you plainly if it be a fault I know not whose it should be but theirs For sure it can be no fault in me to follow such Guides whether â—oever they lead me Now I say they haue led me into this perswasion because they haue given me great reason to belieue it and none to the contrary The reason they haue given me to belieue it is because it is apparent and confest they did propose to themselues in composing it some good end or ends As that Christians might haue a forme by which for matter of faith they might professe themselues Catholiques So Putean out of Th. Aquinas That the faithfull might know what the Christian people is to believe explicitely So Vincent Filiucius That being separated into divers parts of the world they might preach the same thing And that that might serve as a mark to distinguish true Christians from Infidels So Cardinall Richlieu Now for all these and for any other good intent I say it will be plainly uneffectuall unlesse it contain at least all points of simple beliefe which are in ordinary course necessary to be explicitely known by all men So that if it be fault in me to belieue this it must be my fault to belieue the Apostles wise and good men which I cannot doe if I belieue not this And therefore what Richardus de sancto Victore sayes of God himselfe I make no scruple at all to apply to the Apostles and to say Si error est quod credo à vobis deceptus sum If it be an errour which I belieue it is you and my reverend esteem of you and your actions that hath led me into it For as for your suspition That we are led into this perswasion out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own It is plainly uncharitable I know no opinion I haue which I would not as willingly forsake as keep if I could see sufficient reason to enduce me to believe that it is the will of God I should forsake it Neither doe I know any opinion I hold against the Church of Rome but I haue more evident grounds then this whereupon to build it For let but these Truths bee granted That the authority of the Scripture is independent on your Church dependent only in respect of us upon universall Tradition That Scripture is the only Rule of faith That all things necessary to salvation are plainly delivered in Scripture Let I say these most certain and divine Truths be laid for foundations and let our superstructions bee consequent and coherent to them and I am confident Peace would be restored and Truth maintained against you though the Apostles Creed were not in the world CHAP. V. That Luther Calvin their Associates all who began or continue the separation from the externall Communion of the Roman Church are guilty of the proper and formall sinne of Schisme THE Searcher of all Hearts is witnesse with how unwilling minds we Catholiques are drawen to fasten the denomination of Schismatiques or Heretiques on them for whose soules if they imployed their best blood they judge that it could not be better spent If we rejoyce that they are contistated at such titles our joy riseth not from their trouble or griefe but as that of the Apostles did from the fountaine of Charity because they are contâ—â—stated to repentance that so after unpartiall examination they finding themselves to be what we say may by Gods holy grace begin to dislike what themselves are For our part we must remember that our obligation is to keep within the meane betwixt uncharitable bitternesse and pernicious flattery not yeelding to worldly respects nor offending Christian Modesty but uttering the substance of truth in so Charitable manner that not so much we as Truth and Charity may seeme to speak according to the wholesome advise of S. Gregory Nazianzen in these divine words We doe not affect peace with preiudice of the true doctrine that so we may get a name of being gentle and mild and yet we seek to conserue peace fighting in a lawfull manner and containing our selves within our compasse and the rule of Spirit And of these things my iudgment is and for my part I prescribe the same law to all that deale with soules and treat of true doctrine that neither they exasperate meâ—s minds by harshnesse nor make them haughty or insolent by submission but that in the cause of faith they behave themselves prudently and advisedly and doe not in either of these things exceed the meane With whom aÌ„greeth S. Leo saying It behoveth us in such causes to be most carefull that without noise of contentions both Charity be conserved and Truth maintained 2. For better Methode we will handle these points in order First we will set downe the nature and essence or as I may call it the Quality of Schisme In the second place the greatnesse and grievousnesse or so to tearme it the Quantity thereof For the Nature or Quality will tell us who may without injury be iudged Schismatiques and by the greatnesse or quantity such as finde themselves guilty thereof will remaine acquainted with the true state of their soule and and whether they may conceive any hope of salvation or no. And because Schisme will be found to be a division from the Church which could not happen unlesse there were alwaies a visible Church we will Thirdly prove or rather take it as a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath beene such a Visible Congregation of Faithfull People Fourthly we will demonstrate that Luther Calvin and the rest did separate themselves from the Communion of that alwaies visible Church of Christ and therefore were guilty of Schisme And fifthly we will make it evident that the visible true Church of Christ out of which Luther and his followers departed was no other but the Roman Church and consequently that both they and all others who persist in the same division are Schismatiques by reason of their separation from the Church of Rome 3 For the first point touching the Nature or Quality of Schisme As the naturall perfection of man consists in his being the Image of God his Creator by the powers of his soule so his supernaturall perfection is placed in fimilitude with God as his last End and Felicity and by having the said spirituall faculties his Vnderstanding and Will linked to him His Vnderstanding is united to God by Faith his Will by Charity The former relies upon his infallible Truth The latter carrieth us to his infinite Goodnesse Faith hath a deadly opposite Heresie Contrary to the Vnion or Vnity of Charity is Separation and Division Charity is twofold As it respects God his Opposite Vice is Hatred against God as it uniteth us to our Neighbour his contrary is Seperation or division of affections and will from our Neighbour Our Neighbour may be considered either as one private person
the totall deniall of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church S. Hilary maketh it of equall necessity for Salvation that we believe our Saviour to be true God and true Man saying This manner of Confession we are to hold that we remember him to be the Sonne of God and the Sonne of Man because the one without the other can giue no hope of Salvatioâ— And yet D. Potter saith of the aforesaid doctrine of Hooker and Morton The Reader may be pleased to approue or reject it as he shall finde cause And in another place he sheweth so much good liking of this doctrine that he explicateth and proveth the Churches perpetuall Visibility by it And in the second Edition of his book he is carefull to declare and illustrate it more at large then he had done before howsoever this sufficiently sheweth that they haue no certainty what points be fundamentall As for the Arians in particular the Author whom D. Potter cites for a moderate Catholique but â—s indeed a plain Heretique or rather Atheist Lucian like jesting at all Religion placeth Arianisme among fundamentall Errours But contrarily an English Protestant Divine masked under the name of Irenaeus Philalethes in a little Book in Latine intituled Dissertatio de pace concordia Ecclesiae endeavoureth to proue that even the deniall of the blessed Trinity may stand with salvation Divers Protestants haue taught that the Roman Church erreth in fundamentall points But D. Potter and others teach the contrary which could not happen if they could agree what be fundamentall points You brand the Donatists with the note of an Errour in the matter and the nature of it properly hereticall because they taught that the Church remained only with them in the part of Donatâ—â— And yet many Protestants are so farre from holding that Doctrine to be a fundamentall errour that themselves goe further and say that for divers ages before Luther there was no â—rue Visible Church at all It is then too too apparent that you haue no agreement in specifying what be fundamentall points neither haue you any meanes to determine what they be for if you have any such meanes why doe you not agree You tell us the Creed containes all points fundamentallâ— which although it were true yet you see it serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge agreement in such points And no wonder For besides what I haue said already in the begining of this Chapter and am to deliver more at large in the next after so much labour and spent paper to prove that the Creed containes all fundamentall points you conclude It remaines very probable that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths whereof consists the Vâ—â—ty of faith and of the Catholique Church Very probable Then according to all good Logick the contrary may remain very probable and so all remain as full of uncertainty as before The whole Rule say you the sole Iudge of your faith must be Scripture Scripture doth indeed deliver divine Truths but seldome doth qualify them or declare whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation You fall heavy upon Charity Mistaken because he demands a particular Catalogue of fundamentall points which yet you are obliged in conscience to doe if you be able For without such a Catalogue no man can be assured whether or no he haue faith sufficient to Salvation And therefore take it not in ill part if we againe and againe demand such a Catalogue And that you may see we proceed fairely I will performe on our behalfe what we request of you and doe here deliver a Catalogue wherein are comprized all points by us taught to be necessary to Salvation in these words We are obliged under paine of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God If any be of another minde all Catholiques denounce him to be no Catholique But enough of this And I go forward with the Infallibility of the Church in all points 20 For euen out of your own doctrine that the Church cannot erre in points necessary to salvation any wise man will inferre that it behoves all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her in any one point 1. Because they are assured that although her doctrine proved not to be true in some point yet even according to D. Potter the errour cannot be fundamentall nor destructiue of faith and salvation neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the universall Church Secondly since she is under paine of eternall damnation to be believed and obeyed in some things wherein confessedly she is endued with infallibilitie I cannot in wisedome suspect her credit in matters of lesse moment For who would trust another in matters of highest consequence and be affraid to rely on him in things of lesse moment Thirdly since as I said we are undoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest or fundamentall points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those fundamentall points be I cannot without hazard of my soule leaue her in any one point least perhaps that point or points wherein I forsake her proue indeed to be fundamentall and necessary to salvation Fourthly that visible Church which cannot erre in points fundamentall doth without distinction propound all her Definitions concerning matters of faith to be believed under Anathema's or Curses esteeming all those who resist to be deservedly cast out of her Communion and holding it a point necessary to salvation that we believe she cannot erre wherein if she speak true then to deny any one point in particular which she defineth or to affirm in generall that she may erre puts a man into state of damnation Whereas to belieue her in such points as are not necessary to salvation cannot endanger salvation and likewise to remain in her Communion can bring no great harme because she cannot maintain any damnable errour or practise but to be divided from her she being Christs Catholique Church is most certainly damnable Fifthly the true Church being in lawfull and certain possession of Superiority and Power to command and require Obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grievous sinne withdraw my obedience in any one unlesse I evidently know that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better inform me how far God's Church can proceed then Gods Church her selfe Or to what Doctour can the Children and Schollers with greater reason and more security fly for direction then to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused then incleaving to any particular Sâ—ct or Person teaching or applying Scriptures against her doctrine or interpretation Sixtly the fearfull examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the
Heresie This I demonstrate out of D. Potter himselfe who in expresse words teacheth that the promises which our Lord hath made unto his Church for his assistance are intended not to any particular Persons or Churches but only to the Church Catholique and they are to be extended not to every parcel or particularity of truth but only to points of Faith or fundamentall And afterwards speaking of the Vniversall Church he sâ—â—th It 's comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemies but shee may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in heaven Out of which words I observe that according to D. Potter the selfe same Church which is the Vniversall Church remaining the universall true Church of Christ may fall into errors and corruptions from whence it clearly followeth that it is impossible to leave the Externall communion of the Church so corrupted and retain externall communion with the Catholique Church since the Church Catholique and the Church so corrupted is the selfe same one Church or company of men And the contrary imagination talkes in a dream as if the errours and infections of the Catholique Church were not inherent in her but were separate from her like to Accidents without any Subject or rather indeed as if they were not Accidents but Hypostases or Persons subsisting by themselues For men cannot be said to liue in or out of the Communion of any dead creature but with Persons endued with life and reason and much lesse can men be said to live in the Communion of Accidents as errors and corruptions are and therefore it is an absurd thing to affirm that Protestants divided themselues from the corruptions of the Church but not from the Church her selfe seeing the corruptions of the Church were inherent in the Church All this is made more cleer if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Catholique Churches holding contrary Doctrines and divided in externall Communion one of the which two Churches did triumph over all errour and corruption in doctrine and practise but the other was stained with both For to faign this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of histories which are silent of any such matter It is against D. Potters own grounds that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall which were not true if you will imagine a certain visible Catholique Church free from errour even in points not fundamentall It contradicteth the words in which he said the Church may not hope to triumph over all errour till she be in heaven It evacuateth the brag of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church and lastly it maketh Luther a Schismatique for leaving the Communion of all visible Churches seeing upon this supposition there was a visible Church of Christ free from all corruption which therefore could not be forsaken without just imputation of Schisme We must therefore truly affirme that since there was but one visible Church of Christ which was truly Catholique and yet was according to Protestants stained with corruption when Luther left the externall Communion of that corrupted Church he could not remain in the Communion of the Catholique Church no more then it is possible to keep company with D. Christopher Potter and not keep company with the Provost of Queenes Colledge in Oxford if D. Potter and the Provost be one and the selfe same man For so one should be and not be with him at the same time This very argument drawne from the Vnity of God's Church S. Cyprian urgeth to convince that Novatianus was cut off from the Church in these words The Church is One which being One cannot be both within and without If she â—e with Novatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with Cornelius who succeeded Fabianus by lawfull ordination Novatianus is not in the Church I purposely here speak only of externall Communion with the Catholique Church For in this point there is great difference between internall acts of our understanding and will and of externall deeds Our Vnderstanding and Will are faculties as Philosophers speak abstractive and able to distinguish and as it were to part things though in themselves they be really conjoyned But reall externall deeds doe take things in grosse as they find them not separating things which in reality are joyned together Thus one may consider and loue a sinner as he is a man friend benefactor or the like and at the same time not consider him nor loue him as he is a sinner because these are acts of our Vnderstanding and will which may respect their objects under some one formality or consideration without reference to other things contained in the selfe same objects But if one should strike or kill a sinfull man he will not be excused by alleaging that he killed him not as a man but as a sinner because the selfe same person being a man and the sinner the externall act of murder fell joyntly upon the man and the sinner And for the same reason one cannot avoid the company of a sinner and at the same time be really present with that man who is a sinner And this is our case and in this our Adversaries are egregiously many of them affectedly mistaken For one may in some points belieue as the Church believeth and disagree from her in other One may loue the truth which she holds and detest her pretended corruptions But it is impossible that a man should really separate himselfe from her externall Communion as she is corrupted and be really within the same externall Communion as she is sound because she is the selfe same Church which is supposed to be sound in some things and to erre in others Now our question for the present doth concern only this point of externall Communion because Schisme as it is distinguished from Heresie is committed when one divides himselfe from the Externall Communion of that Church with which he agrees in Faith Whereas Heresie doth necessarily imply a difference in matter of Faith and beliefe and therefore to say that they left not the visible Church but her errours can only excuse them from Heresie which shâ—ll be tried in the next Chapter but not from Schisme as long as they are really divided from the Externall Communion of the selfe same visible Church which notwithstanding those errours wherein they doe in judgement dissent from her doth still remain the true Catholique Church of Christ and therefore while they forsake the corrupted Church they forsake the Catholique Church Thus then it remaineth cleer that their chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the Question confoundeth internall acts of the Vnderstanding with externall Deeds doth not distinguish between Schisme and Heresie and leaues this demonstrated against them That they divided themselues from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church because they
