The religion of protestants a safe vvay to salvation. Or An ansvver to a booke entitled Mercy and truth, or, charity maintain'd by Catholiques, which pretends to prove the contrary. By William Chillingworth Master of Arts of the University of Oxford

The religion of protestants a safe vvay to salvation. Or An ansvver to a booke entitled Mercy and truth, or, charity maintain'd by Catholiques, which pretends to prove the contrary. By William Chillingworth Master of Arts of the University of Oxford

Table of contents

Title page

TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE, CHARLES By the Grace of God, KING of great Britaine, France & Ireland, Defendor of the Faith &c.

§

THE PREFACE TO THE AVTHOR OF CHARITY MAINTAINED. WITH AN ANSWER TO HIS Pamphlet entituled a Direction to N. N.

The Preface to the READER.

The Answere to the PREFACE.

THE FIRST PART. The State of the Question; with a summary of the reasons for which amongst men of different Religions, one side only can be saved.

CHAP. I.

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.

CHAP. II. What is that meanes, whereby the revealed truths of God are conveyed to our Vnderstanding, and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion.

ANSVVER TO THE SECOND CHAPTER. Concerning the meanes, whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding; and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion.

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.

THE ANSVVER TO THE THIRD CHAPTER. Wherein it is maintained, That the distinction of points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall, is in this present Controversie good and pertinent: And that the Catholique Church may erre in the latter kinde of the said points.

CHAP. IIII. To say, that the Creed containes all points necessarily to be believed, is neither pertinent to the Question in hand, nor in it selfe true.

THE ANSVVER TO THE FOVRTH CHAPTER. Wherein is shewed, that the Creed containes all necessary points of meere belief.

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 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.

CHAP. VI. That Luther, and the rest of Protestants, have added Heresie unto Schisme.

THE ANSVVER TO THE SIXTH CHAPTER. That Protestants are not Heretiques.

CHAP. VII. In regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones self, Protestants are in state of Sinne, as long as they remain separated from the Roman Church.

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 CONCLVSION.

§

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS A SAFE VVAY TO SALVATION. OR AN ANSVVER TO A BOOKE ENTITLED MERCY AND TRVTH, Or, Charity maintain'd by Catholiques, Which pretends to prove the Contrary. By WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH Master of Arts of the Vniversity of OXFORD.

Isaac. Casaubon. in Epist. ad Card. Perron. Regis IACOBI nomine scriptâ,

Rex arbitratur, rerum absolutè necessariarum ad salutem, non magnum esse numerum. Quare existimat ejus Majest [...]s, nullam ad ineundam concordiam breviorem viam fore, quàm si diligentèr sepatentur necessaria à non necessariis, & ut de necessariis conveniat, omnis opera insumatur: in non necessariis libertati Christianae locus detur. Simplici [...]er necessaria Rex appellat, quae vel expresse verbum Dei praecipit credenda faciendave, vel ex verbo Dei necessariâ consequentiâ vetus Ecclesia elicuit.—Si ad decidendas hodiernas Controversias haec distinctio adhiberetur, & jus divinum à positivo sen Ecclesiastico candidè separaretur; non videtur de iius quae sunt absolutè necessaria, inter pios & moderatos viros, longa aut acris contentio futura. Nam & paucailla sunt, ut modò dicebamus, & fere ex aequo omnibus probantur, qui se Christianos dici postulant. At (que) istam distinctionem Sereniss. Rex tanti putat esse momenti ad minuendas Controversias, quae hodie Ecclesiam Dei tantopere exercent, ut omnium pacis studiosorum judicet officium esse, diligentissimè hanc explicare, docere, urgere.

OXFORD Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD, and are to be sold by Iohn Clarke under St Peters Church in Corn-hill. Anno Salutis M.DC.XXXVIII.

TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE, CHARLES
By the Grace of God, KING of great Britaine, France & Ireland, Defendor of the Faith &c.

[Page]

[Page]

May it please your most excellent Majesty,

I Present, with all humility, to Your most sacred hands, a Defence of that Cause which is & ought to be infinitely dearer to you, then all the world: Not doubting but upon this Dedication I shall be censur'd for a double boldnesse; both for undertaking so great a Work, so far beyond my weak abilities, and againe, for presenting it to such a Parton, whose judgement I ought to fear more then any Adversary. But for the first, it is a satisfaction to my selfe, and may be to others, that I was not drawn to it out of any vain opinion of my selfe, (whose personall defects are the only thing which I presume to know,) but undertook it in obedience to Him, who said, Tu conversus confirma fratres, not [Page] to S. Peter only but to all men: being encouraged also to it by the goodnesse of the Cause, which is able to make a weak man strong. To the belief hereof I was not led partially or by chance, as many are, by the preiudice and prepossession of their Country, Education, and such like inducements, which if they lead to truth in one place, perhaps lead to error in a hundred; but having with the greatest equality and indifferency, made enquiry and search into the grounds on both Sides, I was willing to impart to others that satisfaction which was given to my selfe. For my inscribing to it your Maiesties sacred Name, I should labour much in my excuse of it from high presumption, had it not some appearance of Title to your Maiesties Patronage & protection as being a Defence of that Book, which by special order from your Maty was written some years since, chiefly for the generall good, but peradventure not without some aime at the recovery of One of your meanest Subiects from a dangerous deviation, & so due unto your Maty, as the fruit of your own High humility and most Royall Charity. Besides, it is in a manner nothing else, but a pursuance of, and a superstruction upon that blessed Doctrine, where With I have adorn'd & arm'd the Frontispice of my Book, which was so earnestly recommended by your Royall Father of happy memory, to all the lovers of Truth & Peace, that is to all that were like himselfe, as the only hopefull meanes of healing the breaches of Christendome, whereof the Enemy of soules makes such pestilent advantage. The lustre of this blessed Doctrine I have here endeavoured to [Page] uncloud and unveile, and to free it from those mists and fumes which have been rais'd to obscure it, by that Order, which envenomes even poison it selfe, and makes the Roman Religion much more malignant and trubulent then otherwise it would be: whose very Rule and Doctrine, obliges them to make all men, as much as lies in them, subjects unto Kings, and servants unto Christ, no farther then it shall please the Pope. So that whether Your Maiesty be considered, either as a Pious Sonne towards your Royall Father K. IAMES, or as a tender hearted & compassionate Sonne towards your distressed Mother, the Catholique Church, or as a King of your Subiects, or as a Servant unto Christ, this worke, (to which I can give no other commendation, but that it was intended to doe you service in all these capacities,) may pretend not unreasonably to your Gracious acceptance. Lastly being a defence of that whole Church and Religion you professe, it could not be so proper to any Patron as to the great Defendor of it; which stile your Maiesty hath ever so exactly made good, both in securing it from all dangers, and in vindicating it (by the well ordering and rectifying this Church) from all the foule as persions both of Domestick & Forraine enemies, of which they can have no ground, but their own malice and want of Charity. But it is an argument of a despairing & lost cause to support it selfe with these impetuous out-cries and clamors, the faint refuges of those that want better arguments; like that Stoick in Lucian that cried [...]! O damn'd villaine, when he could say nothing else. Neither is it [Page] credible the wiser sort of them should believe this their own horrid assertion, That a God of goodnesse should damne to eternall torments, those that love him and love truth, for errors which they fall into through humane frailty! But this they must say, otherwise their only great argument from their dāning us, & our not being so peremptory in damning them, because we hope unaffected Ignorance may excuse thē, would be lost: & therefore they are engag'd to act on this Tragicall part, only to fright the simple and ignorant, as we doe litle children by telling them that bites, which we would not have them meddle with. And truely that herein they doe but act a part, and know themselves to doe so, and deale with us here as they doe with the King of Spain at Rome, whom they accurse and Excommunicate for fashion sake on Maundy-Thursday, for detaining part of S. Peters Patrimony, and absolve him without satisfaction on Good-Friday, methinkes their faltring and inconstancy herein, makes it very apparent. For though for the most part, they speak nothing but thunder and lightning to us, & damne us all without mercy or exception, yet sometimes to serve other purposes, they can be content to speak to us in a milder strain, & tell us, as my adversary does, more then once, That they allow Protestants as much Charity as Protestants allow them. Neither is this the only contradiction which I have discover'd in this uncharitable Work; but have shewed that by forgetting himselfe, & retracting most of the principall grounds he builds upon, he hath sav'd me the labour of a confutation: which [Page] yet I have not in any place found any such labor or difficulty, but that it was undertakable by a man of very mean, that is, of my abilities. And the reason is, because it is Truth I plead for; which is so strong an argument for it selfe, that it needs only light to discover it: whereas it concernes Falshood & Error to use disguises and shadowings and all the fetches of Art and Sophistry, & therefore it stands in need of abler men, to give that a colour at least, which hath no reall body to subsist by. If my endeavours in this kind may contribute any thing to this discovery, and the making plain that Truth (which my Charity perswades mee the most part of them disaffect only, because it has not been well represented to them,) I have the fruit of my labour, and my wish; who desire to live to no other end, then to doe service to Gods Church and Your most Sacred Maiesty, in the quality of

Your MAIESTIE'S most faithfull Subject, and most humble and devoted Servant WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH.

§

§

§

[Page]

MAndetur Typis hic Liber, cui Titulus The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation: In quo nihil occurrit à bonis Moribus, à Doctrinâ & Disciplinâ in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ assertis, alienum.

RICH. BAYLIE Vicecan. Oxon.

§

PErlegi hunc Librum, cui Titulus est The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation: In quo nihil reperio Doctrinae vel Disciplinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae adversum, sed quamplurima quae Fidem Orthodoxam egregiè illustrant, & adversantia glossemata acutè, perspicuè, & modestè dissipant.

Io. PRIDEAVX S. T. P. Regius Oxon.

§

EGo Samuel Fell Publicus Theol. Professor in Vniv. Oxon. & ordinarius Praelector D. Marg. Comitiss. Richmondiae, perlegi Librum cui Titulus est, The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation: In quo nihil reperio Doctrinae vel Disciplinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae, aut bonis Moribus adversum: sed multa nervosè & modestè eventilata contra Adversarios nostrae Ecclesiae & veritatis Catholicae, quam felicitèr tuetur.

Dat. 14• Octob. An. 1637

SAMVEL FELL.

THE PREFACE TO THE AVTHOR OF CHARITY MAINTAINED.
WITH AN ANSWER TO HIS Pamphlet entituled a Direction to N. N.

[Page]

SIR

VPon the first newes of the publication of your Book, I used all diligence with speed to procure it; and came with such a mind to the reading of it, as S. Austin before he was a setled Catholique, brought to his conference with Faustus the Manichee. For as he though that if any thing more then ordinary might be said in defence of the Manichean Doctrine, Faustus was the man from whom it was to be expected: So my perswasion concerning you was,—Si Pergama dextrâ defendi possunt, certè has defensa videbo. For I conceiv'd that among the Champions of the Roman Church, the English in reason must be the best, or equall to the best, as being by most expert Masters train'd up purposely for this warre, and perpetually practised in it. Among the English, I saw the Iesuites would yeeld the first place to none; and men so wise in their generation as the Iesuits were, if they had any Achilles among them, I presum'd, would make choice of him for this service. And besides, I had good assurance that in the framing of this building, though you were the only Architect, yet you wanted not the assistance of many diligent hands to bring you in choice materialls towards it; nor of many carefull and watchfull eyes to correct the errors of your worke, if any should chance to escape you. Great reason therefore had I to expect great matters from you, and that your Book should have in it the Spirit and Elixir of all that can be said in defence of your Church and Doctrine; and to assure my selfe, that if my resolution not to believe it, were not built upon the rock of evident grounds and reasons, but only upon some sandy and deceitfull appearances, now the wind and storme & floods were coming which would undoubtedly overthrow it.

2 Neither truly were you more willing to effect such an alteration in me then I was to have it effected. For my desire is to goe the right way to eternall happinesse. But whether this way lye on the right [Page] hand or the left, or streight forwards; whether it be by following a living Guide, or by seeking my direction in a book, or by hearkening to the secret whisper of some privat Spirit, to me it is indifferent. And he that is otherwise affected, and has not a travellers indifference, which Epictetus requires in all that would find the truth, but much desires in respect of his ease, or pleasure, or profit, or advancement, or satisfaction of friends, or any human consideration, that one way should be true rather then another; it is oddes but he will take his desire that it should be so, for an assurance that it is so. But I for my part, unlese I deceive my selfe, was and still am so affected as I have made profession: not willing I confesse to take any thing upon trust, and to believe it without asking my selfe why; no, nor able to command my selfe (were I never so willing) to follow, like a sheepe, every sheepheard that should take upon him to guide me; or every flock that should chance to goe before me: but most apt and most willing to be led by reason to any way, or from it; and alwaies submitting all other reasons to this one, God hath said so, therefore it is true. Nor yet was I so unreasonable as to expect Mathematicall demonstrations from you in matters plainly incapable of them, such as are to be believed, and if we speak properly, cannot be known; such therefore I expected not. For as he is an unreasonable Master, who requires a stronger assent to his conclusions then his arguments deserve; so I conceive him a froward and undisciplin'd Scholar, who desires stronger arguments for a conclusion then the matter will bear. But had you represented to my understanding such reasons of your Doctrine, as being weighed in an even ballance, held by an even hand, with those on the other side, would have turn'd the scale, and have made your Religion more credible then the contrary; certainly I should have despised the shame of one more alteration, and with both mine armes and all my heart most readily have embraced it. Such was my expectation from you, and such my preparation, which I brought with me to the reading of your book. Would you know now what the event was, what effect was wrought in me, by the perusall and consideration of it? To deal truly and ingenuously with you, I fell somewhat in my good opinion both of your sufficiency & syncerity: but was exceedingly confirm'd in my ill opinion of the cause maintained by you. I found every where snares that might entrap, and colours that might deceive the simple; but nothing that might perswade, and very little that might move an understanding man, and one that can discerne between discourse and sophistry. In short, I was verily perswaded that I plainly saw and could make it appear, to all dis-passionate and unprejudicate Iudges, [...] a vein of sophistry and calumny, did run clean through it from [...] begining to the end. And letting some friends understand so much, [...] my selfe to be perswaded by them, that it would not be either unproper for me, nor un-acceptable to God, nor peradventure altogether unserviceable to his Church, nor justly offensive to you (if you indeed were a lover of Truth, and not a maintainer of a Faction,) if setting aside the second Part, which was in a manner wholly employed [Page] in particular disputes, repetitions and references, and in wranglings with D. Potter about the sense of some super-numerary quotations, and whereon the main question no way depends, I would make a faire and ingenuous Answer to the first, wherein the substance of the present Controversy is confessedly contained; and which, if it were clearly answered, no man would desire any other answer to the second. This therefore I undertook with a full resolution to be an adversary to your errors, but a friend and servant to your person: and so much the more a friend to your person, by how much the severer and more rigid adversary I was to your errors.

4 In this work my conscience beares me witnesse that I have according to your advice proceeded alwayes with this consideration, that I am to give a most strict account of every line, and word that passeth under my pen; and therefore have been precisely carefull for the matter of my book to defend truth only, and only by Truth. And then scrupulously fearefull of scandalizing you or any man with the manner of handling it. From this rule sure I am, I have not willingly swerved in either part of it, and that I might not doe it ignorantly, I have not only my self examined mine owne work, perhaps with more severity then I have done yours, (as conceiving it a base and unchristian thing to goe about to satisfie others with what I my self am not fully satisfied;) But have also made it passe the fiery tryall of the exact censures of many understanding judges, alwaies heartily wishing that you your selfe had been of the Quorum. But they who did undergoe this burthen as they wanted not sufficiencie to discover any heterodoxe doctrine, so I am sure they have been very carefull to let nothing flip dissonant from truth or from the authorized doctrine of the Church of England, and therefore whatsoever causelesse and groundlesse jealousy, any man may entertain concerning my Person, yet my book, I presume, in reason and common equity should be free from them: wherein I hope that little or nothing hath escap'd so many eyes, which being weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary will be found too light. And in this hope I am much confirm'd, by your strange carriage of your selfe in this whole businesse. For though by some crooked and sinister arts, you have got my Answer into your hands, now a yeare since and upwards, as I have been assured by some that know it, and those of your own party; though you could not want every day faire opportunityes of sending to me, and acquainting me with any exceptions, which, you conceived, might be justly taken to it, or any part of it, then which nothing could have been more welcome to me, yet hitherto you have not been pleased to acquaint mee with any one. Nay more, though you have been at sundry times, and by severall waies entreated and sollicited, nay press'd and importun'd by me, to joyne with me in a private discussion of the Controversy between us, before the publication of my Answer, (because I was extremely unwilling to publish any thing which had not passed all manner of tryals,) as desiring not that I, or my Side, but that truth might overcome on which Side soever it was) though I have prot [...]sted to you, and set it under my [Page] hand, (which protestation by Gods help I would have made good) if you, or any other would undertake your cause, would give me a faire meeting, and choose out of your whole Book any one argument, wherof you were most confident, and by which you would be content the rest should be judged of, and make it appeare that I had not, or could not answer it, that I would desist from the work which I had undertaken, and answer none at all; though by all the Arts which possibly I could devise, I have provoked you to such a tryall, in particular by assuring you that if you refus'd it, the world should be inform'd of your tergiversation, notwithstanding all this you have perpetually, and obstinately declined it; which to my understanding is a very evident signe that there is not any truth in your cause, nor (which is impossible there should bee strength in your arguments, especially considering what our Saviour hath told us, every one that doth evill hateth the light, neither commeth to the light, least his deeds should be reproved; but he that doth truth commeth to the light that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God.

5 In the meane while though you despaired of compassing your desire this honest way, yet you have not omitted to tempt me by base and unworthy considerations to desert the cause which I had undertaken; letting me understand from you, by an acquaintance common to us both, how that in case my work should come to light, my inconstancy in religion (so you miscall my constancy in following that way to heaven which for the present seemes to me the most probable,) should bee to my great shame painted to the life; that my owne writings should be produc [...]d against my selfe; that I should bee urged to answer my owne motives against Protestantisme, and that such things should be published to the world touching my beliefe, (for my painter I must expect should have great skill in perspective) of the doctrine of the Trinity, the Deity of our Saviour, and all supernaturall verities, as should endanger all my benefices present or future: that this warning was given me, not out of feare of what I could say (for that Catholiques if they might wish any ill would beg the Publication of my booke, for respects obvious enough,) but out of a meer charitable desire of my good and reputation: and that all this was said upon a supposition that I was answering, or had a minde to answer Charity maintained; If not, no harme was done. To which co [...]us premonition as I remember, I desired the Gentleman, who dealt between us to return this answer, or to this effect, that I believed the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Deity of our Saviour, and all other super-naturall verities revealed in Scripture, as truly and as heartily as your self, or any man: and therefore herein your Charity was very much mistaken; but much more and more uncharitably in conceiving me a man that was to be wrought upon with these Terribiles visu formae, those carnall and base fears which you presented to me, which were very proper motives for the Divell and his instruments to tempt poor spirited men out of the way of conscience and honesty, but very incongruous, either for Teachers of truth to make use of, or for Lovers of truth (in which Company I had been long agoe matriculated) to hearken [Page] to with any regard. But if you were indeed desirous that I should not answer Charity maintained, one way there was, and but one, whereby you might obtain your desire; and that was by letting mee know when and where I might attend you, and by a fair conference, to be written down on both sides, convincing mine understanding (who was resolv'd not to be a Recusant if I were convicted,) that any one part of it, any one argument in it, which was of moment and consequence, and whereon the cause depends, was indeed unanswerable. This was the effect of my answer which I am well assur'd was delivered: but reply from you I received none but this, that you would have no conference with me but in Print; and soone after finding me of proof against all these batteries, and thereby (I fear) very much en [...]aged, you tooke up the resolution of the furious Goddesse in the Poet, madded with the unsuccessefulnesse of her malice, Flectere si neque [...] superos Acherontamovebo!

6 For certainly those indigne contumelies, that masse of portentous and execrable calumnies, wherewith in your Pamphlet of Directions to N. N. you have loaded not only my person in particular, but all the learned and moderate Divines of the Church of England, and all Protestants in generall, nay all wise men of all Religions but your own, could not proceed from any other fountain.

7 To begin with the last, you stick not in the beginning of your first Chapter, to fasten the imputation of Atheisme & irreligion upon all wise and gallant men, that are not of your own Religion. In which uncharitable and unchristian judgment, void of all colour or shadow of probability, I know yet by experience that very many of the Bigots of your Faction are partakers with you. God forbid I should think the like of you! Yet if I should say, that in your Religion there want not some temptations unto, and some Principles of irreligion and Atheisme, I am sure I could make my assertion much more probable then you have done, or can make this horrible imputation.

8 For to passe by first, that which experience justifies, that where and when your Religion hath most absolutely commanded, there and then Atheisme hath most abounded; To say nothing Secondly, of your notorious and confessed forging of so many false miracles, and so many lying Legends, which is not unlikely to make suspitious men to question the truth of all; Nor to object to you Thirdly, the abundance of your weak and silly Ceremonies & ridiculous observances in your Religion, which in all probability cannot but beget secret contempt and scorne of it in wise and considering men, and consequently Atheisme and impiety, if they have this perswasion setled in them (which is too rise among you, and which you account a peece of Wisdome and Gallantry) that if they be not of your Religion, they were as good be of none at all; Nor to trouble you Fourthly with this, that a great part of your Doctrine, especially in the points contested, makes apparently for the temporall ends of the teachers of it; which yet I feare is a great scandall to many Bea [...]x Esprits among you: Onely I should desire you to consider attentively when you conclude so often from the differences [Page] of Protestants, that they have no certainty of any part of their religion, no not of those points wherein they agree, whether you doe not that which so magisterially you direct me not to doe, that is, proceed a destructive way, and object arguments against your adversaries, which tend to the overthrow of all Religion? And whether as you argue thus, Protestants differ in many things, therefore they have no certainty of any thing: So an Atheist or a Sceptique may not conclude as well, Christians and the Professors of all Religions differ in many things, therefore they have no certainty of any thing? Again I should desire you to tell me ingenuously, whether it be not too probable that your portentous Doctrine of Transubstantiation joyn'd with your fore-mention'd perswasion of, no Papists no Christians, hath brought a great many others as well as himselfe to Averroes his resolution, Quandoquidē Christiani adorant quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum Philosophis? Whether your requiring men upon only probable and Prudentiall motives, to yield a most certaine assent unto things in humane reason impossible, and telling them, as you doe too often, that they were as good not believe at all, as believe with any lower degree of faith, be not a likely way to make considering men scorne your Religion, (and consequently all, if they know no other) as requiring things contradictory, and impossible to be performed? Lastly, whether your pretence that there is no good ground to believe Scripture, but your Churches infallibility, joyn'd with your pretending no ground for this but some texts of Scripture, be not a faire way to make them that understand themselves, believe neither Church nor Scripture?

