it to be Canonicall whether it be True If the former sense were yours I must then againe distinguish of the terme received For it may signify either received by some particular Church or by the present Church Vniversall or the Church of all Ages If you meant the word in either of the former senses that which you say is not tâ—â—e A man may justly and reasonably doubt of some Texts or some Book received by some particular Church or by the Vniversall Church of this present time whether it be Canonicall or no and yet haue just reason to belieue no reason to doubt but that other Books are Canonicall As Eusebius perhaps had reason to doubt of the Epistle of S. Iames the Church of Rome in Hierom's time of the Epistle to the Hebr. And yet they did not doubt of all the Books of the Canon nor had reason to doe so If by Received you meant Received by the Church of all Ages I grant he that doubts of any one such Book has as much reason to doubt of all But yet here again I tell you that it is possible a man may doubt of one such book and yet not of all because it is possible men may doe not according to reason If you meant your words in the latter sense then I confesse he that belieues such a Book to be Canonicall i. e. the word of God and yet to make an impossible supposition believes it not to be true if he will doe according to reason must doubt of all the rest and belieue none For there being no greater reason to believe any thing true then because God hath said it nor no other reason to belieue the Scripture to be true but only because it is Gods word hee that doubts of the Truth of any thing said by God hath as much reason to belieue nothing that he saies and therefore if he will doe according to reason neither must nor can believe any thing he saies And upon this ground you conclude rightly that the infallibility of true Scripture must be Vniversall and not confin'd to points fundamentall 36 And this Reason why we should not refuse to beleiue any part of Scripture upon pretence that the matter of it is not Fundamentall you confesse to be convincing But the same reason you say is as convincing for the Vniversall infallibility of the Church For say you unlesse shee be Infallible in all things we cannot belieue her in any one But by this reason your Proselytes knowing you are not Infallible in all things must not nor cannot belieue you in any thing Nay you your selfe must not belieue your selfe in any thing because you know that you are not Infallible in all things Indeed if you had said wee could not rationally belieue her for her own sake and upon her own word and authority in any thing I should willingly grant the consequence For an authority subject to errour can be no firm or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing and if it were in any thing then this authority being one the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therefore must either doe unreasonably in believing any one thing upon the sole warrant of this authority or unreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Let this therefore be granted and what will come of it Why then you say we cannot belieue her in propounding Canonicall Books If you mean still as you must doe unlesse you play the Sophister not upon her own Authority I grant it For we belieue Canonicall Books not upon the Authority of the present Church but upon Vniversall Tradition If you mean Not at all and that with reason we cannot believe these Books to be Canonicall which the Church proposes I deny it There is no more consequence iâ—â—he Argument then in this The Divell is not infallible therefore if he saies there is one God I cannot believe him No Geometritian is Infallible in all things therefore not in these things which the domonstrates M. Knot is not Infallible in all things therefore he may not believe that he wrote a Book entituled Charity Maintained 37 But though the reply be good Protestants cannot make use of it with any good coherence to this distinction and some other Doctrine of theirs because they pretend to be able to tell what points are Fundamentall and what not and therefore though they should believe Scripture erroneous in others yet they might be sure it err'd not in these To this I answer That if without dependance on Scripture they did know what were Fundamentall and what not they might possibly believe the Scripture true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things But seeing they ground their beliefe that such and such things only are Fundamentalls only upon Scripture and goe about to prove their assertion true only by Scripture then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutely and in all things or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them to believe this thing that these only points are Fundamentall For who would not laugh at them if they should argue thus The Scripture is true in something the Scripture saies that these points only are Fundamentall therefore this is true that these only are so For every Fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meer particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But on the other side this reason is firme and demonstrative The Scripture is true in all things But the Scripture saies that these only points are the Fundamentalls of Christian Religion therefore it is true that these only are so So that the knowledge of Fundamentalls being it selfe drawen from Scripture is so farre from warranting us to believe the Scripture is or may be in part True and in part False that it selfe can have no foundation but the Vniversall truth of Scripture For to be a Fundamentall truth presupposes to be a truth now I cannot know any Doctrine to be a divine and supernaturall Truth on a true part of Christianity but only because the Scripture saies so which is all true Therefore much more can I not know it to be a Fundamentall truth 33 Ad § 16. To this Parag. I answer Though the Church being not Infallible I cannot believe her in every thing she saies yet I can and must believe her in every thing she proves either by Scripture Reason or universall Tradition be it Fundamentall or be it not Fundamentall This you say we cannot in points not Fundamentall because in such we believe she may erre But this I know we can because though she may erre in some things yet she does not erre in what she proves though it be not Fundamentall Again you say we cannot doe it in Fundamentalls because we must know what points be Fundamentall before we goe to learn of her Not so but I must learn of the Church or of some part of the Church or I
Paul and applied by him to our Saviour He hath put all things under his feet mentions no exception yet S. Paul tels us not only that it is true or certain but it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under him 84 But your interpretation is better then D. Potters because it is literall I answer His is Literall as well as yours and you are mistaken if you think a restrained sense may not be a literall sense for to Restrained Literall is not opposed but unlimited or absolute and to Literall is not oppos'd Restrained but Figuratiue 85 Whereas you say D. Potters Brethren reiecting his limitation restrain the mentioned Texts to the Apostles implying hereby a contrariety between them and him I answer So does D. Potter restrain all of them which he speaks of in the pages by you quoted to the Apostles in the direct and primary sense of the words Though he tels you there the words in a more restrained sense are true being understood of the Church Vniversall 86 As for your pretence That to finde the meaning of those places you conferre divers Texts you consult Originals you examin Translations and use all the meanes by Protestants appointed I haue told you before that all this is vain and hypocriticall if as your manner your doctrine is you giue not your selfe liberty of judgement in the use of these meanes if you make not your selves Iudges of but only Advocats for the doctrine of your Church refusing to see what these meanes shew you if it any way make against the doctrine of your Church though it be as cleare as the light at noone Remoue prejudice Even the ballance and hold it even make it indifferent to you which way you goe to heaven so you goe the true which Religion be true so you be of it then use the meanes and pray for Gods assistance and as sure as God is true you shall be lead into all necessary Truth 87 Whereas you say you neither doe nor haue any possible meanes to agree as long as you are left to your selues The first is very true That while you differ you doe not agree But for the second That you haue no possible means of agreement as long as you are left to your selues i. e. to your own reasons and judgement this sure is very false neither doe you offer any proofe of it unlesse you intended this that you doe not agree for a proof that you cannot which sure is no good consequence not halfe so good as this which I oppose against it D. Potter and I by the use of these meanes by you mentioned doe agree concerning the sense of these places therefore there is a possible meanes of agreement and therefore you also if you would use the same meanes with the same minds might agree so farre as it is necessary and it is not necessary that you should agree further Or if there bee no possible meanes to agree about the sense of these Texts whilst wee are left to our selves then sure it is impossible that we should agree in your