sufficiently evident That for shifting evasions from D. Potter's arguments for impertinent cavills and frivolous exceptions and injurious calumnies against him for his misalleadging of Authors For proceeding upon false and ungrounded principles for making inconsequent and sophistical deductions and in a word for all the vertues of an ill answer your Second Part is no way second to the first Yet notwithstanding all this advantage I am resolv'd if you will give me leave either wholly to suppress it or at least to deferre the publication of it untill I see what exceptions upon a twelve-months examination for so long I am well assur'd you have had it in your hands you can take at this which is now published that so if my grounds be discovered false I may give over building on them or if it shall be thought fit build on more securely when it shall appear that nothing material and of moment is or can be objected against them This I say upon a supposition that your self will allow these reasons for satisfying and sufficient and not repent of the motion which your self has made of reducing the Controversie between us to this short Issue But in case your minde be altered upon the least intimation you shall give me that you do but desire to have it out your desire shall prevail with me above all other reasons and you shall not fail to receive it with all convenient speed Only that my Answer may be compleat and that I may have all my work together and not be troubled my self nor enforc'd to trouble you with after-reckonings I would first entreat you to make good your Promise of not omitting to answer all the particles of D. Potters book which may any way import and now at least to take notice of some as it seems to me not unconsiderable passages of it which between your first and second Part as it were between two stools have been suffer'd hitherto to fall to the ground and not been vouchsaf'd any answer at all For after this neglectful fashion you have passed by in silence First his discourse wherein he proves briefly but very effectually that Protestants may be sav'd and that the Roman Church especially the Jesuits are very uncharitable S. 1. p. 6 7 8 9. Secondly the authorities whereby he justifies That the ancient Fathers by the Roman understood alwayes a particular and never the Catholique Church to which purpose he alleageth the words of Ignatius Ambrose Innocentius Celestine Nicolaus S. 1. p. 10. Whereunto you say nothing neither do you infringe his Observation with any one Instance to the contrary Thirdly the greatest and most substantial part of his answers to the Arguments of Charity Mistaken built upon Deut. 17. Numb 16. Mat. 28.20 Mat. 18.17 and in particular many pregnant and convincing Texts of Scripture quoted in the margent of his book p. 25. to prove that the Judges of the Synagogue whose Infallibility yet you make an Argument of yours and therefore must be more credible then yours are vainly pretended to have been infallible but as they were oblig'd to judge according to the Law so were obnoxious to deviations from it S. 2. p. 23 24 25 26 27. Fourthly his discourse wherein he shewes the difference between the Prayers for the dead used by the Ancients and those now in use in the Roman Church Fifthly the Authority of three Ancient and above twenty modern Doctors of your own Church alleadg'd by him to shew that in their opinion even Pagans and therefore much more erring Christians if their lives were morally honest by Gods extraordinary mercy and Christs merit may be saved S. 2. p. 45. Sixthly a great part of his discourse whereby he declares that actual and external Communion with the Church is not of absolute necessity to Salvation nay that those might be saved whom the Church utterly refus'd to admit to her Communion S. 2. p. 46 47 48 49. Seventhly his discourse concerning the Churches latitude which hath in it a clear determination of the main Controversie against you For therein he proves plainly that all appertain to the Church who believe that Jesus is the Christ the sonne of God and Saviour of the world with submission to his Doctrin in mind and will which he irrefragably demonstrates by many evident Texts of Scripture containing the substance of his Assertion even in terms S. 4. p. 114 115 116 117. Eighthly that wherein he shews by many pertinent examples that grosse error and true Faith may be lodged together in the same mind And that men are not chargeable with the damnable consequences of their erroneous opinions S. 4 p. 112. Ninthly a very great part of his Chapter touching the dissentions of the Roman-Church which he shews against the pretences of Charity Mistaken to be no less than ours for the importance of the matter and the pursuit of them to be exceedingly uncharitable S. 6. p. 188 189 190 191 193 194 195 196 197. Tenthly his clear refutation and just reprehension of the Doctrine of implicite Faith as it is deliver'd by the Doctors of your Church which he proves very consonant to the Doctrin of Heretiques and Infidels but evidently