the foundation is strong enough to support all such unnecâ—ssary additions as you terme them And if they once weighed so heavy as to overthrow the foundation they should grow to fundamentall errors into which your selfe teach the Church cannot fall Hay and stubble say you and such unprofitable stâ—ff laid on the roofe destroies not the house whilest the main pillars are standing on the foundatioâ— And tell us I pray you the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated I know you cannot doe it and therefore being uncertain whether or no you have cause to leave the Church you are certainly obliged not to forsake her Our blessed Saviour hath declared his will that we forgive a private offender seaventy seaven times that is without limitation of quantity of time or quality of trespasses and why then dare you alleadge his command that you must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not fundamentall What excuse can you faine to your selves who for points not necessary to salvation have been occasions causes and authors of so many mischiefes as could not but unavoidably accompany so huge a breach in kingdomes in commonwealths in private persons in publique Magistrates in body in soul in goods in life in Church in the state by Schismes by rebellions by war by famine by plague by bloudshed by all sorts of imaginable calamities upon the whole face of the earth wherein as in a map of Desolation the heavinesse of your crime appeares under which the world doth pant 24 To say for your excuse that you left not the Church but her errors doth not extenuate but aggravate your sinne For by this devise you sow seeds of endles Schismes and put into the mouth of all Separatists a ready answere how to avoid the note of Schisme from your Protestant Church of England or from any other Church whatsoever They will I say answer as you doe prompt that your Church may be forsaken if she fall into errors though they be not fundamentall and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errors which two grounds being once laid it will not be hard to infer the consequence that she may be forsaken 25 From some other words of D. Potter I likewise prove that for Errors not fundamentall the Church ought not to be forsaken There neither was saith he nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe To depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation Marke his doctrine that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ and yet he teacheth that the Church of Christ may erre in points not fundamentall Therefore say I we cannot forsake the Roman Church for points not fundamentall for then we might also forsake the Church of Christ which your selfe deny and I pray you consider whether you doe not plainly contradict your selfe while in the words aboue recited you say there can be no iust cause to forsake the Catholique Church and yet that there may be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome since you grant that the Church of Christ may erre in points not fundamentall and that the Roman Church hath erred only in such points as by and by we shall see more in particular And thus much be said to disprove their chiefest Answer that they left not the Church but her corruptions 26 Another evasion D. Potter bringeth to avoid the imputation of Schisme and it is because they still acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Member of the body of Christ and not cut off from the hope of salvation And this saith he cleeres us from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates 27 This is an Answere which perhaps you may get some one to approve if first you can put him out of his wits For what prodigious doctrines are these Those Protestants who believe that the Church erred in points necessary to salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schisme But others who believed that she had no damnable errors did very well yea were obliged to forsake her and which is more miraculous or rather monstrous they did well to forsake her formally and precisely because they iudged that she retained all meanes necessary to salvation I say because they so iudged For the very reason for which he acquitteth himselfe and condemneth those others as Schismatiques is because he holdeth that the Church which both of them forsooke is not cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvations whereas those other Zelots deny her to be a member of Christs body or capable of salvation wherein alone they disagree from D. Potter for in the effect of separation they agree only they doe it upon a different motive or reason were it not a strange excuse if a man would think to cloak his rebellion by alledging that he held the person against whom he rebelled to be his lawfull Soveraign And yet D. Potter thinks himselfe free from Schisme because he forsook the Church of Rome but yet so as that still he held her to be the true Church and to have all necessary meanes to Salvation But I will no further urge this most solemne foppery and doe much more willingly put all Catholiques in mind what an unspeakeable comfort it is that our Adversaries are forced to confesse that they cannot cleere themselves from Schisme otherwise then by acknowledging that they doe not nor cannot cut off from the hope of Salvation our Church Which is as much as if they should in plain termes say They must be damned unlesse we may be saved Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemne your zealous brethren of Heresy for denying the Churches perpetuity but doth not cleere your selfe from Schisme which consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith as you must professe your selfe to agree with the Church of Rome in all fundamentall Articles For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation and so condemne your selfe of Schisme And lastly even according to this your own definition of Schisme you cannot cleere your selfe from that crime unlesse you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own Assertions For if you doe not cut us off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation how come you to say in another place that you judge a reconciliation with us to be damnable That to depart from the Church of Rome there might be iust and necessary canse That they that have the understanding and meanes to discover their error and neglect to use them we dare
Church or her Communion should be corrupted And therefore that they are Schismatiques who leave the externall Communion of the Visible Church because she cannot be corrupted And that hereafter you will prove that corruptions in the Churches communion though the belief and profession of them be made the condition of her communion cannot justify a separation from it And therefore that they are Schismatiques who leave the Churches communion though corrupted I Answer that I have examined your proofes of the former found that a veine of Sophistry runs cleane through them And for the latter it is so plain and palpable a falsehood that I cannot but be confident whatsoever you bring in proofe of it will like the Apples of Sodom fall to Ashes upon the first touch And this is my first and main exception against your former discourse that accusing Protestants of a very great and horrible crime you have proved your accusation only with a fallacy 26 Another is that although it were granted Schisme to leave the externall Communion of the visible Church in what state or case so ever it be and that Luther his followers were Schismatiques for leaving the externall Communion of all visible Churches yet you faile exceedingly of cleering the other necessary point undertaken by you That the Roman Church was then the Visible Church For neither doe Protestants as you mistake make the true preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments the notes of the visible Church but only of a visible Church now these you know are very different things the former signifying the Church Catholique or the whole Church the Latter a Particular Church or a part of the Catholique And therefore suppose out of curtesy we should grant what by argument you can never evince that your Church had these notes yet would it by no meanes follow that your Church were the Visible Church but only a Visible Church not the whole Catholique but only a part of it But then besides where doth D. Potter acknowledge any such matter as you pretend Where doth he say that you had for the substance the true Preaching of the word or due Administration of the Sacraments Or where does he say that from which you collect this you wanted nothing Fundamentall or necessary to Salvation He saies indeed that though your Errors were in themselves damnable and full of great impiety yet he hopes that those amongst you who were invincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy have their errors pardoned and their soules saved And this is all he saies and this you confesse to be all he saies in diverse places of your book which is no more then you your selfe doe and must affirme of Protestants and yet I believe you will not suffer us to inferre from hence that you grant Protestants to have for the substance the true preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments and want nothing fundamentall or necessary to salvation And if we should draw this consequence from your concession certainly we should doe you injury in regard many things may in themselves and in ordinary course be necessary to salvation to those that have meanes to attain them as your Church generally hath which yet by accident to these which were by some impregnable impediment debarred of these meanes may by Gods mercy be made unnecessary 27 Lastly whereas you say that Protestants must either grant that your Church then was the visible Church or name some other disagreeing from yours agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrine or acknowledge there was no visible Church It is all one as if to use S. Pauls similitude the head should say to the foot either you must grant that I am the whole body or name some other member that is so or confesse that there is no body To which the foot might answer I acknowledge there is a body and yet that no member beside you is this body nor yet that you are it but only a part of it And in like manner say we We acknowledge a Church there was corrupted indeed universally but yet such a one as we hope by Gods gratious acceptance was still a Church We pretend not to name any one Society that was this Church and yet we see no reason that can inforce us to confesse that yours was the Church but only a part of it and that one of the worst then extant in the World In vain therefore have you troubled your selfe in proving that we cannot pretend that either the Greekes Waldenses Wickliffites Hussites Muscovites Armenians Georgians Abyssines were then the Visible Church For all this dicourse proceeds from a false and vain supposition and beggs another point in Question between us which is that some Church of one denomination and one Communion as the Roman the Greeke c. must be alwaies exclusively to all other Communions the whole visible Church And though perhaps some weak Protestant having this false principle setled in him that there was to be alwaies some Visible Church of one denomination pure from all error in doctrine might be wrought upon and prevailed with by it to forsake the Church of Protestants yet why it should induce him to goe to yours rather then the Greeke Church or any other which pretends to perpetuall succession as well as yours that I doe not understand Vnlesse it be for the reason which Aeneas Syluius gave why more held the Pope above a Councell then a Councell above the Pope which was because Popes did give Bishopricks and Archbishopricks but Councells gave none and therefore suing in Forma Pauperis were not like to have their cause very well maintained For put the case I should grant of meere favour that there must be alwaies some Church of one Denomination and Communion free from all errors in doctrine and that Protestants had not alwaies such a Church it would follow indeed from thence that I must not be a Protestant But that I must be a Papist certainly it would follow by no better consequence then this If you will leave England you must of necessity goe to Rome And yet with this wretched fallacy have I been sometimes abused my selfe and known many other poore soules seduced not only from their own Church and Religion but unto yours I beseech God to open the eyes of all that love the truth that they may not alwaies be held captive under such miserable delusions 28 We see then how unsuccessefull you have been in making good your accusation with reasons drawn from the nature of the thing and which may be urged in common against all Protestants Let us come now to the Arguments of the other kinde which you build upon D. Potters own words out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince Protestants of Schisme 29 But let the understanding Reader take with him but three or foure short remembrances and I dare say he shall find them upon examination not only
would not suffer them to doe well with you unlesse they would doe ill with you Now to doe ill that you may doe well is against the will of God which to every good man is a high degree of necessity But for such Protestants as pretend that de facto they forsook your corruptions only and not your externall communion that is such as pretend to communicate with you in your confessions and Liturgies and participation of Sacraments I cannot but doubt very much that neither you nor I have ever met with any of this condition And if perhaps you were led into error by thinking that to leave the Church and to leave the externall communion of it was all one in sense signification I hope by this time you are disabus'd and beginne to understand that as a man may leave any fashion or custome of a Colledge and yet remain still a member of the Colledge so a man may possibly leave some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe others and continue still a member of that Church Provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the essence of the Church consists Whereas peradventure this practise may be so involved with the externall communion of this Church that it may be simply impossible for him to leave this practise and not to leave the Churches externall communion 46 You will reply perhaps That the difficulty lies as well against those who pretend to forsake the Churches corruptions not the Church as against those who say they forsook the Churches corruptions and not her externall communion And that the reason is still the same because these supposed corruptions were inherent in the whole Church and therefore by like reason with the former could not be forsaken but if the whole Church were forsaken 47 Ans. A pretty Sophisme and very fit to perswade men that it is impossible for them to forsake any error they hold or any vice they are subject to either peculiar to themselves or in common with others Because forsooth they cannot forsake themselves and Vices and Errors are things inherent in themselves The deceit lies in not distinguishing between a Locall and a Morall forsaking of any thing For as it were an absurdity fit for the maintainers of Transubstantiation to defend that a man may Locally and properly depart from the Accidents of a subject and not from the subject it selfe So is it also against reason to deny that a man may by an usuall phrase of speech forsake any custome or quality good or bad either proper to himself or common to himselfe with any company and yet never truly or properly forsake either his company or himselfe Thus if all the Iesuits in the Society were given to write Sophistically yet you might leave this ill custome and yet not leave your Society If all the Citizens of a City were addicted to any vanity they might either all or some of them forsake it and yet not forsake the city If all the parts of a mans body were dirty or filthy nothing hinders but that all or some of them might clense themselves and yet continue parts of the body And what reason then in the world is there if the whole Visible Church were overcome with tares and weeds of superstitions and corruptions but that some members of it might reforme themselves and yet continue still true members of the body of the Church and not be made no members but the better by their Reformation Certainly it is so obvious sensible a Truth that this thing is possible that no man in his wits will be perswaded out of it with all the Quirks and Metaphysicks in the World Neither is this to say that a man may keep company with Christopher Potter and not keep company with the Provost of Q. Colledge Nor that a man can avoid the company of a sinner and at the same time be really present with the man who is the sinner which we leave to those Protestants of your invention who are so foolish as to pretend that a man may really separate himselfe from the Churches externall communion as she is corrupted and yet continue in that Churches externall Communion which in this externall Communion is corrupted But we that say only the whole Church being corrupted some parts of it might and did reforme themselves and yet might and did continue parts of the Church though separated from the externall communion of the other parts which would not reforme need not trouble our selves to reconcile any such repugnance For the case put by you of keeping D. Potters company and leaving the company of the Provost of Queens Colledge of leaving a sinners company and not the mans are nothing at all like ours But if you would speak to the point you must shew that D. Potter cannot leave being Provost of Q. Colledge without ceasing to be himselfe or that a sinner cannot leave his sinne without ceasing to be a man or that he that is part of any society cannot renounce any Vice of that society but he must relinquish the society If you would shew any of these things then indeed I dare promise you should find us apt enough to believe that the particular parts of the visible Church could not reforme themselves but they must of necessity become no parts of it But untill we see this done you must pardon us if we choose to believe sense rather then Sophistry 48 In this Paragraph you bring in the sentence of S. Cyprian whereto you refer'd us in the former but why in a cōtroversy of faith doe you cite any thing which is confessed on all hands not to be a rule of faith Besides in my apprehension this sentence of S. Cyprian is in this place and to this purpose meerely impertinent S. Cyprians words are The Church he speaks of the particular Church or Diocesse of Rome being one cannot be within and without If she be with Novatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with Cornelius who succeeded Fabianus by lawfull Ordination Novatianus is not in the Church And now having related the words I am only to remember the Reader that your businesse was to prove it impossible For a man to forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church and then to request him to tell me whether as I said In nova fert animus had not been as much to the purpose 49 Toward the conclusion of this Section you number up your Victories and tell us That out of your discourse it remaineth cleere that this our chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the Question confoundeth internall Acts of the under standing with externoll deeds doth not distinguish between Schisme and Heresy and leaves this demonstrated against us that they Protestants divided themselves from the communion of the Visible Catholique Church because they conceived that she needed Reformation To which Triumphs if any reply be needfull then briefly thus We doe not