sense of them which was That the Church is universally infallible For if it were possible for us to agree in this sense of them then it were possible for us to agree And why then said you of the selfe same Texts but in the page next before These words seem cleerly enough to proue that the Church is Vniversally infallible A strange forgetfulnesse that the same man almost in the same breath should say of the same words They seem cleerly enough to proue such a conclusion true yet that three indifferent men all presum'd to be lovers of Truth and industrious searchers of it should haue no possible meanes while they follow their own reason to agree in the Truth of this Conclusion 88 Whereas you say that it were great impiety to imagine that God the lover of Soules hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion I desire you to take heed you commit not an impiety in making more impieties then Gods Commandements make Certainly God is no way oblig'd either by his promise or his Loue to giue us all things that we may imagine would be convenient for us as formerly I haue proved at large It is sufficient that he denies us nothing necessary to Salvation Deus non deficit in necessariis nec redundat in superfluis So D. Stapleton But that the ending of all Controversies or having a certain meanes of ending them is necessary to Salvation that you haue often said and suppos'd but never proved though it be the main pillar of your whole discourse So little care you take how slight your Foundations are so your building make a faire shew And as little care how you commit those faults your selfe which you condemne in others For you here charge them with great impiety who imagine that God the lover of Soules hath left no infallible meanes to determine all differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion And yet afterwards being demanded by D. Potter why the Questions between the Iesuits Dominicans remain undetermined You returne him this crosse interrogatory Who hath assured you that the point wherein these learned men differ is a revealed Truth or capable of definition or is not rather by plain Scripture indeterminable or by any Rule of faith So then when you say it were great impiety to imagine that God hath not left infallible meanes to decide all differences I may answer It seemes you doe not believe your selfe For in this controversie which is of as high consequence as any can be you seem to be doubtfull whether there be any meanes to determin it On the other side when you aske D. Potter who assured him that there it any meanes to determine this Controversie I answer for him that you have in calling it a great impiety to imagine that there is not some infallible meanes to decide this and all other differences arising about the Interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion For what trick you can devise to shew that this difference between the Dominicans and Iesuits which includes a difference about the sense of many Texts of Scripture many other matters of moment was not included under this and all other differences I cannot imagine Yet if you can finde out any thus much at least we shall gain by it that generall speeches are not alwaies to be understood generally but sometimes with exceptions and limitations 89 But if there be any infallible meanes to decide all differences I beseech you name them You say it is to consult and heare Gods Visible Church with submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility But suppose the difference be as here it is whether your Church be infalliâ—le what shall decide that If you would say as you should dot Scripture and
shew or shadow of Reason and an evident sophisme grounded upon an affected mistake of the sense of the word Fundamentall 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 shamelesse calumny not only because D. Potter in this point delivers not his own judgement 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 Iesus the sonne of God and Saviour of the World but also submission to his Doctrine in mind and will Now I beseech you Sir tell me ingenuously whether the doctrine 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 doe agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes 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 hypocrisy pretend to believe in Christ but of necessity he must doe 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 beleif Nothing but this Article onely that Christ is our Saviour Say whether there be not there an infinite number of Divine Verities Divine precepts 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 syncerely to the doctrine 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 himselfe to deliver obscurely or ambiguously yet thus farre 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 Divell hopes to make their Divisions eternall were pulled down and errour 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 scarce a number the truth is clean contrary That those divine Verities Speculative and Practicall wherein they universally agree which you will have to be but a few or but one or scarcely one amount to many millions i◠an exact account were taken of them And on the other side the Ponts 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 obedience of the entire Covenant ratified by Christ between God and man Yet I would not be so mistaken as if I thought the errours even of some Protestants unconsiderable things and matters of no moment For the truth is I am very fearfull 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 thē yet are too frequent occasions of our remisnes and slacknesse in running the race of Christian Profession of our deferring Repentance and conversion to God of our frequent relapses into sinne not seldome of security in sinning consequently though not certain causes yet too frequent occasions of many mens damnation and such I conceive all these doctrines which either directly or obliquely put men in hope of eternall happinesse by any other means saving only the narrow way of sincere and universall obedience grounded upon a true and lively faith These Errours therefore I doe not elevate or extenuate and on condition the ruptures made by them might be composed doe heartily wish that the cement were made of my deerest blood 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 joynt heires of the glory of the Church Triumphant 50 Your other palpable untruth is that Protestants are farre more bold to disagree even in matters of faith then Catholique Divines you mean your own in Questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church For neither doe they differ at all in matters of faith if you take the word in the highest sense and mean by matters of faith such doctrines as are absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed or not to be disbelieved And then in those wherein they doe differ with what colour or shadow of Argument can you make good that they are more bold to disagree then you are in Questions meerely Philosophicall 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 wich are not determined by your Church and they theirs in things not plainly determined in Scripture And wherein then consists their greater their farre greater boldnesse And what if they in their contradictory opinions pretend both to rely upon the truth of God doth this make their contradictions ever a whit the more repugnant I had alwaies thought that all contradictions had been equally contradictions and equally repugnant because the least of them are as farre 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 Popes Infallibility upon what other motive doe you rely Doe not you cite Scripture or Tradition or both on both sides And doe you not pretend that both these are the infallible Truths of Almighty God 51 You close up this Section with a fallacy proving forsooth that we destroy by our confession the Church which is the house of God
a venture but desire to have certaine direction to it This supposition therefore being the hinge whereon your whole discourse turnes is the Minerva of your owne Brayne and therefore were it but for this have we not great reason to accuse you of strange immodesty in saying as you doe That The whole discourse inferences which here you have made are either D. Potters own direct assertions or evident consequences cleerely deduced froÌ„ them Especially seeing your proceeding in it is so consonant to this ill beginning that it is in a manner wholly made up not of D. Potters assertions but your owne fictions obtruded on him 54 Ad § 19. To the next Question Cannot Generall Councels erre You pretend he answers § 19. They may erre damnably Let the Reader see the place and he shall finde damnably is your addition To the third demand Must I consult about my difficulties with every particular person of the Catholique Church You answer for him that which is most false that it seemes so by his words The whole militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly erre either in the whole faith or any necessary Article of it Which is very certaine for should it doe so it should be the Church no longer But what sense is there that you should collect out of these words that every member of the militant Church must be consulted with By like reason if he had said that all men in the world cannot erre If he had said that God in his own person or his Angels could not erre in these matters you might haue gathered