9 Your calumnies against Protestants in generall are set downe in these words, Chap. 2. §. 2. The very doctrine of Protestants if it bee followed closely, and with coherence to it selfe, must of necessity induce Socinianisme. This I say confidently, and evidently prove, by instancing in one errror, which may well be tearmed the Capitall, and mother Heresy, from which all other must follow at ease; I mean, their heresy in affirming, that the perpetuall visible Church of Christ, descended by a never interrupted succession from our Saviour, to this day, is not infallible in all that it proposeth to be believed, as revealed truths.

For if the infallibility of such a publique Authority be once impeached; what remaines, but that every man is given over to his own wit, and discourse? And talke not here, of holy Scripture. For if the true Church may erre, in defining what Scriptures be Canonicall; or in delivering the sense and meaning thereof, we are still devolved, either upon the private spirit (a foolery now explo [...]ed out of England, which finally leaving every man to his own conceits, ends in Socinianisme) or else upon naturall wit, and judgement. for examining and determining, what Scriptures contain true or false doctrine, and in that respect, ought to be received, or rejected. And indeed, take away the authority of Gods Church, no man can be assured, that any one Book, or parcell of Scripture, was written by divine inspiration; or that all the contents, are infallibly true; which are the direct errors of Socinians. If it were but for thi [...] reason alone, no man, who regards the eternall salvation of his soule, would live or dye in Protestancy, [Page] from which, so vast absurdities as these of the Socinians must inevitably follow. And it ought to be an unspeakable comfort to all us Catholiques, while we consider, that none can deny the infallible authority of our Church, but joyntly he must be left to his own wit and waies; and must abandon all infused faith, and true Religion, if he doe but understand himselfe aright.

In all which discourse, the only true word you speak is, This I say confidently: As for proving evidently, that I believe you reserved for some other opportunity: for the present I am sure you have been very sparing of it.

10 You say indeed confidently enough, that the denyall of the Churches infallibility is the Mother Heresy, from which all other must follow at ease: Which is so farre from being a necessary truth, as you make it, that it is indeed a manifest falshood. Neither is it possible for the wit of man by any good, or so much as probable consequence, from the deniall of the Churches Infallibility to deduce any one of the ancient Heresies, or any one error of the Socinians, which are the Heresies here entreated of. For who would not laugh at him that should argue thus; Neither the Church of Rome, nor any other Church is infallible, go, The doctrine of Arrius, Pelagius, Eutyches, Nestorius, Photinus, Manichaeus was true Doctrine? On the other side, it may be truly sayed and justified by very good and effectuall reason, that he that affirms with you, the Popes infallibility, puts himself into his hands and power to be led by him at his ease and pleasure into all Heresy, and even to Hell it self, and cannot with reason say (so long as he is constant to his grounds) Domine cur ita facis? but must believe white to be black and black to be white, vertue to be vice and vice to be vertue; nay (which is a horrible but a most certain truth) Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ, if it be possible for the Pope to say so: Which I say and will maintain, howsoever you daube and disguise it, is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar, but reall enemy. For that name and no better (if we may speak truth without offence) I presume he deserves, who under pretence of interpreting the law of Christ, (which Authority without any word of expresse warrant he hath taken upon himself,) doth in many parts evacuate and dissolve it: So dethroning Christ from his dominion over mens consciences, and in stead of Christ, setting up himself. In as much as he that requires that his interpretations of any law should be obeyed as true and genuine, seeme they to mens understandings never so dissonant and discordant from it, (as the Bishop of Rome does) requires indeed that his interpretations should be the Laws; and he that is firmly prepared in mind to believe and receive all such interpretations without judging of them, and though to his private judgment they seem unreasonable, is indeed congruously disposed to hold adultery a veniall sin, and fornication no sinne, whensoever the Pope and his adherents shall so declare. And whatsoever he may plead, yet either wittingly or ignorantly he makes the Law and the Lawmaker both stales, and obeyes only the interpreter. As if I should pretend that I should submit to the [Page] Laws of the King of England, but should indeed resolve to obey them in that sence which the King of France should put upon them what soever it were; I presume every understanding man would say that I did indeed obey the King of France and not the King of England. If I should pretend to believe the Bible, but that I would understand it according to the sence which the chiefe Mufty should put upon it, who would not say that I were a Christian in pretence only, but indeed a Mahumetan?

11 Nor will it be to purpose for you to pretend that the precepts of Christ are so plain that it cannot be feared, that any Pope should ever goe about to dissolve them and pretend to be a Christian: For, not to say that you now pretend the contrary, (to wit), that the law of Christ is obscure even in things necessary to be believed and done; and by saying so, have made a fair way for any fowle [...] interpretation of any part of it: certainly that which the Church of Rome hath already done in this kind is an evident argument, that (if she once had this power unquestion'd and made expedite and ready for use, by being contracted to the Pope) she may doe what she pleaseth with it. Who that had liv'd in the Primitive Church, would not have thought it as utterly improbable, that ever they should have brought in the worship of Images and picturing of God, as now it is that they should legitimate fornication? Why may we not think they may in time take away the whole Communion from the Laity, as well as they have taken away half of it? Why may we not think that any Text and any sence may not be accorded, aswell as the whole 14. Ch. of the Ep. of S. Paul to the Corinth. is reconcil'd to the Latine service? How is it possible any thing should be plainer forbidden, then the worship of Angels, in the Ep. to the Colossians? then the teaching for Doctrines mens commands in the Gospell of S. Mark? And therefore seeing we see these things done which hardly any man would have believ'd, that had not seen them, why should we not fear that this unlimited power may not be us'd hereafter with as litle moderation? Seeing devices have been invented how men may worship images without Idolatry, and kill innocent men under pretence of heresie without murder, who knowes not that some tricks may not be hereafter deuis'd, by which lying with other mens wives shall be no Adultery, taking away other mens goods no theft? I conclude therefore, that if Solomon himself were here, and were to determine the difference, which is more likely to be mother of all Heresy, The deniall of the Churche's or the affirming of the Popes infallibility, that he would certainly say this is the mother, give her the child.

12 You say again confidently, that if this infallibility be once impeached, every man is given [...]ver to his own wit and discourse: which, if you mean, discourse, not guiding it selfe by Scripture, but only by principles of nature, or perhaps by prejudices and popular errors, and drawing consequences not by rule but chance, is by no means true; if you mean by discourse, right reason, grounded on Divine revelation and common notions, written by God in the hearts of all men, and [Page] deducing, according to the never failing rules of Logick, consequent deductions from them, if this be it, which you mean by discourse, it is very meet & reasonable & necessary that men, as in all their actions, so especially in that of greatest importance, the choice of their way to happinesse, should be left unto it: and he that followes this in all his opinions and actions, and does not only seeme to doe so, followes alwaies God; whereas he that followeth a Company of men, may oftimes follow a company of beasts. And in saying this, I say no more then S. Iohn to all Christians in these words, Dearly beloved believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God, or no: and the rule he gives them to make this tryall by, is to consider whether they confesse Iesus to be the Christ; that is, the Guide of their Faith, and Lord of their actions; no [...] whether they acknowledge the Pope to be his Vicar: I say no more then S. Paul in exhorting all Christians, to try all things and to hold fast that which is good; then S. Peter in cōmanding all Christians, to be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them: then our Saviour himselfe in forewarning all his followers, that if they blindly followed blind guides, both leaders and followers should fall into the ditch; and again in saying even to the people, Yea & why of your selves iudge ye not what is right? And though by passion, or precipitation, or preiudice; by want of reason, or not using that they have, men may be and are oftentimes led into error and mischiefe; yet that they cannot be misguided by discourse truly so called, such as I have described, you your selfe have given them security. For what is discourse, but drawing conclusions out of premises by good consequence? Now the principles which we have setled, to wit, the Scriptures, are on all sides agreed to be infallibly true. And you have told us in the fourth chap. of this Pamphlet, that from truth no man can by good consequence inferre falshood; Therefore by discourse no man can possibly be led to error: but if he erre in his conclusions, he must of necessity either erre in his principles, (which here cannot have place,) or commit some error in his discourse; that is indeed, not discourse but seeme to doe so.

13 You say thirdly with sufficient confidence, that if the true Church may erre in defining what Scriptures be Canonicall, or in delivering the sense thereof, then we must follow either the privat Spirit, or else naturall wit and iudgement, and by them examine what Scriptures containe true or false doctrine, and in that respect ought to be received or reiected: All which is apparently untrue, neither can any proofe of it be pretended. For though the present Church may possibly erre in her judgement touching this matter, yet have we other directions in it, besides the privat spirit, and the examination of the contents, (which latter way may conclude the negative very strongly, to wit, that such or such a book cannot come from God, because it containes irreconcileable contradictions, but the affirmative it cannot conclude, because the contents of a book may be all true, and yet the book not written by divine inspiration:) other direction therefore I say we have, besides either of these three, & that is, the testimony of the Primitive Christians.

[Page] 14 You say Fourthly with convenient boldnesse, That this infallible Authority of your Church being denied, no man can be assur'd, that any parcell of Scripture was written by Divine inspiration: Which is an untruth, for which no proofe is pretended, and besides, void of modesty and full of impiety. The first, because the experience of innumerable Christians is against it, who are sufficiently assur'd, that the Scripture is divinely inspir'd, and yet deny the infallible authority of your Church or any other. The second, because if [...] I cannot have ground to be assur'd of the divine authority of Scripture, unlesse I first believe your Church infallible, then I can have no ground at all to believe it: because there is no ground, nor can any be pretended why I should believe your Church infallible, unlesse I first beleeve the Scripture divine.

15 Fiftly and lastly, You say with confidence in abundance, that none can deny the infallible authority of your Church, but he must abandon all infus'd faith and true religion, if he doe but understand him selfe: Which is to say, agreeable to what you had said before, and what out of the abundance of your hearts you speak very often, That all Christians besides you, are open Fooles, or conceal'd Atheists. All this you say with notable confidence (as the manner of Sophisters is, to place their confidence of prevailing in their confident manner of speaking,) but then for the evidence you promised to maintaine this confidence, that is quite vanished and become invisible.

16 Had I a mind to recriminate now, and to charge Papists (as you doe Protestants) that they lead men to Socinianisme, I could certainly make a much fairer shew of evidence then you have done. For I would not tell you, you deny the infallibility of the Church of England, ergo you lead to Socinianisme, which yet is altogether as good an Argument as this; Protestants deny the infallibility of the Roman Church, ergo they induce Socinianisme: Nor would I resume my former Argument, and urge you, that by holding the Popes infallibility, you submit your selfe to that capitall and Mother Heresy, by advantage whereof, he may lead you at ease to believe vertue vice, and vice vertue, to believe Antichristianity Christianisme, and Christianity Antichristian; he may lead you to Socinianisme, to Turcisme, nay to the Divell himselfe if he have a mind to it: But I would shew you that divers waies the Doctors of your Church doe the principall and proper work of the Socinians for the, undermining the Doctrine of the Trinity, by denying it to be supported by those pillars of the Faith, which alone are fit and able to support it, I mean Scripture, and the Consent of the ancient Doctors.

17 For Scripture, your men deny very plainly and frequently, that this Doctrine can be proved by it. See if you please this plainly taught, and urged very earnestly by Cardinall Hosius, De Author. Sac. Scrip. l. 3. p. 53. By Gordonius Huntlaeus, Contr. Tom. 1. Controv. 1. De verbo Dei C. 19. by Gretserus and Tanerus, in Colloquio Ratesbon: And also by Vega, Possevin, Wiekus, and Others.

18 And then for the Consent of the Ancients, that that also delivers [Page] it not, by whom are we taught but by Papists only? Who is it that makes known to all the world, that Eusebius that great searcher and devourer of the Christian libraries was an Arrian? Is it not your great Achilles, Cardinall Perron, in his 3. Book 2. Chap. of his Reply to K. Iames? Who is it that informs us that Origen (who never was questioned for any error in this matter, in or neere his time) denied the Divinity of the Sonne and the Holy Ghost? Is it not the same great Cardinall, in his Book of the Eucharist against M. du Plessis. l. 2. c. 7? Who is it that pretends that Irenaeus hath said those things, which he that should now hold, would be esteem'd an Arrian? Is it not the same Perron in his Reply to K. Iames, in the fift Chap. of his fourth observation? And does he not in the same place peach Tertullian also, & in a manner give him away to the Arrians? And pronounce generally of the Fathers before the Councell of Nice, That the Arrians would gladly be tryed by them? And are not your fellow Iesuits also, even the prime men of your Order, prevaricators in this point as well as others? Doth not your friend M. Fisher, or M. Flued in his book of the Nine Questions proposed to him by K. Iames speak dangerously to the same purpose, in his discourse of the Resolution of Faith, towards the end? Giving us to understand, That the new Reformed Arrians bring very many testimonies of the ancient Fathers to prove that in this Point they did contradict themselves and were contrary one to another: which places whosoever shall read will cleerely see, that to common people they are unanswerable, yea that common people are not capable of the answers that learned men yeeld unto such obscure passages. And hath not your great Antiquary Petavius, in his Notes upon Epiphanius in Haer. 69. been very liberall to the Adversaries of the Doctrine of the Trinity, and in a manner given them for Patrons and Advocates, first Iustin Martyr, and then almost all the Fathers before the Councell of Nice, whose speeches he saies, touching this point, cum Orthodoxae fidei regula minime consentiunt? Hereunto I might adde that the Dominicans and Iesuits between them in another matter of great importance, viz. Gods Prescience of future contingents, give the Socinians the premises, out of which their conclusion doth unavoidably follow. For the Domini [...]ans maintain on the one Side, that God can foresee nothing but what he Decrees: The Iesuits on the other Side, that he doth not Decree all things: And from hence the Socinians conclude (as it is obvious for them to doe) that he doth not foresee all things. Lastly, I might adjoyn this, that you agree with one consent, and settle for a rule unquestionable, that no part of Religion can be repugnant to reason, whereunto you in particular subscribe unawares in saying, From truth no man can by good consequence inferre Falshood, which is to say in effect, that Reason can never lead any man to error: And after you have done so, you proclaime to all the world (as you in this Pamphlet doe very frequently,) that if men follow their Reason and discourse, they will (if they understand themselves) be led to Socinianisme. And thus you see with what probable matter I might furnish out and justify my accusation, if I should charge you with leading men to Socinianisme! Yet [Page] I doe not conceive that I have ground enough for this odious imputation. And much lesse should you have charg'd Protestants with it, whom you confesse to abhorre and detest it: and who fight against it not with the broken reeds, and out of the paper fortresses of an imaginary Infallibility, which were only to make sport for their Adversaries; but with the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God: of which we may say most truly, what David said of Goliah's sword, offered him by Abilech, non est sicut iste, There is none comparable to it.

19 Thus Protestants in generall, I hope, are sufficiently vindicated from your calumny: I proceed now to doe the same service for the Divines of England; whom you question first in point of learning and sufficiency, and then in point of conscience and honesty, as prevaricating in the Religion which they professe, and inclining to Popery. Their Learning (you say) consists only in some superficiall talent of preaching, languages, and elocution, and not in any deep knowledge of Philosophy, especially of Metaphysicks, and much lesse of that most solid, profitable, subtile, & (O rē ridiculā Cato & jocosā!) succinct method of School-Divinity. Wherein you have discovered in your self the true Genius and spirit of detraction. For taking advantage from that wherein envy it self cannot deny but they are very eminent, and which requires great sufficiency of substantiall learning, you disparage them as insufficient in all things else. As if forsooth, because they dispute not eternally, Vtrū Chimaera bombinans in vacuo, possit comedere, secundas Intentiones? Whether a Million of Angels may not sit upon a needles point? Becuase they fill not their brains with notions that signify nothing, to the utter extermination of all reason and common sence, and spend not an Age in weaving and un-weaving subtile cobwebs, fitter to catch flyes then Souls; therefore they have no deepe knowledge in the Acroamaticall part of learning! But I have too much honour'd the poornesse of this detraction to take notice of it.

20 The other Part of your accusation strikes deeper, and is more cō siderable: And that tels us that, Protestantisme waxeth weary of it self; that the Professors of it, they especially of greatest worth, learning, and authority, love temper and moderation: and are at this time more unresolved where to fasten, then at the infancy of their Church: That their Churches begin to look with a new face: Their w [...]lls to speak a new language: Their Doctrine to be altered in many things for which their Progenitors forsook the then Visible Church of Christ: For example, the Pope not Antichrist: Prayer for the dead: Limbus Patrum: Pictures: That the Church hath Authority in determining Controversies of Faith, and to interpret Scripture; about Freewill, Predestination, Vniversall grace: That all our works are not sinnes: Merit of good works: Inherent Iustice: Faith alone doth not justify: Charity to be preferr'd before knowledge: Traditions: Commandements possible to be kept: That their thirty nine Articles are patient, nay ambitious of some sence wherein they may seem Catholique: That to alleage the necessity of wife and children in these dayes is but a weak plea for a married minister to compasse a Benefice: That Calvinisme is at length accounted Heresy, and little lesse then treason: That men in talk and writing [Page] use willingly the once fearfull names of Priests and Altars: That they are now put in mind that for exposition of Scripture they are by Canon bound to follow the Fathers: which if they doe with syncerity, it is easy to tell what doome will passe against Protestants; seeing by the confession of Protestants, the Fathers are on the Papists side, which the Answerer to some so clearly demonstrated, that they remain'd convinc'd: In fine, as the Samaritans saw in the Disciples countenances that they meant to goe to Hierusalem, so you pretend it is even legible in the fore-heads of these men, that they are even going, nay making hast to Rome. Which scurrilous libell void of all truth, discretion and honesty, what effect it may have wrought, what credit it may have gain'd with credulous Papists, (who dream what they desire, and believe their own dreams,) or with ill-affected, jealous, and weak Protestants, I can not tell: But one thing I dare boldly say, that you your selfe did never believe it.

21 For did you indeed conceive, or had any probable hope, that such men as you describe, men of worth of learning and authority too, were friends and favourers of your Religion, & inclinable to your Party, can any man imagine that you would proclaim it, and bid the world take heed of them? Sic notus Vlysses? Doe we know the lesuites no better then so? What are they turned prevaricators against their own Faction? Are they likely men to betray and expose their own Agents and instruments, and to awaken the eyes of jealousy, and to raise the clamor of the people against them? Certainly your Zeal to the Sea of Rome, testified by your fourth Vow of speciall obedience to the Pope, proper to your Order, and your cunning carriage of all affairs for the greater advantage and advancement of that Sea, are clear demonstrations that if you had thought thus, you would never have said so. The truth is, they that run to extreams in opposition against you, they that pull downe your infallibility and set up their own, they that declaim against your tyranny, and exercise it themselves over otheres, are the Adversaries that give you greatest advantage, and such as you love to deale with: whereas upon men of temper & moderatiō, such as will oppose nothing because you maintain it, but will draw as neere to you, that they may draw you to them, as the truth will suffer them: such as require of Christians to believe only in Christ, and will damne no man nor Doctrine without expresse and certaine warrant from gods word: upon such as these you know not how to fasten; but if you chance to have conference with any such, (which yet as much as possibly you can you avoid and decline,) you are very speedily put to silence, and see the indefensible weaknesse of your cause laid open to all men. And this I verily believe, is the true reason that you thus rave and rage against them, as foreseeing your time of prevailing, or even of subsisting, would be short, if other Adversaries gave you no more advantage then they doe.

22 In which perswasion also I am much confirmed by consideration of the sillynesse and poornesse of those suggestions, and partly of the apparent vanity and falshood of them, which you offer in justification of this wicked calumny. For what if out of devotion towards [Page] God; out of a desire that he should be worshipped as in Spirit and truth in the first place, so also in the beauty of holinesse? what if out of feare that too much simplicity and nakednesse in the publique Service of God may beget in the ordinary sort of men a dull and stupid irreverence, and out of hope that the outward state and glory of it, being well dispos'd and wisely moderated, may ingender, quicken, increase and nourish the inward reverence respect and devotion which is due unto Gods Soveraign Majesty and power? what if out of a perswasion and desire that Papists may be wonne over to us the sooner, by the removing of this scandall out of their way; and out of an holy jealousy, that the weaker sort of Protestants might be the easier seduced to them by the magnificence and pomp of their Church-service in case it were not removed? I say, what if out of these considerations, the Governors of our Church, more of late then formerly, have set themselves to adorn and beautifie the places where Gods honour dwells, and to make them as heavenly as they can with earthly ornaments? Is this a signe that they are warping towards Popery? Is this Devotion in the Church of England an argument that shee is coming over to the Church of Rome? Sir Edwin Sands, I presume every man will grant, had no inclination that way; yet he forty years since highly commended this part of devotion in Papists, and makes no scruple of proposing it to the imitation of Protestants: Litle thinking that they who would follow his counsell, and endeavour to take away this disparagement of Protestants, and this glorying of Papists, should have been censur'd for it as making way and inclining to Popery. His words to this purpose are excellent words, and because they shew plainly, that what is now practis'd was approv'd by Zealous Protestants so long agoe,Survey of Religion. Init. I will here set them down.