rather to commend the vertue of an enemy then to flatter the vice and imbecility of a friend And so much for this matter 24 Again what if the names of Priests and Altars so frequent in the ancient Fathers though not in the now Popish sense be now resum'd and more commonly used in England then of late times they were that so the colourable argument of their conformity which is but nominall with the ancient Church and our inconformity which the Governors of the Church would not have so much as nominall may be taken away from them and the Church of England may be put in a state in this regard more justifiable against the Roman then formerly it was being hereby enabled to say to Papists whensoever these names are objected we also use the names of Priests and Altars and yet believe neither the corporall Presence nor any Proper and propitiatory Sacrifice 25 What if Protestants be now put in mind that for exposition of Scripture they are bound by a Canon to follow the ancient Fathers which whosoever doth with syncerity it is utterly impossible he should be a Papist And it is most falsely said by you that you know that to some Protestants I cleerly demonstrated or ever so much as undertook or went about to demonstrate the contrary What if the Centurists be censur'd somewhat roundly by a Protestant Divine for affrming that the keeping of the Lords day was a thing indifferent for two hundred yeares Is there in all this or any part of it any kind of proofe of this scandalous calumny Certainly if you can make no better arguments then these and have so little judgement as to think these any you have great reason to decline conferences and Signior Con to prohibite you from writing books any more 26 As for the points of Doctrine wherein you pretend that these Divines begin of late to falter and to comply with the Church of Rome upon a due examination of particulars it will presently appear First that part of them alwaies have been and now are held constantly one way by them as the Authority of the Church in determining Controversies of faith though not the infallibility of it That there is Inherent Iustice though so imperfect that it cannot justify That there are Traditions though none necessary That charity is to be preferr'd before knowledge That good Works are not properly meritorious And lastly that faith alone justifies though that faith justifies not which is alone And secondly for the remainder that they every one of them have been anciently without breach of charity disputed among Protestants such for example were the Questions about the Popes being the Antichrist The lawfulnesse of some kind of prayers for the dead the Estate of the Fathers souls before Christs ascention Freewill Predestination Vniversall grace The Possibility of keeping Gods commandements The use of Pictures in the Church Wherein that there hath been anciently diversity of opinion amongst Protestants it is justifyed to my hand by a witnesse with you beyond exception even your great friend M. Brerely whose care exactnesse and fidelity you say in your Preface is so extraordinary great Consult him therefore Tract 3. Sect. 7. of his Apology And in the 9. 10. 11. 14. 24. 26. 27. 37. Subdivisions of that Section you shall see as in a mirror your selfe prov'd an egregious calumniator for charging Protestants with innovation and inclining to Popery under pretence forsooth that their Doctrine beginnes of late to be altered in these points Whereas M. Brerely will informe you they have been anciently and even from the begining of the Reformation controverted amongst them though perhaps the stream and current of their Doctors runne one way and only some brooke or rivulet of them the other 27 And thus my Friends I suppose are cleerely vindicated from your scandalls and calumnies It remaines now that in the last place I bring my selfe fairely off from your foule aspersions that so my person may not be as indeed howsoever it should not be any disadvantage or disparagement to the cause nor any scandall to weake Christians 28 Your injuries then to me no way deserved by me but by differing in opinion from you wherein yet you surely differ from me as much as I from you are especially three For first upon heereâ—ay refusing to give me oportunity of begetting in you a better understanding of me you charge me with a great number of false and impious doctrines which I will not name in particular because I will not assist you so farre in the spreading of my own undeserved defamation but whosoever teaches or holds them let him be Anathema The summe of them all cast up by your selfe in your first chap. is this Nothing ought or can be certainly believed farther then it may be proved by evidence of Naturall reason where I conceive Naturall reason is oppos'd to supernaturall Revelation and whosoever holds so let him be Anathema And moreover to clear my selfe once for all from all imputations of this nature which charge me injuriously with deniall of Supernaturall Verities I professe syncerely that I believe all those Books of Scripture which the Church of England accounts Canonicall to be the Infallible word of God I believe all things evidently contained in them all things evidently or even probably deducible from them I acknowledge all that to be Heresy which by the Act of Parliament primo of Q. ELIZ. is declar'd to be so only to be so And though in such points which may he held diversly of divers men salvâ Fidei compage I would not take any mans liberty from him and humbly beseech all men that they would not take mine from me Yet thus much I can say which I hope will satisfy any man of reason that whatsoever hath been held necessary to salvation either by the Catholique Church of all ages or by the consent of Fathers measur'd by Vincentius Lyrinensis his rule or is held necessary either by the Catholique Church of this age or by the consent of Protestants or even by the Church of England that against the Socinians and all others whatsoever I doe verily believe and embrace 29 Another great and manifest injury you have done me in charging me to have forsaken your Religion because it condus'd not to my temporall ends and suted not with my desires and designes Which certainly is a horrible crime whereof if you could convince me by just and strong presumptions I should then acknowledge my selfe to deserve that opinion which you would faine induce your credents unto that I chang'd not your Religion for any other but for none at all But of this great fault my conscience acquits me and God who only knowes the hearts of all men knowes that I am innocent Neither doubt I but all they who know me and amongst them many Persons of place and quality will say they have reason in this matter to be my compurgators And for you though you are very
affirmative in your accusation yet you neither doe nor can produce any proof or presumption for it but forgeting your selfe as it is Gods will oftimes that slanderers should doe have let fall some passages which being well weighed will make considering men apt to believe that you did not believe your selfe For how is it possible you should believe that I deserted your Religion for ends against the light of my conscience out of a desire of preferment and yet out of scruple of conscience should refuse which also you impute to me to subscribe the 39 Articles that is refuse to enter at the only common dore which here in England leads to preferment Again how incredible is it that you should believe that I forsooke the profession of your Religion as not suting with my desires and designes which yet reconciles the enjoying of the pleasures and profits of sinne here with the hope of happinesse hereafter and proposes as great hope of great temporall advancements to the capable servants of it as any nay more then any Religion in the world and instead of this should choose Socinianisme a Doctrine which howsoever erroneous in explicating the mysteries of Religion and allowing greater liberty of opinion in speculative matters then any other Company of Christians doth or they should doe yet certainly which you I am sure will pretend and maintaine to explicate the Lawes of Christ with more rigor and lesse indulgence and condescendence to the desires of flesh and blood then your Doctrine doth And besides such a Doctrine by which no man in his right mind can hope for any honour or preferment either in this Church or State or any other All which cleerely demonstrates that this foule and false aspersion which you have cast upon mee proceeds from no other fountaine but a heart abounding with the gall and bitternesse of uncharitablenesse and even blinded with malice towards me or else from a perverse zeale to your superstition which secretly suggests this perswasion to you That for the Catholique cause nothing is unlawfull but that you may make use of such indirect and crooked arts as these to blast my reputation and to possesse mens minds with disaffection to my person least otherwise peradventure they might with some indifference hear reason from me God I hope which bringeth light out of darknesse will turne your counsells to foolishnesse and give all good men grace to perceive how weak and ruinous that Religion must be which needs supportance from such tricks and devices So I call them because they deserve no better name For what are all these Personall matters which hitherto you have spoke of to the businesse in hand If it could be prov'd that Cardinall Bellarmine was indeed a Iew or that Cardinall Perron was an Atheist yet I presume you would not accept of this for an answer to all their writings in defence of your Religion Let then my actions and intentions and opinions be what they will yet I hope truth is neverthelesse truth nor reason ever the lesse Reason because I speak it And therefore the Christian Reader knowing that his Salvation or damnation depends upon his impartiall and sincere judgment of these things will guard himself I hope from these impostures and regard not the person but the cause and the reasons of it not who speakes but what is spoken Which is all the favour I desire of him as knowing that I am desirous not to perswade him unlesse it be truth whereunto I perswade him 30 The third and laâ—t part of my Accusation was that I answer ouâ— of Principles which Protestants themselves will professe to detest which indeed were to the purpose if it could be justified But besides that it is confuted by my whole Book and made ridiculous by the Approbations premis'd unto it it is very easy for mee out of your own mouth and words to prove it a most injurious calumny For what one conclusion is there is the whole fabrick of my discourse that is not naturally deducible out of this one Principle That all things necessary to salvation are evidently contain'd in Scripture Or what one Conclusion almost of importance is there in your Book which is not by this one cleerly confutable Grant this and it will presently follow in opposition to your first Conclusion and the argument of your first Ch that amongst men of different opinions touching the obscure and controverted Questions of ReligioÌ„ such as may with probability be disputed on both Sides and such as are the disputes of Protestants Good men and lovers of truth of all Sides may bee sav'd because all necessary things being suppos'd evident concerning them with men so qualified there will be no difference There being no more certain signe that a Point is not evident then that honest and understanding and indifferent men and such as give themselves liberty of judgment after a mature consideration of the matter differ about it 31 Grant this and it will appear Secondly that the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which are to determine all Controversies in Faith necessary to be determined may be for any thing you have said to the contrary not a Church but the Scripture which contradicts the Doctrine of your Second Chapter 32 Grant this and the distinction of points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall will appear very good and pertinent For those truths will be fundamentall which are evidently delivered in Scripture and commanded to be preach't to all men Those not fundamentall which are obscure And nothing will hinder but that the Catholique Church may erre in the latter kind of the said points because Truths not necessary to the Salvation cannot be necessary to the being of a Church and because it is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther then to bring her to Salvation neither will there be any necessity at all of any infallible Guide either to consigne unwritten Traditions or to declare the obscurities of the faith Not for the former end because this Principle being granted true nothing unwritten can be necessary to be consign'd Nor for the latter because nothing that is obcsure can be necessary to be understood or not mistaken And so the discourse of your whole Third Chap will presently vanish 33 Fourthly for the Creed's containing the Fundamentals of simple belief though I see not how it may be deduc'd from this principle yet the granting of this plainly renders the whole dispute touching the Creed unnecessary For if all necessary things of all sorts whether of simple belief or practice be confess'd to bee cleerly contain'd in Scripture what imports it whether those of one sort bee contain'd in the Creed 34 Fiftly let this be granted and the immediate Corollary in opsition to your fift Ch will be and must be That not Protestants for rejecting but the Church of Rome for imposing upon the Faith of Christians Doctrines unwritten and unnecessary
committed and which they fear they may haue In which number their being negligent or not dispassionate or not unprejudicate enough in seeking the truth and the effect thereof their errors if they be sinnes cannot but be compriz'd In a word what should hinder but that that Prayer Delicta sua quis intelligit who can understand his faults Lord cleanse thou me from my secret sinnes may be heard and accepted by God as well from a Protestant that dies in some errours as from a Papist that dies in some other sins of Ignorance which perhaps he might more easily haue discovered to bee sinnes then a Protestant could his errours to be errours As well from a Protestant that held some errour which as he conceived Gods word and his reason which is also in some sort Gods word led him unto as from a Dominican who perhaps took up his opinion upon trust not because he had reason to beleiue it true but because it was the opinion of his Order for the same man if hee had light upon another Order would in all probabilitie haue beene of the other opinion For what else is the cause that generally all the Dominicans are of one opinion and all the Iesuits of the other I say from a Dominican who took up his opinion upon trust and that such an opinion if we beleiue the writers of your Order as if it be granted true it were not a point matter what opinions any man held or what actions any man did for the best would be as bad as the worst the worst as good as the best And yet such is the partialitie of your Hypocrisie that of disagreeing Papists neither shall deny the truth testified by God but both may hope for salvation but of disagreeing Protestants though they differ in the same thing one side must deny Gods Testimony and bee incapable of salvation That a Dominican through culpable negligence living and dying in his errour may repent of it though hee knowes it not or be saued though he doe not But if a Protestant doe the very same thing in the very same point and die in his errour his case is desperate The summe of all that hath been said to this Demand is this 1. That no erring Protestant denies any truth testified by God under this formalitie as testified by him nor which they know or beleiue to be testified by him And therefore it is a horrible calumnie in you to say They call Gods Veracitie in question For Gods undoubted and unquestion'd Veracitie is to them the ground why they hold all they doe hold neither doe they hold any opiniō so stifly but they will forgoe it rather then this one That all which God saies is true 2. God hath not so clearely and plainly declared himselfe in most of these things which are in controversie between Protestants but that an honest man whose heart is right to God and one that is a true louer of God and of his truth may by reason of the conflict of contrary Reasons on both sides very easily and therefore excusably mistake and embrace errour for truth and reject truth for errour 3 If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any Errour by any sinne of his will as it is to be fear'd many millions are such Errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable yet not exclusiue of all hope of salvation but pardonable if discover'd upon a particular explicite repentance if not discover'd upon a generall and implicite repentance for all Sinnes knowne and unknowne in which number all sinfull Errours must of necessity be contained 17 To the 9. To the nineteenth Wherein you are so urgent for a partilar Catalogue of Fundamentalls I answer almost in your owne words that we also constantly urge and require to haue a particular Catalogue of your Fundamentals whether they be written Verities or unwritten Traditions or Church Definitions all which you say integrate the materiall Object of your Faith In a word of all such points as are defin'd and sufficiently proposed so that whosoever denies or doubts of any of them is certainly in the state of damnation A Catalogue I say in particular of the Proposals and not only some generall definition or description under which you lurke deceitfully of what and what only is sufficiently proposed wherein yet you doe not very well agree For many of you hold the Popes proposall Ex Cathedra to be sufficient and obligeing Some a Councel without a Pope Some of neither of them severally but only both together Some not this neither in matter of manners which Bellarmine acknowledges tells us it is all one in effect as if they denied it sufficient in matter of faith Some not in matter of faith neither think this proposall infallible without the acceptation of the Church universall Some deny the infallibility of the Present Church and only make the Tradition of all ages the infallible Propounder Yet if you were agreed what and what only is the Infallible Propounder this would not satisfie us nor yet to say that All is fundamentall which is propounded sufficiently by him For though agreeing in this yet you might still disagree whether such or such a Doctrine were propounded or not or if propounded whether sufficiently or only unsufficiently And it is so knowne a thing that in many points you doe so that I assure my selfe you will not deny it Therefore we constantly urge and require a particular and perfect Inventory of all these Divine Revelations which you say are sufficiently propounded that such a one to which all of your Church will subscribe as neither redundant nor deficient which when you giue in with one hand you shall receiue a particular Catalogue of such Points as I call Fundamentall with the other Neither may you think mee unreasonable in this demand seeing upon such a particular Catalogue of your sufficient Proposalls as much depends as upon a particular Catalogue of our Fundamentalls As for example Whether or no a man doe not erre in some point defined and sufficiently proposed and whether or no those that differ among you differ in Fundamentalls which if they doe One Heaven by your owne Rule cannot receiue them All. Perhaps you will here complaine that this is not to satisfie your demand but to avoid it and to put you off as the Areopagites did hard causes ad diem longissimum and bid you come againe a hundred yeares hence To deale truly I did so intend it should be Nether can you say my dealing with you is injurious seeing I require nothing of you but that what you require of others you should shew it possible to be done and just and necessary to be required For for my part I haue great reason to suspect it is neither the one nor the other For whereas the Verities which are delivered in Scripture may be very fitly divided into such as were written because they were necessary to be beleived