from hence that he laid a necessity upon men in doubt to consult with Angels or with God in his own person or with all men in the world Is it not evident to all sober men that to make any man or men fit to be consulted with besides the understanding of the matter it is absolutely requisite that they may bee spoken with And is it not apparently impossible that any man should speak with all the members of the Militant Church Or if hee had spoken with them all know that he had done so Nay does not D. Potter say as much in plain termes Nay more doe not you take notice that hee does so in the very next words before these where you say he affirmes that the Catholique Church cannot be told of private injuries unlesse you will perswade us there is a difference between the Catholique Church and the whole Militant Church For whereas you make him deny this of the Catholique Church united and affirm it of the Militant Church dispersed into particulars The truth is he speaks neither of united nor dispersed but affirmes simply as appeares to your shame by your own quotations that the Catholique Church cannot bee told of private iniuries and then that the whole Militant Church cannot erre But then besides that the united Church cannot be consulted and the dispersed may what a wild imagination is it and what a strange injustice was it in you to father it upon him I beseech you Sir to consider seriously how far blinde zeal to your superstition hath transported you beyond all bounds of honesty and discretion made you carelesse of speaking either truth or sense so you speak against D. Potter 55 Again you make him say The Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawfull Councell may erre damnably and from this collect It remaines then for your necessary instruction you must repaire to every particular member of the Vniversall Church spread over the face of the earth And this is also Pergulapictoris veri nihil omnia ficta The Antecedent false not for the matter of it but that D. Potter saies it And the consequence as far from it as Gades from Gange and as coherent as a rope of sand A generall Councell may erre therefore you must travell all the world over and consult with every particular Christian As if there were nothing else to be consulted with nay as if according to the doctrine of Protestants for so you must say there were nothing to be consulted with but only a Generall Councell or all the world Haue you never heard that Protestants say That men for their direction must consult with Scripture Nay doth not D. Potter say it often in this very Book which you are confuting Nay more in this very page out of which you take this peece of your Cento A Generall Councell may erre damnably are there not these plain words In searches of Truth the Scripture With what conscience then or modesty can you impose upon him this unreasonable consequence yet pretend that your whole discourse is either his own direct assertion or evident consequences cleerely deduc'd from them You adde that yet he teaches as if he contradicted himselfe that the promises of God made to the Church for his assistance are not intended to particular persons but only to the Catholique Church which sure agrees very well with any thing said by D. Potter If it be repugnant to what you said for him falsely what is that to him 56 Neither yet is this to drive any man to desperation unlesse it be such a one as hath such a strong affection to this word Church that he will not goe to heaven unlesse he hath a Church to lead him thither For what though a Councell may erre and the whole Church cannot be consulted with yet this is not to send you on the Fooles Pilgrimage for faith and bid you goe and conferre with every Christian soul man and woman by Sea and by Land close prisoner or at liberty as you dilate the matter But to tell you very briefly that Vniversall Tradition directs you to the word of God and the word of God directs you to Heaven And therefore here is no cause of desperatioÌ„ no cause for you to be so vain and tragicall as here you would seeeme Yet upon supposall you say of this miraculous pilgrimage for faith before I have the faith of Miracles how shall I proceed at our meeting Or how shall I know the man on whom I may securely rely And hereunto you frame this answere for the Doctor Procure to know whether he believe all Fundamentall points of faith Whereas in all the Doctors book there is no such answer to any such question or any like it Neither doe you as your custome is note any page where it may be found which makes mee suspect that sure you have some priuate licence to use Heretiques as you call them at your pleasure and make them answer any thing to anything 57 Wherein I am yet more confirmed by the answer you put in his mouth to your next demand How shall I know whether he hold all Fundamentall points or no For whereas hereunto D. Potter hauing given one Answer fully satisfactory to it which is If he truly believe the undoubted bookes of Canonicall Scriptâ—re he cannot but believe all Fundamentalls and another which is but somethings
formall Heresie Or to this To say the Visible Church is not Vniversall is properly an Heresie But the preaching of the Gospell at the beginning was not Vniversall therefore it cannot be excused from formall Heresie For as he whose Reformation is but particular may yet not denie the Resurrection so may he also not denie the Churches Vniversality And as the Apostles who preached the Gospell in the beginning did beleeve the Church Vniversall though their preaching at the beginning was not so So Luther also might and did beleeve the Church Universall though his Reformation were but particular I say he did beleeve it Vniversall even in your own sense that is Universall de iure though not defacto And as for Vniversality in fact he beleeved the Church much more Vniversall then his reformation For he did conceive as appeares by your own Allegations out of him that not only the Part reformed was the true Church but also that they were Part of it who needed reformation Neither did he ever pretend to make a new Church but to reform the old one Thirdly and lastly to the first proposition of this unsyllogisticall syllogisme I answer That to say the true Church is not alwaies defacto universall is so far from being an Heresy that it is a certaine truth knowne to all those that know the world and what Religions possesse farre the greater part of it Donatus therefore was not to blame for saying that the Church might possibly be confin'd to Africk but for saying without ground that then it was so And S. Austine as he was in the right in thinking that the Church was then extended farther then Africk so was he in the wrong if he thought that of necessity it alwaies must be so but most palpably mistakē in conceiving that it was then spread over the whole earth known to all nations which if passion did not trouble you make you forget how lately almost halfe the world was discovered and in what estate it was then found you would very easily see and confesse 15 Ad § 17. In the next Section you pretend that you have no desire to prosecute the similitude of Protestants with the Donatists and yet you doe it with as much spight and malice as could well bee devised but in vaine For Lucilla might doe ill in promoting the Sect of the Donatists and yet the Mother and the Daughter whom you glance at might doe well in ministring influence as you phrase it to Protestants in England Vnlesse you will conclude because one woman did one thing ill therefore no woman can doe any thing well or because it was ill done to promote one Sect therefore it must bee ill done to maintaine any 16 The Donatists might doe ill in calling the Chaire of Rome the Chaire of Pestilence and the Roman Church an Harlot and yet the state of the Church being altered Protestants might doe well to doe so and therefore though S. Austine might perhaps have reason to persecute the Donatists for detracting from the Church and calling her harlot when she was not so yet you may have none to threaten D. Potter that you would persecute him as the Application of this place intimates you would if it were in your power plainly shewing that you are a curst cow though your hornes be short seeing the Roman Church is not now what it was in S. Austines time And hereof the conclusion of your own book affords us a very pregnant testimony where you tell us out of Saint Austine that one grand-impediment which among many kept the seduced followers of the faction of Donatus from the Churches Communion was a vile calumny raised against the Catholiques that they did set some strange thing upon their Altar To how many saith S. Austine did the reports of ill tongues shut up the way to enter who said that we put I know not what upon the Altar Our of detestation of the calumny and just indignation against it he would not so much as name the impiety wherewith they were charged and therefore by a Rhetoricall figure calls it I know not what But compare with him Optatus writing of the same matter and you shall plainly perceive that this I know not what pretended to be set upon the Altar was indeed a picture which the Donatists knowing how detestable a thing it was to all Christians at that time to set up any Pictures in a Church to worship them as your new fashion is bruited abroad to be done in the Churches of the Catholique Church But what answer doe S. Austine and Optatus make to this accusation Doe they