autem apud omnes unum est non est erratum sed traditum Had the Churches err'd they would have varied What therefore is one and the same amongst all came not sure by error but tradition Thus Tertullian argues very probably from the consent of the Churches of his time not long after the Apostles and that in matter of opinion much more subject to unobserv'd alteration But that in the frame and substance of the necessary Government of the Church a thing alwayes in use and practice there should be so suddain a change as presently after the Apostles times and so universal as received in all the Churches this is clearly impossible SECT VIII For What universal cause can be assigned or faigned of this universal Apostasie You will not imagine that the Apostles all or any of them made any decree for this change when they were living or left order for it in any Will or Testament when they were dying This were to grant the question to wit That the Apostles being to leave the Government of the Churches themselves and either seeing by experience or foreseeing by the Spirit of God the distractions and disorders which would arise from a multitude of equals substituted Episcopal Government instead of their own General Councels to make a Law for a general change for many ages there was none There was no Christian Emperour no coercive power over the Church to enforce it Or if there had been any we know no force was equal to the courage of the Christians of those times Their lives were then at command for they had not then learnt to fight for Christ but their obedience to any thing against his Law was not to be commanded for they had perfectly learn't to die for him Therefore there was no power then to command this change or if there had been any it had been in vain SECT IX What device then shall we study or to what fountain shall we reduce this strange pretended alteration Can it enter into our hearts to think that all the Presbyters and other Christians then being the Apostles Schollers could be generally ignorant of the Will of Christ touching the necessity of a Presbyterial Government Or dare we adventure to think them so strangely wicked all the World over as against knowledge and conscience to conspire against it Imagine the spirit of Diotrephes had entred into some or a great many of the Presbyters and possessed them with an ambitious desire of a forbidden superiority was it possible they should attempt and atchieve it once without any opposition or contradiction and besides that the contagion of this ambition should spread it self and prevail without stop or controul nay without any noise or notice taken of it through all the Churches in the World all the watchmen in the mean time being so fast asleep and all the dogs so dumb that not so much as one should open his mouth against it SECT X. But let us suppose though it be a horrible untruth that the Presbyters and people then were not so good Christians as the Presbyterians are now that they were generally so negligent to retain the government of Christ's Church commanded by Christ which we now are so zealous to restore yet certainly we must not forget nor deny that they were men as we are And if we look upon them but as meer natural men yet knowing by experience how hard a thing it is even for Policy arm'd with Power by many attempts and contrivances and in along time to gain upon the liberty of any one people undoubtedly we shall never entertain so wild an imagination as that among all the Christian Presbyteries in the World neither conscience of duty nor love of liberty nor aversness from pride and usurpation of others over them should prevail so much with any one as to oppose this pretended universal invasion of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ and the liberty of Christians SECT XI When I shall-see therefore all the Fables in the Metamorphosis acted and prove Stories when I shall see all the Democracies and Aristocracies in the World lye down and sleep and awake into Monarchies then will I begin to believe that Presbyterial Government having continued in the Church during the Apostles times should presently after against the Apostles doctrine and the will of Christ be whirl'd about like a scene in a masque and transformed into Episcopacy In the mean time while these things remain thus incredible and in humane reason impossible I hope I shall have leave to conclude thus Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been universally received in the Church presently after the Apostles times Between the Apostles times and this presently after there was not time enough for nor possibility of so great an alteration And therefore there was no such alteration as is pretended And therefore Episcopacy being confessed to be so Ancient and Catholique must be granted also to be Apostolique Quod erat demonstrandum FINIS NINE SERMONS The First Preached before His MAJESTY King CHARLES the FIRST The other Eight upon special and eminent Occasions BY WILL. CHILLINGWORTH Master of Arts of the UNIVERSITY of OXFORD NOSCE TE IPSVM NE QUID NIMIS LONDON Printed by E. Cotes dwelling in Aldersgate-street Anno Dom. M.DC.LXIV TO THE READER Christian Reader THese Sermons were by the Godly and Learned Author of them fitted to the Congregations to which he was to speak and no doubt intended only for the benefit of Hearers not of Readers Nevertheless it was the desire of many that they might be published upon the hope of good that might be done to the Church of God by them There is need of plain