23 This one thing I cannot but highly commend in that sort and Order: They spare nothing which either cost can perform in enriching, or skill in adorning the Temple of God, or to set out his Service with the greatest pompe and magnificence that can be devised. And although, for the most part, much basenesse and childishnesse is predominant in the Masters and contrivers of their Ceremonies, yet this outward state and glory being well disposed, doth ingender, quicken, increase, and nourish the inward reverence, respect and devotion, which is due unto Soveraign Majesty and Power. And although I am not ignorant that many men well reputed have embraced the thrifty opinion of that Disciple who thought all to be wasted that was bestowed upon Christ in that sort, and that it were much better bestowed upon him on the poor, (yet with an eye perhaps that themselves would be his quarter Almoners,) notwithstanding I must confesse, it will never sink into my heart, that in proportion of reason, the allowance for furnishing out of the service of God should be measured by the scant and strict rule of meere necessity, (a proportion so low that nature to other most bountifull in matter of necessity, hath not fayled no not the most ignoble creatures of the world,) and that for our selves no measure of heaping but the most we can get, no rule of expence but to the utmost pompe we list: Or that God himself had so inrich'd the lower parts of the world [Page] with such wonderfull varieties of beauty and glory, that they might serve only to the pampering of mortall man in his pride; and that in the Service of the high creator Lord and giver (the outward glory of whose higher pallace may appear by the very lamps that we see so farre of burning gloriously in it) only the simpler, baser, cheaper, lesse noble, lesse beautifull, lesse glorious things should be imployed. Especially seeing as in Princes courts, so in the service of God also, this outward state and glory, being well dispos'd, doth (as I have said) ingender, quicken, increase and nourish the inward reverence, respect and devotion, which is due to so Soveraign majesty and power. Which those whom the use there of cannot perswade unto, would easily by the want of it be brought to confesse; for which cause I crave leave to be excused by them herein, if in Zeal to the common Lord of all, I choose rather to commend the vertue of an enemy 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 [Page] 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 heere [...]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 [Page]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 [Page] 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 la [...]t part of my Accusation was, that I answer ou [...] 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 Religiō, 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, [Page] 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, and for disturbing the Churches peace and dividing Vnity for such matters, is in a high degree presumptuous and Schismaticall.

35 Grant this sixtly, and it will follow unavoidably that Protestants cannot possibly be Heretiques, seeing they believe all things evidently contain'd in Scripture, which are suppos'd to be all that is necessary to be believed: and so your Sixt Chapter is cleerly confuted.

36 Grant this lastly, and it will be undoubtedly consequent, in contradiction of your seaventh Chapter, that no man can shew more charity to himself then by continuing a Protestant, seeing Protestants are suppos' to believe, and therefore may accordingly practise, at least by their Religion are not hindred from practising and performing all things necessary to Salvation.

37 So that the position of this one Principle, is the direct overthrow of your whole Book, and therefore I needed not, nor indeed have I made use of any other. Now this principle, which is not only the corner stone or chief Pillar, but even the base, and adequate foundation of my Answer; and which while it stands firme and unmoveable, cannot but bee the supporter of my Book and the certain ruine of yours, is [Page] so farre from being, according to your pretence, detested by all Protestants, that all Protestants whatsoever, as you may see in their Harmony of confessions, unanimously professe and maintain it. And you your selfe, C. 6. § 30. plainly confesse as much, in saying, The whole Edifice of the faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles: These particular Books are Canonicall Scripture: And the sense and meaning of them is plain and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation.

38 And thus your venome against me is in a manner spent, saving only that there remain two litle impertinencies, whereby you would disable me from being a fit advocate for the cause of Protestants. The first, because I refuse to subscribe the Artic. of the Ch. of England: The second because I have set down in writing motives which sometime induc'd mee to forsake Protestantisme, and hitherto have not answered them.

39 By the former of which objections it should seeme, that either you conceive the 39 Articles the common Doctrine of all Protestants; and if they be, why have you so often upbraided them with their many and great differences? Or else that it is the peculiar defence of the Church of England, and not the common cause of all Protestants, which is here undertaken by me: which are certainly very grosse mistakes. And yet why hee who makes scruple of subscribing the truth of one or two Propositions may not yet bee fit enough to maintain that those who doe subscribe them are in a saveable condition, I doe not understand. Now though I hold not the Doctrine of all Protestants absoluetly true, (which with reason cannot bee requir'd of mee while they hold contradictions,) yet I hold it free from all impiety, and from all error destructive of Salvation, or in it self damnable: And this I think in reason may sufficiently qualifie me, for a maintainer of this assertion, that Protestancie destroies not Salvation. For the Church of England, I am perswaded that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodoxe, that whosoever believes it and lives according to it, undoubtedly he shall be saved; and that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the Communion of it. This in my opinion is all intended by Subscription, and thus much if you conceive mee not ready to subscribe, your Charity I assure you is much mistaken.

40 Your other objection against me is yet more impertinent and frivolous then the former: Vnlesse perhaps it be a just exception against a Physitian, that himself was sometimes in, and recover'd himself from that disease which he undertakes to cure; or against a guide in a way, that at first before hee had experience himself mistook it, and after, wards, found his error and amended it. That noble writer Michael de Montai'gne, was surely of a farre different mind; for hee will hardly allow any Physitian competent, but only for such diseases as himself had pass'd through: And a farre greater then Montai'gne, even he that said, Tu conversus confirma fratres, gives us sufficiently to understand that they which have themselves beene in such a state as to need conversion, are not thereby made incapable of, but rather engag'd [Page] and oblig'd unto, and qualified for this charitable function.

41 Neither am I guilty of that strange and preposterous zeale (as you esteeme it) which you impute to me; for having been so long carelesse in removing this scandall against Protestants, and answering my own Motives, and yet now shewing such fervor in writing against others. For neither are they other Motives, but the very same for the most part with those which abused me, against which this Book which I now publish, is in a manner wholly imployed: And besides, though you Iesuits take upon you to have such large and universall intelligence of all state affaires and matters of importance, yet I hope such a contemptible matter, as an answer of mine to a litle peece of paper, may very probably have been written and escaped your observation. The truth is, I made an answer to them three yeares since and better, which perhaps might have been published, but for two reasons: one because the Motives were never publique, untill you made them so; the other, because I was loath to proclaime to all the world so much weaknesse as I shewed, in suffering my selfe to be abus'd by such silly Sophismes; All which proceed upon mistakes and false suppositions, which unadvisedly I took for granted; as when I have set down the Motives in order by subsequent Answers to them I shall quickly demonstrate, and so make an end. The Motives then were these.

1 Because perpetuall visible profession, which could never be wanting to the Religion of Christ, nor any part of it, is apparently wanting to Protestant Religion, so farre as concernes the points in contestation.

2 Because Luther and his followers, separating from the Church of Rome, separated also from all Churches, pure or impure, true or false then being in the world; upon which ground I conclude, that either Gods promises did faile of performance, if there were then no Church in the world, which held all things necessary, and nothing repugnant to Salvation; or else that Luther and his Sectaries, separating from all Churches then in the world, and so from the true, if there were any true, were damnable Schismaticks.

3 Because, if any credit may be given to as creditable records, as any are extant, the Doctrine of Catholicks hath been frequently confirmed; and the opposite doctrine of Protestants, confounded with supernaturall and divine Miracles.

4 Because many points of Protestant doctrine, are the damned opinions of Hereticks, condemned by the Primitive Church.

5 Because the Prophecies of the old Testament, touching the conversion of Kings and Nations to the true Religion of Christ, have been accomplished in and by the Catholicke Roman Religion, and the Professors of it; and not by Protestant Religion, and the Professors of it.

6 Because the doctrine of the Church of Rome is conformable, and the doctrine of Protestants contrary, to the doctrine of the Fathers of the Primitive Church, even by the confession of Protestants themselves; I meane, those fathers, who lived within the compasse of the first 600. years; to whom Protestants themselves doe very frequently, and very confidently appeale.

[Page] 7 Because the first pretended Reformers had neither extraordinary Commission from God, nor ordinary Mission from the Church, to preach Protestant Doctrine.

8 Because Luther, to preach against the Masse (which containes the most materiall points now in controversy) was perswaded by reasons suggested to him by the Divell himselfe, disputing with him. So himselfe professeth in his Book de Missa Privata. That all men might take heed of following him, who professeth himselfe to follow the Divell.

9 Because the Protestant cause is now, and hath been from the begining, maintained with grosse falsifications, and Calumnies; whereof their prime Controversy writers, are notoriously, and in high degree guilty.

10 Because by denying all humane authority, either of Pope, or Councells, or Church, to determine Controversies of Faith, they have abolished all possible meanes of suppressing Heresy, or restoring unity to the Church.

These are the Motives; now my Answers to them follow brie [...]ly and in order.

43 To the first: God hath neither decreed nor foretold, that his true Doctrine should de facto be alwaies visibly prfessed, without any mixture of falshood.

To the second: God hath neither decreed nor foretold, that there shall be alwaies a visible company of men free from all error in it selfe damnable. Neither is it alwaies of necessity Schismaticall to separate from the externall communion of a Church, though wanting nothing necessary: For if this Church suppos'd to want nothing necessary, require me to professe against my conscience, that I believe some error▪ though never so small and innocent, which I doe not believe, and will not allow me her communion but upon this condition, In this case, the Church for requiring this condition is Schismaticall, and not I for separating from the Church.

To the third: If any credit may be given to Records farre more creditable then these, the Doctrine of Protestants, that is the Bible hath been confirm'd, and the Doctrine of Papists, which is in many points plainly opposite to it, confounded with supernaturall and divine Miracles, which for number and glory outshine Popish pretended Miracles, as much as the Sunne doth an Ignis fatuus, those I mean which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, Now this book, by the confession of all sides confirm'd by innumerous Miracles, foretels me plainly, that in after ages great signes and wonders shall be wrought in confirmation of false doctrine, and that I am not to believe any doctrine which seemes to my understanding repugnant to the first, though an Angell from Heaven should teach it; which were certainly as great a Miracle as any that was ever wrought in attestation of any part of the doctrine of the Church of Rome: But that true doctrine should in all ages have the testimony of Miracles, that I am no where taught; So that I have more reason to suspect and be afraid of pretended Miracles, as signes of false doctrine, then much to regard them as certain arguments of the truth. Besides, setting aside the Bible, [Page] & the Tradition of it, there is as good story for Miracles wrought by those who lived and died in opposition to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, (as by S. Cyprian, Colmannus, Columbanus, Aidanus and others,) as there is for those that are pretended to be wrought by the members of that Church. Lastly, it seemes to me no strange thing that God in his Iustice should permit some true Miracles to be wrought to delude them, who have forged so many as apparently the professors of the Roman Doctrine have to abuse the World.

To the fourth: All those were notSee this acknowledg'd by Bellar: de Script: Eccles [...]in Philastri [...]: by Petavius Animad in Epiph. de inscrip. operis▪ By S. Austin▪ Lib. de Haeres. Haer. 80▪ Heretiques which by Philastrius, Epiphanius, or S. Austine were put in the Catalogue of Heretiques.

To the fift: Kings and Nations have been and may be converted by men of contrary Religions.

To the sixt: The Doctrine of Papists, is confess'd by Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points.

To the seaventh: The Pastors of a Church cannot but have authority from it, to preach against the abuses of it whether in Doctrine or practice, if there be any in it: Neither can any Christian want an ordinary commission from God to doe a necessary work of Charity after a peaceable manner, when there is no body else that can or will doe it. In extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed. If some Christian Lay-man should come into a country of Infidels, & had ability to perswade them to Christianity, who would say he might not use it for want of Commission!

To the eighth: Luthers conference with the Divell might be, for ought I know, nothing but a melancholy dreame: If it were reall, the Divell might perswade Luther from the Masse, hoping by doing so to keep him constant to it: Or that others would make his diswasion from it an Argument for it, (as we see Papists doe) and be afraid of following Luther, as confessing himselfe to have been perswaded by the Divell.

To the ninth: Illiacos intra muros peccatur & extra. Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestants. Even this very author in this very Pamphlet hath not so many leaves as falsifications and calumnies.

To the tenth: Let all men believe the Scripture and that only, and endeavour to believe it in the true sense, and require no more of others, and they shall finde this not only a better, but the only meanes to suppresse Heresy, and restore Unity. For he that believes the Scripture sincerely, and endeavours to believe it in the true sense, cannot possibly be an Heretique: And if no more then this were requir'd of any man, to make him capable of the Churches Communion, then all men so qualified, though they were different in opinion, yet notwithstanding any such difference, must be of necessity one in Communion.

The Preface to the READER.

[Page]

[Page]

GIVE me leave (good Reader) to informe thee by way of Preface, of three points. The first concernes D. Potters Answere to Charity Mistaken. The second relates to this Reply of mine. And the third containes some Premonitions, or Prescriptions, in case D. Potter, or any in his behalfe thinke fit to rejoyne.

2. For the first point concerning D. Potters Answere, A generall consideration of D. Potters Answere. I say in generall, reserving particulars to their proper places, that in his whole Booke he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question, which was, Whether both Catholiques and Protestants can be saved in their severall professions. And therefore Charity Mistaken judiciously pressing those particulars, wherein the difficulty doth precisely consist, proves in generall, that there is but one true Church; that all Christians are obliged to harken to her; that shee must be ever visible, and infallible; that to separate ones selfe from her communion is Schisme; and to dissent from her doctrine is Heresie, though it be in points never so few, or never so small in their own nature; and therefore that the distinction of points fundamentall, and not fundamentall, is wholy vaine, as it is applied by Protestants. These (I say) and some other generall grounds Charity Mistaken handles, and out of them doth cleerely evince, that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation on both sides: and therefore since it is apparent, that Catholiques and Protestants disagree in very many points of faith, they both cannot hope to be saved without repentance: and consequently, as we hold, that Protestancy unrepented destroies Salvation; so must they also believe that we cannot be saved, if they judge their own Religion to be true, and ours to be false. And whosoever disguizeth this truth, is an enemy to soules, which he deceives with ungrounded false hopes of salvation, indifferent Faiths, and Religions. And this, Charity Mistaken performed exactly, according to that which appeares to have been his designe, which was not to descend to particular disputes, as D. Potter affectedly does, namely, Whether or no the Roman Church be the only true Church of Christ; and much lesse whether Generall Councells be infallible; whether the Pope may erre in his Decrees common to the whole Church; whether he be above a Generall Councell; whether all points of faith be contained in Scripture; whether Faith be resolved into the authority of the Church, as into his last formall Object, and Motive; and least of all did he discourse of Images, Communion under both kinds, publique service in an unknown Tongue, Seven Sacraments, Sacrifice of the Masse, Indulgences, and Index Expurgatorius: all which and divers other articles D. Potter (as I said) drawes by violence into his Book: and he might as well have brought in Pope Ioan, or Antichrist, or the Iewes who are permitted to live in Rome, which are common Themes for men that want better matter, as D. Potter was forced to fetch in the aforesaid Controversies, that so he might dazle the eyes, and distract the mind of the Reader, and hinder him from perceiving that in his whole Answere he uttered nothing to the purpose, and point in question: which if he had followed closely, I dare well say, he might have dispatched his whole Book in two or three sheets of paper. But the truth is, he was loath to affirme plainely, that generally both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved: and yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to have any true Church before Luther, except the Roman, and such as agreed with her, and consequently that they cannot hope for Salvation▪ if they deny it to us; he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of language, and to fill up his Book with points which make nothing to the purpose. Wherein he is lesse excusable, because [Page] he must graunt, that those very particulars to which he digresseth, are not fundamentall errors, though it should be granted that they be errors, which indeed are Catholique verities. For since they be not fundamentall, not destructive of salvation, what imports it whether we hold them or no, for as much as concernes our possibility to be saved?

3 In one thing only he will perhaps seeme to have touched the point in question, to wit, in his distinction of points fundamentall, and not fundamentall: because some may thinke, that a difference in points which are not fundamentall breakes not the Vnity of Faith, and hinders not the hope of salvation in persons so disagreeing. And yet in this very distinction, he never speaks to the purpose indeed, but only saies, that there are some points so fundamentall, as that all are obliged to know and believe them explicitely, but never tells us, whether there be any other points of faith, which a man may deny or disbelieve, though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding, as truths revealed, or testified by almighty God; which was the only thing in question. For if it be damnable, as certainly it is, to deny, or disbelieve any one truth witnessed by almighty God, though the thing be not in it self of any great consequence, or moment; and since of two disagreeing in matters of faith, one must necessarily deny some such truth; it clearly followes that amongst men of different Faiths, or Religions, one only can be saved, though their difference consist of divers, or but even one point, which is not in his own nature fundamentall, as I declare at large in divers places of my first part. So that it is cleere, D. Potter even in this his last refuge and distinction, never comes to the point in question, to say nothing that he himselfe doth quite overthrow it, and plainly contradict his whole designe, as I shew in the third Chapter of my first Part.

4 And as for D. Potters manner of handling those very points, which are utterly beside the purpose, it consists only in bringing vulgar mean objections, which have been answered a thousand times, yea, and some of them are cleerely answered even in Charity Mistaken; but he takes no knowledge at all af any such answeres, and much lesse doth he apply himselfe to confute them. He alleadgeth also Authors with so great corruption and fraud, as I would not have believed, if I had not found it by cleere, and frequent experience. In his second Edition, he hath indeed left out one or two grosse corruptions, amongst many others no lesse notorious, having as it seemes been warned by some friends, that they could not stand with his credit: but even in this his second Edition he retracts them not at all, nor declares that he was mistaken in the First, and so his reader of the first Edition shall ever be deceived by him, though withall he read the Second. For preventing of which inconvenience, I have thought it necessary to take notice of them, and to discover them in my Reply.

5. And for conclusion of this point I will only say, that D. Potter might well have spared his paines if he had ingeniously acknowledged, where the whole substance, yea and sometime the very words and phrases of his book may be found in farre briefer manner, namely, in a Sermon of D. Vshers preached before our late soveraigne Lord King Iames the 20. of Iune 1624. at Wansted, containing A Declaration of the Vniversality of the Church of Christ, and the Vnity of Faith, professed therein, which Sermon having been roundly and wittily confuted by a Catholike Divine, under the name of Paulus Veridicus, within the compasse of about 4. sheets of Paper, D. Potters Answere to Charity Mistaken was in effect confuted before it appeared. And this may suffice for a generall Censure of his Answere to Charity Mistaken.

6 For the second, touching my Reply: if you wonder at the Bulke thereof, compared either with Charity Mistaken, Concerning my Reply. or D Potters Answere, I desire you to consider well of what now I am about to say, and then I hope you will see, that I was cast upon a meere necessity of not being so short, as otherwise might peradventure be desired. Charity Mistaken is short I grant, and yet very [...]ull, and large, for as much as concerned his designe, which you see was not to treat of particular Controversies in Religion, no not so much as to debate, whether or no the Roman Church be the only true Church of Christ, which indeed would have required a larger Volume, as I have understood there was one then comming forth, if it had not bee prevented by the Treatise of Charity Mistaken, which seemed to make the other intended worke a little lesse seasonable at that time. But Charity Mistaken proves only in Generall out of some Vniversall Principles, well backed and made good by choice & solid authorities, that of two disagreeing in points of Faith, one only without repentance can be saved; which ayme exacted no great bulk. And as for D. Potters Answere, even that also is not so short as it may seem. For if his marginall notes printed in a small letter were transferred into the Text, the Book would appear to be of some bulk: though indeed it might have been very short, if he had kept himselfe to the point treated by Charity Mistaken, as shall be declared anon. But contrarily, because the question debated betwixt Charity Mistaken and D. Potter, is a point of the highest consequence that can be imagined, and in regard that there is not a more pernitious Heresy, or rather indeed ground of Atheisme, then a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved, if otherwise forsooth they lead a kind of civill and morall life: I conceaved, that my chief endeavour was not to be employed in answering D Potter, but that it was necessary to handle the Question it selfe somewhat at large, and not only to prove in generall, that both Protestants and Catholikes cannot be saved; but to shew also, that Salvation cannot be hoped for out of the Catholique Roman Church; and yet withall, not to omit to answere all the particulars of D. Potters Book which may any way import [Page] To this end I thought it fit, to divide my Reply into two Parts; in the formet whereof, the main question is handled by a continued discourse without stepping aside to confute the particulars of D. Potters Answere, though yet so, as that even in this first Part, I omit not to answere such passages of his, as I find directly in my way, and naturally belong to the points whereof I treat: and in the second Part I answere D. Potters Treanse, Section by Section, as they lye in order. I heer therefore intreat the Reader, that if heartily he desire satisfaction in this so important question, he doe not content himselfe with that which I say to Doctor Potter in my second Part, but that he take the First before him, eyther all, or at least so much as may serve most to his purpose of being satisfied in those doubts which presse him most. For which purpose I have caused a Table of the Chapters of the first Part, together with their Titles and Arguments, to be prefixed before my Reply.

7. This was then a chiefe reason why I could not be very short. But yet there wanted not also divers other causes of the same effect. For there are so severall kinds of Protestants through the difference of Tenets which they hold, as that if a man convince but one kind of them, the rest will conceive themselves to be as truly unsatisfied, and even unspoken to, as if nothing had been said therein at all. As for example, some hold a necessity of a perpetuall visible Church, and some hold no such necessity. Some of them hold it necessary to be able to prove it distinct from ours; and others, that their businesse is dispatched when they have proved ours to have been alwaies visible: for then they will conceive that theirs hath been so: & the like may be truly said of very many other particulars. Besides it is D. Potters fashion, (wherein as he is very far from being the first, so I pray God he prove the last of that humour) to touch in a word many triviall old objections, which if they be not all answered, it will, and must serve the turne, to make the more ignorant sort of men believe, and brag, as if some maine unanswerable matter had been subtily and purposely omitted; and every body knowes that some objection may be very plausibly made in few words, the cleere and solid answere whereof will require more leaves of paper the [...] one. And in particular D. Potter doth couch his corruption of Authors within the compasse of so few lines, and with so great confusednesse and fraud, that it requires much time, paines, and paper to open them so distinctly, as that they may appear to every mans eye. It was also necessary to shew, what D. Potter omits in Charity Mistaken, and the importance of what is omitted, and sometimes to set down the very words themselves that are omitted, all which could not but adde to the quantity of my Reply. And as for the quality thereof, I desire thee (good Reader) to believe, that whereas nothing is more necessary then books for answering of books: yet I was so ill furnished in this kind, that I was forced to omit the examination of divers Authors cited by D. Potter, meerely upon necessity; though I did very well perceive by most apparant circumstances, that I must probably have been sure inough to find them plainly misalleadged, and much wronged: and for the few which are examined, there hath not wanted some difficulties to doe it. For the times are not for all men alike; and D. Potter hath much advantage therein. But truth is truth, and will ever be able to justify it self in the midst of all difficulties which may occurre. As for me, when I alledge Protestant Writers as well domesticall as forraine, I willingly and thankfully acknowledge my selfe obliged for divers of them to the author of the Book entituled, The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church, who calls himselfe Iohn Brerely, whose care, exactnesse, and fidelity is so extraordinary great, as that he doth not only cite the Bookes, but the Editions also, with the place and time of their printing, yea and often the very page, and line where the words are to be had. And if you happen not to finde what he cites, yet suspend your judgment, till you have read the corrections placed at the end of his book; though it be also true, that after all diligence and faithfulnesse on his behalfe, it was not in his power to amend all the faults of the print: in which prints we have difficulty enough for many evident reasons, which must needs occur to any prudent man.