confesse and maintaine it Doe they say as you would now It is true we doe set Pictures upon our Altar and that not only for ornament or memory but for worship also but we doe well to doe so and this ought not to trouble you or affright you from our Communion What other answer your Church could now make to such an objection is very hard to imagine And therefore were your Doctrine the same with the Doctrine of the Fathers in this point they must have answered so likewise But they to the cōtrary not only deny the crime but abhorre and detest it To litle purpose therefore doe you hunt after these poore shadowes of resemblances between us and the Donatists unlesse you could shew an exact resemblance between the present Church of Rome and the Ancient which seeing by this and many other particulars it is demonstrated to bee impossible that Church which was then a Virgin may be now a Harlot and that which was detraction in the Donatists may be in Protestants a just accusation 17 As ill successe have you in comparing D. Potter with Tyconius whom as S. Austin findes fault with for continuing in the Donatists separation having forsaken the ground of it the Doctrine of the Churches perishing so you condemne the Doctor for continuing in their Communion who hold as you say the very same Heresy But if this were indeed the Doctrine of the Donatists how is it that you say presently after that the Protestants who hold the Church of Christ perished were worse then Donatists who said that the Church remained at least in Africa These things me thinkes hang not well together But to let this passe The truth is this difference for which you would faine raise such a horrible dissention between D. Potter and his Brethren if it be well considered is only in words and the manner of expression They affirming only that the Church perished from its integrity and fell into many corruptions which he derlies not And the Doctor denying only that it fell from its essence and became no Church at all which they affirme not 18 These therefore are but velitations and you would seeme to make but small account of them But the main point you say is that since Luthers Reformed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Luther and yet was in the Apostles time
no fewer then seven times May you be pleased to look back to your own Book you shall find it so as I have said that at least in a hundred other places you make your advantage of this false imputation which when you have observ'd and withall considered that your selfe plainly intimate that D. Potters discourses which here you censure would be good and concluding if we did not as we doe not free you from damnable errour I hope you will acknowledge that my vouchsafing these Sections the honour of any farther answer is a great supererrogation in point of civility Neverthelesse partly that I may the more ingratiate my selfe with you but especially that I may stop their mouthes who will be apt to say that every word of yours which I should omit to speak to is an unanswerable argument I will hold my purpose of answering them more punctually and particularly 19 First then to your little parenthesis which you interline among D. Potters words § 7. That any small error in faith destroies all faith To omit what hath been said before I answer here what is proper for this place that S. Austine whose authority is here stood upon thought otherwise He conceived the Donatists to hold some error in faith and yet not to have no faith His words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident you are with us saith he to the Donatists Ep. 48. in Baptisme in the Creed in the other Sacraments And again Super gestis cum emerit Thou hast proved to me that thou hast faith prove to me likewise that thou hast charity Paralell to which words are these of Optatus Amongst us and you is one Ecclesiasticall conversation common lessons the same faith the same Sacraments Where by the way we may observe that in the judgements of these Fathers even the Donatists though Heretiques and Schismatiques gave true Ordination the true Sacrament of Matrimony true Sacramentall Absolution Confirmation the true Sacrament of the Eucharist true extream Vnction or else choose you whether some of these were not then esteem'd Sacraments But for Ordination whether he held it a Sacrament or no certainly he held that it remain'd with them entire for so he saies in expresse tearmes in his book against Parmenianus his Epistle Which Doctrine if you can reconcile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church Eris mihi magnus Apollo 20 Whereas in the beginning of the 8. Sect. you deny that your argument drawn from our confessing the Possibility of your Salvation is for simple people alone but for all men I answer certainly whosoever is moved with it must be so simple as to think this a good and a concluding reason Some ignorant men in the Roman Church may be sav'd by the confession of Protestants which is indeed all that they confesse therefore it is safe for me to be of the Roman Church and he that does think so what reason is there why he should not think this as good Ignorant Protestans may be saved by the confession of Papists by name Mr K. therefore it is safe for me to be of the Protestant Church Whereas you say that this your argument is grounded upon an inevitable necessity for us either to grant Salvation to your Church or to entail certain damnation upon our own because ours can have no being till Luther unlesse yours be supposed to have been the true Church I answer this cause is no cause For first as Luther had no being before Luther and yet he was when he was though he was not before so there is no repugnance in the termes but that there might be a true Church after Luther though there were none for some ages before as since Columbus his time there have been Christians in America though before there were none for many ages For neither doe you shew neither does it appear that the generation of Churches is univocall that nothing but a Church can possibly beget a Church nor that the present being of a true Church depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all ages any more then the present being of Peripateticks or Stoicks depends upon a perpetuall pedigree of them For though I at no hand deny the Churches perpetuity yet I see nothing in your book to make me understand that the truth of the present depends upon it nor any thing that can hinder but that a false Church Gods providence overwatching and overruling it may preserve the meanes of confuting their own Heresies and reducing men to truth and so raising a true Church I mean the integrity and the authority of the word of God with men Thus the Iewes preserve meanes to make men Christians and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants and Protestants which you say are a false Church doe as you pretend preserve means to make men Papists that is their own Bibles out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be Papists Secondly you shew not nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church depends on the truth of yours For though you talke vainly as if you were the only men in the world before Luther yet the world knowes that this but talke and that there were other Christians besides you which might have perpetuated the Church though you had not beene Lastly you shew not neither doth it appear that your being acknowledged in some sense a true Church doth necessarily import that we must grant salvation to it unlesse by it you understand the ignorant members of it which is a very unusuall Sinechdoche 21 Whereas you say that Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saved I answ S. Austin himselfe granted that those among them who sought the Truth being ready when they found it to correct their error were not Heretiques and therefore notwithstanding their error might be saved And this is all the Charity that Protestants allow to Papists 22 Whereas you say that D. Potter having cited out of S. Austine the words of the Catholiques that the Donatists had true Baptisme when he comes to the contrary words of the Donatist addes no Church no Salvation Ans. You wrong D. Potter who pretends not to cite S. Austines formall words but only his sense which in him is compleat and full for that purpose whereto it is alleaged by D. Potter His words are Petilianus dixit venite ad Ecclesiam Populi aufugite Traditores si perire non vultis Petilian saith come to the Church yee people and fly from the Traditours if ye will not be damn'd for that yee may know that they being guilty esteeme very well of our Faith Behold I Baptize these whom they have infected but they receive those whom we have baptized Where it is plain that Petilian by his words makes the Donatists the Church and excludes the Catholiques from salvation absolutely And therefore no Church no Salvation was not D. Potters addition