Instructions to incite men to holiness of life as well as accurate Treatises in Points Controverted to discern Truth from Error For which end I dare promise these Sermons will make much where they find an honest and humble Reader It was the Author's greatest care as you may find in the reading of them To handle the Word of God by manifestation of the truth commending himself to every mans conscience in the fight of God as once St. Paul pleaded for himself 2 Cor. 4.2 And if that be the property which they say of an eloquent and good speaker Non ex ore sed ex pectore To speak from his heart rather than his tongue then surely this Author was an excellent Orator one that spake out of sound understanding with true affection How great his parts were and how well improved as may appear by these his Labours so they were fully known and the loss of them sufficiently bewailed by those among whom he lived and conversed Many excellencies there were in him for which his memory remains but this above all was his crown that he unfeignedly sought God's glory and the good of mens souls It remains that these Sermons be read by thee with a care to profit and thanks to God for the benefit thou hast by them sith they are such talents
you may be the better able to go along with me in what remains of this Text briefly to discover unto you how farr I have already in another Auditory proceeded in it 2. First therefore I conceived by attending to the course and series of the Psalm and by comparing this place with many others in Holy Scripture in different language expressing the same sense That this Fool in my Text was not a man utterly ignorant and devoid of the knowledg of God and his Word For he is suppos'd by the Psalmist to be a man living within the pale of the Church and outwardly professing the true Religion and Worship of God And thereupon Secondly That his Atheism was no He athenish Philosopâ—ical Atheism no problematical maintaining an opinion That there is no God For even among the very Heathens we read not of above three or four of any account which have proceeded to this excelling degree and height of Impiety 3. But this Person whether Doeg the Edomite or whosoever he were is such a one as though in his Profession and even serious thoughts he do not question a Deity but would be a mortal Enemy to any one who should dare to deprive and rob Almighty God of any of his Glorious Attributes Notwithstanding in his Heart that is in the phrase of the Scripture in the propension and inclination of his Affections and by consequence in the course and practise of his life he denies and renounces God He accounts the spending a little time in thinking and meditating on the Providence or Mercy or Severity of God to be an employment very ungainful and disadvantageous to him a business likely to trouble and spoil many of his ungodly projects and to hinder him in his fortunes And for this reason he will put God farr away from him He will not suffer him to be as the Psalmist saith Psal 10.4 Psal 10.4 in all his crafty purposes 4. I yet willingly confess that this Saying in the Heart There is no God may reasonably be interpreted to be a secret whispering-suggestion an inward perswasion by fits which a wretched worldling may have that since he has thrived so well by his carelesness in observing Gods Word and obstinate opposing himself to his will it may be possible there is indeed no God at all or if there be that he will not vouchsafe to descend so low as to take notice what is done here on earth or to observe how each particular person behaves himself in this life Now because I will not set up one of these Expositions against the other I will hereafter as occasion shall offer it self make use of them both 5. Having therefore conceived the sense of the Text to be such as I have now told you In the words I observed two General Parts First the cause of Atheism and by consequence all the abominations following through the whole Psalm intimated in the person Nabal i. e. The Fool which is Folly i. e. Ignorance or rather Incogitancy Inconsideration Secondly The effect of this Folly which is Atheism and that seated not in the Brain but in the Heart or Affections I have already gone through the former part namely the cause of Atheism which is Folly in the prosecution whereof I endeavoured to discover wherein this Folly doth consist And that is not so much in an utter ignorance of God and his Holy Word as a not making a good use of it when it is known a suffering it to ly dead to swim unprofitably in the Brain without any fruit thereof in the reformation of a mans life and conversation And there I showed first what extream folly it was for a man to seek to encrease the knowledg of his Masters will without a resolution to encrease proportionably in a serious active performance thereof And secondly the extream unavoidable danger and encrease of guilt which knowledg without practise brings with it To both which Considerations I severally annexed Applications to the Consciences of them that heard me and should have proceeded to 6. The Second General Part which is the effect and fruit of the folly or inconsideration of Nabal the Fool in my Text which is Atheism practical not of the Understanding but the Will and Affections But the time being spent