8. And for asmuch as concernes the manner of my Reply, I have procured to doe it without all bitternesse, or gall of invective words, both for as much as may import either Protestants in generall, or D. Potters person in particular; unles, for example, he will call it bitternesse for me to terme a grosse impertinency, a sleight, or a corruption, by those very names, without which I doe not know how to expresse the things: and yet therein I can truly affirme that I have studied how to deliver them in the most moderate way, to the end I might give as little offence as possibly I could, without betraying the Cause. And if any unfit phrase may peradventure have escaped my pen (as I hope none hath) it was beside, and against my intention, though I must needs professe, that D. Potter gives so many and so just occasions of being round with him, as that perhaps some will judge me to have been rather remisse, then moderate. But since in the very title of my Reply I professe to maintaine Charity, I conceive that the excesse will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men, if it fall to be in mildnesse, then if it had appeared in too much zeale. And if D. Potter have a mind to charge me with ignorance or any thing of that nature, I can, and will ease him of that labour, by acknowledging in my selfe as many and more personall defects, then he can heap upon me.Rules to be observed if D. Potter intend a Rejoynder. Truth only and syncerity I so much valew and professe, as that he shall never be able to prove the contrary in any one least passage or particle against me.

9. In the third and last place, I have thought fit to expresse my selfe thus. If D. Potter, or any other resolve to answere my Reply▪ I desire that he will observe some things which may tend [Page] to his owne reputation, the saving of my unnecessary paines, and especially to the greater advantage of truth. I wish then that he would be carefull to consider, wherein the point of every difficulty consists, and not impertinently to shoot at Rovers, and affectedly mistake one thing for another. As for example, to what purpose (for as much as concernes the question betweene D. Potter and Charity Mistaken) doth he so often and seriously labour to proue, that faith is not resolved into the authority of the Church, as into the formall Obiect and Motive thereof? Or that all points of Faith are contained in Scripture? Or that the Church cannot make new Articles of Faith? Or that the Church of Rome, as it signifies that particular Church or Diocesse, is not all one with the universall Church? Or that the Pope as a private Doctor may erre? With many other such points as will easily appeare in their proper places. It will also be necessary for him not to put certaine Doctrines upon us, from which he knowes we disclaime as much as himselfe.

10 I must in like manner intreat him not to recite my reasons and discourses by halfes, but to set them down faithfully and entirely, for as much as in very deed concernes the whole substance of the thing in question; because the want sometime of one word, may chance to make void, or lessen the force of the whole argument. And I am the more solicitous about giving this particular caveat, because I finde how ill he hath complied with the promise which he made in his Preface to the Reader, not to omit without answere any one thing of moment in all the discourse of Charity Mistaken. Neither will this course be a cause that his Reioynder grow too large, but it will be occasion of brevity to him, and free me also from the paines of setting downe all the words which he omits, and himselfe of demonstrating that what he omitted was not materiall. Nay I will assure him, that if he keep himselfe to the point of every difficulty, and not weary the Reader, and overcharge his margent, with unnecessary quotations of Authors in Greek and Latin, and sometime also in Italian and French, together with proverbs, sentences of Poets, and such grammaticall stuffe, nor affect to cite a multitude of our Catholique Schoole divines to no purpose at all; his Book will not exceed a competent size, nor will any man in reason be offended with that length which is regulated by necessity. Againe before he come to set downe his answere, or propose his Arguments, let him consider very well what may be replied, and whether his own objections may not be retorted against himselfe, as the Reader will perceiue to haue hapned often to his disadvantage in my Reply against him. But especially I expect, and Truth it selfe exacts at his hand, that he speak cleerly and distinctly, and not seek to walk in darknesse, so to delude and deceiue his Reader, now saying, and then denying, and alwaies speaking with such ambiguity, as that his greatest care may seeme to consist in a certaine art to find a shift, as his occasions might chance, either now, or heereafter to require, and as he might fall out to be urged by diversity of severall arguments. And to the end it may appear, that I deale plainely, as I would haue him also doe, I desire that he declare himselfe concerning these points.

11 First, whether our Saviour Christ haue not alwaies had, and be not ever to haue a visible true Church on earth: and whether the contrary doctrine be not a damnable Heresy.

12 Secondly, what visible Church there was before Luther, disagreeing from the Roman Church, and agreeing with the pretended Church of Protestants.

13 Thirdly, Since he will be forced to grant that there cā be assigned no visible true Church of Christ, distinct from the Church of Rome, and such Churches as agreed with her when Luther first appeared, whether it doe not follow that shee hath not erred fundamentally; because every such errour destroies the nature and being of the Church, and so our Saviour Christ should haue had no visible Church on earth.

14 Fourthly, if the Roman Church did not fall into any fundamentall errour, let him tell us how it can be damnable to liue in her Communion, or to maintaine errours, which are knowne and confessed, not to be fundamentall, to damnable.

15 Fiftly, if her Errours were not damnable, nor did exclude salvation, how can they be excused from Schisme, who forsooke her Communion upon pretence of errours, which were not damnable.

16 Sixtly, if D. Potter haue a minde to say, that her Errours are damnable, or fundamentall, let him doe us so much charity, as to tell us in particular what those fundamentall errours be. But he must still remember (and my selfe must be excused, for repeating it) that if he say the Roman Church erred fundamentally, he will not be able to shew, that Christ our Lord had any visible Church on earth, when Luther appeared: and let him tell us how Protestants had, or can haue any Church which was universall, and extended her selfe to all ages, if once he grant, that the Roman Church ceased to be the true Church of Christ; and consequently how they can hope for Salvation, if they deny it to us.

17 Seaventhly, whether any one Errour maintained against any one Truth, though never so small in it selfe, yet sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by almighty God, doe not destroy the Nature and Vnity of Faith, or at least is not a grievous offence excluding Salvation.

18 Eightly, if this be so, how can Lutherans, Calvinists, Zuinglions, and all the rest of disagreeing Protestants, hope for salvation, since it is manifest that some of them must needs erre against some such truth as is testified by almighty God, either fundamentall, or at least not fundamentall.

19 Ninthly, we constantly urge, and require to haue a particular Catalogue of such points as [Page] he calls fundamentall▪ A Catalogue, I say, in particular, and not only some generall definition, or description, wherein Protestants may perhaps agree, though wee see that they differ when they come to assigne what points in particular be fundamentall; and yet upon such a particular Catalogue much depends: as for example in particular, Whether or no a man doe not erre in some point fundamentall or necessary to salvation; and whether or no Lutherans, Calvinists, and the rest doe disagree in fundamentalls, which if they doe, the same Heaven cannot receiue them all.

20 Tenthly, and lastly, I desire that in answering to these points, [...]he would let us knowe distinctly, what is the doctrine of the Protestant English Church concerning them, and what he utters only as his owne private opinion.

21 These are the Questions which for the present I finde it fit and necessary for me to aske of D. Potter, or any other who will defend his cause, or impugne ours. And it will be in vaine to speake vainely, and to tell me, that a Foole may aske mere questions in an houre, then a wise man can answer in a yeare; with such idle Proverbs as that. For I aske but such questions as for which he giues occasion in his Book, and where he declares not himselfe but after so ambiguous and confused a manner, as that▪ Truth it selfe can scarce tell how to convince him so, but that with ignorant and ill-judging men he will seeme to haue somewhat left to say for himselfe, though Papists (as he calls them) and Puritans should presse him contrary waies at the same time: and these questions concerne things also of high importance, as whereupon the knowledge of Gods Church, and true Religion, and consequently Sa [...]ation of the soule depends. And now because hee shall not taxe me with being like those men in the Gospell, whom our blessed Lord and Saviour charged with laying heavy burdens upon other mens shoulders, who yet would not touch them with their finger▪ I oblige my selfe to answer upon any demand of his, both to all these Questions, if he finde that I haue not done it already, and to any other, concerning matter of faith that he shall aske. And I will tell him very plainely, what is Catholique doctrine, and what is not, that is, what is defined or what is not defined, and rests but in discussion among Divines.

22 And it will be here expected, that he performe these things, as a man who professeth learning should doe, not flying from questions which concerne things as they are considered in their owne nature, to accidentall, or rare circumstances of ignorance, incapacity, want of meanes to be instructed, erroneous conscience, and the like, which being very various and different, cannot bee well comprehended under any generall Rule. But in delivering generall doctrines we must consider things as they be ex natura rei, or per. se loquendo (as Divines speak) that is, according to their natures, if all circumstances concu [...]re proportionable thereunto. As for example some may for a time haue invincible ignorance, even of some fundamentall article of faith, through want of capacity, instruction, or the like, and so not offend either in such ignorance or errour, and yet we must absolutely say, that errour in any one fundamentall point is damnable, because so it is, if we consider things in themselues, abstracting from accidentall circumstances in particular persons: as contrarily if some man judge some act of vertue, or some indifferent action to be a sinne, in him it is a sinne indeed, by reason of his erroneous conscience; and yet we ought not to say absolutely, that vertuous, or indifferent actions are sinnes: and in all sciences we must distinguish the generall Rules from their particular Exceptions. And therefore when, for example, he answers to our demand, whether he hold that Catholiques may be saved, or whether their pretended errours be fundamentall and damnable, he is not to change the state of the question, and haue recourse to Ignorance, and the like, but to answer concerning the errours being considered what they are apt to be in themselues, and as they are neither increased nor diminished, by accidental circumstances.

23 And the like I say of all the other points, to which I once againe desire an answere without any of these, or the like ambiguous termes, in some sort, in some sense, in some degree, which may be explicated afterward as strictly or largely as may best serue his turne; but let him tell vs roundly and particularly, in what sort, in what sense, in what degree he understands those, & the like obscure mincing phrases. If he proceed solidly after this manner, and not by way of meere words, more like a Preacher to a vulgar Auditor, then like a learned man with a pen in his hand, thy patience shall be the lesse abused, and truth will also receiue more right. And since we haue already laid the grounds of the question, much may be said hereafter in few, words, if (as I said) he keep close to the reall point of every difficulty without wandring into impertinent disputes, multiplying vulgar and threed-bare objections and arguments, or labouring to prove what no man denies, or making a vaine oftentation by citing a number of Schoolemen, which every [...]uny brought up in Schooles is able to doe; and if he cite his Authors with such sincerity, as no time need be spent in opening his corruptions, and finally if he set himselfe a worke with this consideration, that we are to giue a most strict accompt to a most just, and unpartiall Iudge, of every period, line, and word that passeth under our pen. For if at the latter day we shall be arraigned for every idle word which is spoken, so much more will that be done for every idle word which is written, as the deliberation wherewith it passeth makes a man guilty of more malice, and as the importance of the matter which is treated of in bookes concerning true faith and religion, without which no Soule can be saved, makes a mans Errours more materiall, then they would be, if question were but of toyes.

The Answere to the PREFACE.

[Page]

TO the First, and Second. If beginings be ominous (as they say they are,) D. Potter hath cause to look for great store of uningenuous dealing from you; the very first words you speak of him vz. That he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question, being a most unjust and immodest imputation.

2 For first, the point in question, was not, that which you pretend, Whether both Papists and Protestants can be saved in their severall Professions? But, Whether you may without uncharitablenesse affirme that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation? And that this is the very question is most apparent and unquestionable, both from the title of Charity Mistaken, and from the Arguments of the three first Chapters of it, and from the title of your own Reply. And therefore if D. Potter had joyned issue with his Adversary only thus farre, and not medling at all with Papists, but leaving them to stand or fall to their own master, had prou'd Protestants living and dying so capable of Salvation, I cannot see how it could justly be charged upon him, that he had not once truly and really fallen upon the point in Question. Neither may it be said that your Question here and mine, are in effect the same, seeing it is very possible that the true Answere to the one might have been Affirmative, and to the other Negative. For there is no incongruity but it may be true That You and We cannot both be saved: And yet as true, That without uncharitablenesse you cannot pronounce us damned. For all ungrounded and unwarrantable sentencing mento damnation, is either in a propriety of speech uncharitable, or else (which for my purpose is all one,) it is that which Protestants mean, when they say, Papists for damning them are uncharitable. And therefore though the Author of C. M. had prov'd as strongly as he hath done weakly, that one Heaven could not receive Protestants and Papists both, yet certainly, it was very hastily and unwarrantably, & therefore uncharitably concluded, that Protestants were the part that was to be excluded. As, though Iewes and Christians cannot both be saved, yet a Iew cannot justly, and therefore not charitably pronounce a Christian damned.

[Page] 3 But then secondly, to shew your dealing with him very injurious; I say he doth speak to this very Question very largely, and very effectually; as by confronting his worke and Charity Mist. together, will presently appear. Charity M. proves you say in generall, That there is but one Church. D. Potter tels him, His labour is lost in proving the unity of the Catholique Church, whereof there is no doubt or controversy: & herein I hope you will grant he answeres right & to the purpose. C. M. proves (you say) secondly, That all Christians are obliged to harken to the Church. D. Potter answeres, It is true: yet not absolutely in all things, but only when she commands those things which God doth not countermand. And this also I hope is to his purpose, though not to yours. C. M. proves, you say thirdly, That the Church must be ever visible and infallible. For her Visibility, D. Potter denyes it not; and as for her Infallibility, he grants it in Fundamentalls but not in Superstructures. C. M. proves you say fourthly, That to separate ones selfe from the Churches Communion, is schisme. D. Potter grants it, with this exception, unlesse there be necessary cause to doe so; unlesse the conditions of her Communion be apparently unlawfull. C. M. proves, you say lastly, That to dissent from her doctrine is heresy, though it be in points never so few, and never so small, and therefore that the distinction of points fundamentall and unfundamentall, as it is applyed by Protestants is wholy vaine. This D. Potter denyes, shewes the Reasons, brought for it, weak and unconcluding; proves the contrary by reasons unanswerable: and therefore that The distinction of points into fundamentall and not fundamentall, as it is applied by Protestants, is very good. Vpon these grounds you say, C. M. cleerely evinces That any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation, and therefore seeing Catholiques and Protestants disagree in very many points of faith, they both cannot hope to be saved without Repentance, you must mean, without an explicit and particular repentance, and dereliction of their errors; for so C. M. hath declared himselfe p. 14. where he hath these words, We may safely say that a man who lives in Protestancy, and who is so farre from Repenting it, as that he will not so much as acknowledge it to be a sinne, though he be sufficiently enform'd thereof, &c. From whence it is evident, that in his judgement there can be no repentance of an errour, without acknowledging it to be a sinne: And to this D. Potter justly opposes: That both sides, by the confession of both sides, agree in more points then are simply and indispensably necessary to Salvation, and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary: That it is very possible, a man may dye in errour, and yet dye with Repentance, as for all his sinnes of ignorance▪ so in that number, for the errours in which he dies: with a repentance though not explicite and particular which is not simply required, yet implicite and generall which is sufficient: so that he cannot but hope considering the goodnesse of God, that the truth's retained on both sides, especially those of the necessity of repentance from dead workes and faith in Iesus Christ, if they be put in practise, may be an antidote against the errors held on either side; to such he meanes, & saies, as being diligent in seeking truth, and desirous to find it, yet misse of it through humane[Page]frailty and dye in errour. If you will but attentively consider & compare the undertaking of C. M. and D. Potters performance in all these points, I hope you will be so ingenuous as to acknowledge, that you have injurd him much in imputing tergiversation to him, and pretending that through his whole book he hath not once truly and really fallen upon the point in Question. Neither may you or C. M. conclude him from hence (as covertly you doe,) An enemy to soules by deceiving them with ungrounded false hopes of Salvation; seeing the hope of salvation cannot be ungrounded, which requires and supposes beliefe and practise of all things absolutely necessary unto salvation, and repentance of those sinnes and errours which we fall into by humane frailty: Nor a friend to indifferency in Religions, seeing he gives them only hope of pardon of Errors who are desirous, and according to the proportion of their opportunities and abilities industrious to find the truth, or at least truly repentant, that they have not been so. Which doctrine is very fit to excite men to a constant and impartiall search of truth, and very farre from teaching them that it is indifferent what Religion they are of, and without all controversy very honourable to the goodnesse of God, with which how it can consist, not to be satisfied with his servants true endeavours to know his will and doe it, without full and exact performance, I leave it to you and all good men to judge.

4 As little Iustice me thinkes you shew, in quarrelling with him for descending to the particular disputes here mentioned by you. For to say nothing that many of these Questions are immediatly and directly pertinent to the businesse in hand, as the 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. and all of them fall in of themselves into the stream of his discourse, and are not drawn in by him, and besides are touched for the most part, rather then handled; to say nothing of all this, you know right well, if he conclude you erroneous in any one of all these, be it but in the Communion in one kind, or the Language of your service; the infallibility of your Church is evidently overthrown: And this being done, I hope there will be no such necessity of hearkning to her in all things: It will be very possible to seperate from her communion in some things, without schisme, and from her doctrine so farre as it is erroneous without heresy: Then all that she proposes will not be, eo ipso, fundamentall, because shee proposes it: and so presently all Charity Mistaken will vanish into smoak, and clouds and nothing.

5 You say he was loath to affirme plainly, that generally both Catholiques & Protestants may be saved: which yet is manifest he doth affirme plainly, of Protestants throughout his book; & of erring Papists that have syncerely sought the Truth and failed of it, and dye with a generall repentance: p. 77. 78. And yet you deceive your selfe if you conceive he had any other necessity to doe so, but only that he thought it true. For we may and doe pretend that before Luther there were many true Churches, besides the Roman, which agreed not with her: in particular, The greek Church. So that what you say is evidently true, is indeed evidently false. Besides if he had had any necessity to make use of you in this matter, he needed not for this end to say that now [Page] in your Church Salvation may be had; but onely that before Luthers time it might be: Then when your meanes of knowing the Truth were not so great, and when your ignorance might be more invincible, and therefore more excusable. So that you may see if you please, it is not for ends, but for the loue of truth, that we are thus charitable to you.

6 Neither is it materiall that these particulars he speakes against, are not fundamentall errours; for though they be not destructiue of salvation, yet the convincing of them, may be, and is destructiue enough of his Adversaries assertion: and if you be the man I take you for, you will not deny they are so. For certainly no Consequence can be more palpable then this; The Church of Rome doth erre in this or that, therefore it is not infallible. And this perhaps you perceiu'd your selfe; & therefore demanded not, Since they be not fundamentall, what imports it whether we hold them or no, simply: But, for as much as concernes our possibility to be saved. As if we were not bound by the loue of God & the loue of truth to be zealous in the defence of all Truths, that are any way profitable, though not simply necessary to salvation. Or as if any good man could satisfie his conscience without being so affected and resolv'd. Our Saviour himselfe having assur'd us,Mat. 5. 19. That hee that shall breake one of his least Commandements (some whereof you pretend are concerning veniall sinnes, and consequently the keeping of them not necessary to salvation) and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdome of Heaven.

7 But then it imports very much, though not for the possibilitie that you may be saved, yet for the probabilitie that you will be so: because the holding of these errours, though it did not merit, might yet occasion damnation. As the doctrine of Indulgences may take away the feare of Purgatory, and the doctrine of Purgatorie the feare of Hell; as you well knowe it does too frequently. So that though a godly man might be saved with these errours, yet by meanes of them, many are made vicious and so damn'd. By them I say, though not for them. No godly Layman who is verily perswaded that there is neither impietie nor superstition in the use of your Latine service, shall be damn'd, I hope, for being present at it; yet the want of that devotion which the frequent hearing the Offices understood, might happily beget in them, the want of that instruction and edification which it might afford them, may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue been saved. Besides, though the matter of an Errour may bee onely something profitable, not necessary, yet the neglect of it may be a damnable sinne. As not to regard veniall sinnes is in the doctrine of your Schooles, mortall. Lastly, as veniall sinnes, you say, dispose men to mortall; so the erring from some profitable, though lesser truth, may dispose a man to errour in greater matters. As for example: The Beleife of the Popes infallibility is, I hope, not unpardonably damnable to every one that holds it; yet if it be a falsehood (as most certainely it is) it puts a man into a very congruous disposition to beleiue Antichrist, if he should chance to get into that See.

8 To the Third. In his distinctions of points fundamentall and not fundamentall,[Page]he may seeme, you say, to haue touched the point, but does not so indeed. Because though he saies there are some points so fundamentall, as that all are oblig'd to belieue them explicitely, yet he tells you not, whether a man may disbeleiue any other points of faith, which are sufficiently presented to his understanding, as Truths revealed by Almighty God. Touching which matter of Sufficient Proposall, I beseech you to come out of the Clouds, and tell us roundly and plainely, what you meane by Points of faith sufficiently propounded to a mans understanding, as Truths revealed by God. Perhaps you meane such, as the person to whom they are propos'd, understands sufficiently to be truths revealed by God. But how then can he possibly choose but belieue them? Or how is it not an apparent contradiction, that a man should disbelieue what himselfe understands to be a Truth; or any Christian what he understands or but belieues to be testified by God? Dr Potter might well thinke it superfluous to tell you This is damnable; because indeed it is impossible. And yet one may very well think, by your saying, as you doe hereafter, That the impietie of heresie consists in calling Gods truth in question, that this should be your meaning. Or doe you esteeme all those things sufficiently presented to his understanding as Divine truths, which by you, or any other man, or any company of men whatsoever, are declared to him to be so? I hope you will not say so: For this were to oblige a man to belieue all the Churches, and all the men in the world, whensoever they pretend to propose divine Revelations. D. Potter, I assure you from him, would never haue told you this neither. Or doe you meane by sufficiently propounded as Divine Truths, all that your Church propounds for such? That you may not neither; For the Question betweene us is this; Whether your Churches Proposition be a sufficient Proposition? And therefore to suppose this, is to suppose the question; which you knowe in Reasoning is alwaies a fault. Or Lastly, doe you mean (for I knowe not else what possibly you can meane,) by sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding as revealed by God; that which all things considered, is so propos'd to him, that he might and should and would belieue it to be true and revealed by God, were it not for some voluntary and avoidable fault of his owne that interposeth it selfe betweene his understanding and the truth presented to it? This is the best construction that I can make of your words; and if you speake of truths thus propos'd, and rejected, let it be as damnable, as you please, to deny or disbelieue them. But then I cannot but be amaz'd to heare you say, That D. Potter never tells you whether there be any other points of faith, besides those which we are bound to belieue explicitely, which a man may deny or disbelieue, though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding as truths revealed or testified by Almighty God; seeing the light it selfe is not more cleare then D. Potters Declaration of himselfe for the Negatiue in this Question. p. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. of his Book. Where he entreats at large of this very Argument, beginning his discourse thus. ‘It seemes fundamentall to the faith, and for the salvation of every member of the Church, that he acknowledge and belieue all such points of faith, as whereof he may be convinced [Page] that they belong to the doctrine of Iesus Christ.’