above all the men and Churches of the World whereof I have already given you two very pregnant demonstrations drawn from your presumptions tying God and Salvation to your Sacraments And the efficacy of them to your Priests Qualifications and Intentions 69 Your making the Salvation of Infants depend on Baptisme a Casuall thing and in the power of man to conferre or not conferre would yeild me a Third of the same nature And your suspending the same on the Baptizer's intention a Fourth And lastly your making the Reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist depend upon the casualties of the consecrators true Priesthood and Intention and yet commanding men to believe it for certain that he is present and to adore the Sacrament which according to your Doctrine for ought they can possibly know may be nothing else but a piece of bread so exposing them to the danger of Idolatry and consequently of damnation doth offer me a Fift demonstration of the same conclusion if I thought fit to insist upon them But I have no mind to draw any more out of this Fountaine neither doe I think it charity to cloy the Reader with uniformity when the subject affords variety 70 Sixtly therefore I returne it thus The faith of Papists relyes alone upon their Churches infallibility That there is any Church infallible and that Theirs is it they pretend not to believe but only upon prudentiall motives Dependance upon prudentiall motives they confesse to be obnoxious to a possibility of erring What then remaineth but Truth Faith Salvation and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground 71 Seventhly The faith of Papists relies upon the Church alone The Doctrine of the Church is delivered to most of them by their Parish Priest or Ghostly Father or at least by a company of Priests who for the most part sure are men and not Angels in whom nothing is more certain then a most certain possibility to erre What then remaineth but that Truth Faith Salvation and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground 72 Eightly thus It is apparent and undeniable that many Thousands there are who believe your Religion upon no better grounds then a man may have for the beliefe almost of any Religion As some believe it because their forefathers did so and they were good People Some because they were Christened and brought up in it Some because many Learned and Religious men are of it Some because it is the Religion of their Country where all other Religions are persecuted and proscribed Some because Protestants cannot shew a perpetuall succession of Professors of all their Doctrine Some because the service of your Church is more stately and pompous magnificent Some because they find comfort in it Some because your Religion is farther spread and hath more professors of it then the Religion of Protestants Some because your Priests compasse Sea and Land to gain Proselytes to it Lastly an infinite number by chance and they know not why but only because they are sure they are in the right This which I say is a most certain experimented truth and if you will deale ingenuously you will not deny it And without question he that builds his faith upon our English Translation goes upon a more prudent ground then any of these can with reason be pretended to be What then can you alleadge but that with you rather then with us Truth and Faith and Salvation and all relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds 73 Ninthly Your Rhemish and Doway Translations are delivered to your Proselytes such I mean that are dispenâ—'d with for the reading of them for the direction of their Faith and lives And the same may be said of your Translations of the Bible into other nationall languages in respect of those that are licenc'd to read them This I presume you will confesse And moreover that these Translations came not by inspiration but were the productions of humane Industry and that not Angels but men were the Authors of them Men I say meere men subject to the same Passions and to the same possibility of erring with our Translatours And then how does it not unavoidably follow that in them which depend upon these translations for their direction Faith and Truth and Salvation and all relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds 74 Tenthly and lastly to lay the axe to the root of the tree the Helena which you so fight for your vulgar Translation though some of you believe or pretend to believe it to be in every part and particle of it the pure and uncorrupted word of God yet others among you and those as good zealous Catholiques as you are not so confident hereof 75 First for all those who have made Translations of the whole Bible or any part of it different many times in sense from the Vulgar as Lyranus Cajetan Pagnine Arias Erasmus Valla Steuchus and others it is apparent and even palpable that they never dreamt of any absolute perfection and authenticall infallibility of the Vulgar Translation For if they had why did they in many places reject it and differ from it 76 Vega was present at the Councell of Trent when that decree was made which made the Vulgar Edition then not extant any where in the world authenticall and not to be rejected upon any pretense whatsoever At the forming this decree Vega I say was present understood the mind of the Councell as well as any man and professes that he was instructed in it by the President of it the Cardinall S. Cruce And yet he hath written that the Councell in this decree meant to pronounce this Translation free not simply from all error but only from such errors out of which any opinion pernitious to faith and manners might be collected This Andradius in his defence of that Councell reports of Vega and assents to it himselfe 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 Hieroms Edition not as so wholly consonant to the Originall and so entire and pure and restored in all things that it may not be lawfull for any man either by comparing it with the Fountaine to examine it or in some places to doubt whether or no Hierome did understand the true sense of the Scripture but only as an Edition to be prefer'd 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 The faults of the Vulgar Edition are not approved by the Decree of the Councell of Trent a multitude whereof we did collect from the variety of Copies And againe We maintaine that the Hebrew and Greeke were by no meanes rejected by the Trent Fathers And that the Latine edition is indeed approved yet
the Creed So that it is cleere that to make an errour damnable it is not necessary that the matter be of it selfe fundamentall 3 Moreover you cannot ground any certainty upon the Creed it selfe unlesse first you presuppose that the authority of the Church is universally infallible and consequently that it is damnable to oppose her declarations whether they concerne matters great or small contayned or not contained in the Creed This is cleere Because we must receiue the Creed it self upon the credit of the Church without which we could not know that there was any such thing as that which we call the Apostles Creed and yet the arguments whereby you endeavour to prove that the Creed containes all fundamentall points are grounded upon supposition that the Creed was made either by the Apostles themselves or by the Church of their times from them which thing we could not certainly know if the succeeding and still continued Church may erre in her Traditions neither can we be assured whether all fundamentall Articles which you say were out of the Scriptures summed and contracted into the Apostles Creed were faithfully summed and contracted and not one pretermitted altered or mistaken unlesse we undoubtedly know that the Apostles composed the Creed and that they intended to contract all fundamentall points of faith into it or at least that the Church of their times for it seemeth you doubt whether indeed it were composed by the Apostles themselves did understand the Apostles aright and that the Church of their times did intend that the Creed should containe all fundamentall points For if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall may she not also erre in the particulers which I have specified Can you shew it to be a fundamentall point of faith that the Apostles intended to comprize all points of faith necessary to Salvation in the Creed Your self say no more then that it is very probable which is farre from reaching to a fundamentall point of faith Your prohability is grounded upon the Iudgment of Antiquity and even of the Roman Doctours as you say in the same place But if the Catholique Church may erre what certainty can you expect from Antiquity or Doctours Scripture is your totall Rule of faith Cite therefore some Text of Scripture to prove that the Apostles or the Church of their times composed the Creed and composed it with a purpose that it should containe all fundamentall points of faith Which being impossible to be done you must for the Creed it self rely upon the infallibility of the Church 4. Moreover the Creed consisteth not so much in the words as in their sense and meaning All such as pretend to the name of Christians recite the Creed and yet many have erred fundamentally as well against the Articles of the Creed as other points of faith It is then very frivolous to say the Creed containes all fundamentall points without specifying both in what sense the Articles of the Creed be true and also in what true sense they be fundamentall For both these taskes you are to performe who teach that all truth is not fundamentall and you doe but delude the ignorant when you say that the Creed taken in a Catholique sense comprehendeth all points fundamentall because with you all Catholique sense is not fundamentall for so it were necessary to salvation that all Christians should know the whole Scripture wherein every least point hath a Catholique sense Or if by Catholique sense you understand that sense which is so universally to be knowne and believed by all that