in the prosecution of the former General Part I was forced to reserve this Second General to be the employment of another Hour 7. Only thus much I then made promise of which debt I purpose now to discharge to you namely To demonstrate by infallible deductions out of Gods Word that many who profess Religion and a perfect knowledg of Gods Word yet whiles they allow him only the Brain and not what he almost only requires the Heart and Affections may prove in Gods account very Atheists Or to bring it nearer home I promised to shew how that many the ordinary courses and most incontrouled practises of men of this age do utterly contradict and formally destroy the very Foundations and Principles of that glorious Religion which they profess Of these c. 8. At the first sight indeed a man would think that of all the places in Holy Scripture and of all the ages which have been since the world began That this Text and these times should suit worst together For first if a man would strive with all the carnestness and even spite he could in all the abominable odious colours to describe the worst of all humane creatures even the Idolatrous self-devouring Indians What more horrible expression could he imagin to himself then to call them Fools and such Fools who say in their Heart There is no God Again if we shall enquire and ask the former Ages if ever the world was so stored and even oppressed with knowledg They will tell us That the Light was never a burden nor Knowledg a vice before now Never till now did all sorts and conditions of men pretend to be able to state the most intricate profound questions of our Religion Never till now was Moses his wish fulfilled I would to God that all the people of the Lord were Prophets though in a sense which would scarce have pleased him 9. These things considered were it not fit think you that I should renounce my Text or travel to find out a Nation whom it may concern and who have need to hear Atheists condemned I would to God my Beloved Brethren that whatsoever I shall speak against that fearful sin of Atheism may prove vain unprofitable words words which may return empty having found none to fasten upon I would to God that I might strive now as one that beateth the air so that you even you who know so much were innocent But David found this a Doctrin fit to be pressed in his days which were none of the worst neither Yea he hath a second time in Psal 51. almost in terminis terminantibus repeated whatsoever he here speaks of the Atheist We find not such an example through
the whole Scripture except it be in a History or where the quotation is mentioned Therefore surely it may be pertinent and sometimes useful even in the Church to have Atheism discovered to have this Doctrin preach'd and re-preach'd it was so in David's times and it shall go hard but we shall shew that we our selves though never so wise and learn'd and knowing in our own opinion yet that we also ought not to take it to heart if sometimes we be suspected and challenged of Atheism 10. That Temptation which the Devil found hard enough for himself even when he was an Angel of Light namely Ero similis Altissimo I shall be like the most Highest Now that it is his Office and employment to become a Tempter He has since scarce ever varied At the first exercise of his Trade with his first customers Adam and Eve he begun with it Ye shall be as Gods knowing Good and Evil. And if we shall unpartially examin our own thoughts we shall find almost in every suggestion at least some degree and tincture of Atheism either we do exalt and Deifie our own selves or else we do dishonour and in a manner degrade Almighty God deposing him from that soveraignty and sway which he ought to exercise in our Hearts and Consciences 11. This I say is true in some measure in all temptations in all sins whatsoever there is some quantity of Atheism though the sins be but of an ordinary size and rank But this is not that which I would now stand upon It concerns me to show that though men be never so Orthodox in their Opinions though they pretend to never so much zeal of the Truth which they profess yet unless that Divine Truth be powerful and perswasive enough to the performance and practise of such Duties as bear a natural resemblance and proportion unto it They that make such a Profession of Gods Truth do but flatter themselves they only think they believe but indeed and in truth there is no such thing as Faith in them For we must know that there is no Divine Truth so utterly speculative but that there naturally and infallibly flows and results from it as necessarily as warmth from light a Duty to be practis'd and put in execution Insomuch that it is impossible for a man to be truly perswaded of the one but he shall infallibly be perswaded to the other 1 Joh 2 4. So that he which saith He knoweth God and keepeth not his Commandements is a Lyar and the Truth is not in him And this I shall endeavour to confirm by Induction examining the truth and reality of our assent to the chief Fundamental Points of our Religion by our practises answerable thereto and concluding that where the latter is not to be found it is but a vain perswasion and phantastical illusion for a man to think he hath the former 12. But in the first place that we may be the better able and without interruption proceed in this design'd course I will first remove an Objection which may seem to prevail against that which hath been spoken to this effect Object Jam. 11.19 The Devils as Saint James saith believe and tremble They do indeed assent unto the Truth of all the mysteries of our Salvation In the place of St. James they acknowledg One God In Matth. 