faith necessary to be explicitely believed is not pertinent to free from sinne the voluntary deniall of any other point knowen to be defined by Gods Church And this were sufficient to overthrow all that D. Potter alleadgeth concerning the Creed though yet by way of Supererogation we will prove that there are divers important matters of Faith which are not mentioned at all in the Creed 14 From the aforesaid maine principle that God hath alwaies had and alwaies will have on earth a Church Visible within whose Communion Salvation must be hoped and infallible whose definitions we ought to believe we will prove that Luther Calvin and all other who continue the division in Communion or Faith from that Visible Church which at and before Luther's appearance was spread over the world cannot be excused from Schisme and Heresy although they opposed her faith but in one only point whereas it is manifest they dissent from her in many and weighty matters concerning as well beliefe as practise 15 To these reasons drawne from the vertue of Faith we will adde one other taken from Charitas propria the Vertue of Charity as it obligeth us not to expose our soule to hazard of perdition when we can put ourselves in a way much more secure as we will prove that of the Roman Catholiques to be 16 We are then to prove these points First that the infallible means to determine controversies in matters of faith is the visible Church of Christ. Secondly that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall maketh nothing to our present Question Thirdly that to say the Creed containes all fundamentall points of faith is neither pertinent nor true Fourthly that both Luther and all they who after him persist in division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church cannot be excused from Schisme Fiftly nor from Heresy Sixtly and lastly that in regard of the precept of Charity towards ones selfe Protestants be in state of sinne as long as they remaine divided from the Roman Church And these six points shall be severall Arguments for so many ensuing Chapters 17 Only I will here observe that it seemeth very strange that Protestants should charge us so deeply with Want of Charity for only teaching that both they and we cannot be saved seeing themselves must affirme the like of whosoever opposeth any least point delivered in Scripture which they hold to be the sole Rule of Faith Out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former Inferences passe for good For is it not a grievous sinne to deny any one truth contained in holy Writ Is there in such deniall any distinction betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall sufficient to excuse from heresy Is it not impertinent to alleadge the Creed containing all fundamentall points of faith as if believing it alone we were at liberty to deny all other points of Scripture In a word According to Protestants Oppose not Scripture there is no Errour against faith Oppose it in any least point the error if Scripture be sufficiently proposed which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to believe even fundamentall points must be damnable What is this but to say with us Of persons contrary in whatsoever point of beliefe one party only can be saved And D. Potter must not take it ill if Catholiques believe they may be saved in that Religion for which they suffer And if by occasion of this doctrine men will still be charging us with Want of Charity and be resolved to take scandall where none is given we must comfort our selves with that grave and true saying of S. Gregory If scandall be taken from declaring a truth it is better to permit scandall then forsake the truth But the solid grounds of our Assertion and the sincerity of our intention in uttering what wee think yield us confidence that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of Pope Gelasius to Anastasius the Emperour Farre â—e it from the Roman Emperour that he should hold it for a wrong to have truth declared to him Let us therefore begin with that Point which is the first that can be controverted betwixt Protestants and us for as much as concernes the present Question and is contained in the Argument of the next ensuing Chapter THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST CHAPTER Shewing that the Adversary grants the Former Question and proposeth a New one And that there is no reason why among men of different opinions and Communions one Side only can be sav'd 1. TO the first § Your first onset is very violent D. Potter is charg'd with malice and indiscretion for being uncharitable to you while he is accusing you of uncharitablenesse Verily a great fault and folly if the accusation be just if unjust a great calumnie Let us see then how you make good your charge The effect of your discourse if I mistake not is this D. Potter chargeth the Roman Church with many and great errours judgeth reconciliation betweene her Doctrine and ours impossible and that for them who are convicted in Conscience of her Errors not to forsake her in them or to be reconcil'd unto her is damnable Therefore if Roman Catholiques be convicted in conscience of the Errours of Protestants they may and must judge a reconciliation with them damnable consequently to judge so is no more uncharitable in theÌ„ then it is in the Doctor to judge as he does All this I grant nor would any Protestant accuse you of want of Charity if you went no further if you judg'd the Religion of Protestants damnable to them only who professe it being convicted in conscience that it is erroneous For if a man judge some act of vertue to be a sinne in him it is a sinne indeed So you have taught us p. 19. So if you be convinc'd or rather to speake properly perswaded in conscience that our Religion is erroneous the profession of it though in it selfe most true to you would be damnable This therefore I subscribe very willingly and withall that if you said no more D. Potter and my selfe should not be to Papists only but even to Protestants as uncharitable as you are For I shall alwaies professe and glory in this uncharitablenesse of judging hypocrisie a damnable sinne Let Hypocrites then and Dissemblers on both sides passe It is not towards them but good Christians not to Protestant Professors but Believers that we require your Charity What think you of those that believe so verily the truth of our Religion that they are resolv'd to die in it and if occasion were to die for it What Charity have you for them What think yee of those that in the dayes of our Fathers laid down their lives for it are you content that they shall be saved or doe you hope they may be so Will you grant that notwithstanding their Errours there is good hope they might die with repentance and if they did so certainly they are
connection between these Propositions I belieue will be able to finde good coherence between the deafe Plaintiffe's accusation in the Greek Epigram and the deafe Defendants Answer and the deafe Iudges sentence And to contriue them all into a formall Categoricall Syllogisme 11 Indeed if the matter in agitation were plainely decided by this infallible meanes of deciding Controversies and the Parties in variance knew it to be so and yet would stand out in their dissention this were in one of them direct opposition to the Testimonie of God and undoubtedly a damnable sinne But if you take the liberty to suppose what you please you may very easily conclude what you list For who is so foolish as to grant you these unreasonable Postulates that every emergent Controversie of Faith is plainly decided by the means of decision which God hath appointed and that of the Parties lititigant one is alwaies such a convicted Recusant as you pretend Certainly if you say so having no better warrant then you haue or can haue for it this is more proper and formall uncharitablenesse then ever was charg'd upon you Me thinks with much more Reason and much more Charity you might suppose that many of these Controversies which are now disputed among Christians all which professe themselues lovers of Christ and truly desirous to knowe his will and doe it are either not decidable by that meanes which God hath provided and so not necessary to be decided Or if they be yet not so plainly and evidently as to oblige all men to hold one way or Lastly if decidable and evidently decided yet you may hope that the erring part by reason of some veile before his eyes some excusable ignorance or unavoidable preiudice does not see the Question to be decided against him and so opposes not that which He doth know to be the word of God but only that which You know to be so and which hee might know were he void of prejudice Which is a fault I confesse but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often and not of such a gigantique disposition as you make it to fly directly upon God Almighty and to giue him the lye to his face 12 Ad § 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. In all this long discourse you only tell us what you will doe but doe nothing Many Positions there are but proofes of them you offer none but reserue them to the Chapters following and there in their proper places they shall be examined The summe of all your Assumpts collected by your selfe § 16 is this That the infallible meanes of determining Controversies is the visible Church That he distinction of points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall maketh nothing to the present Question That to say the Creed containeth all Fundamentals is neither pertinent nor true That whosoever persist in Division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church are guilty of Schisme and Heresie That in regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones selfe Protestants are in state of sinne while they remaine divided from the Romane Church To all these Assertions I will content my selfe for the present to oppose this one That not one of them all is true Only I may not omit to tell you that if the first of them were as true as the Pope himselfe desires it should be yet the corollary which you deduce from it would be utterly inconsequent That whosoever denies any point propos'd by the Church is iniurious to Gods Divine Maiestie as if He could deceiue or be deceived For though your Church were indeed as Infallible a Propounder of Divine Truths as it pretends to be yet if it appear'd not to me to be so I might very well belieue God most true your Church most false As though the Gospell of S. Mathew be the word of God yet if I neither knew it to be so nor believed it I might belieue in God and yet think that Gospell a Fable Hereafter therefore I must entreat you to remember that our being guilty of this impiety depends not only upon your being but upon our knowing that you are so Neither must you argue thus The Church of Rome is the Infallible Propounder of Divine Verities therefore he that opposes Her calls Gods Truth in Question But thus rather The Church of Rome is so and Protestants know it to be so therefore in opposing her they impute to God that either he deceiues them or is deceived himselfe For as I may deny something which you upō your knowledge have affirm'd yet never disparage your honesty if I never knew that you affirm'd it So I may bee undoubtedly certaine of Gods Omniscience and Veracitie yet doubt of something which he hath revealed provided I doe not knowe nor belieue that he hath revealed it So that though your Church be the appointed witnesse of Gods Revelations yet untill you know that we know she is so you cannot without foule calumnie impute to us That we charge God blasphemously with deceiving or being deceived You will say perhaps That this is directly consequent from our Doctrine That the Church may erre which is directed by God in all her proposalls True if we knew it to be directed by him otherwise not much lesse if we belieue and know the contrary But then if it were consequent from our opinion haue you so little Charitie as to say that men are iustly chargeable with all the consequences of their Opinions Such Consequences I mean as they doe not owne but disclaim and if there were a necessity of doing either would much rather forsake their Opinion then imbrace these Consequences What opinion is there that draws after it such a train of portentous blasphemies as that of the Dominicans by the judgement of the best Writers of your own Order And will you say now that the Dominicans are justly chargable with all these blasphemies If not seeing our case take it at the worst is but the same why should not your judgement of us be the same I appeale to all those Protestants that haue gone over to your side whether when they were most averse from it they did ever deny or doubt of Gods omniscience or Veracitie whether they did ever belieue or were taught that God did deceiue them or was deceiued himselfe Nay I provoke to you your selfe desire you to deale truly to tell Us whether you doe in your heart belieue that we doe indeed not belieue the eternall Veracitie of the eternall Verity And if you judge so strangely of us having no better ground for it then you haue or can haue wee shall not need any farther proofe of your uncharitablenes towards us this being the extremity of true uncharitablenesse If not then I hope having no other ground but this which sure is none at all to pronounce us damnable Heretiques you will cease to doe so and hereafter as if your ground be true you may doe with more truth
doubtfull whether they be spoken of the Church of Christ if they be whether they mean as you pretend You say the Church saies so which is infallible Yea but that is the Question and therefore not to be begg'd but proved Neither is it so evident as to need no proofe otherwise why brought you this Text to proue it Nor is it of such a strange quality aboue all other Propositions as to bee able to proue it selfe What then remaines but that you say Reasons drawn out of the Circumstances of the Text will evince that this is the sense of it Perhaps they will But Reasons cannot convince mee unlesse I judge of them by my Reason and for every man or woman to relye on that in the choice of their Religion and in the interpreting of Scripture you say is a horrible absurditie and therefore must neither make use of your own in this matter nor desire mee to make use of it 119 But Vniversall Tradition you say and so doe I too is of it selfe credible and that has in all ages taught the Churches infallibility with full consent If it haue I am ready to belieue it But that it has I hope you would not haue me take upon your word for that were to build my selfe upon the Church and the Church upon You. Let then the Tradition appeare for a secret Tradition is somewhat like a silent Thunder You will perhaps produce for the confirmation of it some sayings of some Fathers who in every Age taught this Doctrine as Gualterius in his Chronologie undertakes to doe but with so ill successe that I heard an able Man of your Religion professe that in the first three Centuries there was not one Authority pertinent but how will you warrant that none of them teach the contrary Again how shall I be assured that the places haue indeed this sense in them Seeing there is not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ that does say in plain termes The Church of Rome is infallible What shall wee belieue your Church that this is their meaning But this will be again to goe into the Circle which made us giddy before To proue the Church Infallible because Tradition saies so Tradition to say so because the Fathers say so The Fathers to say so because the Church saies so which is infallible Yea but reason will shew this to be the meaning of them Yes if we may use our Reason and rely upon it Otherwise as light shewes nothing to the blinde or to him that uses not his eyes so reason cannot proue any thing to him that either has not or uses not his reason to judge of them 120 Thus you haue excluded your selfe from all proofe of your Churches infallibility from Scripture or Tradition And if you flye lastly to Reason it selfe for succour may not it justly say to you as Iephte said to his Brethren Yee haue cast me out and banished me and doe you now come to me for succour But if there be no certainty in Reason how shall I be assured of the certainty of those which you alleage for this purpose Either I may judge of them or not if not why doe you propose them If I may why doe you say I may not and make it such a monstrous absurdity That men in the choyce of their Religion should make use of their Reason which yet without all question none but unreasonable men can deny to haue been the chiefest ende why Reason was given them 122 Ad § 22. An Heretique he is saith D. Potter who opposeth any truth which to be a divine revelation he is convinced in conscience by any meanes whatsoever Be it by a Preacher or Lay-man be it by reading Scripture or hearing them read And from hence you infer that he makes all these safe propounders of Faith A most strange and illogicall deduction For may not a private man by evident reason convince another man that such or such a Doctrine is divine revelation and yet though he be a true propounder in this point yet propound another thing falsely and without proofe and consequently not be a safe propounder in every point Your Preachers in their Sermons do they not propose to men divine Revelations and doe they not sometimes convince men in conscience by evident proofe from Scripture that the things they speak are Divine revelations And whosoever being thus convinc'd should oppose this Divine revelation should hee not be an Heretique according to your own grounds for calling Gods own Truth into question And would you think your selfe well dealt with if I should collect from hence that you make every Preacher a safe that is an infallible Propounder of Faith Be the meanes of Proposall what it will sufficient or insufficient worthy of credit or not worthy though it were if it were possible the barking of a Dog or the chirping of a Bird or were it the discourse of the Divell himselfe yet if I be I will not say convinc'd but persuaded though falsly that it is a Divine revelation and shall deny to belieue it I shall be a formall though not a materiall Heretique For he that believes though falsly any thing to be Divine revelation yet will not believe it to be true must of necessity believe God to be false which according to your own Doctrine is the formality of an Heretique 123 And how it can be any way advantagious to Civill government that men without warrant from God should usurpe a tyranny over other mens consciences and prescribe unto them without reason and sometimes against reason what they shall believe you must shew us plainer if you desire we should believe For to say Verily I doe not see but that it must be so is no good demonstration For whereas you say that a man may be a passionate seditious creature from whence you would have us inferre that he may make use of his interpretation to satisfie his passion and raise sedition There were some colour in this consequence if we as you doe made private men infallible interpreters for others for then indeed they might lead Disciples after them and use them as instruments for their vile purposes But when we say they can only interpret for themselves what harme they can doe by their passionate or seditious interpretations but only endanger both their temporall and eternall happinesse I cannot imagine For though we deny the Pope or Church of Rome to be an infallible Iudge yet we doe not deny but that there are Iudges which may proceed with certainty enough against all seditious Persons such as draw men to disobedience either against Church or State as well as against Rebells and Traytors and Theeves and Murderers 124 Ad § 23. The next § in the begining argues thus For many ages there was no Scripture in the World and for many more there was none in many places of the world yet men wanted not then and then some certain direction what to believe