whosoever failes therein cannot be saved you trifle and say no more then this All points of the Creed in a sense necessary to salvation are necessary to salvation Or All points fundamentall are fundamentall After this manner it were an easie thing to make many trve Prognostications by saying it will certainly raine when it raineth You say the Creed was opened and explained in some parts in the Creeds of Nice c. but how shall we understand the other parts not explained in those Creeds 5. For what Article in the Creed is more fundamentall or may seem more cleere then that wherein we believe IESVS CHRIST to be the Mediatour Redeemer and Saviour of mankind and the founder and foundation of a Catholique Church expressed in the Creed And yet about this Article how many different doctrines are there not only of old Heretiques as Arius Nestorius Eutiches c. but also of Protestants partly against Catholiques and partly against one another For the said maine Article of Christ's being the only Saviour of the world c. according to different senses of disagreeing Sects doth involve these and many other such questions That Faith in IESVS CHRIST doth justifie alone That Sacraments have no efficency in Iustification That Baptisme doth not availe Infants for salvation unlesse they have an Act of faith That there is no Sacerdotall Absolution from sinnes That good works proceeding from Gods grace are not meritorious That there can be no Satisfaction for the temporall punishment due to sinne after the guilt or offence is pardoned No Purgatory No prayers for the dead No Sacrifice of the Masse No Invocation No Mediation or intercession of Saints No inherent Iustice No supreme Pastor yea no Bishop by divine Ordinance No Reall presence no Transubstantiation with diverse others And why Because forsooth these Doctrines derogate from the Titles of Mediator Redeemer Advocate Foundation c. Yea and are against the truth of our Saviours humane nature if we believe diverse Protestants writing against Transubstantiation Let then any judicious man consider whether Doctour Potter or others doe really satisfie when they send men to the Creed for a perfect Catalogue to distinguish points fundamentall from those which they say are not fundamentall If he will speak indeed to some purpose let him say This Article is understood in this sense and in this sense it is fundamentall That other is to be understood in such a meaning yet according to that meaning it is not so fundamentall but that men may disagree and denie it without damnation But it were no policie for any Protestant to deale so plainly 6. But to what end should we use many arguments Even your selfe are forced to limit your owne Doctrine and come to say that the Creed is a perfect Catalogue of fundamentall points taken as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emergent Heresies in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius But this explication or restriction overthroweth you assertion For as the Apostles Creed was not to us a sufficient Catalogue till it was explained by the first Councell nor then till it was declared by another c. so now also as new Heresies may arise it will need particular explanation against such emergent errors and so it is not yet nor ever will be of it self alone a particular Catalogue sufficient
thus of it how could he have called it A brief comprehension of the faith and a summe of all things to be believed and as it were a signe or cognizance whereby Christians are to be differenced and distinguished from the impious and misbelievers who professe either no faith or not the right If Huntly had been of this mind how could he have said of it with any congruity That the rule of faith is expressely contained in it and all the prime foundations of faith And that the Apostles were not so forgetfull as to omit any prime principall foundation of faith in that Creed which they delivered to be believed by all Christians The words of Filiucius are pregnant to the same purpose There cannot bee a fitter Rule from whence Christians may learn what they are explicitly to belieue then that which is contained in the Creed Which words cannot be justified if all points necessary to be believed explicitely be not comprised in it To this end saith Putean was the Creed compos'd by the Apostles that Christians might haue a forme whereby they might professe themselues Catholiques But certainly the Apostles did this in vain If a man might professe this and yet for matter of faith be not a Catholique 26 The words of Cardinal Richelieu exact this sense and refuse your glosse as much as any of the former The Apostles Creed is the Summary and Abridgment of that faith which is necessary for a Christian These holy persons being by the Commandement of Iesus Christ to disperse themselves over the world and in all parts by preaching the Gospell to plant the faith esteemed it very necessary to reduce into a short summe all that which Christians ought to know to the end that being dispersed into divers parts of the world they might preach the same thing in a short for me that it might be the easier remembred For this effect they called this Abridgment a Symbole which signifies a mark or signe which might serue to distinguish true Christians which imbraced it from Infidels which rejected it Now I would fain know how the composition of the Creed could serue for this end and secure the Preachers of it that they should preach the same thing if there were other necessary Articles not compriz'd in it Or how could it be a signe to distinguish true Christians from others if a man might belieue it all and for want of believing something else not be a true Christian 27 The words of the Author of the consideration of foure heads propounded King Iames require the same sense and utterly renounce your qualification The Symbole is a briefe yet entire Methodicall summe of Christian Doctrine including all points of faith either to bee preached by the Apostles or to be believed by their Disciples Delivered both for a direction unto them what they were to preach and others to belieue as also to discern and put a difference betwixt all faithfull Christians and misbelieving Infidels 28 Lastly Gregory of Valence affirmes our Assertion even in termes The Articles of faith contained in the Creed are as it were the first principles of the Christian faith in which is contained the summe of Evangelicall doctrine which all men are bound explicitely to belieue 29 To these Testimonies of your own Doctors I should haue added the concurrent suffrages of the ancient Fathers but the full and free acknowledgment of the same Valentia in the place aboue quoted will make this labour unnecessary So iudge saith hee the holy Fathers affirming that his Symbole of faith was composed by the Apostles that all might haue a short summe of those things which are to be belieued and are dispersedly contain'd in Scripture 30 Neither is there any discord between this Assertion of your Doctors and their holding themselues oblig'd to belieue all the points which the Councell of Trent defines For Protestants Papists may both hold that all points of beliefe necessary to be known belieued are summ'd up in the Creed and yet both the one the other think themselues bound to belieue whatsoever other points they either know or belieue to be revealed by God For the Articles which are necessary to be known that they are revealed by God may bee very few and yet those which are necessary to be believed when they are revealed and known to be so may be very many 31 But Summaries and Abstracts are not intended to specifie all the particulars of the science or subiect to which they belong Yes if they bee intended for perfect Summaries they must not omit any necessary doctrine of that Science whereof they are Summaries though the Illustration and Reasons of it they may omit If this were not so a man might set down forty or fifty of the Principall definitions and divisions and rules of Logick and call it a Summary or Abstract of Logick But sure this were no more a Summary then that were the picture of a man in little that wanted any of the parts of a man or that a totall summe wherein all the particulars were not cast up Now the Apostles Creed you here intimate that it was intended for a Summary otherwise why talk you here of Summaries and tell us that they need not contain all the particulars of their science And of what I pray may it be a Summary but of the Fundamentals of Christian faith Now you haue already told us That it is most full and compleat to that purpose for which it was intended Lay all this together and I belieue the product will be That the Apostles Creed is a perfect Summary of the Fundamentalls of the Christian faith and what the duty of a perfect Summary is I haue already told you 32 Whereas therefore to disproue this Assertion in divers particles of this Chapter but especially the fourteenth you muster up whole armies of doctrines which you pretend are necessary and not contain'd in the Creed I answer very briefly thus That the doctrines you mention are either concerning matters of practise and not simple beliefe or else they are such doctrines wherein God has not so plainly revealed himselfe but that honest and good men true Lovers of God and of Truth those that desire aboue all things to know his will and doe it may erre and yet commit no sinne at all or only a sinne of infirmity and not destructiue of salvation or lastly they are such Doctrines which God hath plainly revealed and so are necessary to be belieued when they are known to be divine but not necessary to be known believed not necessary to be known for divine that they may be believed Now all these sorts of doctrines are impertinent to the present Question For D. Potter never affirmed either that the necessary duties of a Christian or that all Truths piously credible but not necessary to be believed or that all Truths necessary to bee believed upon the supposall of divine Revelation were specified in the