8.28 they acknowledg the second Article of our Faith allowing Christ to be Son of God And the like may be said of the others following And yet if we examin their practise How absolutely contradicting and warring is it with their profession Therefore it may seem that where there is a firm assent to Divine Truths there may consist with it a contrary repugnant practise 13. For answer therefore we must know Sol. that the Assent which the Devil gives to the Revelations of God is extreamly different from that belief which is exacted of us Christians and which every one of us though never so vitious and irreligious would gladly perswade our selves that we allow unto Gods Word For though for example the Devils acknowledge the Precepts and Commandements of God to be Holy and Just and Good and most fit to be observed As likewise that to those who sincerely and without Hypocrisie shall perform these Commandements of God Heb. 11.1 the promises of God shall be Yea and Amen they shall infallibly attain those joys which exceed mans understanding to comprehend Yet these things to them are only as a Tale which is told or rather they are to them occasion of horrour and gnashing of Teeth that there should be such glorious comfortable things which do nothing concern them and of malice and hatred to those who have an interest in them and are in a fair possibility of attaining unto them And therefore no marvail if such a Faith as this be barren and unfruitful of Good Works Whereas our Faith saith St. Paul is the substance of things hoped for of things which concern us we do not only acknowledg that the Precepts of God are good but also necessarily to be performed by us and that the promises of God are not only desireable in themselves but also that being such they were revealed for our sakes and are infallibly destin'd unto us when we shall have performed such conditions as may by the assistance of God be executed by us even with ease and pleasure Now wheresoever such perswasions as these are it is impossible even if the Devils themselves could be supposed capable of them but that there should accompany them earnest and serious endeavours not to come short of the Glory of God This difficulty therefore being dissolved I shall persue the examination of our belief of the Foundations of our Religion by the fruits and issues of it in the practises of our lives 14. We will begin with some of Gods Attributes Whosoever thou art that professest thy self a Christian thou believest that God whom thou servest is present every where both in Heaven and Earth insomuch that it is altogether impossible for thee to exclude him from thy company wheresoever thou goest he will pursue thee Though thou shouldst cloath thy self with darkness as it were with a garment the darkness would be to Him as the Noon-day And though it were possible for thee to deceive the eyes and observation of Men and Angels yea even of thine own Conscience yet to him thou wouldst be open and transparent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were Dissected and having thy very Entrails exposed to his sight 15. Thou canst hide therefore nothing which thou doest from his eyes he taketh notice of every word which thou speakest he hears even the very whispering of thy thoughts And all this thou sayest thou acknowledgest Out of thy own mouth shalt thou be condemned thou wicked Servant Darest thou then make thy Master a witness of thy Rebellion and Disobedience When thou art about the fulfilling of any of thine ungodly lusts thou retirest thy self from company
thine enemy What! did Moses his Law then permit a man to bear hatred and malice unto another Did I say permit them Nay it commanded them so perfectly to hate their enemies to wit the seven Nations who possessed that land which was theirs by promise Exod. 34.2 Deut. 7.1 Exod. 27.19 Deut. 30.19 mentioned Exod. 34.2 Deut. 7.1 to which were added the Amalekites Exod. 27.19 Deut. 30.19 That they were enjoyned to destroy them utterly old and young men women and children even to the very cattel without all pity and consideration Insomuch that Saul for his unseasonable pity but of one person and that a King of the Amalekites and reserving the best of the cattel for sacrifice to God had the Kingdom utterly rent from him and his posterity Whereas by our Saviour in the words of S. Paul Enmity is slain No enemies now in Christianity but all neighbours and friends and brethren nay more If any one will needs be your enemy love him notwithstanding saith Christ If he curse you bless him If he hate you do good unto him If he use you despitefully and persecute you pray for him To conclude this argument from our Saviour's authority Christ adds as a Corollary to his discourse speaking to his Disciples and followers Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharises V. 20. i. whereas they content themselves with an outward carnal