To this conviction he requires three things. ‘Cleare Revelation; Sufficient Proposition, and Capacity & understanding in the hearer. For want of cleare Revelation, he frees the Church before Christ & the Disciples of Christ from any damnable errour, though they believed not those things which he that should now deny were no Christian. To sufficient Proposition, he requires two things. 1. That the points be perspicuously laid open in themselues. 2. So forcibly, as may serue to remoue reasonable doubts to the contrary, and to satisfie a teachable minde concerning it, against the principles in which he hath been bred to the contrary. This Proposition he saies is not limited to the Pope or Church, but extended to all meanes whatsoever, by which a man may be convinced in conscience, that the matter proposed is divine Revelation; which he professes to be done sufficiently, not only when his conscience doth expresly beare witnesse to the truth; but when it would doe so, if it were not choaked, and blinded by some unruly and unmortified lust in the will. The difference being not great between him that is wilfully blind, & him that knowingly gainesaieth the Truth. The third thing he requires is Capacity and Abilitie to apprehend the Proposall, and the Reasons of it: the want whereof excuseth fooles and madmen, &c. But where there is no such impediment, and the will of God is sufficiently propounded, there (saith hee) hee that opposeth is convinced of errour; and he who is thus convinced is an Heretique: and heresie is a work of the Flesh which excludeth from salvation, (he meanes without Repentance,) And hence it followeth, that it is fundamentall to a Christians faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he belieue all revealed truths of God, whereof he may be convinced that they are from God.’ This is the Conclusion of Dr Potters discourse; many passages whereof you take notice of in your subsequent disputations, and make your advantage of them. And therefore I cannot but say againe, that it amazeth me to heare you say, that he declines this Question and never tells you whether or no there bee any other points of faith, which being sufficiently propounded as divine Revelations may be denied and disbelieved. Hee tells you plainely there are none such: and therefore you cannot say, that he tels you not whether there be any such. Againe, it is almost as strange to mee, why you should say, this was the only thing in question, Whether a man may deny or disbelieue any point of faith, sufficiently presented to his understanding as a truth revealed by God. For to say that any thing is a thing in question, me thinks at the first hearing of the words, imports, that it is by some affirm'd, and deni'd by others. Now you affirme I grant, but what Protestant ever denied, that it was a sinne to giue God the lye? Which is the first and most obvious sense of these words. Or which of them ever doubted, that to disbelieue is then a fault, when the matter is so proposed to a man, that he might and should, and were it not for his owne fault, would beleiue it? Certainly he that questions either of these, justly deserues to haue his wits call'd in question. Produce any one Protestant that ever did so, and I will giue you leaue to say it is the only thing in question. But then I must tell you, that your ensuing [Page] Argument, viz: To deny a truth witnessed by God is damnable, But of two that disagree one must of necessity deny some such truth, Therefore one only can be saved; is built upon a ground cleane different from this postulate. For though it be alwaies a fault to deny what either I doe know, or should knowe to be testified by God; yet that which by a cleanly conveyance you put in the place hereof, To deny a truth witnessed by God simply, without the circumstance of being knowne or sufficiently proposed, is so farre from being certainely damnable, that it may be many times done without any the least fault at all. As if God should testifie something to a man in the Indies, I that had no assurance of this testification should not be oblig'd to beleiue it. For in such cases the Rule of the Law has place, Idem est non esse & non apparere: not to be at all and not to appeare to me, is to me all one. If I had not come and spoken unto you (saith our Saviour) you had had no sinne?

10 As little necessitie is there for that which followes: That of two disagreeing in a matter of faith one must deny some such truth. Whether by [such] you understand, Testified at all by God; or testified and sufficiently propounded. For it is very possible the matter in controversie may be such a thing wherein God hath not at all declare himselfe, or not so fully and clearely as to oblige all men to hold one way; and yet be so overvalued by the parties in variance, as to bee esteemed a matter of faith, and one of those things of which our Saviour saies; He that beleiveth not shall be damn'd. Who sees not that it is possible two Churches may excommunicate and damne each other for keeping Christmasse tenne daies sooner or later; as well as Victor excommunicated the Churches of Asia, for differing from him about Easter day? And yet I beleiue you will confesse, that God had not then declared himselfe about Easter; nor hath now about Christmasse. Anciently some good Catholique Bishops excommunicated and damned others for holding there were Antipodes: and in this question I would faine know on which side was the sufficient proposall. The contra-Remonstrants differ from the Remonstrants about the point of predetermination as a matter of faith: I would knowe in this thing also, which way God hath declar'd himselfe; whether for Predetermination or against it. Stephen Bishop of Rome held it as a matter of faith & Apostolique tradition, That Heretiques gaue true Baptisme: Others there were, and they as good Catholiques as hee, that held that this was neither matter of Faith nor matter of Truth. Iustin Martyr and Irenaeus held the doctrine of the Millenaries as a matter of faith: and though Iustin Martyr deny it, yet you, I hope, will affirme, that some good Christians held the contrary. St Augustine, I am sure, held the communicating of Infants as much Apostolique tradition, as the Baptising of them: whether the Bishop and the Church of Rome of his time, held so too, or held otherwise, I desire you to determine. But, sure I am, the Church of Rome at this present holds the contrary. The same S. Austin held it no matter of faith that the Bishops of Rome were Iudges of Appeales from all parts of the Church Catholique, no not in Major causes and Major Persons: whether the Bishop or Church of Rome did then hold [Page] the contrary doe you resolve me; but now I am resolv'd they doe so. In all these differences, the point in question is esteem'd and propos'd by one side at least as a matter of faith, and by the other rejected as not so: and either this is to disagree in matters of faith, or you will have no meanes to shew that we doe disagree. Now then to shew you how weak and sandy the foundation is, on which the whole fabrick both of your Book and Church depends, answer mee briefly to this Dilemma. Eyther in these oppositions one of the opposite Parts err'd damnably, and denyed Gods truth sufficiently propounded, or they did not. If they did, then they which doe deny Gods truth sufficiently propounded may goe to heaven; and then you are rash and uncharitable in excluding us, though we were guilty of this fault. If not, then there is no such necessity, that of two disagreeing about a matter of faith, one should deny Gods truth sufficiently propounded. And so the Major and Minor of your Argument, are prov'd false. Yet, though they were as true as Gospell, and as evident as Mathematicall Principles, the conclusion (so impertinent is it to the Premises) might still be false. For that which naturally issues from these propositions is not. Therefore one only can be saved: But, Therefore one of them does something that is damnable. But with what Logick or what Charity you can inferre either as the immediat production of the former premises, or as a Corollary from this conclusion, Therefore one only can be saved, I doe not understand; unlesse you will pretend that this consequence is good, such a one doth something damnable, therefore he shall certainly be damned: which whether it be not to overthrow the Article of our Faith, which promises remission of sinnes upon repentance, and consequently to ruine the Gospell of Christ, I leave it to the Pope and the Cardinalls to determine. For if against this it be alleadged, that no man can repent of the sinne wherein he dies: This muche I have already stopped, by shewing that if it be a sinne of Ignorance, this is no way incongruous.

11 To the fourth. You proceed in sleighting and disgracing your Adversary, Pretending his objections are mean and vulgar, and such as have been answered a thousand times. But if your cause were good, these Arts would be needlesse. For though some of his objections have been often shifted by menI mean the Divines of Doway: whose profession we have in your Belgick Expurgatorius p. 12. in censura Bertrami, in these words. Seeing in other ancient Catholiques, we tolerate extenuate & excuse very many errors, and devising some shift often deny thē, and put upon them a convenient sense when they are objected to us in disputations and conflicts with our adversaries; we see no reason why Bertram may not deserve the same equity. that make a profession of devising shifts and evasions to save themselves and their Religion from the pressure of truth, by men that are resolv'd they will say something, though they can say nothing to purpose; yet I doubt not to make it appear, that neither by others have they beene truly and really satisfied; and that the best Answere you give them, is to call them Mean and vulgar objections.

12 To the Fift. But this paines might have been spared: For the substance of his discourse is in a Sermon of D. Vshers, and confuted four yeares agoe by Paulus Veridicus. It seemes then the substance of your Reply is in Paulus Veridicus, and so your paines also might well have been spared. But had there been no necessity to help and peece out your confuting his Arguments with disgracing his person, (which yet you cannot doe) you would have considered, that to them who compare [Page] D. Potters Book, & the Arch-Bishops Sermon, this aspersion will presently appear a poore detraction, not to be answered but scorn'd. To say nothing that in D. Potter, being to answere a book by expresse Command from Royall Authority, to leave any thing materiall unsaid, because it had been said before, especially being spoken at large, and without any relation to the Discourse which he was to Answere, had been a ridiculous vanity and foule prevarication.

13 To the sixt. In your sixt parag. I let all passe saving only this, That a perswasion that men of different Religions (you must mean, or else you speak not to the point, Christians of divers Opinions and Communions) may be saved, is a most pernitious heresy, and even a ground of Atheisme. What strange extractions Chymistry can make I know not; but sure I am, he that by reason would inferre this conclusion, That there is no God; from this ground, That God will save men in different Religions, must have a higher strain in Logick, then you or I have hitherto made shew of. In my apprehension, the other part of the contradiction, That there is a God, should much rather follow from it. And whether contradictions will flow from the same fountaine, let the Learned judge. Perhaps you will say you intended not to deliver here a positive and measur'd truth, and which you expected to be call'd to account for; but only a high and tragicall expression of your just detestation of the wicked doctrine against which you write. If you mean so, I shall let it passe: only I am to advertize the lesse-wary Reader, that passionate expressions, and vehement asseverations are no arguments; unlesse it be, of the weaknesse of the cause that is defended by them, or the man that defends it. And to remember you of what Boethius saies of some such things as these, —Nubila mens est haec ubi regnant. For my part I am not now in Passion; neither will I speak one word which I think I cannot justify to the full: and I say and will maintaine, that to say, That Christians of different Opinions and Communions (such I mean, who hold all those things that are simply necessary to Salvation) may [...] obtain pardon for the Errours wherein they dye ignorantly, by a generall Repentance; is so farre from being a ground of Atheisme, that to say the contrary, is to crosse in Diameter a main Article of our Creed, and to overthrow the Gospell of Christ.

14 To the Seaventh and Eight. To the two next Paragraphes, I have but two words to say. The one is, that I know no Protestants that hold it necessary to be able to prove a Perpetuall Visible Church distinct from Yours. Some perhaps undertake to doe so, as a matter of curtesy; but I believe you will be much to seeke for any one that holds it necessary. For though you say that Christ hath promised there shall be a Perpetuall Visible Church; yet you yourselves doe not pretend that he hath promised there shall be Histories and Records alwaies extant of the Professors of it in all ages: nor that he hath any where enjoyned us to read those Histories that we may be able to shew them.

14 The other is. That Breerelie's great exactnesse, which you magnify so and amplify, is no very certaine demonstration of his fidelity. A Romance may be told with as much variety of circumstances, as a true Story.

[Page] 16 To the Ninth and Tenth. Your desires that I would in this rejoynder; Avoid impertinencies. Not impose doctrines upon you which you disclayme: Set down the substance of your Reasons faithfully and entirely: Not weary the reader with unnecessary quotations: Object nothing to you which I can answere my selfe, or which may be return'd upon my selfe: and lastly, (which you repeat again in the end of your Preface) speak as cleerly and distinctly and univocally as possibly I can, are all very reasonable, and shall be by me most punctually and fully satisfied. Only I have Reason to complain, that you give us rules only and not good example in keeping them. For in some of these things I shall have frequent occasion to shew, that Medice curateipsum, may very justly be said unto you; especially for objecting what might very easily have been answered by you, and may be very justly returned upon you.

17 To your ensuing demands, though some of them be very captious and ensnaring; yet I will give you as clear and plain and ingenuous Answers as possibly I can.

18 To the Eleventh. To the first then, about the Perpetuity of the visible Church, my Answer is: That I believe our Saviour, ever since his Ascention, hath had in some place or other a Visible true Church on earth: I mean a company of men, that professed at least so much truth as was absolutely necessary for their Salvation. And I believe that there will be somewhere or other such a Church to the Worlds end. But the contrary doctrine I doe at no hand believe to be a damnable heresy.

19 To the twelfth. To the second, what Visible Church there was before Luther disagreeing from the Roman? I answere, that before Luther there were many Visible Churches in many things disagreeing from the Roman: But not that the whole Catholique Church disagreed from her, because she her selfe was a Part of the Whole, though much corrupted. And to undertake to name a Catholique Church disagreeing from her, is to make her no Part of it, which we doe not, nor need not pretend. And for men agreeing with Protestants in all points, wee will then produce them, when you shall either prove it necessary to be done, which you know we absolutely deny; or when you shall produce a perpetuall succession of Professors, which in all points have agreed with you, and disagreed from you in nothing. But this my promise, to deal plainly with you, I conceive, & so intended it to be very like his, who undertook to drink up the Sea, upon condition, that he, to whom the promise was made, should first stop the Rivers from runing in. For this unreasonable request which you make to us is to your selves so impossible, that in the very next Age after the Apostles, you will never be able to name a man, whom you can prove to have agreed with you in all things, nay (if you speak of such, whose Works are extant and unquestioned) whom we cannot prove to have disagreed from you in many things. Which I am so certain of, that I will venture my credit, and my life upon it.

20 To the Thirteenth. To the third, Whether, seeing there cannot be assign'd any visible true Church distinct from the Roman, it followes not[Page]that she err'd not fundamentally. I say in our sence of the word Fundamentall, it does follow. For if it be true, that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman, then it must be, either because there was no Church at all, which we deny: Or because the Roman Church was the whole Church, which we also deny: or because she was a Part of the Whole, which we grant. And if she were a true part of the Church, then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to Salvation, and held no errours which were inevitably and unpardonably destructive of it. For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique. In our sence therefore of the word Fundamentall, I hope shee erred not fundamentally: but in your sence of the word, I fear she did. That is, she held something to be Divine Revelation, which was not; something not to be which was.

21 To the fourteenth. To the fourth. How it could be damnable to maintain her errors, if they were not fundamentall? I answere. 1. Though it were not damnable, yet if it were a fault, it was not to be done. For a veniall sinne, with you is not damnable; yet you say, it is not to be committed for the procuring any good. Non est faciendum malum vel minimum, ut eveniat bonum vel maximum. 2. It is damnable to mantaine an error against conscience, though the errour in it selfe, and to him that believes it, be not damnable. Nay the profession not only of an errour, but even of a truth, if not believ'd, when you think on it again, I believe you will confesse to be a mortall sinne; unlesse you will say, Hypocrisie and Simulation in Religion is not so. 3. Though we say the errors of the Roman Church were not destructive of Salvation, but pardonable even to them that dyed in them, upon a generall repentance: yet we deny not but in themselves they were damnable. Nay, the very saying they were pardonable, implies they needed pardon, and therefore in themselves were damnable: damnable meritoriously, though not effectually. As a poyson may be deadly in it selfe, and yet not kill him, that together with the poyson takes an antidote: or as felony may deserve death and yet not bring it on him that obtaines the Kings pardon.

22 To the fifteenth. To the fift. How they can be excus'd from Schisme, who forsook her Communion upon pretence of errours which were not damnable! I answere. All that we forfake in you, is only the beliefe, and practice, and profession of your Errors. Hereupon, you cast us out of your Communion. And then with a strange, and contradictious, and ridiculous hypocrisy, complain that we forsake it. As if a man should thrust his friend out of doores, and then be offended at his departure▪ But for us not to forsake the beliefe of your Errors, having discovered them to be Errors, was impossible; and therefore to doe so could not be damnable, believing them to be Errors. Not to forsake the practice and profession of them, had been damnable hypocrisie; supposing that (which you vainly runne away with, and take for graunted) those errors in themselves were not damnable. Now to doe so, and as matters now stand, not to forsake your Communion, is apparently [Page] contradictious: seeing the condition of your Communion is, that we must professe to believe all your doctrines not only not to be damnable errors (which will not content you,) but also to be certain and necessary and revealed truths. So that to demand why we forsake your Communion upon pretence of Errors which were not damnable, is in effect to demand why we forsooke it upon our forsaking it! For to pretend that there are Errors in your Church though not damnable, is ipso facto to forsake your Communion, and to doe that which both in your account, and as you think in Gods account, puts him as does so, out of your Communion. So that either you must free your Church, from requiring the belief of any errour whatsoever, damnable and not damnable, or whether you will or no you must free us from Schisme. For schisme there cannot be in leaving your communion, unlesse we were obliged to continue in it. Man cannot be obliged by Man, but to what either formally or virtually he is obliged by God, for all just power is from God. God the eternall truth neither can nor will obliege us to believe any the least and the most innocent falshood to be a divine truth, that is, to erre; nor, to professe a known errour, which is to lye. So that if you require the belief of any errour among the conditions of your Communion, our obligation to communicate with you ceaseth, and so the imputation of schisme to us, vanisheth into nothing: but lies heavy upon you for making our seperation from you just and necessary, by requiring unnecessary and unlawfull conditions of your Communion. Hereafter therefore, I intreat you, let not your demand be, how could we forsake your Communion without Schisme, seeing you err'd not damnably? But how we could doe so without Schisme, seeing you err'd not at all? which if either you doe prove, or we cannot disprove it, we will (I at least will for my part) returne to your Communion, or subscribe my selfe Schismatique. In the mean time, [...].

23 Yet notwitstanding all your Errors we doe not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely, but only leave Communicating with you in the practise and profession of your Errors. The tryall whereof will be to propose some forme of worshipping God, taken wholly out of Scripture; and herein if we refuse to joyn with you, then, and not till then, may you justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandoned your Communion.

24 To the sixteenth. Your sixt demand I have already satisfied in my answeres to the Second and the Fourth: and in my reply, Ad § 2. toward the end. And though you say your repeating must be excused, yet I dare not be so confident, and therefore forbear it.

25 To the seaventeenth. To the seaventh, Whether errour against any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by God, destroy not the Nature and Vnity of Faith, or at least, is not a grievous offence excluding salvation! I answere, if you suppose, as you seem to doe the proposition so sufficient, that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd that it is from God, so that the denyall of it involves also with it the denyall of Gods veracity; any such errour destroyes both faith and [Page] salvation. But if the Proposall be only so sufficient, not, that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd, but only that he should, and but for his own fault would have been convinc'd of the divine verity of the doctrine proposed: The crime then is not so great, for the beliefe of Gods veracity may well consist with such an Errour. Yet a fault I confesse it is (and without Repentance) damnable, if all circumstances considered the proposall be sufficient. But then I must tell you that the proposall of the present Roman Church is only pretended to be sufficient for this purpose, but is not so: especially all the Rayes of the Divinity, which they pretend to shine so conspicuously in her proposalls, being so darkned and even extinguished with a cloud of contradiction, from Scripture, Reason, and the Ancient Church.