truth 164 To the Argument wherewith you conclude I Answere That though the visible Church shall alwaies without faile propose so much of Gods revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes adde to this revelation things superfluous nay hurtfull nay in themselves damnable though not unpardonable and sometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable and therefore it is possible without siâ—ne to resist in some things the Visible Church of Christ. But you presse us farther and demand what visible Church was extant when Luther began whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church As if it must of necessity either be Protestant or Roman or Roman of necessity if it were not Protestant yet this is the most usuall fallacy of all your disputers by some specious Arguments to perswade weak men that the Church of Protestants cannot be the true Church and thence to inferre that without doubt it must be the Roman But why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greek Church as well as the Roman there being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your own unlesse it be that she is poor and oppressed by the Turk and you are in glory and splendor 165 Neither is it so easy to be determined as you pretend That Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole visible Church in matters of Faith neither is it so evident that the Visible Church may not fall into such a state wherein she may be justly opposed And lastly for calling the distinction of points into Fundamentall and not Fundamentall an evasion I believe you will find it easier to call it so then to prove it so But that shall be the issue of the Controversy in the next Chapter CHAP. III. That the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall is neither pertinent nor true in our present Controversie And that the Catholike Visible Church cannot erre in either kinde of the said points THIS distinction is abused by Protestants to many purposes of theirs and therefore if it be either untrue or impertinent as they understand and apply it the whole edifice built thereon must be ruinous and false For if you object their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith without any means of agreement they instantly tell you as Charity mistaken plainly shewes that they differ only in pâ—ints not fundamentall If you convince them even by their own Confessions that the ancient Fathers taught divers points held by the Roman Church against Protestants they reply that those Fathers may neverthelesse be saved because those errours were not fundamentall If you will them to remember that Christ must alwaies haue a visible Church on earth with administration of Sacraments and succession of Paâ—stors and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman whose Communion and doctrine Luther then forâ—ook and for that cause must be guilty of Schisme and Herosie they haue an Answer such as it is that the Catholike Church cannot perish yet may erre in points not fundamentall and therefore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors under paine of Damnation as if forsooth it were Damnable to hold an error not Fundamentall nor Damnable If you wonder how they can teach that both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved in their severall professions they salve this contradiction by saying that we both agree in all fundamentall points of faith which is enough for salvation And yet which is prodigiously strange they could never be induced to give a Catalogue what points in particular be fundamentall but only by some generall description or by referring us to the Apostles Creed without determining what points therein be fundamentall or not fundamentall for the matter and in what sense they be or be not such and yet concerning the meaning of divers points contained or reduced to the Creed they differ both from us and among themselves And indeed it being impossible for them to exhibit any such Catalogue the said distinction of points although it were pertinent and true cannot serve them to any purpose but still they must remaine uncertaine whether or not they disagree from one another from the ancient Fathers and from the Catholique Church in points fundamentall which is to say they have no certainty whether they enjoy the substance of Christian Faith without which they cannot hope to be saved But of this more heerafter 2 And to the end that what shall be said concerning this distinction may be better understood wee are to observe that there be two precepts which concerne the vertue of faith or our obligation to believe divine truths The one is by Divines called Affirmative whereby we are obliged to have a positive explicite belief of some chief Articles of Christian faith The other is â—ermed Negative which strictly binds us not not to disbelieve that is not to believe the contrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our understanding as revealed or spoken by Almighty God The said Affirmative Precept according to the nature of such commands injoynes some act to be performed but not at all times nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons in respect of all objects to be believed For objects we grant that some are more necessary to be explicitely and severall believed then other either because they are in themselves more great and weighty or els in regard they instruct us in some necessary Christian duty towards God our selves or our Neighbour For persons no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more then others by reason of their office vocation capacity or the like For times we are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of faith but according as severall occasions permit or require The second kind of precept called Negative doth according to the nature of all such commands oblige universally all persons in respect of all objects and at all times seâ—per pro semper as Divines speak This generall doctrine will be more cleere by examples I am not obliged to be alwaies helping my Neighbour because the Affirmative precept of Charity bindeth only in some particular cases But I am alwaies bound by a Negative precept never to doe him any hurt or wrong I am not alwaies bound to utter what I know to be true yet I am obliged never to speak any one least untruth against my knowledge And to come to our present purpose there is no Affirmative precept commanding us to be at all times actually believing any one or all Articles of faith But we are obliged never to exercise any act against any one truth known to be revealed All sorts of persons are not bound explicitely and distinctly to know all things testified by God either in Scripture or otherwise but
saying I answer that this is an inconsiderate speech and unworthy so great a Father But let us conclude with S. Augustine that the Church cannot approue any errour against faith or good manners The Church saith he being Placed between much chaffe and cockle doth tollerate many things but yet she doth not approue nor dissemble nor doe those things which are against faith or good life 17 And as I haue proved that Protestants according to their grounds cannot yeeld infallibls assent to the Church in any one point so by the same reason I prove that they cannot rely upon Scripture it selfe in any one point of faith Not in points of lesser moment or not fundamentall because in such points the Catholique Church according to D. Potter and much more any Protestant may erre and thinke it is contained in Scripture when it is not Not in points fundamentall because they must first know what points be fundamentall before they can bee assured that they cannot erre in understanding the Scripture and consequently independantly of Scripture they must foreknow all fundamentall points of faith and therefore they doe not indeed rely upon Scripture either for fundamentall or not fundamentall points 18 Besides I mainly urge D. Potter and other Protestants that they tell us of certain points which they call fundamentall and we cannot wrest from them a list in particular of such points without which no man can tell whether or no he erre in points fundamentall and be capable of salvation And which is most lamentable insteed of giving us such a Catalogue they fall to wrangle among themselves about the making of it 19 Calvin holds the Popes Primacy Invocation of Saints Free will and such like to bee fundamentall errours overthrowing the Gospell Others are not of his minde as Melancthou who saith in the opinion of himselfe and other his Brethren That the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is of use or profit to this end that Consent of Doctrine may be retained An agreement therefore may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Primacy if other Articles could be agreed upon If the Popes Primacy be a meanes that consent of Doctrine may be retained first submit to it and other articles will be easily agreed upon Luther also saith of the Popes Primacy it may be borne withall And why then O Luther did you not beare with it And how can you and your followers be excused from damnable Schisme who chose rather to devide Gods Church then to beare with that which you confesse may be borne withall But let us goe forward That the doctrine of freewill Prayer for the dead worshipping of Images Woâ—ship and Invocation of Saints Reall presence Transubstantiation Receaving under one kinde Satisfaction and Ment of works and the Masse be not fundamentall Errours is taught respective by divers Protestants carefully alleaged in the Protestants Apologie c. as namely by Perkins Cartwright Frith Fulle Spark Goade Luther Reynolds Whitaker Tindall Franci Iohnson with others Contrary to these is the Confession of the Christian faith so called by Protestants which I mentioned heretofore wherein we are damned unto unquenchable fire for the doctrine of Masse Prayer to Saints and for the dead Freewill Presence at Idol-service Mans merit with such like Iustification by faith alone is by some Protestants affirmed to be the soule of the Church The only principall origen of Salvation of all other points of doctrine the chiefest and weightiest Which yet as we haue seen is contrary to other Protestants who teach that meâ— of good works is not a fundamentall Errour yea divers Protestants defend merit of good works as may bee seen in Breereley One would think that the Kings Supremacy for which some blessed men lost their lives was once among Protestants held for a Capitall point but now D. Andrewes late of Winchester in his book against Bellarmime tells us that it is sufficient to reckon it among true Doctrines And Woâ—ton denies that Protestants hold the Kings Supremacy to be an essentiall point of faith O freedome of the new Gospell Hold with Catholiques the Pope or with Protestants the King or with Puritanes neither Pope nor King to be Head of the Church all is one you may be saved Some as Castalio and the whole Sect of the Academicall Protestants hold that doctrines about the Supper Baptisme the state and office of Christ how he is one with his Father the Trinity Predestination and divers other such questions are not necessary to Salvation And that you may observe how ungrounded and partiall their Assertions be Perkins teacheth that the Reall presence of our Saviours Body in the Sacrament as it is believed by Catholiques is a fundamentall errour and yet affirmeth the Consubstantiation of Lutherans not to be such notwithstanding that divers chiefe Lutherans to their Consubstantiation joyne the prodigious Heresie of Vbiquitation D. Vsher in his Sermon of the Vnity of the Catholique faith grants Salvation to the Aethiopians who yet with Christian Baptisme joyne Circumcision D. Potter cites the doctrine of some whom he termeth men of great learning and judgement that all who professe to loue and honour IES VS CHRIST are in the visible Christian Church and by Catholiques to be reputed Brethren One of these men of great learning and judgement is Thomas Morton by D. Potter cited in his Margent whose love and honour to Iesus-Christ you may perceive by his saying that the Churches of Arians who denied our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God bâ—cause they doe hold the foundation of the Gospell which is Faith in Iesus-Christ the Sonne of God and Saviour of the world And which is more it seemeth by these charitable men that for being a member of the Church it is not necessary to believe one only God For D. Potter among the arguments to proue Hookers and Mortons opinion brings this The people of the ten Tribes after their defection notwithstanding their grosse corruptions Idolatry remained still a true Church We may also as it seemeth by these mens reasoning deny the Resurrection and yet be members of the true Chruch For a learned man saith D. Potter in behalfe of Hookers and Mortons opinion was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurreâ—tion of our bodies Deere Saviour What times doe we behold If one may be a member of the true Church and yet deny the Trinity of the Persons the Godhead of our Saviour the necessity of Baptisme if we may use Circumcision and with the worship of God joyne Idolatry wherein doe we differ from Turks and Iews or rather are we not worse then eyther of them If they who deny our Saviours divinity might be accounted the Church of God how will they deny that favour to those ancient Heretiques who denied our Saviours true humanity and so
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
to believe as all Antiquity hath taught us That whosoever either beginnes or continues a division for the Roman Church which we haue proved to be Christs true Militant Church on earth cannot without effectuall repentance hope to be a member of his Triumphant Church in heaven And so I conclude with these words of blessed S. Augustine It is common to all Heretiques to be unable to see that thing which in the world is the most manifest and placed in the light of all Nations out of whose Vnity whatsoever they work though they seem to doe it with great care and diligence can no more availe them against the wrath of God then the Spiders web against the extremity of cold But now it is high time that we treat of the other sort of Division from the Church which is by Heresie THE ANSVVER TO THE FIFTH CHAPTER The separation of Protestants from the Roman Church being upon iust and necessary causes is not any way guilty of Schisme 1 AD § 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. In the seaven first Sections of this Chapter there be many things said and many things supposed by you which are untrue deserue a censure As 2 First That Schisme could not be a Division from the Church or that a Division from the Church could not happen unlesse there alwaies had been and should be a visible Church Which Assertion is a manifest falshood For although there never had been any Church Visible or Invisible before this age nor should be ever after yet this could not hinder but that a Schisme might now be and be a Division from the present visible Church As though in France there never had been untill now a lawfull Monarch nor after him ever should be yet this hinders not but that now there might be a Rebellion and that Rebellion might be an Insurrection against Soveraigne authority 3 That it is a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath been a visible Congregation of faithfull people Which Proposition howsoever you understand it is not absolutely certain But if you mean by Faithfull as it is plain you doe free from all errour in faith then you know all Protestants with one consent affirm it to bee false and therefore without proof to take it for granted is to beg the Question 4 That supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church were guilty of Schisme it is certainly consequent that all who persist in this division must be so likewise Which is not so certaine as you pretend For they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state Civill or Ecclesiasticall doe commit a great fault whereof notwithanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former state when continuance of time hath once setled the present Thus haue I known some of your own Church condemn the Low-countrey men who first revolted from the King of Spain of the sin of Rebellion yet absolve them from it who now being of your Religion there are yet faithfull maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the K. of Spaine 5 Fourthly That all those which a Christian is to esteeme neighbours doe concurre to make one company which is the Church Which is false for a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 6 Fiftly That all the members of the Visible Church are by charity united into one Mysticall body Which is manifestly untrue for many of them have no Charity 7 Sixtly That the Catholique Church signifies one company of faithfull people which is repugnant to your own grounds For you require not true faith but only the Profession of it to make men members of the visible Church 8 Seaventhly That every Heretique is a Schismatique Which you must acknowledge false in those who though they deny or doubt of some point professed by your Church and so are Heretiques yet continue still in the Communion of the Church 9 Eightly That all the members of the Catholique Church must of necessity be united in externall Communion Which though it were much to be desired it were so yet certainly cannot be perpetually true For a man unjustly excommunicated is not in the Churches communion yet he is still a member of the Church and divers times it hath happened as in the case of Chrisostome and Epiphanius that particular men and particular Churches have upon an overvalued difference either renounced Communion mutually or one of them separated from the other and yet both have continued members of the Catholique Church These things are in those seven Sections either said or supposed by you untruly without all shewe or pretence of proofe The rest is an impertinent common place wherein Protestants and the cause in hand are absolutely unconcern'd And therefore I passe to the eighth Section 10 Ad § 8. Wherein you obtrude upon us a double Fallacie One in supposing and taking for granted that whatsoever is affirmed by three Fathers must be true whereas your selves make no scruple of condemning many things of falsehood which yet are maintained by more then thrice three Fathers Another in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases For whereas you say S. Austine c. 62. l. 2. cont Parm. infers out of the former premises That there is no necessity to divide Vnity to let passe your want of diligence in quoting the 62. chapter of that Booke which hath but 23. in it to passe by also that these words which are indeed in the 11. Chapt. are not inferred out of any such premises as you pretend this I say is evident that he saies not absolutely that there never is or can be any necessity to divide Vnity which only were for your purpose but only in such a speciall cale as he there sets down That is When good men tolerate bad men which can doe thē no spirituall hurt to the intent they may not be seperated from those who are spiritually good Then saith he there is no necessity to divide Vnity Which very words doe cleerely give us to understand that it may fall out as it doth in our case that we cannot keep Vnity with bad men without spirituall hurt i. e. without partaking with them in their impieties and that then there is a necessity to divide Unity from them I mean to break off conjunction with them in their impieties Which that it was S. Austines mind it is most evident out of the 21. c. of the same book where to Parmenian demanding how can a man remain pure being joyned with those that are corrupted He answers Very true this is not possible if he be ioyned with them that is if he commit any evill with them or favour them which doe commit it But if he doe neither of these he is not ioyned with them