the true Church was interrupted by Apostasy from the true Faith Calvin saith It is absurd in the very beginning to breake one from another after we have been forced to make a separation from the whole world It were over-long to alleage the words of Ioannes Regius Daniel Chamierus Beza Ochimus Castalio and others to the same purpose The reason which cast them upon this wicked doctrine was a desperate voluntary necessity because they being resolved not to acknowlâ—dge the Roman Church to be Christs 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 affirme 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 professe that Christ alwaies had and alwaies will have upon earth a visible Church otherwise saith he our Lords promise of her stable 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 Christs body he seeketh to cleere himselfe and others from Schisme because saith he the property of Schisme is witnesse the Donatists and Luciâ—erianâ— to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates And if any Zelots amongst us have proceeded to heavier ceâ—sures their zeale may be excused but their Charity and wisdome cannot be iustified And elsewhere he acknowledgeth that the Roman Church hath those main and essentiall 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 Christs visible Church cannot perish it will be needlesse for me in this occasion to prove it S. Augustine doubted not to say The Prophets spoke more obscurely of Christ then of the Church because as I thinke they did foresee 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 prophecyed about which greater contentions were to rise that it might turne to the condemnation of them who have seeâ—e it and yet gone forth And in another place he saith How doe we confide to have received manifestly Christ himselfe 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 affaires of his soule if upon earth there be no visible Church of Christ Besides 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 doe 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 unlesse labouring also for the salvation of others we professe with our mouthes the same faith which we bear in our hearts And if any man hold it lawfull to dissemble and deny matters of faith we cannor be assured but that they actually dissemble and hide Anabaptisme Arianisme yea Turcisme and even Atheisme or any other false beliefe under the outward profession of Calvinisme Doe not Protestants teach that preaching of the word 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. Aâ—stine account this Heresy so grosse that he saith against those who in his time defended the like errour But this Church which hath been of all Nations is no â—ore she 〈◊〉 perished so say they that are not in her O impudent speech And afterward 〈…〉 so detestable so full of presumption and falshood which is sustâ—ined with no truth enlightned with no wisdome seasoned with no falt vaine rash beady 〈…〉 c. And Peradventure some one may say there are other sheep I know not where with which I am not dequâ—inted yet God hath care of them But he is too absurd in 〈◊〉 sense that 〈◊〉 imagine such things And these men doe not consider that while they deny the perpeâ—uity of a visible Church they destroy their own present Church according to the argument which S. Augustine urged against the Donatists in these words If the Church were lost in Cyprians we may say in Gregories time from whence did Donatus Luther appeare From what earth did he spring from what sea is he come From what heaven did he drop And in another place How can they â—â—unt to have any Church if he have ceased ever since those times And all Divines by defining Schisme to be a division from the true Church suppose that there must be a known Church from which it is possible for men to depart But enough of this in these few words 12 Let us now come to the fourth and chiefest point which was to examine whether Luther â—â—lvin and the rest did not deparâ— from the externall Communion of Christs visible Church and by that sepaâ—ation became gâ—â—lty of Schisme And that they are properly Schismatiques cleerely followeth from the grounds which we have laid concerning the nature of Schisme which 〈◊〉 in leaving the externall Communion of the visible Church of Christ our Lord and it is cleere by evidence of fact that Luther and his followers forsooke the Communion of that Anciâ—nt Church For they did not so much as pretend to joyne with any Congregation which had a being before their time for they would needs conceive that no visible company was free from errours in doctrine and corruption in practise And therefore they opposed the doctrine they withdrew their obedience from thâ— Prelâ—tes they left participation in Sacraments they châ—nged the Liturgy of publique service of whatsoever Church then extant And these things they preâ—â—nded to doe out of a perswasion that they were bound forsooth in conscience so to doe unlesse they would participâ—te with â—rrors corruptions and superstitions We dare not saith D. Potter communicate with Rome either in her publique Litâ—rgy which is manifestly polluted with grosse superstition c. or in those corrupt and ungrounded opinions which she hath added to the Faith of Catholiques But now 〈◊〉 D. Potter tell me with what visible Church extant before Luther he would have adventured to communicate in her publique Liturgy and Doctrine since he durst not communicate with Rome He will not be able to assigne
any even with any little colour of common sense If then they departed from all visible Communities professing Christ it followeth that they also left the Communion of the true visible Church whichsoever it was whether that of Rome or any other of which Point I doe not for the present dispute Yea this the Lutherans doe not only acknowledge but prove and brag of If faith a learned Lutheran there had 〈◊〉 right â—elievers which went before Luther in his office there had then been no need of a Lutheran Reformation Another affirmeth it to be ridiculous to think that in the time before Luther any had the purity of Doctrine and that Luther should receive it from them and not they from Luther Another speaketh roundly and saith it is impudency to say that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the Doctrine of the Gospell And I adde That farre greater impudency it were to affirme that Germany did not agree with the rest of Europe and other Christian Catholique Nations and consequently that it is the greatest impudency to deny that he departed from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church spread over the whole world We have heard Calvin saying of Protestants in generall We were even forced to make a separation from the whole world And Luther of himselfe in particular In the beginning I was alone Ergo say I by your good leave you were at least a Schismatique divided from the Ancient Church and a member of no new Church For no sole man can constitute a Church and though he could yet such a Church could not be that glorious company of whose number greatnesse and amplitude so much hath been spoken both in the old Testament and in the New 13 D. Potter endeavours to avoid this evident Argument by divers evasions but by the confutation thereof I will with Gods holy assistance take occasion even out of his own Answers and grounds to bring unanswerable reasons to convince them of Schisme 14 His chief Answer is That they have not left the Church but her Corruption 15 I reply This answer may be given either by those furious people who teach that those abuses and corruptions in the Church were so enormous that they could not stand with the nature or being of a true Church of Christ Or else by those other more calme Protestants who affirme that those errors did not destroy the being but only deforme the beauty of the Church Against both these sorts of men I may fitly use that unanswerable Dilemma which S. Augustine brings against the Donatists in these concluding words Tell me whether the Church at that time when you say she entertained those who were guilty of all crimes by the contagion of those sinfull persons perished or perished not Answere whether the Church perished or perished not Make choice of what you think If then she perished what Church brought forth Dâ—natus we may say Luther But if she could not perish because so many were incorporated into her without Baptisme that is without a second baptisme or rebaptization and I may say without Luthers Reformation answer me I pray you what madnesse did moue the Sect of Donâ—tus to separate themselâ—es from her upon pretence to avoid the Communion of â—ad men I beseech the Reader to ponder every one of S. Augustines words and to consider whether any thing could haâ—e been spoken more directly against Luther and his followers of what sort soever 16 And now to answer more in particular I say to those who reach that the visible