it is no faith Which saying of his D. Covell specially acknowledgeth and reciteth tearming it [f] Covell in his defence of Hookers five Books of Ecclesiastical Policie pag. 42. ante med harsh and justly called in question by the Church of Rome He also further taught that [g] Luther tom 2. Wittemberg de captivit Babylon fol. 74. and see further hereof in the Treatise against the defence of the censure p. 198. a Christian or Baptized person is so rich that although he would he cannot lose his salvation by any sin how great soever unless he will not believe Whereof he giveth this reason elsewhere saying As nothing justifyeth but faith so nothing sinneth but unbelief Luther in loc com c. class 5. c. 27. pag. 68. initio and in 2. part Postill Germ. Printed Argentorati Anno 1537. fol. 140. b. he saith No sin is so great which can condemn a man for only infidelity condemneth all men that are condemned and on the contrary only faith maketh all men blessed 19. As concerning [h] Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 10. subdivis 4. good Works Luther teacheth in his Sermons Englished c. pag. 147. antemed that works take their goodness of the worker and pag. 278. that no work is disallowed of God unless the Author thereof be disallowed before saying thereof further such a one worketh nothing but good works neither can it be but good which he being good before shall do And as concerning the necessity of good works affirmed against him by English Protestants as Willet Whitaker c. whereof see Brereley pag. 392. 1. it is so far disclaimed in by him and his followers that they deny [i] Illyricus in praefat ad Rom. vide Schlusselburg in Catalog Haereticorum l. 13. ult pag 819. circa med good works to be so much as causa sine qua non of salvation affirming the controversie with the [k] Illyricus in praefat ad Rom. And see Colloquium Altembergense fol. 210. a. b. and 231.324.382 and 352. Papists to be not only whether good works do justify but also whether they be in any respect necessary to salvation Which last position they call [l] Illyricus ubi supra a Papistical error terming it the [m] Illyricus ibidem Doctrine of the new Papists as pernicious as the old to say as English Protestants do that the Apostle meant to exclude good works from justification not simply and as due but only as meritorious and causes efficient They will not in the point of our justification grant [n] Schlusselburg in Catalog Hâ—ereticorum l. 13. in Epist dedicatoria pag. 22. paulò post med good works to be necessary necessitate praesentiae so much as with necessity of presence condemning their Brethrens contrary Doctrine for [o] Illyricus de originali just tia ac injustitia in appendice pag. 163. worse then is the Papists Doctrine and they fortifie themselves herein with the testimony of [o] See Luthers sayings alleged in Actis Colloquii Aldeburgensis pag. 8. circa med and in Illyricus in praefat ad Rom. Luther and have proceeded so far against all necessity of good works that some of them as namely Amsdorphius a Protestant Divine of great [q] Dresserus in Millenario Sexto Printed 1598. pag. 187. post med saith Nicholaus Amsdorphius Wittembâ—rgae primum cum Luthero Philâ—ppo Theologâ—ae stadia coluit postea Episcopatui Numburgico à Frederico Electore praefectus est à Luthero inauguratus Pu. Consecrated Bishop by Luther who was no Bishop And Luther com 2. Wittemberg writeth to him specially tearming him Optime Vir fol. 487. initio And in libro Concordiae bound in quatto Lipsiae 1581. pag. 72. ante med it is said is inter caetera fecit mentionem Nicholai Amsdorphii de quo Lutherus dâ—xisser Spiritus meus requiescet in Amsdorphio Wellerus Nemo tantum hausit de Spiritu Lutheri ac Amsâ—orphius And see yet the very same affirmed of Luther and Wellerus concerning Amsdorphius by Chemnitius alleged by Hospinian in his Concord discor Printed 1607. fol. 102. b. fine note and by Luther much esteemed doubt not to affirm that [r] Hereof see Acta Colloquii Aldeburgensis pag. 120. Sect. 11. initio pag 443. paulo post initium pag. 293. paulo ante medium And see Nicholaus Amsdorphius speciall Book of this argument inâ—ituled Quod bona opera sint perniciosa ad salutem good works are not only not necessary to salvation but also hurtful to it [s] Vide Acta Colloq Aldeburg pag. 205. post med fiâ—e alleging Luther in proof of this opinion [t] Ibidem pag. 293. paulo ante med it is said Scripsit Amsdorphius post eum vel per eum Flaccius non solum non necessaria sed perniciosa esse opera ad salutem pag. 120. sect 11 it is said Hanc detestandam propositionem Amsdorphii quam Flaccius approbat editis scriptis propugnat quod bona opera non solum non sunt necessaria sed etiam perniciosa ad salutem c. Amsdorphius in suo libro â— 4. Flaccius in Annotatione super repet Major the which Illyricus whom Mr. Bell in his Regiment of the Church pag. 25. fine tearmeth