Book Besides any private man who truly believes the Scripture and seriously endeavours to know the will of God and to doe it is as secure as the visible Church more secure then your Church from the danger of erring in fundamentalls for it is impossible that any man so qualified should fall into any error which to him will prove damnable For God requires no more of any man to his Salvation but his true endeavour to be saved Lastly abiding in your Churches Communion is so farre from securing me or any man from damnable error that if I should abide in it I am certain I could not be saved For abide in it I cannot without professing to believe your entire doctrine true professe this I cannot but I must lye perpetually and exulcerate my conscience And though your errors were not in themselves damnable yet to resist the known Truth and to continue in the profession of known errors and false hoods is certainly a capitall sinne and of great affinity with the sinne which shall never be forgiven 95 But neither is the Church of Protestants perfectly free from errors and corruptions so the Doctor confesses p. 69. which he can only excuse by saying they are not fundamentall as likewise those in the Roman Church are confessed not to be fundamentall And what man of Iudgement will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one Ans. And yet you your selfe make large discourses in this very Chapter to perswade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome though supposed to have some corruptions And why I pray may not a man of judgement continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted Especially when this Church supposed to be corrupted requires the beliefe and profession of her supposed corruptions as the condition of her Communion which this Church confessedly corrupted doth not What man of judgement will think it any disparagement to his judgement to preferre the better though not simply the best before that which is starke naught To preferre indifferent good health before a diseased and corrupted state of Body To preferre a field not perfectly weeded before a field that is quite over-runne with weeds and thornes And therefore though Protestants have some Errors yet seeing they are neither so great as yours nor impos'd with such tyranny nor maintained with such obstinacy he that conceives it any disparagement to his judgement to change your Communion for theirs though confessed to have some corruptions it may well be presum'd that he hath but little judgement For as for your pretence that yours are confessed not to be fundamentall it is an affected mistake as already I have often told you 66 Ad § 22. But D. Potter saies it is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers but she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and error till she be in heaven Now if it be comfort enough to be secur'd from all capitall dangers which can arise only from error in fundamentall points Why were not our first Reformers content with enough but would needs dismember the Church out of apernitious greedinesse of more then enough Ans. I have already shewed sufficiently how capitall danger may arise from errors though not fundamentall I adde now that what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough according to that of the Gospell to whom much is given of him much shall be required That the same error may be not capitall to those who want meanes of finding the truth and capitall to others who have meanes and neglect to use them That to continue in the profession of error discovered to be so may be damnable though the error be not so These I presume are reasons enough and enough why the first Reformers might think and justly that not enough for themselves which yet to some of their Predecessors they hope might be enough This very Argument was objected to S. Cyprian upon another occasion and also by the British Quartodecimans to the maintainers of the Doctrine of your Church and by both this very answer was returned and therefore I cannot but hope that for their sakes you will approve it 67 But if as the Doctor saies no Church may hope to triumph over all error ti◠she be in heaven then we must either grant that errors not fundamentall cannot yeeld sufficient cause to forsake the Church or you must affirme that all Communities may and ought to be forsaken Answ. The Doctor does not say that no Church may hope to be free from all error either pernitious or any way noxious But that no Church may hope to be secure from all error simply for this were indeed truly totriumph over all But then we say not that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errors unfundamentall unlesse it exact withall either a dissimulation of the being noxious or a Profession of them against the dictate of conscience if they be meere errors This if the Church does as certainly yours doth then her communion is to be forsaken rather then the sinne of hypocrisy to be committed Whereas to forsake the Churches of Protestants for such errors there is no necessity because they erre to themselves doe not under pain of Excommunication exact the profession of their errors 68 But the Church may not be left by reason of sinne therefore neither by reason of errors not fundamentall in as much as both sinne and error are impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven Ans. The reason of the consequence does not appear to mee But I answer to the Antecedent Neither for sinne nor errors ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and injoyne them but if she doe as the Roman does then we must forsake men rather then God leave the Churches communion rather then commit sinne or professe known errors to be divine truths For the Prophet EZechiel hath assured us that to say the Lord hath said so when the Lord hath not said so is a great sinne and a high presumption be the matter never so small 69 Ad § 23. But neither the Quality nor the number of your Churches errors could warrant our forsaking of it Not the Quality because we suppose them not Fundamentall Not the number because the foundation is strong enough to support them Ans. Here againe you vainely suppose that we conceive your errors in themselves not damnable Though we hope they are not absolutely unpardonable but to say they are pardonable is indeed to suppose them damnable Secondly though the errors of your Church did not warrant our departure yet your Tyrannous imposition of them would be our sufficient justification For this laies necessity on us either to forsake your company or to professe what we know to be false 70 Our Blessed Saviour hath declared his will that we
generally used as if it may be justly used in any place by those that haue power and think they haue truth certainly they cannot with reason deny but that it may bee used in every place by those that haue power as well as they and think they haue truth as wel as they what could follow but the maintenance perhaps of truth but perhaps onely of the profession of it in one place the oppression of it in a hundred What will follow from it but the preservation peradventure of unity but peradventure only of uniformity in particular States Churches but the immortalizing the greater and more lamentable divisions of Christendome and the world And therefore what can follow from it but perhaps in the judgement of carnall policie the temporall benefit and tranquillity of temporall States and Kingdomes but the infinit prejudice if not the desolation of the kingdome of Christ And therefore it well becomes thē who haue their portions in this life who serve no higher State then that of England or Spain or France nor this neither any further then they may serue themselves by it who thinke of no other happinesse but the preservation of their own fortunes and tranquillity in this world who think of no other meanes to preserve States but humane power and Machiavillian policie and belieue no other Creed but this Regi aut Civitati imperium habenti nihil iniustum quod utile Such men as these it may become to maintaine by worldly power and violence their State instrument Religion For if all be vain and false as in their judgement it is the present whatsoever is better then any because it is already setled and alteration of it may draw with it change of States and the change of State the subversion of their fortune But they that are indeed servants and lovers of Christ of truth of the Church and of man-kinde ought with all courage to oppose themselves against it as a common enemy of all these They that know there is a King of Kings and Lord of Lords by whose will and pleasure Kings and Kingdomes stand and fall they know that to no King or state any thing can be profitable which is unjust and that nothing can be more evidently unjust then to force weak men by the profession of a religion which they believe not to loose their owne eternall happinesse out of a vain and needlesse feare least they may possibly disturb their temporall quietnesse There is no danger to any state from any mans opinion unlesse it be such an opinion by which disobedience to authority or impiety is taught or licenc'd which sort I confesse may justly be punished as well as other faults or unlesse this sanguinary doctrine bee joyn'd with it that it is lawfull for him by humane violence to enforce others to it Therefore if Protestants did offer violence to other mens consciences and compell them to embrace their Reformation I excuse them not much lesse if they did so to the sacred Persons of Kings and those that were in authority over them who ought to be so secur'd from violence that even their unjust and tyrannous violence though it may be avoided according to that of our Saviour When they persecute you in one Citty fly into another yet may it not be resisted by opposing violence against it Protestants therefore that were guilty of this crime are not to be excused and blessed had they been had they chosen rather to be Martyrs then murderers and to dye for their religion rather then to fight for it But of all the men in the world you are the most unfit to accuse them hereof against whō the soules of the Martyrs from under the Altar cry much lowder then against all their other Persecutors together Who for these many ages together haue daily sacrificed Hecatombes of innocent Christians under the name of Heretiques to your blind zeal and furious superstition Who teach plainly that you may propagate your Religion whensoever you haue power by deposing of Kings and invasion of Kingdomes think when you kill the adversaries of it you doe God good service But for their departing corporally from them whom mentally they had forsaken For their forsaking the externall Cōmunion company of that part of the unreformed part of the Church in their superstitions impieties thus much of your accusation we embrace glory in it And say though some Protestants might offend in the manner or the degree of their separation yet certainly their separation it selfe was not Schismaticall but innocent and not only so but just and necessary And as for your obtruding upon D. Potter that he should say There neither was nor could be iust cause to doe so no more then to depart from Christ himselfe I haue shewed divers times already that you sdeal very injuriously with him confounding together Departing from the Church and Departing from some generall opinions and practises which did not constitute but vitiate not make the Church but marre it For though he saies that which is most true that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church that is to cease being a member of the Church no more then to depart from Christ himself in as much as these are not divers but the same thing yet he no where denies but there might be iust and necessary cause to depart from some opinions and practises of your Church nay of the Catholique Church And therefore you doe vainly to infer that Luther and his followers for so doing were Schismatiques 97 Ad § 35. I answer in a word that neither are Optatus his sayings rules of Faith and therefore not fit to determine Controversies of Faith And then that Majorinus might well be a Schismatique for departing from Ca cilianus and the Chayre of Cyprian Peter without cause and yet Luther and his followers who departed from the Communion of the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of their own Diocesse be none because they had just and necessary cause of their departure For otherwise they must haue continued in the profession of known Errours and the practise of manifest corruptions 98 Ad § 36. In the next Section you tell us that Christ our Lord gaue S. Peter his successors authority over his whole Militant Church And for proof hereof you first referre us to Brerely citing exactly the places of such cheefe Protestants as haue confessed the antiquity of this point Where first you fall into the Fallacy which is called Ignoratio elenchi or mistaking the Question for being to proue this point true you onely prove it ancient Which to what purpose is it when both the parties litigant are agreed that many errors were held by many of the ancient Doctors much more ancient then any of those who are pretended to be confessed by Protestants to haue held with you in this matter and when those whom you haue to doe with and whom it is vain to dispute against but
Paule and that the communion in both kindes was taught by our Saviour The twelfth and last is this that your Church was in peaceable possession you must mean of her doctrine and the Professors of it and enjoyed prescription for many ages For besides that doctrine is not a thing that may be possessed And the professors of it were the Church it selfe and in nature of possessors If we may speak improperly rather then the thing possessed with whom no man hath reason to be offended if they think fit to quit their own possession I say that the possession which the governors of your Church held for some ages of the party governed was not peaceable but got by fraude and held by violence 108 These are the Falshoods which in this answer offer themselves to any attentive Reader and that which remaines is meere impertinence As first that a pretence of conscience will not serve to iustifie separation from being Schismaticall Which is true but little to the purpose seeing it was not an erroneous perswasion much lesse an Hypocriticall pretence but a true and well grounded conviction of conscience which D. Potter alleaged to justifie Protestants from being Schismaticall And therefore though seditious men in Church and State may pretend conscience for a cloak of their rebellion yet this I hope hinders not but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience rather then the unjust commands of his tyrannous Superiours Otherwise with what colour can you defend either your own refusing the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy Or the ancient Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets who oftentimes disobeyed the commands of men in authority and for their disobedience made no other but this Apologie Wee must obey God rather then men It is therefore most apparent that this answer must be meerly impertinent seeing it will serve against the Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets even against your selues as well as against Protestants To as little purpose is your rule out of Lyrinensis against them that followed Lâ—ther seeing they pretend and are ready to justify that they forsook not with the Doctors the faith but only the corruption of the Church As vain altogether is that which follows That in cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our Superiour or cast off his obedience nor publiquely oppose his decrees From whence it will follow very evidently that seeing it is not a matter of faith but a disputed question among you whether the Oath of Allegiance be lawfull that either you acknowledge not the King your Superiour or doe against conscience in opposing his and the kingdomes decree requiring the taking of this Oath This good use I say may very fairely bee made of it and is by men of your own religion But then it is so far from being a confutation that it is rather a confirmation of D. Potters assertion For hee that useth these words doth he not plainly import and such was the case of Protestants that we are to leaue our Superiours to cast off obedience to them and publiquely to oppose their Decrees when we are certain as Protestants were that what they command God doth countermand Lastly S. Cyprians example is against Protestants impertinently and even ridiculously alleaged For what if S. Cyprian holding his opinion true but not necessary condemned no man much lesse any Church for holding the contrary Yet me thinks this should lay no obligation upon Luther to doe so likewise seeing he held his own opinions not onely true but also necessary the doctrine of the Roman Church not only false but damnable And therefore seeing the condition and state of the parties censured by S. Cyprian and Luther was so different no marvell though their censures also were different according to the supposed merit of the parties delinquent For as for your obtruding again upon us that we believe the points of difference not Fundamentall or nenessary you have been often told that it is a calumny We hold your errors as damnable in themselves as you doe ours only by accident through invincible ignorance we hope they are not unpardonable and you also professe to think the same of ours 109 Ad § 42. The former part of this discourse grounded on D. Potters words p. 105. I haue already in passing examined confuted I adde in this place 1. That though the Doctor say It is not fit for any private man to oppose his iudgement to the publique That is his own judgement and bare authority yet he denies not but occasions may happen wherein it may be very warrantable to oppose his reason or the authority of Scripture against it And is not then to be esteem'd to oppose his own judgement to the publique but the judgment of God to the judgement of men Which his following words seem to import He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason Secondly I am to tell you that you haue no ground from him to enterline his words with that interrogatory His own conceits and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture For these things are in his words opposed and not confounded and the latter not intended for a repetition as you mistake it but for an Antithesis of the former He may offer saith he his opinion to be considered of so he doe it with evidence of Scripture But if hee will factiously advance his own conceits that is say I clean contrary to your glosse Such as have not evident nor very probable ground in Scripture for these conceits are properly his own he may iustly bee branded c. Now that this of the two is the better glosse it is proved by your own interrogation For that imputes absurdity to D. Potter for calling them a mans own conceits which were grounded upon evidence of Scripture And therefore you have shewed little candour or equity in fastning upon them this absurd construction They not only bearing but even requiring another more faire and more sensible Every man ought to be presum'd to speak sense rather then non-sense coherently rather then contradictiously if his words be fairely capable of a better construction For M. Hooker if writing against Puritans he had said something unawares that might give advantage to Papists it were not inexcusable seeing it is a matter of such extreme difficulty to hold such a temper in opposing one extreme opinion as not to seem to favour the other Yet if his words be rightly consider'd there is nothing in them that will doe you any service For though he saies that men are bound to doe whatsoever the sentence of finall decision shall determine as it is plain men are bound to yeeld such an obedience to all Courts of civill judicature yet he saies not they are bound to think that determination lawfull and that sentence just Nay it is plain hee saies that they must doe according to the Iudges sentence though in their private opinion