Church of Christ perished for many Ages that I can easily afford them the curâ—esie to free them from meer Schisme but all men touched with any spark of zeal to vindicate the wisedome and Goodnesse of our Saviour from blasphemous injurie cannot choose but believe and proclaim them to be superlative Arch-heretiques Neverthelesse if they will needs haue the honour of Singularity and desire to be both formall Heretiques and properly Schismatiques I will tell them that while they dream of an invisible Church of men which agree with them in Faith they will upon due reflection find themselves to be Schismatiques from those corporeall Angels or invisible men because they held externall Communion with the visible Church of those times the outward Communion of which visible Church these modern hot-spurs forsaking were thereby divided from the outward Communion of their hidden Brethren and so are Separatists from the externall Communion of them with whom they agree in faith which is Schisme in the most formall and proper signification thereof Moreover according to D. Potter these boysterous Creatures are properly Schismariques For the reason why he thinks himselfe and such as he is to be cleared from Schisme notwithstanding their division from the Roman Church is because according to his Divinity the property of Schisme is witnesse the Donatists and Luciferians to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates But those Protestants of whom we now speak cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which they separated themselues and they doe it directly as the Donatists in whom you exemplify did by affirming that the true Church had perished and therefore they cannot bee cleared from Schisme if you may be their Iudge Consider I pray you how many prime Protestants both domesticall and forraign you haue at one blow struck off from hope of Salvation and condemned to the lowest pit for the grievous sinne of Schisme And withall it imports you to consider thaâ— you also involve your selfe and other moderate Protestants in the selfe same crime and punishment while you communicate with those who according to your own principles are properly formally Schismatiques For if you held your selfe obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errors and Corrâ—ptions which yet you confesse were not fundamentall shall it not be much more damnable for you to live in Communion and Confraternity with those who defend an errour of the fayling of the Church which in the Donatists you confesse to haue been properly hereticall against the Article of our Creed I believe the Church And I desire the Reader here to apply an authority of S. Cyprian epist. 76. which he shall finde alleaged in the next number And this may suffice for confutation of the aforesaid Answer as it might haue relation to the rigid Calvinists 17 For Confutation of these Protestants who hold that the Church of Christ had alwaies a being and cannot erre in points fundamentall and yet teach that she may erre in matters of lesse moment wherein if they forsake her they would be accounted not to leave the Church but onely her corruptions I must say that they change the state of our present Question not distinguishing between internall Faith and externall Communion nor between Schisme and
p. 122. Ninthly a very great part of his Chapter touching the dissensions of the Roman Church which he shewes against the pretences of Charity Mistaken to bee no lesse then ours for the importance of the matter and the pursuite of them to bee 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 Doctrine of Heretiques and Infidels but evidently repugnant to the word of God Ibid. p. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. Lastly his discourse wherein hee shewes that it is unlawfull for the Church of after Ages to adde any thing to the Faith of the Apostles And many of his Arguments whereby hee proves that in the judgment of the Ancient Church the Apostles Creed was esteem'd a sufficient summary of the necessary Points of simple belief and a great number of great authorities to justifie the Doctrine of the Church of England touching the Canon of Scripture especially the Old Testament S. 7. p. 221 223. 228. 229. All these parts of Doctor Potter's book for reasons best known to your self you have dealt with as the Priest and Levite in the Gospell did with the wounded Samaritan that is only look't upon them and pass'd by But now at least when you are admonish't of it that my Reply to your second part if you desire it may be perfect I would entreat you to take them into your consideration and to make some shew of saying something to them least otherwise the world should interpret your obstinate silence a plaine confession that you can say nothing FINIS GOod reader through the Authors necessary absence for some weekes while this Book was printing and by reason of an uncorrected Copy sent to the Presse some errors have escap'd notwithstanding the Printers sollicitous and extraordinary care and the Correctors most assiduous diligence which I would intreat thee to correct according to this following direction Pag. Lin. Err. Corr. 6. 1. To the first and second Adde § 21. Vlt. To the ninth to the ninteenth To the ninteenth To the ninth 64. 21. Principall prudentiall 67. 29. Canoniz'd discanoniz'd 73. In marg posuit potuit 108. 21. ouâ— one 134. 9. In for 136. 9. some some thing 146. 6. a truth truths 150. 19. she there 157. 13. vowed avowed 158. Peâ—â—lt best least 168. 11 causa pro non causâ— non causa pro causa 176. 3. Atheists Antithâ—sis ib. 11. dele with  180. Antepen government communion 193. 19. that the. 198. 33. continue the immortall the 218. 44. profession pâ—â—fection 220. Post 53. scribd Ad § 19. Iâ— 11. Faire Faâ—ce Ib. 33. instruct mistrust 221. 38. which is which is the Church 225. 27. nay now 293. 43. so farre from farre from so 351. 11. exception exposition 361. Vlt. Canons Canon 372. 17. Foundation Fundation of 393. 32. dele whether  402 44. of themselves in the issue Survey of Religion Init. a See this acknowledg'd by Bellar de Script Ecclesâ—in Philastriâ— by Petavius Animad in Epiph de inscrip operis By S. Austin Lib. de Haeres Haer. 80 A generall consideration of D. Potters Answere Concerning my Reply Rules to be observed if D. Potter intend a Rejoynder a Mat. 5. 19. * I mean the Divines of Doway whose profession we have in your Belgick Expurgatorius p. 12. in censura Bertrami in these words Seeing in other ancient Catholiques we tolerate extenuate excuse very many errors and devising some shift often deny theÌ„ and put upon them a convenient sense when they are objected to us in disputations and conflicts with our adversaries we see no reason why Bertram may not deserve the same equity In the place above quoted This great diversity of opinions among you touching this matter if any maÌ„ doubt of it let him read Franciscus Picus Mirandula in l. Theorem in Exposit. Theor quarti and T h. Waldensis Tom. 3. De Sacramentalibus doct 3. fol. 5. andhee shall bee fully satisfied that I haue done you no injury Quiâ— tulerit Gracchum c. a Pag. 11. b Ibid. c Pag. 4. Edit 1. d Pag. 20. e Pag. 81. g Sleidan l. 6. fol. 84. h See pag. 39. i Art 28. k Art 31. l S. Greg. Hom. 7. in Ezec. a Pag. 131. b In his first book of Eccles Policy Sect. 1 â— p. 68. c Ibid. lib. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102. d l. 3. Sect. 8. pag. 1. 146. et alibi e Advers Stapl. l. 2. c. 6. Pag. 270. Pag. 357. f Adversus Stapl. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 300. g lib. de cap. Babyl tom 2. Wittemb f. 88. h In his answer to a couÌ„terfeit Catholique pag. 5. i Epist. cont Anabap. ad duos Parochos tom 2. Germ. Wittemb k Praefat. in epist. lac in edit Ieâ—ensi l In Euchirid pag. 63. m In examin Conc. Trid. part 1. pag. 55. n Ibid. o Apud Euseb l. 4. hist. c. 26. p In Synop. q ln carm de genuinis Scripturis r lib. de servo arbitrio cont Etas tom 2. Witt. fol. 471. s In latinis sermonibus convivialibus Francof in 8. impr Anno 1571. t In Germanicis colloq Lutheri ab Aurifabro editis Francosurt tit de libris veteris novi Test. fol. 379. u Ib. tit de Patriarchis Prophet fol. 282. w Tit. de lib. Veâ— Nov. Test. x Fol. 380. y Pag. 141. z Heb. v. 1 a Pag. 141 b Cont. Adimantn c. 17. c l. 2. haeretic fab d lib. 6. cap. 10. e lib. 6. cap. 11. f Dist. Can. Sancta Româ—na h In his defence art 4. Pag. 31. i Pag. 234. k In Synopsi l Can. 47. m Cont. â—p Fundam c. 5. n Tom. 1. fol. 135. o Instit. c. 6. §. 11. p Instit c. 7. §. 12. q lib. de sancta Scriptura p. 52. r Tast. 1. Sect. 10. subd 4 joyned with tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 10. subd 2. s Lib. cont Zwingl deverit corp Christiin Euchar t In his answere unto M. Iohn Burges pag. 94. u Ibid. w In his Preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiastâ—call Pollicy Sect. 6. 26. x In his treatise of the Church In his Epistle dedicatory to the L. Archbishop y Cont. ep Fund cap. 5. z Lib. de util â—â—e cap. 14. a Tâ—m â— Wittemberg fol. 375. b In lib. de principiis Christian. dogm lib 6â— 13. c De Sacra Scriptura pag. 529. d In his true differâ—nce part 2. e Tract 2. cap 1. Sect. 1. f Lib. 32. cont Faust. g Pag. 247 h De test anim cap. 5. Pag. 24. k Heb. 13. l Cant. 2. m 1. Cor. 10. Ephes. 4. n Mat. 12. o Ioan. c. 10. p Lib. 5. c. 4. q In his defence of M. Hookers books art 4. p. â—1 r De unit Eccles c. 22. * Some answer so but he doth not a The first outward motive not the last