a very famous Writer and most worthy defender of the Christian truth doth allow and defend by publick writing And all this so grosly and intolerably that sundry other Protestant Writers who acknowledge Amsdorphius [u] Amsdorphius plae memoriae so called ibidem pag. 206. circa medium for a man otherwise of godly memory do yet nevertheless in this profess [x] Ibid. pag. 205. fine 206. nitio it is said hereof Nos quidem ipsos Lutherum Amidorphium inter se committimus hanc propositâ—onem non usurpaturi And Osiander in Epitom Hist Eccles centur 16. pag. 609. saith Nicholaus Amsdorphius Theologus Lutheranus dum falsam D. Maioris propositionem de necessitate bonorum operum ad salutem evertere conatur in alterum extremum impegit defendere conatus est hanc absurdam propositionem Bona opera ad salutem esse perniciosa to leave both him and Luther to themselves Which foresaid extenuating of good works is yet nevertheless so grateful to some of the Calvinists that their blessed [y] So is he tearmed by D. Bulkley in his Apology for Religion c. pag. 46. initio man of God and constant Martyr of Jesus Christ Master Tindall so greatly by them yet otherwise [z] Commended Acts Mon. pag. 514. b. fine 515. a. 519. initio 521. b. initio commended was so careful to prevent all merit of good works that in his Book intituled the wicked [a] That Tindal was the Authour of this Book see Act. mon. pag. 573. b. prope finem 486. a. initio b. post med Mammon he doubteth not to affirm that [b] Act. Mon pag. 486. b. fine Christ with
D. Field cited in the text And in his said Treatise of the Church l. 2. c. 9. pag. 58. ante med he affirmeth of the contradictory opinions for which saith he some were named Thomists other Scotists that they consisted to use his own words in the controversies of religion not yet determined by consent of the vniversal Church defined Now if these Protestants speak thus of our Bâ—essed Ladies immunity from Original sin much more will they hold that it is no damnable error if it were an error as it is indeed a most certain Catholick truth and so still we are safe for matter of Doctrine But here Chillingworth doth much forget himself not to consider that He his brethren the Socinians and some other Protestants deny all Original Sin and consequently that our B. Lady neither was or could be conceived therein So farr is this doctrine from being an errour or heresie in the grounds of these men 100. Thirteenthly He exemplifies the necessity of Auricular Confession But we have shewed that some learned Protestants hold the necessity of Confession and confess that the Fathers taught the necessity of confessing even thoughts Yea Chemnitius than whom no Protestant was ever more famous 2. part Exam. pag. 960. teacheth perfect sorrow or contrition not to be sufficient without Absolution as also I am informed by persons of worth and credit that Dr. Jeremie Tailor is so much for the necessity of Confession and Absolution that he teaches Contrition without Absolution not to be sufficient for remission of sins which he indeavours to prove in a Book written purposly to that end though for ought I understand it is not printed as yet And M. Spar a Cambridge Man printed a Sermon to prove the necessity of Confession as also in this third Consideration n. 82. fine we have heard Dr. Andrews prove the same out of St. Austine 101. Fourteenthly He allegeth the necessity of the Priests intention to obtain benefit by any of the Sacraments But this as we have seen out of Brereley in this third Consideration n. 49. is taught also by learned Protestants and the thing of it self is so reasonable that no man can deny it who understands the termes 102. Fifteenthly He ends his enumeration with these words And lastly for this very doctrine of licentiousness That though a man live and dye without the practise of Christian vertues and with the habit of many damnable sins immortifyed yet if he in the last moment of life have any sorrow for his sins and joyn Confession with it certainly he shall be saved In this accusation are involved three points or propositions First that Attrition with Absolution is not sufficient for the abolition of sin Secondly that true Repentance requires the extirpation and mortification of all vicious habits Thirdly that we teach any sorrow with Absolution to be sufficient for pardon of sins For the first we appose M. Chillingworth to himself who pag. 32. n. 4. saith God hath no where declared himself but that wheresoever he will accept of that Repentance which you are pleased to call Contrition he will accept of that which you call Attrition For though he like best the bright Flaming holocaust of Love yet he rejects not he quenches not the sâ—oaking flax of that repentance if it be true and effectual which proceeds from hope and fear which is more than we grant who teach only that not Attrition alone but with Absolution is