26 To the Eighteenth. To the eight. How of disagreeing Protestants, both parts may hope for salvation, seeing some of them must needs erre against some Truth testified by God? I answere, 1. The most disagreeing Protestants that are, yet thus farre agree, that these books of Scripture which were never doubted of in the Church, are the undoubted word of God, and a perfect rule of faith. 2. That the sense of them, which God intended, whatsoever it is, is certainly true. So that they believe implicitely even those very truths against which they erre; and why an implicit faith in Christ and his Word, should not suffice as well as an implicit faith in your Church, I have desired to be resolved by many of your Side, but never could. 3. That they are to use their best endeavours to beleive the Scripture in the true sense and to live according to it. This if they performe (as I hope many on all Sides doe) truly and syncerely, it is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation; that is, in all those things which appertain to the Covenant between God and man in Christ, for so much, is not only plainly but frequently contained in Scripture. And believing aright touching the Covenant, if they for their parts perform the condition required of them, which is syncere obedience, why should they not expect that God will performe his promise and give them salvation? For, as for other things which lye without the Covenant, and are therefore lesse necessary, if by reason of the seeming conflict which is oftentimes between Scripture and Reason, and Authority on the one side, and Scripture, Reason, and Authority on the other; if by reason of the variety of tempers, abilities, educations, & unavoidable prejudices, whereby mens understandings are variously form'd and fashion'd, they doe embrace severall Opinions, whereof some must be erroneous; to say that God will damne them for such errors, who are lovers of him, and lovers of truth, is to rob man of his comfort, and God of his goodnesse; it is to make Man desperate and God a Tyrant. But they deny Truths testified by God, and therefore shall be damn'd. Yes, if they knew them to be thus testified by him, and yet would deny them, that were to give God the lye, and questionlesse damnable. But if you should deny a truth which God had testified but only to a man in the Indies, (as I said before) and this testification you had never heard of, or at least had no sufficient reason to believe [Page] that God had so testified, would not you think it a hard case to be damned for such a denyall? Yet consider I pray a little more attentively the difference between them, and you will presently acknowledge, the question between them is not at any time, or in any thing, Whether God saies true or no? or whether he saies this or no? But supposing he saies this, and saies true, whether he meanes this or no? As for example, between Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zwinglians, it is agreed that Christ spake these words, This is my Body; and that whatsoever he meant in saying so is true: But what he meant and how he is to be understood, that's the question. So that though some of them deny a truth by God intended, yet you can with no reason or justice accuse them of denying the truth of Gods Testimony, unlesse you can plainly shew that God hath declared, and that plainly and clearly, what was his meaning in these words. I say plainly and clearly. For he that speaks obscurely and ambiguously, and no where declares himselfe plainly, sure he hath no reason to be much offended if he be mistaken. When therefore you can shew, that in this and all other their Controversies, God hath interposed his Testimony on one side or other; so that either they doe see it, and will not; or were it not for their own voluntary and avoidable fault, might and should see it and doe not; let all such Errors be as damnable as you please to make them. In the mean while, if they suffer themselves neither to be betraid into their errors, nor kept in them by any sin of their will; if they doe their best endeavour to free themselves from all errors, and yet faile of it through humane frailty; so well am I perswaded of the goodnesse of God, that if in me alone, should meet a confluence of all such errors of all the Protestants in the World, that were thus qualified, I should not be so much afraid of them all, as I should be to ask pardon for them. For, whereas that which you affright us with of calling Gods Veracitie in Question, is but a Panicke feare, a fault that no man thus qualified, is, or can be guilty of; to ask pardon of simple and purely involuntary errors is tacitely to imply that God is angry with us for them, and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring brick, when he gives no straw; of expecting to gather, where he strew'd not; to reap where he sowed not: of being offended with us for not doing what he knowes we cannot doe. This I say upon a supposition that they doe their best endeavours to know Gods will and doe it; which he that denyes to be possible knowes not what he saies; for he saies in effect, That men cannot doe, what they can doe; for to doe what a man can doe, is to doe his best endeavour. But because this supposition, though certainly possible, is very rare, and admirable, I say secondly, that I am verily perswaded, that God will not impute errors to them, as sinnes, who use such a measure of industry, in finding truth, as humane prudence and ordinary discretion (their abilities and oportunities, their distractions and hindrances, and all other things considered) shall advise them unto, in a matter of such consequence. But if herein also we faile, then our errors begin to be malignant, and justly imputable, as offences against God, and that love of [Page] his truth which he requires in us. You will say then, that for those erring Protestants, which are in this case, which evidently are farre the greater part, they sinne damnably in erring, and therefore there is little hope of their Salvation. To which I answer, that the consequence of this Reason, is somewhat strong against a Protestant; but much weakned by coming out of the mouth of a Papist. For all sinnes with you are not damnable; and therefore Protestants errors might be sinnes, and yet not damnable. But yet out of courtesy to you, we will remove this rubbe out of your way; and for the present suppose them mortall sinnes; and is there then no hope of Salvation, for him that commits them? Not, you will say, if he dye in them without repentance; and such Protestants you speak of, who without repentance dye in their errors. Yea but what if they dye in their errors with repentance? then I hope you will have Charity enough to think they may be saved. Charity Mist. takes it indeed for granted, that this supposition is destructive of it selfe;In the place above quoted. and that it is impossible, and incongruous that a man should repent of those errors wherein he dies; or dye in those whereof he repents. But it was wisely done of Him to take it for granted; for most certainly He could not have spoken one word of sense for the confirmation of it. For seeing Protestants believe, as well as you, Gods infinite and most admirable perfections in himselfe, more then most worthy of all possible love: seeing they believe, as well as you, his infinite goodnesse to them, in creating them of nothing; in creating them according to his own image; in creating all things for their use and benefit; in streaming down his favours on them every moment of their lives; in designing them, if they serve him, to infinite and eternall happinesse; in redeeming them, not with corruptible things, but the pretious blood of his beloved sonne: seing they believe, as well as you, his infinite goodnesse, and patience towards them, in expecting their conversion; in wooing, alluring, leading, and by all meanes, which his wisdome can suggest unto him, and mans nature is capable of, drawing them to Repentance & Salvation: Seeing they believe these things as well as you, and for ought you know, consider them as much as you, (and if they doe not, it is not their Religion, but They that are too blame,) what can hinder, but that the consideration of Gods most infinite goodnesse to them, and their own almost infinite wickednesse against him, Gods spirit cooperating with them, may raise them to a true and syncere and a cordiall love of God? And seeing sorrow for having injur'd or offended the person beloved, or when we fear we may have offended him, is the most naturall effect of true love; what can hinder, but that love which hath oftimes constrained them, to lay down their lives for God (which our Saviour assures us is the noblest sacrifice we can offer,) may produce in them an universall sorrow for all their sinnes, both which they know they have 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 [Page] 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[Page]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.This great diversity of opinions among you, touching this matter, if any mā doubt of it, let him read Franciscus Picus Mirandula in l. Theorem. in Exposit. Theor. quarti, and T h. Waldensis. Tom. 3. De Sacramentalibus. doct. 3. fol. 5. andhee shall bee fully satisfied that I haue done you no injury. 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, Of which ranke are those only which constitute and make up the Covenant between [Page] God and Man in Christ: and then such as are necessary to be beleived not in themselues but only by accident, because they were written. Of which rank are many matters of History, of Prophecy, of mystery, of Policy, of Oeconomie, & such like, which are evidently not intrinsecall to the Covenant. Now to sever exactly & punctually these Verities one trom the other: what is necessary in it selfe & antecedently to the writing, from what is but only profitable in it selfe, and necessary only because written, is a businesse of extreame great difficultie, and extreame little necessitie. For first he that will goe about to distinguish especially in the Story of our Saviour, what was written because it was profitable, from what was written because necessary, shall find an intricate peece of businesse of it, & almost impossible that he should be certaine he hath done it, when he hath done it. And then it is apparently unnecessary to goe about it, seeing he that beleiues all, certainly belieues all that is necessary. And he that doth not beleiue all (I meane all the undoubted parts of the undoubted Books of Scripture) can hardly belieue any, neither haue we reason to beleiue he doth so. So that, that Protestants giue you not a Catalogue of Fundamentalls, it is not from Tergiversation (as you suspect, who for want of Charitie to them alwaies suspect the worst,) but from Wisdome and Necessity. For they may very easily erre in doing it; because though all which is necessary be plaine in Scripture, yet all which is plaine is not therefore written because it was necessary. For what greater necessity was there that I should know S. Paul left his Cloak at Troas, then those Worlds of Miracles, which our Saviour did, which were never written. And when they had done it, it had been to no purpose; There being, as matters now stand, as great necessitie, of believing those truths of Scripture, which are not Fundamentall, as those that are. You see then what reason we haue to decline this hard labour, which you a rigid Taskemaster haue here put upon us. Yet insteed of giving you a Catalogue of Fundamentalls, with which I dare say you are resolu'd before it come, never to be satisfied, I will say that to you, which if you please may doe you as much service; and this it is. That it is sufficient for any mans salvation that he belieue the Scripture: That he endeavour to beleiue it in the true sense of it, as farre as concernes his dutie: And that he conforme his life unto it either by Obedience or Repentance. Hee that does so (and all Protestants according to the Dictamen of their Religion should doe so,) may be secure that he cannot erre fundamentally. And they that doe so cannot differ in Fundamentals. So that notwithstanding their differences, & your presumption, the same Heaven may receiue them All.

28 To the twentieth. Your tenth & last request is, to know distinctly what is the doctrine of the Protestant English Church, in these points; and what my private opinion. Which shall be satisfied when the Church of England hath expressed her selfe in them; or when you haue told us what is the doctrine of your Church, in the Question of Predetermination, or the Immaculate Conception.

29 To the 21 & 22. These answers I hope in the judgement of indifferent [Page] men are satisfactory to your Questions, though not to you, For I haue either answer'd them, or given you a reason why I haue not. Neither, for ought I can see, haue I flitted from things considered in their owne nature, to accidentall or rare Circumstances, But told you my opinion plainely what I thought of your Errours in themselues: and what as they were qualified or malignified with good or bad circumstances. Though I must tell you truly, that I see no reason, the Question being of the damnablenesse of Errour, why you should esteeme ignorance, incapacitie, want of meanes to be instructed, accidentall and rare Circumstances: As if knowledge, capacitie, having meanes of Instruction, concerning the truth of your Religion or ours, were not as rare & unusuall in the adverse part of either, as Ignorance, Incapacitie, and want of meanes of instruction. Especially how erroneous Conscience can be a rare thing in those that erre, or how unerring Conscience is not much more rare, I am not able to apprehend. So that to consider men of different Religions (the subject of this Contoversie) in their owne nature and without circumstances, must be to consider them, neither as ignorant, nor as knowing: neither as having, nor as wanting meanes of Instruction: neither as with Capacity, nor without it: neither with erroneous, nor yet with unerring conscience. And then what judgement can you pronounce of them, all the goodnesse and badnesse of an Action depending on the Circumstances. Ought not a Iudge being to giue sentence of an Action, to consider all the Circumstances of it, or is it possible he should judge rightly that does not so? Neither is it to purpose, That Circumstances being various, cannot be well comprehended under any generall rule: For though under any generall rule they cannot, yet under many generall rules they may be comprehended. The Question here is, you say, whether men of different Religions may be saved? Now the subject of this Question is an ambiguous terme and may be determined and invested with diverse and contrary Circumstances: and accordingly contrary judgements are to be given of it. And who then can be offended with D. Potter for distinguishing before he defines, (the want whereof is the cheife thing that makes defining dangerous?) Who can finde fault with him for saying, If, through want of meanes of instruction, incapacitie, invincible or probable ignorance a man dye in errour, he may be saved. But if he be negligent in seeking Truth, unwilling to find it, either doth see it and will not, or might see it and will not, that his case is dangerous, & without repentance desperate. This is all that D. Potter saies: neither rashly damning all that are of a different opinion from him, not securing any that are in matter of Religion sinfully, that is, willingly erroneous. The Author of this Reply (I will abide by it) saies the very same thing, neither can I see what adversary he hath in the maine Question but his owne shaddow; and yet I know not out of what frowardnesse findes fault with D. Potter, for affirming that which himselfe affirmes: and to cloude the matter, whereas the Question is, whether men by ignorance, dying in errour may be saved, would haue them considered neither as erring, nor ignorant. And when the question is, whether The errors of Papists bee [Page]damnable: to which we answer. That to them that doe or might knowe them to be errours, they are damnable, to them that doe not, they are not. He tels us that this is to change the state of the Question, whereas indeed it is to state the Question, and free it from ambiguity before you answer it: and to haue recourse to Accidentall Circumstances; as if Ignorance were accidentall to error, or as if a man could be considered as in errour, and not be considered as in ignorance of the Truth from which he erres! Certainly Errour against a Truth, must needs presuppose a nescience of it: unlesse you will say, that a man may at once resolue for a Truth and resolue against it, assent to it, and dissent from it, knowe it to be true, and beleiue it not to be true. Whether Knowledge & Opinion touching the same thing, may stand together, is made a Question in the Schooles: But hee that would question, whether knowing a thing and doubting of it, much more, whether knowing it to be true & believing it to be false, may stand together, deserues without question no other Answer but laughter. Now if Errour & knowledge connot consist, then Errour and Ignorance must be inseparable. He then that professeth your errours may well be considered either as knowing or as Ignorant. But him that does erre indeed, you can no more conceiue without ignorance, then Long without Quantity, Vertuous without Qualitie, a Man, and not a living Creature, to haue gone ten miles, and not to haue gone fiue, to speak sense, and not to speake. For as the latter in all these is implied in the former, so is Ignorance of a Truth, supposed in errour against it. Yet such a man, though not conceaueable without Ignorance simply, may be very well considered either as with, or without voluntary and sinfull Ignorance. And he that will giue a wise answer to this Question, Whether a Papist dying a Papist may be saved, according to Gods ordinary proceeding; must distinguish him according to these severall considerations, and say, Hee may be saved, If his ignorance were either invincible, or at least unaffected and probable: if otherwise, without repentance he cannot.

To the rest of this Preface, I haue nothing to say; saving what hath been said, but this, That it is no just exception to an argument to call it vulgar and thredbare. Truth can neither be too common nor superannuated, nor Reason ever worne out. Let your Answers be solid & pertinent, and we will never finde fault with them for being old or common.

THE FIRST PART.
The State of the Question; with a summary of the reasons for which amongst men of different Religions, one side only can be saved.

[Page]

CHAP. I.

NEver is Malice more indiscreet, then when it chargeth others with imputation of that, to which it selfe becomes more liable, even by that very act of accusing others. For, though guiltinesse be the effect of some errour, yet usually it begets a kind of Moderation, so far forth, as not to let men cast such aspersions upon others,Qui [...] tulerit Gracchum &c. as must apparantly reflect upon themselves. Thus cannot the Poet endure, that Gracchus, who was a factious and unquiet man, should be inveighing against Sedition: and the Roman Oratour rebukes Philosophers; who, to waxe glorious, superscribed their Names upon those very bookes which they entitled, Of the contempt of glory. What then shall we say of D. Potter, who in the Title, and Text of his whole book doth so tragically charge Want of Charity on all such Romanists, as dare affirme, that Protestancy destroyeth Salvation; while he himselfe is in act of pronouncing the like heavy doom against Roman Catholiques? For, not satisfied with much uncivill language, in affirming the Roman Church many Pag. 11. wayes to have plaid the Harlot, and in that regard deserved a bill of divorce from Christ, and detestation of Christians; in styling her, that proud Ibid. and curst Dame of Rome, which takes upon her to revell in the House of God; in talking of an Idoll Pag. 4. Edit. 1. to be worshipped at Rome; he comes at length to thunder out this fearfull sentence against her: For that Pag. 20. Masse of Errors (saith he) in iudgement and practise, which is proper to her, and wherein she differs from us, we iudge a reconciliation impossible, and to us (who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions) damnable. And in another place ho saith: For us who Pag. 81. are convinced in conscience, that she erres in many things, a necessity lyes upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those Errors. By the acerbity of which Censure, he doth not only make himselfe guilty of that, which he judgeth to be a haynous offence in others, but freeth us also from all colour of crime by this his unadvised recrimination. For, if Roman Catholikes be likewise convicted in conscience of the Errors of Protestants; they may, and must, in conformity to the Doctor's own rule, judge a reconciliation with them to be also damnable. And thus, all the Want of Charity so deeply charged on us, dissolves it selfe into this poore wonder, Roman Catholiques believe in their conscience, that the Religion which they professe, is true, and the contrary false.

2. Neverthelesse, we earnestly desire, and take care, that our doctrine may not be defamed by misinterpretation. Far be it from us, by way of insultation, to apply it against Protestants, otherwise then as they are comprehended under the generality of those who are divided from the only one true Church of Christ our Lord, within the Communion whereof he hath confined salvation. Neither doe we understand, why our most deere Countrymen should be offended if the Vniversality be particularized under the name of Protestants, first givenSleidan. l. 6. fol. 84. to certain Lutherans, who protesting that they would stand out against the Imperiall decrees, in defence of the Confession exhibited at Ausburge, were termed Protestants, in regard of such their protesting: which Confessio Augustana disclaiming from, and being disclaymed by Calvinists, and Zwinglians, our naming or exemplifying a generall doctrine under the particular name of Protestantisme, ought not in any particular manner to be odious in England.

3 Moreover, our meaning is not, as misinformed persons may conceive, that we give Protestants over to reprobation; that we offer no prayers in hope of their salvation; that we hold their [Page] case desperate. God forbid! We hope, we pray for their Conversion; and sometimes we find happy effects of our charitable desires. Neither is our Censure immediatly directed to particular persons. The Tribunall of particular Iudgement is Gods alone. When any man esteemed a Protestant, leaveth to live in this world, we doe not instantly with precipitation avouch, that he is lodged in Hell. For we are not alwaies acquainted with what sufficiency or meanes he was furnished for instruction; we doe not penetrate his capacity to understand his Catechist, we have no revelation what light might have cleered his errours, or Contrition retracted his sinnes, in the last moment before his death. In such particular cases, we wish more apparent signes of salvation, but doe not give any dogmaticall sentence of perdition. How greivous sinnes, Disobedience, Schisme, and Heresy are, is well knowne. But to discerne how farre the naturall malignity of those great offences might be checked by Ignorance, or by some such lessening circumstance, is the office rather of Prudence then of Faith.

4 Thus we allow Protestants as much Charity, as D. Potter spares us, for whom, in the words above mentioned, and else where, heSee pag. 39. makes Ignorance the best hope of salvation. Much lesse comfort, can we expect from the fierce d [...]trine of those chiefe Protestants, who teach that for many ages before Luther, Christ had no visible Church upon earth. Not these men alone, or such as they, but even the 39. Articles, to which the English Protestant Clergy subscribes, censure our beliefe so deeply, that Ignorance can scarce, or rather not at all, excuse us from damnation. Our doctrine of Transubstantiation, is affirmed to be repugnant to the plaine words ofArt. 28. Scripture; our Masses to be blasphemousArt. 31. Fables, with much more to be seen in the Articles themselves. In a certaine Confession of the Christian faith, at the end of their books of Psalmes collected into Meeter, and printed Cum privilegio Regis Regali, they call us Idolaters, and limmes of Antichrist; and having set downe a Catalogue of our doctrines, they conclude, that for them we shall after the Generall Resurrection be damned to unquenchable fire.

5 But yet least any man should flatter himselfe with our charitable Mitigations, and thereby wax carelesse in search of the true Church, we desire him to read the Conclusion of the Second Part, where this matter is more explained.

6 And because we cannot determine, what Iudgment may be esteemed rash, or prudent, except by weighing the reasons upon which it is grounded, we will heere, under one aspect, present a Summary of those Principles, from which we infer, that Protestancy in it selfe unrepented destroyes Salvation: intending afterward to prove the truth of every one of the grounds, till, by a concatenation of sequels, we fall upon the Conclusion, for which we are charged with Wan [...] of Charity.

7 Now, this is our gradation of reasons. Almighty God, having ordained Mankind to a supernaturall End of eternall felicity, hath in his holy Providence setled competent and convenient Meanes, whereby that end may be attained. The universall grand Origen of all such means, is the Incarnation and Death of our Blessed Saviour, whereby he merited internall grace for us; and founded an externall visible Church, provided and stored with all those helps which might be necessary for Salvation. From hence it followeth, that in this Church amongst other advantages, there must be some effectuall meanes to beget, and conserve faith, to maintaine Vnity, to discover and condemne Heresies, to appease and reduce Schismes, and to determine all Controversies in Religion. For without such meanes, the Church should not be furnished with helps sufficient to salvation, nor God afford sufficient meanes to attayne that End, to which himselfe ordained Mankind. This meanes to decide Controversies in faith and Religion (whether it should be the holy Scripture, or whatsoever else) must be indued with an Vniversall Infallibility, in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth, that is, as revealed, spoken, or testifyed by Almighty God, whether the matter of its nature, be great or small. For if it were subject to errour in any one thing, we could not in any other yield it infallible assent; because we might with good reason doubt, whether it chanced not to erre in that particular.

8 Thus farre all must agree to what wee have said, unlesse they have a mind to reduce Faith to Opinion. And even out of these grounds alone, without further proceeding, it undenyably followes, that of two men dissenting in matters of faith, great or small, few or many, the one connot be saved without repentance, unlesse Ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse. For in that case of contrary beliefe, one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods word, or Revelation sufficiently represented to his understanding by an infallible Propounder; which opposition to the Testimony of God is undoubtedly a damnable sin, whether otherwise, the thing so testified, be in it selfe great or small. And thus wee have already made good, what was promised in the argument of this Chapter, that amongst men of different Religions, one is only capable of being saved.

9 Neverthelesse, to the end that men may know in particular what is the said infallible meanes upon which we are to rely in all things concerning Fayth, and accordingly may be able to judge in what safety or danger, more or lesse they live; and because D. Potter descendeth to divers particulars about Scriptures and the Church &c. we will goe forward, and prove, that although Scripture be in it selfe most sacred, infallible, and divine; yet it alone cannot be to us a Rule, or Iudge, fit an able to end all doubts and debates emergent in matters of Religion; but that there must be some externall, visible, publique, living Iudge, to whom all sorts of persons both learned [Page] and unlearned, may without danger of errour, have recourse; and in whose Iudgment they may rest, for the interpreting and propounding of Gods Word or Revelation. And this living Iudge, we will most evidently prove to be no other, but that Holy, Catholique, Apostolique, and Visible Church, which our Saviour purchased with the effusion of his most precious bloud.

10 If once therefore it be granted, that the Church is that means, which God hath left for deciding all Controversies in faith, it manifestly will follow, that shee must be infallible in all her determinations, whether the matters of themselves be great or small; because as we said above, it must be agreed on all sides, that if that meanes which God hath left to determine Controversies were not infallible in all things proposed by it as truths revealed by Almighty God, it could not settle in our minds a firme, and infallible beliefe of any one.

11 From this Vniversall infallibility of Gods Church it followeth, that whosoever wittingly denyeth any one point proposed by her, as revealed by God, is injurious to his divine Majesty, as if he could either deceive, or be deceived in what he testifieth. The averring whereof, were not a fundamentall error, but would overthrow the very foundation of all fundamentall points, and therefore without repentance could [...] possibly stand with salvation.

12 Out of these grounds, we will shew, that although the distinction of points fundamentall, and not fundamentall, be good and usefull, as it is delivered and applied by Catholique Divines, to teach what principall Articles of faith, Christians are obliged explicitely to believe: yet that it is impertinent to the present purpose of excusing any man from grievous sinne, who knowingly disbelieves, that is, believes the contrary of that which Gods Church proposeth as divine Truth. For it is one thing not to know explicitly some thing testifyed by God, & another positively to oppose what we know he hath restified. The former may often be excused from sin, but never the latter, which only is the case in Question.

13 In the same manner shall be demonstrated, that to alleadge the Creed, as containing all Articles of 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 S. Greg. Hom. 7. in Ezec. 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 [Page] what wee think, yield us confidence, that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of Pope Gelasius to Anastasius the Emperour; Farre [...]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 thē, 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 sav'd. If you will doe so, this Controversie is ended. No man will hereafter charge you with want of Charity. This is as much as either we give you, or expect of you, while you remaine in your Religion. But then you must leave abusing silly [Page] people, with telling them (as your fashion is) that Protestants confesse Papists may be saved, but Papists confesse not so much of Protestants; therefore yours is the safer way, and in Wisdome and Charity to our owne soules we are bound to follow it. For granting this, you grant as much hope of salvation to Protestants, as Protestants doe to you. If you will not, but will still affirme, as C. M. does, that Protectants, not dissemblers but believers, without a particular repentance of their Religion cannot be saved: This I say, is a want of Charity, into the society whereof D. Potter cannot bee drawn but with palpable and transparent Sophistrie. For I pray Sir what dependance is there between these Propositions: We that hold Protestant Religion false should be damned if we should professe it, Therefore they also shall be damned, that hold it true? Iust as if you should conclude, Because hee that doubts is damned if he eat, Therefore he that does not doubt is damn'd also if he eat. And therefore though your Religion to us, or ours to you, if professed against Conscience would be damnable; yet may it well be uncharitable to define it shall be so, to them that professe either this or that according to Conscience. This recrimination therefore upon D. Potter wherewith you begin, is a plain Fallacie: And I feare your proceedings will be answerable to these beginings!

2 Ad §. 2. In this Paragraph, Protestants are thus farre comforted, that they are not sent to Hell without Company; which the Poet tells us, is the miserable comfort of miserable Men. Then we in England are requested not to be offended with the name of Protestants. Which is a favour I shall easily grant, if by it be understood those that Protest, not against Imperiall Edicts, but against the Corruptions of the Church of Rome.