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
they must of necessity affirme heretically with the Donatists that the true unspotted Church of Christ perished and that she which remained on earth was O Blasphemy anharlot By which words it seemes you are resolute perpetually to confound True and Vnspotted and to put no difference between a corrupted Church and none at all But what is this but to make no difference betwen a diseased and a dead man Nay what is it but to contradict your selves who cannot deny but that sinnes are as great staines and spots and deformities in the sight of God as errors and confesse your Church to be a congregation of men whereof every particular not one excepted and consequently the generality which is nothing but a collection of them is polluted and defiled with sinne You proceed 19 But say you The same heresy followes out of D. Potter and other Protestants that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall because we have shewed that every error against any revealed truth is Heresy and Damnable whether the matter be great or small And how can the Church more truly be said to perish then when she is permitted to maintaine damnable Heresy Besides we will hereafter prove that by every act of Heresy all divine faith is lost to maintaine a true Church without any faith is to fansy a living man without life Ans. what you have said before hath been answered before and what you shall say hereafter shall be confuted hereafter But if it be such a certain ground that every error against any one revealed truth is a damnable Heresy Then I hope I shall have your leave to subsume That the Dominicans in your account must hold a damnable heresy who hold an error against the immaculate Conception which you must needs esteeme a revealed truth or otherwise why are you so urgent and importunate to have it defined seeing your rule is nothing may be defined unlesse it be first revealed But without your leave I will make bold to conclude that if either that or the contrary assertion be a revealed truth you or they choose you whether must without contradiction hold a damnable Heresy if this ground be true that every contradiction of a revealed Truth is such And now I dare say for fear of inconvenience you will beginne to temper the crudenesse of your former assertion and tell us that neither of you are Heretiques because the Truth against which you erre though revealed is not sufficiently propounded And so say I neither is your Doctrine which Protestants contradict sufficiently propounded For though it be plain enough that your Church proposeth it yet still methinkes it is as plain that your Churche's proposition is not sufficient and I desire you would not say but prove the contrary Lastly to your Question How can the Church more truly be said to perish then when she is permitted to maintaine a damnable Heresy I Answer she may be more truly said to perish when she is not only permitted to doe so but defacto doth maintaine a damnable Heresy Again she may be more truly said to perish when she falls into an Heresy which is not only damnable in it selfe and ex natura rei as you speak but such an Heresy the belief of whose contrary Truth is necessary not only necessitate praecepti but medii and therefore the heresy so absolutely and indispensably destructive of salvation that no ignorance can excuse it nor any generall repentance without a dereliction of it can begge a pardon for it Such an heresy if the Church should fall into it might be more truly said to perish then if it fell only into some heresy of its own nature damnable For in that state all the members of it without exception all without mercy must needs perish for ever In this although those that might see the truth would not cannot upon any good ground hope for Salvation yet without question it might send many soules to heaven who would gladly have embrac'd the truth but that they wanted means to discover it Thirdly and lastly shee may yet more truly bee said to perish when shee Apostates from Christ absolutely or rejects even those Truths out of which her Heresies may bee reformed as if shee should directly deny Iesus to be the Christ or the Scripture to be the Word of God Towards which state of Perdition it may well be feared that the Church of Rome doth somewhat incline by her superinducing upon the rest of her errors the Doctrine of her own infallibility whereby her errors are made incurable and by her pretending that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to her doctrine and not her doctrine to be judg'd of by Scripture whereby she makes the Scripture uneffectuall for her Reformation 20 Ad § 18. I was very glad when I heard you say The Holy Scripture and ancient Fathers doe assigne Separation from the visible Church as a mark of Heresie for I was in good hope that no Christian would so bely the Scripture as to say so of it unlesse hee could have produced some one Text at least wherein this was plainly affirmed or from whence it might be undoubtedly and undeniably collected For assure your selfe good Sir it is a very haynous crime to say thus saith the Lord when the Lord doth not say so I expected therefore some Scripture should haue been alleaged wherein it should haue beene said whosoever separates from the Roman Church is an Heretique or the Roman Church is infallible or the Guide of faith or at least There shall be alwaies some visible Church infallible in matters of faith Some such direction as this I hoped for And I pray consider whether I had not reason The Evangelists and Apostles who wrote the New Testament we all suppose were good men and very desirous to direct us the surest and plainest way to heaven wee suppose them likewise very sufficiently instructed by the Spirit of God in all the necessary points of the Christian faith and therefore certainly not ignorant of this Vnum Necessarium this most necessary point of all others without which as you pretend and teach all faith is no Faith that is that the Church of Rome was designed by God the Guide of Faith Wee suppose thē lastly wise men especially being assisted by the spirit of wisdome and such as knew that a doubtfull questionable Guide was for mens direction as good as none at all And after all these suppositions which I presume no good Christian will call into question is it possible that any Christian heart can believe that not One amongst them all should ad rei memoriam write this necessary doctrine plainly so much as once Certainly in all reason they had provided much better for the good of Christians if they had wrote this though they had writ nothing else Me thinks the Evangelists undertaking to write the Gospell of Christ could not possibly haue omitted any One of them this most necessary point of
faith had they known it necessary S. Luke especially who plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary Me thinks S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their Priviledge to them Me thinks instead of saying Your faith is spoken of all the world over which you haue no reason to be very proud of for he saies the very same thing to the Thessalonians he could not haue fayl'd to haue told them once at least in plaine termes that their faith was the Rule for all the World for ever But then sure he would haue forborn to put them in feare of an impossibility as hee doth in his eleventh Chap. that they also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not look to their standing might fall away to infidelity as the Iews had done Me thinks in all his other Epistles at least in some at least in one of them he could not have fayled to haue given the world this direction had he known it to be a true one that all men were to be guided by the Church of Rome and none to separate from it under pain of damnation Me thinks writing so often of Heretiques and Antichrist hee should haue given the world this as you pretend onely sure preservative from them How was it possible that S. Peter writing two Catholique Epistles mentioning his own departure writing to preserve Christians in the faith should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended Successours the Bishops of Route How was it possible that S. Iames and S. Iude in their Catholique Epistles should not giue this Catholique direction Me thinks S. Iohn instead of saying he that believeth that Iesus is the Christ is born of God The force of which direction your glosses doe quite enervate and make unavailable to discern who are the sonnes of God should haue said Hee that adheres to the doctrine of the Roman Church and lives according to it he is a good Christian and by this Mark yee shall know him What man not quite out of his witts if he consider as he should the pretended necessity of this doctrine that without the beliefe hereof no man ordinarily can be saved can possibly force himselfe to conceive that all these good and holy men so desirous of mens salvation and so well assured of it as it is pretended should be so deeply and affectedly silent in it and not One say it plainly so much as once but leaue it to be collected from uncertain Principles by many more uncertain consequences Certainly he that can judge so uncharitably of them it is no marvell if he censure other inferiour servants of Christs Atheists and Hypocrites and what he pleases Plain places therefore I did and had reason to look for when I heard you say the holy Scripture assignes Separation from the visible Church as a Mark of Heresie But instead hereof what haue you brought us but meer impertinencies S. Iohn saith of some who pretended to be Christians and were not so and therefore when it was for their advantage forsook their Profession They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us Of some who before the decree of the Councell to the contrary were perswaded and accordingly taught that the convert Gentiles were to keep the Law of Moses it is said in the Acts Some who went out from us And again S. Paul in the same book forewarnes the Ephesians that out of them should arise men speaking perverse things And from these places which it seems are the plainest you have you collect that separation from the Visible Church is assigned by Scripture as a Mark of Heresie Which is certainly a strang and unheard of strain of Logick Vnlesse you will say that every Text wherein it is said that some body goes out from some body affords an Argument for this purpose For the first place there is no certainty that it speaks of Heretiques but no Christians of Antichrists of such as denied Iesus to be the Christ See the place and you shall confesse as much The second place it is certain you must not say it speaks of Heretiques for it speaks only of some who beleeved and taught an Errour while it was yet a question and not evident and therefore according to your doctrine no formall Heresy The third saies indeed that of the Professours of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresy But not one of them all that saies or intimates that whosoever separates from the Visible Church in what state soever is certainly an Heretique Heretiques I confesse doe alwayes doe so But they that doe so are not alwayes Heretiques for perhaps the state of the Church may make it necessary for them to doe so as Rebels alwayes disobey the command of their King yet they which disobey a Kings command which perhaps may be unjust are not presently Rebels 21 Your Allegations out of Vincentius Prosper and Cyprian are lyable to these exceptions 1. That they are the sayings of men not assisted by the Spirit of God and whose Authoritie your selves will not submit to in all things 2. That the first and last are meerly impertinent neither of them affirming or intimating that separation from the present Visible Church is a mark of Heresy and the former speaking plainly of separation from Vniversality Consent and Antiquity which if you will presume without proof that we did and you did not you beg the Question For you know we pretend that we separated only from that present Church which had separated from the doctrine of the Ancient and because she had done so and so farre forth as she had done so and no farther And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true according to your own grounds For you say a man may be divided from the Church upon meer Schisme without any mixture of Heresy And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresy Lastly a man may be divided by an unjust excommunication and be both before and after a very good Catholique and therefore you cannot maintain it Vniversally true That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretique and Antichrist 22 In the 19. § we have the Authority of eight Fathers urg'd to prove that the separation from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of S. Peter I conceive you mean as it is the Particular Church is the mark of Heresy Which kind of argument I might well refuse to answer unlesse you would first promise me that whensoever I should produce as plain sentences of as great a number of Fathers as ancient for any doctrine whatsoever that you will subscribe to it though it fall out to be cōtrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church For I conceive nothing in the world more unequall or unreasonable then that you should presse us with
nor any thing towards it Never any error was imputed to the Arrians for denying the Authority or the infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome Besides what Eusebius saies he saies out of Irenaeus Neither doth or can the Cardinall deny the story to be true therefore he goes about by indirect Arts to foyle it cast a blurre upon it Lastly whensoever Eusebius saies any thing which the Cardinall thinkes for the advantage of his side he cites him and then he is no Arrian or at least hee would not take that for an answer to the arguments he drawes out of him b That Ruffinus was enemy to the Roman Church is said but not proved neither can it be c Eusebius saies the same also of caeteri omnes Episcopi all the other Bishops that they advised Victor to keepe those things that belonged to peace and unity and that they sharpely reprehended Victor for having done otherwise d This is said but no offer made of any proofe of it The Cardinall thinks we must take every thing upon his word They to whom the Tradition was delivered Polyerates and the Asian Bishops knew no such matter nay professed the contrary And who is more likely to know the Truth they which lived within two ages of the fountain of it or the Cardinall who lived sixteen ages after it e How can it make against those that object it seeing it is evident from Irenaeus his Reprehension that he thought Victor and the Roman Church no infallible nor sufficient Iudge of what was necessary to be believed and done what not what was Vniversall Tradition what not what was a sufficient ground of Excommunication and what not and consequently that there was no such necessity as is pretended that all other Churches should in matters of faith conforme themselves to the Church of Rome f This is to suppose that Excommunication is an Act or Argument or signe of Power Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church Story that it was often used by Equalls upon Equalls and by Inferiors upon Superiors if the equalls or inferiors thought their equalls or superiors did any thing which deserved it g And what is this but to confesse that they thought that a small cause of excommunication and unsufficient which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient And consequently that Victor and his Part declared that to be a matter of faith and of necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity h True you have so expounded it but not proved nor offered any proofe of your exception This also we must take upon your Authority Irenaeus speaks not one word of any other power to which he compares or before which he preferres the power of the Roman Church And it is evident out of the Councell of Chalcedon that all the Principality which it had was given it not by God but by the Church in regard it was seated in the Imperiall City Whereupon when afterwards Constantinople was the Imperiall City they decreed that that Chuch should have equall Priviledges and dignity and preheminence with the Church of Rome All the Fathers agreed in this decree saving only the Legats of the Bishop of Rome shewing plainly that they never thought of any Supremacy given the Bishops of Rome by God or grounded upon Scripture but only by the Church and therefore alterable at the Churches pleasure i This is falsely translated Convenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam every body knowes signifies no more but to resort or come to the Roman Church which then there was a necessity that men should doe because that the affaires of the Empire were transacted in that place But yet Irenaeus saies not so of every Church simply which had not been true but only of the adjacent Churches for so he expounds himselfe in saying To this Church it is necessary that every Church that is all the faithfull round about should resort With much more reason therefore we returne the Argument thus Had Irenaeus thought that all Churches must of necessity agree with the RomaÌ„ how could he all other Bishops have then pronounc'd that to be no matter of Faith no sufficient ground of Excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought to be so And how then could they have reprehended Victor so much for the ill use of his power as Cardinall Perron confesses they did seeing if that was true which is pretended in this also as well as other things it was necessary for them to agree with the Church of Rome Some there are that say but more wittily then truly that all Cardinall Bellarmines works are so consonant to themselves as if he had written them in two houres Had Cardinall Perron wrote his book in two houres sure he would not have done that here in the middle of the Book which he condemns in the beginning of it For here he urgeth a consequence drawn from the mistaken words of Irenaeus against his lively and actuall practice which proceeding there he justly condemnes of evident injustice His words are For who knowes not that it is too great an injustice to alleage consequences from passages and even those ill interpreted and misunderstood and in whose illation there is alwaies some Paralogisme hid against the expresse words and the lively actuall practise of the same Fathers from whom they are collected and that may be good to take the Fathers for Adversaries and to accuse them for want of sense or memory but not to take them for Iudges and to submit themselves to the observation of what they have believ'd and practised k This is nothing to the purpose he might choose these examples not as of greater force and authority in themselves but as fitter to be imploied against Victor as domestique examples are fitter and more effectuall then forraine and for his omitting to presse him with his own example and others to what purpose had it been to use them seeing their Letters sent to Victor from all parts wherein they reprehend his presumption shewed him sufficiently that their example was against him But besides he that reads Irenaeus his Letter shall see that in the matter of the Lent Fast and the great variety about the celebration of it which he paralels with this of Easter he presseth Victor with the example of himselfe and others not Bishops of Rome both they saith hee speaking of other Bishops notwithstanding this difference retained peace among themselves and wee also among our selves retaine it inferring from his example that Victor also ought to doe so l If the Popes proceeding was just then the Churches of Asia were indeed and in the sight of God excommunicate and out of the state of Salvation which Irenaeus and all the other ancient Bishops never thought And if they were so why doe you accouâ—t them Saints and Martyrs But the truth is that these Councells did no way shew