sufficient The second is for ought I know against the common Tenet of Protestants and all Christians who believe that a sinner may be saved at the hour of his death if he have true contrition for his sins past with a firm purpose to amend for time to come though at that instant he cannot extirpate all vicious habits which as M. Chillingworth pag. 391. n. 8. confesses being a work of difficulty and time cannot be performed in an instant So that a poor sinner though he be never so contrite for his sins must despair of remission and salvation The third point that we believe any sorrow with Absolution to be sufficient for pardon of sins is a meer calumny as will appear to any that reads the sacred Councill of Trent declaring what sorrow is required to obtain pardon of our sins or Catholick divines writing on this subject For if the sorrow be conceived upon any Reason meerly of temporall Hope or Fear we teach that it is no wise sufficient to make men capable of Absolution or forgiveness of sins but it must proceed from some motive known by supernatural Faith for example the fear of Hell or desire of Heaven Secondly it cannot be produced by the natural forces of men or Angells as being the gift of God and requiring the special motion inspiration and grace of the holy Ghost and contrarily all the wit pains and industrie of all men that have been are or shall be yea or are possible to be created cannot arrive to it by all the natural forces of them all though they were assisted by the help of all Angels created or creable or of all other natural Creatures contained in the Omnipotency of Almightly God Thirdly Such sorrow must extend it self to all deadly sins in order to which it is to be so effectual that it must exclude all affection to them and the Penitent must be resolved rather to undergoe a thousand deaths than once consent to the least mortal sin And therefore Fourthly He must resolve to avoid for time to come all proximas occasiones or imminent danger of falling into any one mortal sin As also if he have injured any man by taking away his good name or goods or limb or life he must effectually and speedily procure to give satisfaction or make restitution according as the case shall require Yea and sometime if it be justly feared that dealy will cause a failing in his purpose Absolution may prudently or must be deferred till he hath actually satisfied all obligation the neglect whereof would prove a deadly sin And in a word that sorrow which we call Attrition differs from Contrition in the motive only because Contrition is conceived for sin as it is against the infinite goodness of God Attrition as it is repugnant to our eâ—ernal salvation and therefore Contrition is an act of the Theological Vertue of Charity Attrition of the Theological Vertue of Hope which as it moves us to desire and hope everlasting happiness so doth it incite us to fear the loss thereof and out of that holy fear not to fear any other temporal loss with the prejudice of our Souls according to those words of our blessed Saviour doe you not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul but rather fear him who can punish with Hell fire both the body and soul Which words declare that as I said a natural fear meerly of temporal losse though it be even of our life is not a sufficient disposition for pardon of sins as is
losses in all kinds which if we did undergoe for externall profession of that Faith which we doe not inwardly believe to be true we should deserve rather to be begged for fools then persecuted for our Religion In the mean time every Catholick hath this comfort that he is safe even by the confession of an Adversary if he be not a foolish dissembler which would be cause of damnation in a Protestant or any other Even the profession of a truth believed to be false is a sin But I return to say it were impossible for any Roman Catholick to be safe upon what condition soever if we erre in any one Fundamentall Article of Faith 7. With D. Potter agreeth M. William Chillingworth in his book intituled The Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation For whereas Charity Mantained part 1. pag. 15. n. 13. saith Since D. Potter 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 I desire him to declare whether it doth not follow that she hath not erred Fundamentally because every such errour destroyes the nature and being of a Church and so our Saviour Christ should have had no visibly Church on earth To these words which he thought fit to set down very imperfectly he answers pag. 16. n. 20. in this manner I say in our sense of the word Fundamentall it does follow For if it be true that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman then it must be either because there was no Church at all which we deny or because the Roman Church was the whole Church which we also deny Or because she was part of the