3 Ad §. 3. 4, 5▪ 6. That you give us not [...]ver to reprobation, That you pray and hope for our salvation, if it be a Charity, is such a one as is common to Turkes and Iewes and Pagans with us: But that which followes is extraordinary; Neither doe I know any man that requires more of you then there you pretend to. For there you tell us, That when any man, esteem'd a Protestant, dies, you doe not instantly avouch that he is lodg'd in Hell. Where the word esteem'd is ambiguous: For it may signifie, esteem'd truly, and esteemd falsely. Hee may be esteem'd a Protestant that is so: And he may be esteem'd a Protestant that is not so. And therefore I should have had just occasion to have laid to your charge the transgression of your own chief prescription, which you say truth exacts at our hands, that is, to speake clearely or distinctly, and not to walk in darknesse; but that your following words to my understanding declare sufficiently that you speake of both sorts. For there you tell us that the Reasons why you damne not any man that dies with the esteem of a Protestant, are. 1. Because you are not alwaies acquainted with what sufficiency of means he was furnished for instruction; You must mean touching the falshood of his own Religion, and the truth of yours. Which reason is proper to those that are Protestants in truth, and not only in estimation. 2. Because you doe not penetrate his capacitie to understand his Cateohist; which is also peculiar to those, who for want of capacitie (as you conceive) remaine Protestants indeed, [Page] and are not only so accounted. 3. Because you have no Revelation what light might clear his errors; which belongs to those which were esteem'd Protestants, but indeed were not so. 4. Because you have no Revelation what Contrition might have retracted his sinnes: which reason being distinct from the former, and divided from it by the disjunctive particle, Or, insinuates unto us, that though no light did clear the errors of a dying Protestant, yet Contrition might, for ought you know, retract his sinnes: which appropriates this reason also to Protestants truly so esteem'd. I wish with all my heart that in obedience to your own prescription, you had expressed your selfe in this matter more fully and plainly. Yet that which you say, doth plainly enough afford us these corollaries.

1 That whatsoever Protestant wanteth capacity, or having it, wanteth sufficient meanes of instruction to convince his Conscience of the falshood of his own, and the truth of the Roman Religion, by the confession of his most rigid Adversaries, may be saved, notwithstanding any error in his Religion.

2 That nothing hinders but that a Protestant dying a Protestant may dye with contrition for all his sinnes.

3 That, if he doe dye with Contrition, he may and shall be saved.

4 All these acknowledgements we have from you, while you are, as you say, stateing, but as I conceive granting the very point in question; which was, as I have already prov'd out of C. M. whether without uncharitablenesse you may pronounce, that Protestants dying in the belief of their Religion, and without particular repentance and dereliction of it cannot possibly be saved. Which C. M. affirmes universally, and without any of your limitations. But this presumption of his, you thus qualify, by saying, that this sentence cannot be pronounced truly and therefore sure not charitably, neither of those Protestants that want meanes sufficient to instruct and convince them of the truth of your Religion and the falshood of their own: Nor of those, who, though they have neglected the meanes they might have had, dyed with contrition, that is, with a sorrow for all their sinnes proceeding from the love of God. So that according to your doctrine it shall remain upon such only, as either were, or but for their own fault, might have been sufficiently convinced of the truth of your Religion, and the falshood of their own, and yet dye in it without contrition. Which doctrine if you would stand to, and not pull down, and pull back with one hand, what you give and build with the other, this controversy were ended; and I should willingly acknowledge, that which followes in your fourth paragraph; That you allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter allowes you. But then I must intreat you to alter the argument of this Chapter, and not to goe about to give us reasons, why amongst men of different Religions, one side only can be saved absolutely, which your Reasons drive at: But you must temper the crudenes of your Assertion by saying, One side only can be saved, unlesse want of Conviction, or else Repentance excuse the other. Besides you must not only abstaine from damning any Protestant in particular, but from affirming in generall, that Protestants dying [Page]in their Religion cannot be saved; for you must alwaies remember to adde this caution, unlesse they were excusably ignorant of the falshood of it, or dyed with contrition. And then considering that you cannot know, whether or no, all things considered, they were convinc'd sufficiently of the truth of your Religion and the falshood of their own, you are oblig'd by Charity to judge the best, and hope they are not. Considering again, that notwithstanding their Errors, they may dye with contrition, & that it is no way improbable that they doe so, & the contrary you cannot be certain of, You are bound in Charity to judge and hope they doe so. Considering thirdly and lastly, that if they dye not with Contrition, yet it is very probable they may dye with Attritiō, & that this pretence of yours, that Contrition will serve without actuall Confession, but Attrition will not, is but a nicety or phancy, or rather, to give it the true name, a Device of your own, to serve ends and purposes; (God having no where declared himselfe, but that wheresoever he will accept of that repentance, which you are pleased to call Contrition, he will accept of that which you call Attrition; For though he like best the bright flaming holocaust of Love, yet he rejects not, he quenches not the smoaking flaxe of that repentance (if it be true and effectuall) which proceeds from hope and fear:) These things I say, considered, (unlesse you will have the Charity of your doctrine rise up in judgement against your uncharitable practise) you must not only not be peremptory, in damning Protestants, but you must hope well of their Salvation: and out of this hope, you must doe for them as well as others, those, as you conceive, Charitable offices, of Praying, giving Almes and offering Sacrifice, which usually you doe, for those of whose Salvation you are well and charitably perswaded; (for I believe you will never conceive so well of Protestants, as to assure your selves they goe directly to heaven.) These things whē you doe I shall believe you think as charitably as you speak. But untill then, as he said in the Comedy, Quid verba audiam cum facta videam? so may I say to you, Quid verba audiam cum facta non videam? To what purpose should you give us charitable words, which presently you retract again, by denying us your charitable actions. And as these things you must doe, if you will stand to and make good this pretended Charity, so must I tell you again and again, that one thing you must not doe; I mean, you must not affright poore people out of their Religion, with telling them, that by the confession of both sides, your way is safe, but in your judgement, ours undoubtedly damnable. Seeing neither you deny Salvation to Protestants dying with repentance, nor we promise it to you, if ye dye without it. For to deal plainly with you, I know no Protestant that hath any other hope of your salvation, but upon these grounds, that unaffected ignorance may excuse you, or true repentance obtain pardon for you; neither doe the heavy censures which Protestants (you say) passe upon your errors, any way hinder but they may hope as well of you, upon repentance, as I doe. For the fierce doctrine, which, God knowes who, teaches, that Christ for many ages before Luther had no visible Church upon earth; will be mild enough, [Page] if you conceive them to mean (as perhaps they doe) by no visible Church, none pure and free from corruptions, which in your judgement is all one with no Church. But the truth is the corruption of the Church, and the destruction of it, is not all one. For if a particular man or Church may (as you confesse they may) hold some particular Errors, and yet be a member of the Church universall: why may not the Church hold some universall Error, and yet be still the Church? especially, seeing you say, it is nothing but opposing the doctrine of the Church, that makes an error damnable, and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church, I mean that the present Church should oppose it selfe. And then for the English Protestants, though they censure your Errors deeply, yet, by your favour, with their deepest censures it may well consist that invincible ignorance may excuse you from damnation for them. For you your selfe confesse that ignorance may excuse Errors, even in Fundamentall Articles of faith: so that a man so erring shall not offend at all in such his ignorance or error; they are your own words. p. 19. And againe which their heaviest censures it may well consist, that your Errors though in themselves damnable, yet may prove not damning to you, if you dye with true repentance, for all your sinnes known and unknown.

5 Thus much Charity therefore, if you stand to what you have said, is interchangeably granted by each Side to the other, that Neither Religion is so fatally destructive, but that by ignorance or repentance salvation may be had on both Sides: though with a difference that keeps Papists still on the more uncharitable side. For whereas we conceive a lower degree of repentance (that which they call Attrition) if it be true, and effectuall, and convert the heart of the penitent, will serve in them: They pretend (even this Author which is most charitable towards us,) that without Contrition there is no hope for us, But though Protestants may not obtain this purchase at so easy a rare as Papists, yet (even Papists being Iudges) they may obtain it; and though there is no entrance for them but at the only doore of Contrition, yet they may enter, Heaven is not inaccessible to them. Their errors are no such impenetrable Istmus's between them and Salvation, but that Contrition may make a way through them. All their Schisme and Heresy is no such fatall poison, but that if a man ioyne with it the Antidote of a generall repentance, he may dye in it, and live for ever. Thus much then being acknowledged, I appeal to any indifferent reader, whether C. M. be not by his Hyperaspist forsaken in the plain field, and the point in question granted to D. Potter, viz. That Protestancy even without a particular repentance, is not destructive of Salvation; so that all the Controversy remaining now, is, not simply whether Protestancy unrepented destroies salvation? as it was at first proposed, but Whether Protestancy in it selfe (that is abstracting from ignorance and contrition) destroies Salvation? So that as a foolish fellow who gave a Knight the Lye, desiring withall leave of him to set his Knighthood aside, was answered by him, that he would not suffer any thing to be set aside that belonged unto him: So might we justly take it amisse, that conceiving [Page] as you doe ignorance and repentance such necessary things for us, you are not more willing to consider us with them, then without them. For my part such is my charity to you, that considering what great necessity You have, as much as any Christian society in the World, that these sanctuaries of Ignorance and Repentance should alwaies stand open, I can very hardly perswade my selfe so much as in my most secret consideration to devest you of these so needfull qualifications: But whensoever your errors, superstitions and impieties come into my mind, (and besides the generall bonds of humanity and Christianity, my own particular obligations to many of you, such and so great, that you cannot perish without a part of my selfe,) my only comfort is amidst these agonies, that the Doctrine and practise too of repentance, is yet remaining in your Church: And that though you put on a face of confidence of your innocence in point of Doctrine, yet you will be glad to stand in the eye of mercy as well as your fellowes, and not be so stout, as to refuse either Gods pardon or the Kings.

6 But for the present, Protestancy is called to the barre, and though not sentenc'd by you to death without mercy, yet arraigned of so much naturall malignity (if not corrected by ignorance or contrition) as to be in it selfe, destructive of Salvation. Which controversy I am content to dispute with you, tying my selfe to follow the Rules prescribed by you in your Preface. Only I am to remember you, that the adding of this limitation (in it selfe) hath made this a new Question; and that this is not the conclusion for which you were charged with want of Charity. But that whereas according to the grounds of your own Religion, Protestants may dye in their supposed errors, either with excusable ignorance, or with Contrition, and if they doe so may be saved, you still are peremptory in pronouncing them damn'd. Which position supposing your Doctrine true, and ours false, as it is farre from Charity, (whose essential character it is, to judge and hope the best,) so I beleeve that I shall cleerly evince this new, but more moderate assertion of yours to be farre from verity, & that it is Popery, and not Protestancy, which in it selfe destroies Salvation.

7 Ad § 7. & 8. In your gradation I shall rise so farre with you as to grant, that Christ founded a visible Church, stored with all helps necessary to salvation, particularly with sufficient meanes to beget and conserve faith, to maintain unity, and compose schismes, to discover and condemne haeresies, and to determine all controversies in Religion, which were necessary to be determin'd. For all these purposes, he gave at the begining (as we may see in the Ep. to the Ephesians) Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Doctours: who by word of mouth taught their comtemporaries, and by writings (wrot indeed by some, but approved by all of them) taught their Christian posterity to the worlds end, how all these ends, and that which is the end of all these ends, Salvation, is to be archieved. And these meanes the Providence of God hath still preserved, and so preserved, that they are sufficient for all these intents. I say sufficient, though, through the [Page] malice of men, not alwaies effectuall, for that the same meanes may be sufficient for the compassing an end, and not effectuall, you must not deny, who hold that God gives to all men sufficient meanes of Salvation, and yet that all are not sav'd. I said also, sufficient to determine all controversies, which were necessary to be determin'd. For if some controversies may for many ages be undetermined, and yet in the mean while men be sav'd; why should, or how can the Churches being furnisht with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversies in Religion be necessary to Salvation, the end it selfe, to which these meanes are ordained being as experience shewes not necessary? Plain sense will teach every man, that the necessity of the meanes must alwaies be measured by, and can never exceed the necessity of the end. As if eating be necessary, only that I may live, then certainly if I have no necessity to live, I have no necessity to eat. If I have no need to be at London, I have no need of a horse to carry me thither. If I have no need to fly, I have no need of wings. Answer me then I pray directly, and categorically, Is it necessary that all Controversies in Religion should be determin'd, or is it not? If it be, why is the question of Predetermination, of the immaculate conception, of the Popes indirect power in temporalties, so long undetermined? if not, what is it but hypocrisy to pretend such great necessity of such effectuall meanes, for the atchieving that end, which is it selfe not necessary. Christians therefore have and shall have means sufficient (though not alwaies effectuall) to determine not all controversies but all necessary to be determined. I proceed on farther with you, and grant that this meanes to decide controversies in Faith & Religion must be indued with an Vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth. For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature, in any thing which God requires men to believe, we can yeeld unto it but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing. These grounds therefore I grant very readily, and give you free leave to make your best advantage of them. And yet, to deal truly, I doe not perceive how from the denyall of any of them it would follow that Faith is Opinion: or from the granting them, that it is not so. But for my part, whatsoever clamour you have raised against me, I think no otherwise of the Nature of Faith, I mean Historicall Faith, then generally both Protestants and Papists doe; for I conceive it an assent to divine Revelations upon the authority of the revealer. Which though in many things it differ from opinion, (as commonly the word opinion is understood) yet in some things, I doubt not but you will confesse, that it agrees with it. As first, that as Opinion is an Assent, so is faith also. Secondly that as Opinion so Faith, is alwaies built upon lesse evidence then that of sense or science. Which assertion you not only grant but mainly contend for in your sixt Ch. Thirdly and lastly, that as Opinion, so Faith admits degrees; and that as there may be a strong and weak Opinion, so there may be a strong and weak Faith. These things if you wil grant (as sure if you be in your right mind you will not deny any of them) I am well contented that this ill [...]sounding word, Opinion, should be discarded, and [Page] that among the Intellectuall habits you should seek out some other Genus for Faith. For I will never contend with any man about words, who grants my meaning.

8 But though the essence of Faith exclude not all weaknesse and imperfection, yet may it be enquired, whether any certainty of Faith, under the highest degree may be sufficient to please God and attain salvation. Whereunto I answer, that though men are unreasonable, God requires not any thing but Reason. They will not be pleas'd without a down weight, but God is contented if the scale be turn'd. They pretend, that heavenly things cannot be seen to any purpose, but by the mid-day light: But God will be satisfied, if we receive any degree of light which makes us leave the works of darknesse and walk as children of the light. They exact a certainty of Faith above that of sence or science, God desires only that we believe the conclusion, as much as the premises deserve, that the strength of our Faith be equall or proportionable to the credibility of the motives to it. Now though I have and ought to have an absolute certainty of this Thesis, All which God reveales for truth is true, being a proposition that may be demonstrated, or rather so evident to any one that understands it that it needs it not; Yet of this Hypothesis, That all the Articles of our Faith were reveal'd by God, we cannot ordinarily have any rationall and acquired certainty, more then morall, founded upon these considerations: First that the goodnesse of the precepts of Christianity, and the greatnesse of the promises of it, shewes it, of all other Religions, most likely to come from the fountain of goodnesse. And then that a constant, famous and very generall Tradition, so credible, that no wise man doubts of any other, which hath but the fortieth part of the credibility of this, such and so credible a Tradition, tell us, that God himselfe hath set his Hand and Seale to the truth of this Doctrine, by doing great, and glorious, and frequent miracles in confirmation of it. Now our faith is an assent to this conclusion, that the Doctrine of Christianity is true, which being deduc'd from the former Thesis, which is Metaphysically certain, and from the former Hypothesis, whereof we can have but a Morall certainty, we cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certain of it then of the weaker of the premises; as a River will not rise higher then the fountaine from which it flowes. For the conclusion alwaies followes the worser part, if there be any worse: and must be Negative, Particular, Contingent, or but Morally certain, if any of the Propositions, from whence it is deriv'd be so: Neither can we be certain of it in the highest degree, unlesse we be thus certain of all the principles whereon it is grounded. As a man cannot goe or stand strongly, if either of his leggs be weak. Or as a building cannot be stable, if any one of the necessary pillars thereof be infirme and instable. Or as, If a message be brought me, from a man of absolute credit with me, but by a messenger that is not so, my confidence of the truth of the Relation, cannot but be rebated and lessened, by my diffidence in the Relatour.

9 Yet all this I say not as if I doubted, that the spirit of God, being [Page] implor'd by devout and humble prayer and syncere obedience, may, and will be degrees, advance his servants higher, and give them a certainty of adherence, beyond their certainty of evidence. But what God gives as a reward to believers, is one thing: and what he requires of all men, as their duty, is another: and what he will accept of out of grace and favour, is yet another. To those that believe and live according to thir faith, he gives by degrees the spirit of obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know (though how they know not) what they did but believe: And to be as fully and resolutely assur'd of the Gospell of Christ, as those which heard it from Christ himselfe with their eares, which saw it with their eyes, which looked upon it, and whose hands handled the word of life. He requires of all, that their Faith should be (as I have said) proportionable to the motives and Reasons enforcing to it; he will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of Faith, if it be living and effectuall unto true obedience. For he it is that will not quench the smoaking flaxe, nor break the bruised reed. He did not reject the prayer of that distressed man that cryed unto him, Lord I believe, Lord help my unbelief. He commands us to receive them that are weak in faith, and thereby declares that he receives them. And as nothing availes with him, but Faith which worketh by love: So any faith, if it be but as a grain of mustard seed, if it work by love, shall certainly avail with him and be accepted of him. Some experience makes mee fear, that the faith of considering and discoursing men, is like to be crack't with too much straining: And that being possessed with this false Principle, that it is in vain to believe the Gospell of Christ, with such a kind or degree of assent, as they yeeld to other matters of Tradition: And finding that their faith of it, is to them undiscernable, from the belief they give to the truth of other Stories; are in danger either not to believe at all, thinking not at all as good as to no purpose, or else, though indeed they doe believe it, yet to think they doe not, and to cast themselves into wretched agonies and perplexities, as fearing they have not that, without which it is impossible to pleas God and obtain eternall happinesse. Consideration of this advantage, which the Divell probably may make of this Phancy, made me willing to insist somewhat largely upon the Refutation of it.

10 I returne now thither from whence I have digressed, and assure you, concerning the grounds afore-laid, which were, that there is a Rule of Faith, whereby controversies may be decided, which are necessary to be decided, and that this rule is universally infallible, That notwithstanding any opinion I hold, touching Faith, or any thing else, I may, and doe believe them, as firmely as you pretend to doe. And therefore you may build on, in Gods name, for by Gods helpe, I shall alwaies imbrace, whatsoever structure is naturally and rationally laid upon them, whatsoever conclusion may, to my understanding, be evidently deduced from them. You say, out of them it undeniably followes, That of two disagreeing in matter of Faith, the one cannot be saved, but by repentance or ignorance. I answere by distinction of those [Page] termes, two dissenting in a matter of Faith. For it may bee either in a thing which is indeed a matter of Faith, in the strictest sense, that is, something, the Beliefe whereof God requires under paine of damnation: And so the conclusion is true, though the Consequence of it from your former premisses either is none at all, or so obscure, that I can hardly discerne it. Or it may be as it often falls out concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of Faith, is yet overvalued by the Parties at variance, and esteemed to be so. And in this sense it is neither consequent nor true. The untruth of it I haue already declared in my examination of your Preface. The inconsequence of it is of it selfe evident; for who ever heard of a wilder Collection then this—

God hath provided meanes sufficient to decide all Controversies in Religion, necessary to be decided;

This meanes is universally infallible,

Therefore of two, that differ in anything which they esteeme a matter of Faith, one cannot be saved.

He that can finde any 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.

[Page] 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 [Page] 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 and Charity) collect thus, They only erre damnably, who oppose what they know God hath testified, But Protestants sure doe not oppose what they knowe God hath testified, at least we cannot with Charity say they doe, Therefore they either doe not erre damnably, or with charity we cannot say they doe so.

13 Ad § 17. Protestants (you say) according to their own grounds must hold that of Persons contrary in whatsoever point of beleife one part only can be saved, therefore it is strangely done of them to charge Papists with want of Charity for holding the same. The consequence I acknowledge, but wonder much what it should be that laies upon Protestants any necessity to doe so! You tell us it is their holding Scripture the sole Rule of Faith: for this, you say, obligeth them to pronounce them damn'd, that oppose any least point delivered in Scripture. This I grant, If they oppose it after sufficient declaration, so that either they know it to be contain'd in Scripture, or have no just probable Reason, and which may moue an honest man to doubt whether or no it be there contained. For to oppose in the first case in a man that beliues the Scripture to be the word of God, is to giue God the lye. To oppose in the second, is to be obstinate against Reason, and therefore a sinne though not so great as the former. But then this is nothing to the purpose of the necessity of damning all those that are of contrary beliefe; and that for these Reasons. First, because the contrary beliefe may be touching a point not at all mentioned in Scripture; and such points, though indeed they be not matters of Faith, yet by men in variance are often over-valued and esteem'd to be so. So that, though it were damnable to oppose any point contain'd in Scripture; yet Persons of a contrary beliefe (as Victor and Polycrates, S. Cyprian, and [Page] Stephen) might both be saved, because their contrary beliefe was not touching any point contained in Scripture. Secondly, because the contrary beliefe may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous, and with probabilitie capable of diverse senses; and in such cases it is no marvell, and sure no sinne, if severall men goe severall waies. Thirdly because the contrary beliefe may bee concerning points wherein Scripture may with so great probabilitie bee alleaged on both sides, (which is a sure note of a point not necessary) that men of honest and upright hearts, true lovers of God and of truth, such as desire, aboue all things, to know Gods will and to doe it, may, without any fault at all, some goe one way, and some another, & some (& those as good men as either of the former) suspend their judgements, and expect some Elias to solue doubts, and reconcile repugnancies. Now in all such Questions one side or other (which soever it is) holds that which indeed is opposite to the sense of the Scripture, which God intended; for it is impossible that God should intend Contradictions. But then this intended sense is not so fully declared, but that they which oppose it may verily belieue that they indeed maintaine it, and haue great shew of reason to induce them to belieue so; and therefore are not to be damn'd, as men opposing that which they either knowe to be a truth delivered in Scripture, or haue no probable Reason to belieue the contrary; but rather in Charity to be acquitted and absolv'd, as men who endeavour to finde the Truth, but fayle of it through humane frailty.