obedience to the Law unless you besides this add a spiritual sanctification of the mind ye shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven I deny not now but that there may be a mystical spiritual sense even of this Law and an application thereof almost as perfect as is express'd in the Gospel which those who were guided extraordinarily by the Spirit of God and with help of Tradition might collect out of it As the Prophet David Psal 19. where he saith Psal 19.7 The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul the Commandement of the Lord is pure enlightning the eyes c. And in this sense the succeeding Prophets endeavoured to perswade the people to apprehend it But this was a forc'd sense of Moses his Law not primarily intended by the author it was no proper natural meaning of it 15. Proportionably to this Doctrine of our Saviour S. Paul speaking of Moses his Law considered in its proper natural and direct sense and as extreamly unsufficient to Justifie a man in the sight of God calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 weak and beggerly elements Gal. 4.9 And Gal. 4.9 Heb. 7.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law of a carnal commandment Heb. 7.16 i. a Law which a carnal man one not guided by the Spirit of God might perform And a Law which made no man perfect Heb. 7.19 Nay more Ibid. v. 19. Heb. 8.7 saith he it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not without fault Heb. 8.7 i. a man might perform the Law of Moses and yet not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He may be a wicked man still in Gods sight for all his Legal Righteousness he may remain dead in trespasses and sins Insomuch as the same Paul speaking of himself before he was converted to Christianity saies he Concerning the righteousness which is of the Law I was blameless Phil. 3.6 I did so exactly fulfil that measure of Righteousness which Moses his Law required of me that in respect of that Law I was a guiltless innocent person I could justifie my self I durst with confidence oppose my self in Judgement to the censure of our most severe strict Judges 16. But what then Durst Paul with this his Legal Righteousness appear before God as expecting to be Justified in his sight as claiming any interest in the promises of eternal life by virtue of this his innocency By no means No saith he though I were blameless as concerning this righteousness which is of the Law though I had all the priviledges that any Jew could be capable of Phil. 3.6 circumcised the eighth day of the stock of Israel of the Tribe of Benjamin an Hebrew of the Hebrews according to the Law a Pharisee i. e. of that Sect which had preserved the Law in the greatest integrity though I were so zealous thereof V. 6. that I persecuted the Churches of Christ which sought to abrogate it and lastly though concerning the Righteousness of the Law I was blameless Yet notwithstanding all these I will have no better an opinion of these priviledges than they deserve I will account them only outward carnal priviledges If I at all rejoyce in them yet this I will account only a rejoycing in the flesh Far be it from me to think to appear before Christ with such a righteousness as this is God forbid I should expect to be accepted of by him for these carnal outward priviledges Nay so far am I from that that whatsoever I thought before I knew him to be again and a prerogative unto me now that I have attain'd to the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ I account as loss as things likely to be rather a hindrance unto me V. 9. yea as dross and dung and desire to be found in him not having mine own righteousness which is of the Law For alas how mean and unworthy will that appear in his eyes but the righteousness which is of Faith the righteousness which is of God by Faith The former righteousness was mine own and therefore could not stand in his sight but that righteousness to which Faith or the Gospel directs me proceeds not from my own strength but only from God who will crow his own graces in me 17. I have thus far shew'd you both from our Saviour's authority and S. Paul's likewise that the performing of the Moral Duties as far as they were inforc'd by virtue of Moses his Law could not make a man capable of attaining to the promises of the New Covenant And that I may add one confirmation of this more out of the Old Testament hereupon it is that God by the Prophet Ezekiel manifestly sheweth that God gave not the Law of Moses to the Israelites for this end that they should think that the performance of that Law was all the duty which they owed unto God or that that obedience could make them accepted of him unto eternal life No saith he if you have any such conceit of those Ordinances Ezek. 20.25 The Statutes which I gave them were not good and the Judgements such as they should not live by them I will now proceed to shew you the weakness and unprofitableness of the Ceremonial part of Moses his Law likewise for such a purpose and that by Arguments taken from S. Paul especially out of that his most Divine Epistle to the Hebrews 18. The first argument shall be drawn out of the 9th Chapter of that Epistle the sum whereof is this The first Covenant which had Ordinances of Divine Service and a worldly Sanctuary