whole which we grant And if she were a true part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation and held no errours which were inevitably and unpardonably destructive of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholick In our sense therefore of the word Fundamentall I hope she erred not Fundamentally But in your sense of the word I fear she did That is she held some thing to be Divine Revelation which was not something not to be which was He hath spoken so clearly and fully in favour of the Roman Church and not only affirmed but proved that she did not erre in any Fundamentall Point that I need not say one word to ponder his words or declare the force of them Pag. 7. n. 3. He expresly approves the saying of D. Potter That both sides by the confession of both sides agree in more Points than are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary Therefore doe we inferr Catholicks believe all that is precisely necessary to salvation and more But we never yield so much to you Protestants Pag. 85. n. 89. He confesseth the Roman Church to be a part of the Catholick Church and pag. 16. n. 20. he saith If she were a true part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation and held no errours which were unevitably and unpardonably destructive of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholick Pag. 163. n. 56. He saith From Scripture we collect our hope that the Truths she The Roman Church retains and the practise of them may prove an Antidote to her against the errours which she maintaines in such persons as in simplicity of heart follow this Absalon These points of Christianity which have in them the nature of Antidotes against the poyson of all sins and errours the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted still retains therefore we hope she erreth not Fundamentally but still remaines a part of the Church But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things Seeing the very same Scripture which puts us in hope she erres not Fundamentally mark how he professeth to learn out of Scripture that we erre not Fundamentally assures us that in many things and those of great moment she errs very grievously And these errors though to them that believe them we hope they will not be pernicious yet the professing of them against Conscience could not but bring us certain damnation Therefore the Points in which we differ from Protestants being acknowledged not to be Fundamental and in other Points professing nothing against our conscience we are safe by his own confession If we did not believe as we professe we were no Roman Catholicks In the same place he saith expresly De facto we hope the Roman Church does not erre in Fundamentalls Yea he saith line 33. Perhaps she does not erre damnably the contrary whereof he affirmes so often His example of Absalon was very ill applied to the Roman Church which did not rebell from Protestants but they against the whole Church the Mother of all Christians more sacrilegiously than Absalon behaved himself wickedly toward his Father Pag. 404. n. 29. He approves Dr. Potters saying pag. 79 which I cited above that the Roman Religion is safe that is not damnable to some such as believe what they profess And in the same place he saith Wee may hope that she retains those Truths which are simply absolutely and indispensably necessary to Salvation Pag. 401. n. 7. VVe approve those fundamental and simply necessary Truths which you retain by which some good souls among you may be saved but abhor your many superstitions and Heresies The Truths you retain are good and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant souls among you to salvation yet are not to be sought for in the Conventicle of Papists If any Soul may be saved in our Religion It is clear we hold not any fundamental Error with which no soul can be saved Pag. 277. n. 61. he saith The simple defect of some Truths profitable only and not simply necessary may consist with salvation Seeing therefore he hath so often confessed that we erre not in fundamental points our Errors in some Truths profitable only and not fundamental may consist with salvation How then doth he say to Catholicks pag. 401. n. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Heresie and yielding you salvation neither he Dr. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Pag. 219. n. 50. Speaking of Protestants he saith They do not differ at all in matters of Faith if you take the word in the highest sense and meanby matters of Faith such Doctrines as are necessary to salvation to be believed or not to be believed Now you know well that in points of greatest moment which Catholicks believe against some Protestants other Protestants stand for us against their pretended Brethren And therefore he must either say that we believe all such Doctrines as are absolutely necessary to salvation or