change the state of the Question but you mistake it For the Question was not whether they might forsake the corruptions of the Church and continue in her externall communion which we confesse impossible because these corruptions were in her communion But the Question was whether they might forsake the corruptions of the Church and not the Church but continue still the Members of it And to this Question there is not in your whole discourse one pertinent syllable 50 We doe not confound internall Acts of understanding with externall deeds but acknowledge as you would have us that we cannot as matters now stand separate from your corruptions but we must depart from your Externall communion For you have so ordered things that whosoever will Communicate with you at all must communicate with you in your corruptions But it is you that will not perceive the difference between being a part of the Church and being in externall Communion with all the other parts of it taking for granted that which is certainly false that no two men or Churches divided in externall communion can be both true parts of the Catholique Church 51 We are not to learn the difference between Schisme Heresy for Heresy we conceive an obstinate defence of any Errour against any necessary Article of the Christian faith And Schisme a causelesse separation of one part of the Church from another But this we say That if we convince you of errors and corruptions professed and practised in your Communion then we cannot be Schismatiques for refusing to joyne with you in the profession of these Errors and the practise of these corruptions And therefore you must free your selves from Error or us from Schisme 52 Lastly whereas you say That you have demonstrated against us that Protestants divided themselves from the externall communion of the Visible Church adde which externall communion was corrupted and we shall confesse the accusation and glory in it But this is not that Quod erat demonstrandum but that we divided our selves from the Church that is made ourselves out-lawes from it and no members of it And moreover in the Reason of your separation from the externall communion of your Church you are mistaken for it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches externall communion was corrupted and needed Reformation 53 That a pretence of Reformation will acquit no man from Schisme we grant very willingly and therefore say that it concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his Salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For unlesse it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient But whether a true Reformation of our selves from Errors superstitions and impieties will not justify our separation in these things our separation I say from them who will not reforme themselves and as much as in them lies hinder others from doing so This is the point you should have spoken to but have not As for the sentences of the Fathers to which you referre us for the determination of this Question I suppose by what I have said above the Reader understands by alleaging them you have gain'd little credit to your cause or person And that if they were competent Iudges of this controversy their sentence is against you much rather then for you 54 Lastly whereas you desire D. Potter to remember his own words There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe and pretend that you have shewed that Luther did so The Doctor remembers his words very well and hath no reason to be ashamed of them Only he desires you to remember that hereafter you doe not confound as hitherto you have done departing from the Church i. e. ceasing to be a member of it with departing from the Churches externall communion and then he is perswaded it will appeare to you that against Luther and his followers you have said many things but shewed nothing 55 But the Church Vniversall remaining the Church Vniversall according to D. Potter may fall into error And from hence it cleerely followes that it is impossible to leave the externall communion of the Church so corrupted and retain externall communion with the Catholique Church Ans. The reason of this consequence which you say is so cleere truly I cannot possibly discern But the conclusion inferr'd methinkes is evident of it selfe and therefore without proofe I grant it I meane that it is impossible to leave the externall communion of the Catholique Church corrupted and to retain externall communion with the Catholique Church But what use you can make of it I doe not understand Vnlesse you will pretend that to say a man may forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church is all one as to say he may forsake the Churches externall Communion and not forsake it If you mean so sure you mistake the meaning of Protestants when they say They forsook not the Church but her corruptions For in saying so they neither affirme nor deny that they forsooke the externall communion of the Church nor speake at all of it But they mean only that they ceased not to be still members of the Church though they ceased to believe and practise some things which the whole Church formerly did believe and practise And as for the externall Communion of the Visible Church we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it that is renounce the practise of some observances in which the whole visible Church before thē did communicate But this we say they did without Schisme because they had cause to do so and no man can have cause to be a Schismatique 56 But your Argument you conceive will bee more convincing if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct Visible true Churches one Pure the other Corrupted but one Church only Ans. The ground of this is no way certain nor here sufficiently proved For whereas you say Histories are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should have read all Histories that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much lesse extant uncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all power in her hands hath been so pernitiously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all Records should remain which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Neither secondly to suppose a Visible Church before Luther which did not erre is it to contradict this ground of D. Potters that the Church may erre Vnlesse you will have us believe that May be and Must be is all one and that all which may be true is true which rule if it were true then sure all men would be honest because all men may be so and you would not
found or rather that Company is to be imbraced before all other in which all sides agree that salvation may be found We therefore must inferre that it is safest for you to seeke salvation among us You had good reason to conceal S. Augustins answer to the Donatists 10 You frame another argument in our behalf and make us speake thus If Protestants believe the Religion of Catholiques to be a safe way to Heaven why doe they not follow it which wise argument of your own you answer at large and confirm your answer by this instance The Iesuits and Dominicans hold different Opinions touching Predetermination and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Yet so that the Iesuits hold the Dominicans way safe that is his error not damnable and the Dominicans hold the same of the Iesuits Yet neither of them with good Consequence can presse the other to believe his opinion because by his own Confession it is no damnable error 11 But what Catholique maketh such a wise demaund as you put into our mouths If our Religion be a safe way to heaven that is not damnable why doe you not follow it As if every thing that is good must be of necessity imbraced by every body But what think you of the Argument framed thus Our Religion is safe even by your Confession therefore you ought to grant that all may imbrace it And yet further thus Among different Religions and contrary waies to heaven one only can be safe But ours by your own Confession is safe whereas we hold that in yours there is no hope of salvation Therefore you may and ought to imbrace ours This is our Argument And if the Dominicans and Iesuits did say one to another as we say to you then one of them might with good consequence press the other to believe his opinion You have still the hard for tune to be beaten with your own weapon 12 It remaineth then that both in regard of Faith and Charity Protestants are obliged to unite themselves with the Church of Rome And I may adde also in regard of the Theologicall Vâ—â—tue of Hope without which none can hope to be saved and which you want either by exâ—â—sse of Confidence or defect by Despair not unlike to your Faith which I shewed to be either â—â—â—cient in Certainty or excessive in EvideÌ„ce as likewise according to the rigid Calvinists it is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more then weak and so much nothing that it can never be gotten For the trve Theologicall Hope of Christians is a Hope which keeps a mean between Presumption and Desperation which moves us to work our salvation with feare and trembling which conducts us to make sure our salvation by good works as holy Scripture adviseth But contrarily Protestants doe either exclude Hope by Despaire with the Doctrine that our Saviour died not for all and that such want grace sufficient to salvation or else by vaine Presumption grounded upon a fantasticall persuasion that they are Predestinate which Faith must exclude all feare and trembling Neither can they make their Calling certain by good works who doe certainly beleeve that before any good works they are justified and justified even by Faith alone and that by Faith whereby they certainly believe that they are justified Which points some Protestants doe expresly affirme to be the soule of the Church the principall Origen of salvation Of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest as already I have noted Chap. 3. n. 19. And if some Protestants doe now relent from the rigour of the aforesaid doctrine we must affirme that at least some of them want the Theologicall Vertue of Hope yea that none of them can have trve Hope while they hope to be saved in the Communion of those who defend such doctrines as doe directly overthrow all true Christian Hope And for as much as concernes Faith we must also infer that they want Vnity therein and consequently have none at all by their disagreement about the soule of the Church the principall Origen of salvation of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest And if you want trve Faith you must by consequence want Hope or if you hold that this point is not to be so indivisible on either side but that it hath latitude sufficient to imbrace all parties without prejudice to their salvation notwithstanding that your Brethren hold it to be the soule of the Church c. I must repeat what I have said heretofore that even by this Example it is cleer you cannot agree what points be fundamentall And so to whatsoever answer you fly I presse you in the same manner and say that haue no Certainty whether you agree in fundamentall points or Vnity and substance of Faith which cannot stand with difference in fundamentalls And so upon the whole matter I leave it to be considered whether Want of Charity can be iustly charged on us because we affirme that they cannot without repentance be saved who want of all other the most necessary meanes to salvation which are the three Theologicall Vertues FAITH HOPE and CHARITY 13 And now I end this first part having as I conceive complyed with my first designe in that measure which Time Commodity scarcity of Books and my own small Abilities could afford which was to shew that Amongst men of different Religions one side only can be saved For since there must be some infallible Meanes to decide all Controversies concerning Religion and to propound truth revealed by Almighty God and this Meanes can be no other but the Visible Church of Christ which at the time of Luthers appearance was only the Church of Rome and such as agreed with her We must conclude that whosoever opposeth himself to her definitions or forsaketh her Communion doth resist God himself whose Spouse she is and whose divine truth she propounds and therefore becoms guilty of Schisme and Heresie which since Luther his Associates and Protestants have done and still continue to doe it is not Want of Charity but abundance of evident cause that forceth us to declare this necessary Truth PROTESTANCIE VNREPENTED DESTROIES SALVATION THE ANSVVER TO THE SEAVENTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves to re-unite themselves to the Roman Church THE first foure Paragraphs of this Chapter are wholly spent in an un-necessary introduction unto a truth which I presume never was nor will be by any man in his right wits either denied or question'd and that is That every man in wisdome and charity to himselfe is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation 2 The fift and sixt are nothing in a manner but references to discourses already answered by me and confuted in their proper places 3 The seaventh eight ninth tenth and eleventh have no other foundation but this false pretence That we confesse the Roman Church free from damnable error 4 In the
twelfth there is something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions or others to leave their communion but to prove Protestants in state of sinne while they remain separate from the Roman Church there is not one word or syllable and besides whatsoever argument there is in it for any purpose it may be as forcibly return'd upon Papists as it is urg'd against Protestants in as much as all Papists either hold the doctrine of Predetermination and absolute Election or communicate with those that doe hold it Now from this doctrine what is more prone and obvious then for every naturall man without Gods especiall prevēting grace to make this practicall collection Either I am elected or not elected If I be no impiety possible can ever damne me If not no possible industry can ever save me Now whether this disiunctive perswasion be not as likely as any doctrine of any Protestants to extinguish Christian hope and filiall feare and to lead some men to despaire others to presumption all to a wretchlesse and impious life I desire you ingenuously to informe me and if you deny it assure your selfe you shall be contradicted and confuted by men of your own Religion and your own Society and taught at length this charitable Doctrine that though mens opinions may be charg'd with the absurd consequences which naturally flow from them yet the men themselves are not I meane if they perceive not the consequence of these absurdities nor doe not own and acknowledge but disclaim and detest them And this is all the answer which I should make to this discourse if I should deale rigidly and strictly with you Yet that you may not think your selfe contemn'd nor have occasion to pretend that your arguments are evaded I will entreat leave of my Reader to bring to the test every particle of it and to censure what deserves a censure and to answer what may any way seeme to require an answer and then I doubt not but what I have affirm'd in generall will appear in particular Ad § 1. To the First then I say 1. It was needlesse to prove that due Order is to be observed in any thing much more in Charity which being one of the best things may be spoil'd by being disordered Yet if it stood in need of proofe I fear this place of the Canticles He hath ordered Charity in me would be no enforcing demonstration of it 2. The reason alleaged by you why we ought to love one object more then another because one thing participates the Divine Goodnesse more than another is phantasticall and repugnant to what you say presently after For by this rule no man should love himselfe more then all the world unlesse he were first vainely perswaded that he doth more participate the Divine Goodnesse then all the world But the true reason why one thing ought to be lov'd more then another is because one thing is better then another or because it is better to us or because God commands us to doe so or because God himselfe does so and we are to conforme our affections to the will of God 3. It is not true that all objects which we believe doe equally participate the Divine Testimony or Revelation For some are testified more evidently and some more obscurely and therefore whatsoever you have built upon this ground must of necessity fall together with it And thus much for the first number 6 Ad § 2. In the Second many passages deserve a censure For 1. it is not true that we are to wish or desire to God a nature infinite independent immense For it is impossible I should desire to any person that which he hath already if I know that he hath it nor the perpetuity of it if I know it impossible but he must have it for perpetuity And therefore rejoycing only and not welwishing is here the proper work of love 2. Whereas you say That in things necessary to salvation no man ought in any case or in any respect whatsoever to preferre the spirituall good of the whole world before his own soule In saying this you seeme to me to condemne one of the greatest acts of Charity of one of the greatest Saints that ever was I mean S. Paul who for his brethren desir'd to be an Anathema from Christ. And as for the Text alleaged by you in confirmation of your saying what doth it availe a man if he gaine the whole world and sustaine the damage of his owne soule it is nothing to the purpose For without all question it is not profitable for a man to doe so but the question is whether it be not lawfull for a man to forgoe and part with his own particular profit to procure the universall spirituall and eternall benefit of others 3. Whereas you say it is directly against Charity to our selves to adventure the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation this is true But so is this also that it is directly against the same Charity to adventure the omitting any thing that may any way helpe or conduce to my salvation that may make the way to it more secure or lesse dangerous And therefore if the errors of the Roman Church doe but hinder me in this way or any way endanger it I am in Charity to my selfe bound to forsake them though they be not destructive of it 4. Whereas you conclude That if by living out of the Roman Church we put our selves in hazard to want something necessary to Salvation we commit a grievous sinne against the vertue of Charity as it respects our selves This consequence may be good in those which are thus perswaded of the Roman Church and yet live out of it But the supposition is certainly false We may live and dye out of the Roman Church without putting our selves in any such hazard Nay to live and dye in it is as dangerous as to shoote a gulfe which though some good ignorant soules may doe and escape yet it may well be feared that not one in a hundred but miscarries 7 Ad § 3. I proceed now to the third Section herein first I observe this acknowledgement of yours That in things necessary only because commanded a probable ignorance of the commandement excuses the Party from all fault and doth not exclude Salvation From which Doctrine it seemes to me to follow that seeing obedience to the Roman Church cannot be pretended to be necessary but only because it is commanded therefore not only an invincible but even a probable ignorance of this pretended command must excuse us from all faulty breach of it and cannot exclude Salvation Now seeing this command is not pretended to be expresly delivered but only to be deduced from the word of God and that not by the most cleere and evident consequences that may be and seeing an infinity of great objections lies against it which seeme strongly to prove that there is no such command with what Charity