This ground being laid, the Answer to your ensuing Interrogatories, which you conceiue impossible, is very obvious & easie.

14 To the first. Whether it be not in any man a grievous sinne to deny any one Truth containd'd in holy Writ? I answer, Yes, if he knewe it to be so, or haue no probable Reason to doubt of it: otherwise not.

15 To the second. Whether there be in such deniall any distinction between Fundamētall & not Fundamētall sufficient to excuse from Heresie? I answer, Yes, There is such a Distinction. But the Reason is, because these points, either in themselues, or by accident, are Fundamentall, which are evidently contain'd in Scripture, to him that knowes them to be so: Those not Fundamentall which are there-hence deducible but probably only, not evidently.

16 To the third. Whether it be not impertinent to alleage the Creed as containing all Fundamentall points of Faith, as if believing it alone wee were at Libertie to deny all other Points of Scripture? I answer, It was never alleag'd to any such purpose; but only as a sufficient, or rather more then a sufficient Summarie of those points of Faith, which were of necessity to be believed actually and explicitely; and that onely of such which were meerely and purely Credenda, and not Agenda.

17 To the fourth, drawn as a Corollary from the former, Whether this be not to say, that of Persons contrary in beliefe, one part only can bee saved? I answer, By no meanes. For they may differ about points not contain'd in Scripture: They may differ about the sense of some ambiguous Texts of Scripture: They may differ about some Doctrines, for [Page] and against which Scriptures may be alleadged with so great probability, as may justly excuse either Part from Haeresie, and a selfe condemning obstinacy. And therefore, though D. Potter doe not take it ill, that you believe your selves may be sav'd in your Religion; yet notwithstanding all that hath yet been pretended to the contrary, hee may justly condemne you, and that out of your own principles, of uncharitable presumption, for affirming as you doe, that no man can be saved out of it.

CHAP. II.
What is that meanes, whereby the revealed truths of God are conveyed to our Vnderstanding, and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion.

OF our estimation, respect, and reverence to holy Scripture even Protestants themselves doe in fact give testimony, while they possesse it from us, and take it upon the integrity of our custody. No cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of supreme and sole Iudge to holy writ, if both the thing were not impossible in it selfe, and if both reason and experience did not convince our understanding, that by this assertion Contentions are increased, and not ended. We acknowledge holy Scripture to be a most perfect rule, for as much as a writing can be a Rule: We only deny that it excludes either divine Tradition, though it be unwritten, or an externall Iudge to keep, to propose, to interpret in a true, Orthodoxe, and Catholique sense. Every single book, every Chapter, yea every period of holy Scripture is infallibly true, and wants no due perfection. But must we therefore inferre, that all other Books of Scripture, are to be excluded, least by addition of them, we may seem to derogate from the perfection of the former? When the first Bookes of the old and new Testament were written, they did not exclude unwritten Traditions, nor the Authority of the Church to decide Controversies; and who hath then so altered their nature, and filled them with such jealousies, as that now they cannot agree for fear of mutuall disparagement? What greater wrong is it for the written Word, to be compartner now with the unwritten, then for the unwritten, which was once alone, to be afterward joyned with the written? Who ever heard, that sto commend the fidelity of a Keeper, were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody? Or that, to extoll the integrity and knowledge, and to avouch the necessity of a Iudge in suits of Law, were to deny perfection in the Law? Are there not in Common wealths besides the Lawes written & unwritten, customes, Iudges appointed to declare both the one, & the other, as severall occasions may require?

2 That the Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in Controversies of faith, we gather very cleerly, From the quality of a writing in generall: From the nature of holy Writ in particular, which must be beheved as true, and infallible: From the Editions, and translations of it: From the difficulty to understand it without hazard of Errour: From the inconveniences that must follow upon the ascribing of sole Iudicature to it: and finally from the Confessions of our Adversaries. And on the other side, all these difficulties ceasing, and all other qualities requisite to a Iudge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord, we must conclude, that she it is, to whom in doubts concerning Faith and Religion, all Christians ought to have recourse.

3 The name, notion, nature, and properties of a Iudge cannot in common reason agree to any meere writing, which, be it otherwise in its kind, never so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility; yet it must ever be, as all writings are, deaf, dumb, and inanimate. By a Iudge, all wise men understand a Person endued with life, and reason, able to hear; to examine, to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties, in such sort as that each one may know whether the sentence be in favour of his cause, or against his pretence, and he must be appliable, and able to doe all this, as the diversity of Controversies, persons, occasions, and circumstances may require, There is a great and plain distinction betwixt a Iudge and a Rule. For as in a Kingdome, the Iudge hath his rule to follow which are the received Lawes and Customes; so are not they fit or able to declare, or be Iudges to themselves, but that office must belong to a living Iudge. The holy Scripture may be, and is a Rule, but cannot be a Iudge, because it being alwaies the same, cannot declare it selfe any one time, or upon any one occasion more particularly then upon any other; and let it be read over an hundred times, it will be still the same, and no more fit alone to terminate [Page] controversies in faith, then the Law would be to end suits, if it were given over to the phancy, and glosse of every single man.

4 This difference betwixt a Iudge and a Rule, D. Potter perceived, when more then once, having stiled the Scripture a Iudge, by way of correcting that terme, he addes, or rather a Rule, because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a Iudge. From hence also it was, that though Protestants in their begining affirmed Scripture alone to be the Iudge of Controversies; yet upon a more advised reflection, they changed the phrase, and said, that not Scripture, but the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture, is Iudge in Controversies. A difference without a disparity. The holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us, then the Scripture in which he speaks: as a man speaking only Latin, can be no better understood, then the tongue wherein he speaketh. And therefore to say, a Iudge is necessary for deciding controversies, about the meaning of Scripture is as much as to say, he is necessary to decide what the Holy Ghost speakes in Scripture. And it were a conceyt, equally foolish and pernitious, if one should seek to take away all Iudges in the Kingdome, upon this nicety, that albeit Lawes cannot be Iudges, yet the Law-maker speaking in the Law, may performe that Office; as if the Law-maker speaking in the Law, were with more perspicuity understood, then the Law whereby he speaketh.

5 But though some writing were granted to have a priviledge, to declare it selfe upon supposition that it were maintained in being, and preserved entire from corruptions; yet it is manifest, that no writing can conserve it selfe, nor can complaine, or denounce the falsifier of it; and therefore it stands in need of some watchfull and not erring eye, to guard it, by meanes of whose assured vigilancy, we may undoubtedly receive it syncere and pure.

6 And suppose it could defend it selfe from corruption, how could it assure us that it selfe were Canonicall, and of infallible verity? By saying so? Of this very affirmation, there will remain the same Question still; how it can prove it selfe to be infallibly true? Neither can there ever be an end of the like multiplied demands, till we rest in the externall Authority of some person or persons bearing witnes to the world, that such, or such a book is Scripture: and yet upon this point according to Protestants all other Controversies in faith depend.

7 That Scripture cannot assure us, that it selfe is Canonicall Scripture, is acknowledged by some Protestants in expresse words, and by all of them in deeds. M. Hooker, whom D. Potter rankethPag. 131. among men of great learning and Iudgement, saith: of things In his first book of Eccles. Policy Sect. 1 [...]. p. 68. necessary, the very chiefest is to know what books we are to esteem holy; which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach. And this he proveth by the same argument, which we lately used, saying thus: It is not Ibid. lib. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102. the word of God which doth, or possibly can, assure us, that we doe well to think it his word. For if any one book of Scripture did give testimony of all, yet still that Scripture which giveth testimony to the rest, would require another Scripture to give credit [...]nto it. Neither could we come to any pause whereon to rest, unlesse besides Scripture, there were something which might assure us &c. And this he acknowledgeth to be thel. 3. Sect. 8. pag. 1. 146. et alibi. Church. By the way. If, Of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by Scripture, as this man of so great learning and judgement affirmeth, and demonstratively proveth; how can the Protestant Clergy of England subscribe to their sixt Article? Wherein it is said of the Scripture: Whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation: and concerning their belief and profession of this Article, they are particularly examined when they be ordained Priests and Bishops. With Hooker, his defendant Covell doth punctually agree. Whitaker likewise confesseth, that the question about Canonicall Scriptures, is defined to us, not by testimony of the private spirit, which (faith he) being private and secret, is Advers. Stapl. l. 2. c. 6. Pag. 270. & Pag. 357. unfit to teach and refell others; but (as he acknowledgeth) by the Adversus Stapl. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 300. Ecclesiasticall Tradition: An argument (saith he) whereby may be argued, and convinced, what books be Canonicall, and what be not. Luther saith: This lib. de cap. Babyl. tom. 2. Wittemb. f. 88. indeed the Church hath, that she can discerne the word of God, from the word of men: as Augustine confesseth, that he believed the Gospell, being moved by the authority of the Church, which did preach this to be the Gospell. Fulk teacheth, that the Church In his answer to a coū terfeit Catholique pag. 5. hath judgement to discerne true writings from counterfeit, and the word of God from the writing of men, and that this iudgement she hath not of her selfe, but of the Holy Ghost. And to the end that you my not be ignorant, from what Church you must receive Scriptures, hear your first Patriarch Luther, speaking against them, who (as he saith) brought in Anabaptisme, that so they might despight the Pope. Verily (saith he) these Epist. cont. Anabap. ad duos Parochos tom. 2. Germ. Wittemb. men build upon a weak foundation. For by this means they ought to deny the whole Scripture, and the Office of Preaching. For, all these we have from the Pope: otherwise we must go make a new Scripture.

8 But now in deeds, they all make good, that without the Churches authority, no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall, while they cannot agree in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture. Of the Epistle of S. Iames, Luther hath these words: The Praefat. in epist. lac. in edit. Ie [...]ensi. Epistle of Iames is contentious; swelling, dry, strawy, and unworthy of an Apostolicall Spirit. Which censure of Luther, Illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth. Kemnitins teacheth, that the second Epistle In Euchirid. pag. 63. of Peter, the second and third of Iohn, the Epistle to the Hebrewes, the Epistle of Iames, the Epistle of Iude, and the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall, as not having sufficient Testimony In examin. Conc. Trid. part. 1. pag. 55. of their authority, and therefore that nothing in controversy can be proved out of these Ibid. Bookes. The same is taught by divers other Lutherans; and if some other amongst them, be of a contrary opinion [Page] since Luther's time, I wonder what new infallible ground they can alleage, why they leaue their Master, and so many of his prime Schollers? I kn [...]w no better ground, then because they may with as much freedome abandon him, as hee was bold to alter that Canon of Scripture, which he found receaved in Gods Church.

9 What Bookes of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonicall, is not easie to affirme. In their sixt Article they say In the name of the holy Scripture, who doe understand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. What meane they by these words? That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall? This were to make the Church Iudge, and not Scriptures alone. Doe they only understand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement? Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of faith. By this rule (of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church) the whole book of Esther must quit the Canon, because some in the Church haue excluded it from the Canon, asApud Euseb. l. 4. hist. c. 26. Melito Asianus, In Synop. Athanasius, andln carm. de. genuinis Scripturis. Gregory Nazianzen. And Luther (if Protestanis will be content that he be in the Church) saith: The Iewes lib. de servo arbitrio. cont. Etas. tom. 2. Witt. fol. 471. place the book of Esther in the Canon, which yet, if I might be Iudge, doth rather deserve to bee put out of the Canon. And of Ecclesiastes he saith: This In latinis sermonibus convivialibus Francof. in 8. impr. Anno 1571. book is not full; there are in it many abrupt things: he wants boots and spurres, that is, he hath no perfect sentence, hee rides upon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery. And much more is to be read in him: whoIn Germanicis colloq. Lutheri ab Aurifabro editis Francosurt. tit. de libris veteris & novi Test. fol. 379. saith further, that the said book was not written by Salomon, but by Syrach in the time of the Machabees, and that it is like to the Talmud (the Iewes bible) out of many bookes heaped into one worke, perhaps out of the Library of king Ptolomeus. And further he saith, thatIb. tit. de Patriarchis & Prophet. fol. 282. he doth not belieue all to haue been done as there is set downe. And he reacheth theTit. de lib. Ve [...]. & Nov. Test. booke of Iob to be as it were an argument for a fable (or Comedy) to set before us an example of Patience. And heFol. 380. delivers this generall censure of the Prophets Books: The Sermons of no Prophet, were written whole, and perfect, but their Disciples, and Auditors snatched, now one sentence, and then another, and so put them all into one book, and by this meanes the Bible was conserved. If this were so, the Books of the Prophets, being not written by themselues, but promiscuously, and casually, by their Disciples, will soone be called in question. Are not these errours of Luther, fundamentall? and yet if Protestants deny the infallibility of the Church, upon what certaine ground can they disproue these Lutherian, and Luciferian blasphemies? ô godly Reformer of the Roman Church! But to returne to our English Canon of Scripture. In the New Testament by the aboue mentioned rule (of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church) divers Books of the New Testament must be discanonized, to wit, all those of which some Ancients haue doubted, and those which divers Lutherans haue of late denied. It is worth the observation how the before-mentioned sixt Article, doth specify by name all the Books of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonicall; but those of the New Testament, as they are commonly receaved, we doe recieue, and account them Canonicall. The mystery is easily to be unfolded. If they had descended to particulars, they must haue contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren. As they are commonly recieued, &c. I aske: By whom? By the Church of Rome: Then, by the same reason they must receiue divers Books of the Old Testament, which they reject. By Lutherans? Then with Lutherans they may deny some Books of the New Testament. If it bee the greater, or lesse number of voices, that must cry up, or down, the Canon of Scripture, our Roman Canon will prevaile: and among Protestants the Certainty of their Faith must be reduced to an Vncertaine Controversie of Fact, whether the number of those who reject, or of those others who recieue such and such Scriptures, bee greater. Their Faith must alter according to yeares, and daies. When Luther first appeared, he, and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church; and so this claime (Of being commonly received) stood for them, till Zuinglius and Calvin grew to some equall, or greater number then that of the Lutherans, and then this rule of (Commonly received) will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans. I would gladly know, why in the former part of their Article, they say both of the Old and New Testament: In the name of the holy Scripture, we doe understand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. and in the latter part, speaking againe of the New Testament, they giue a farre different rule, saying: All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we doe receiue, and account them Canonicall. This I say is a rule much different from the former (Of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church.) For some Books might be said to be Commonly received, although they were sometime doubted of by some. If to be Commonly received, passe for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament; why not of the Old? Aboue all we desire to know, upon what infallible ground in some Bookes they agree with us against Luther, and divers principall Lutherans, and in others jump with Luther against us? But seeing they disagree among themselues, it is evident that they haue no certaine rule to know the Canon of Scripture, in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity erre, because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true.

10 Moreover the letters, syllables, words, phrase, or matter contained in holy Scripture [Page] haue no necessary, or naturall connection with divine Revelation or Inspiration: and therefore by seeing, reading, or understanding them, we cannot inferre that they proceed from God, or be confirmed by divine authoritie, as because Creatures involve a necessary relation, connection, and dependance on their Creator, Philosophers may by the light of naturall reason, demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things. In Holy Wr [...] there are innumerable truths not surpassing the spheare of humane wit, which are, or may be delivered by Pagan Writers, in the selfe same words and phrase as they are in Scripture. And as for some truths peculiar to Christians, (for Example, the mystery of the blessed Trinitie &c.) The only setting them down in Writing is not enough to be assured that such a Writing is the undoubted word of God: otherwise some sayings of Plato, Tris [...]egistus, Sybils, Ovid, &c. must be esteemed Canonicall Scripture, because they fall upon some truths proper to Christian Religion. The internall light, and inspiration which directed and moved the Authors of Canonicall Scriptures, is a hidden Qualitie infused into their understanding and will, and hath no such particular sensible influence into the externall Writing, that in it we can discover, or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration; and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is divine we cannot know from it selfe alone, but by some other extrinsecall authority.

11 And here we appeale to any man of judgement, whether it be not a vaine brag of some Protestants to tell us, that they wot full well what is Scripture, by the light of Scripture it selfe, or (as D. Potter words it) by Pag. 141. that glorious beame of divine light which shines therein; even as our eye distinguisheth light from darknesse, without any other help then light it selfe; and as our eare knowes a voice, by the voice it selfe alone. But this vanity is refuted, by what we said even now; that the externall Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connection with divine inspiration, or revelation. Will D. Poiter hold all his Bretheren for blinde men, for not seeing that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture, about which they cannot agree? Corporall light may be discerned by it selfe alone, as being evident, proportionate, and connaturall to our faculty of seeing. That Scripture is Divine, and inspired by God, is a truth exceeding the naturall capacity and compasse of mans understanding, to us obscure, and to be believed by divine faith, which according to the Apostle is; argumentum Heb. v. 1, non apparentium; an argument, or conviction, of things not evident: and therefore no wonder if Scripture doe not manifest it selfe by it selfe alone, but must require some other meanes for applying it to our understanding. Neverthelesse their own similitudes and instances, make against themselues. For suppose a man had never read, or heard of Sunne, Moone, Fire, Candle, &c. and should bee brought to behold a light, yet in such sort as that the Agent, or Cause efficient from which it proceeded, were kept hidden from him; could such a one, by only beholding the light, certainly know, whether it were produced by the Sunne, or Moone &c.? Or if one heare a voice, and had never known the speaker, could he know from whom in particular that voice proceeded? They who look upon Scripture, may well see, that some one wrote it, but that it was written by divine inspiration, how shall they know? Nay, they cannot so much as know who wrote it, unlesse they first know the writer, and what hand he writes: as likewise I cannot know whose voice it is which I heare, unlesse I first both know the person who speakes, and with what voice he useth to speak; and yet even all this supposed, I may perhaps be deceaved. For there may be voices so like, and Hand so counterfeited, that men may be deceaved by them, as birds were by the grapes of that skilfull Painter. Now since Protestants affirme knowledge concerning God as our supernaturall end, must be taken from Scripture, they cannot in Scripture alone discerne that it is his voice, or writing, because they cannot know from whom a writing, or vioce proceeds, unlesse first they know the person who speake [...]', or writeth. Nay I say more: By Scripture alone, they cannot so much as know, that any person doth in it, or by it, speak any thing at all: because one may write without intent to signifie, or affirme any thing, but onely to set downe, or as it were paint, such characters, syllables, and words, as men are wont to set copies, not caring what the signification of the words imports: or as one transcribes a writing which himselfe understands not; or when one writes what another dictates, and in other such cases, wherein it is cleare, that the writer speakes, or signifies nothing in such his writing; and therefore by it we cannot heare, or understand his voice. With what certainty then can any man affirme, that by Scripture it selfe they can see, that the writers did intend to signifie any thing at all; that they were Apostles, or other Canonicall Authors; that they wrote their own sense, and not what was dictated by some other man; and finally, and especially, that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost?

12 But let us be liberall, and for the present suppose (not grant) that Scripture is, like to corporall light, by it selfe alone able to determine, and moue our understanding to assent; yet the similitude proues against themselues. For light is not visible, except to such as haue eyes, which are not made by the light, but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause. And therefore, to hold the similitude, Scripture can be cleare onely to those who are endued with the eye of faith; or, as D. Potter aboue cited saith, to all that haue Pag. 141▪ eyes to discerne the shining beames thereof; that is, to the believer, as immediatly [Page] after he speaketh. Faith then must not originally proceed from Scripture, but is to be presupposed, before we can see the light thereof; and consequently there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith, which can be no other then the Church.

13 Others affirme, that they know Canonicall Scriptures to be such, by the Title of the Bookes. But how shall we know such Inscriptions, or Titles to be infallibly true? From this their Answere our argument is strengthened, because divers Apocryphall writings have appeared, under the Titles, and Names of sacred Authors, as the Gospell of Thomas mentioned byCont. Adimantn. c. 17. S. Augustine: the Gospell of Peter, which the Nazaraei did use, asl. 2. haeretic. fab. Theodoret witnesseth, with which Seraphion a Catholique Bishop, was for some time deceived, as may be read inlib. 6. cap. 10. Eusebius who also speaketh of the Apocalyps oflib. 6. cap. 11. Peter. The like may be said of the Gospells of Barnabas, Bartholomew, and other such writings specified by PopeDist. Can. Sancta Rom [...] na. Gelasius. Protestants reject likewise some part of Esther and Daniel, which bear the same Titles with the rest of those Bookes, as also both we, and they hold for Apochryphall, the third and fourth Bookes which goe under the name of Esdras, and yet both of us receive his first and second book. Wherefore Titles are not sufficient assurances what bookes be Canonicall: whichIn his defence art. 4. Pag. 31. D. Covell acknowledgeth in these words: It is not the word of God, which doth, or possibly can assure us, that we doe well to think it is the word of God: the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the Scripture, is the Authority of Gods Church, which teacheth us to receive Marks Gospell, who was not an Apostle, and to refuse the Gospell of Thomas who was an Apostle: and to retain Lukes Gospell who saw not Christ, and to reiect the Gospell of Nicodemus who saw him.

14 Another Answer, or rather Objection they are wont to bring: That the Scripture being a principle needs no proof among Christians. SoPag. 234. D. Potter. But this is either a plain begging of the question, or manifestly untrue, and is directly against their own doctrine, and practise. If they mean, that Scripture is one of those principles, which being the first, and the most known in all Sciences, cannot be demonstrated by other Principles, they suppose that which is in question, whether there be not some principle (for example, the Church) whereby we may come to the knowledge of Scripture. If they intend, that Scripture is a Principle, but not the first, and most known in Christianity, then Scripture may be proved. For principles, that are not the first, not known of themselves, may, and ought to be proved, before we can yeild assent, either to them, or to other verities depending on them. It is repugnant to their own doctrine, and practise, in as much as they are wont to affirme, that one part of Scripture may be known to be Canonicall, and may be interpreted by another. And since every Scripture is a principle sufficient, upon which to ground divine faith, they must grant, that one Principle may, and sometime must be proved by another. Yea this their Answer, upon due ponderation, falls out to prove, what we affirme. For since all Principles cannot be proved, we must (that our labour may not be endlesse) come at length to rest in some principle; which may not require any other proof. Such is Tradition, which involves an evidence of fact, and from hand to hand, and age to age, bringing us up to the times, and Persons of the Apostles, and our Saviour himselfe cometh to be confirmed by all those miracles, and other arguments, whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true. Wherefore the ancient Fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred Canon upon the credit of Gods Church. In Synopsi. S. Athanasius saith, that only four Gospels are to be received, because the Canons of the Holy, and Catholique Church have so determined. The third Councell ofCan. 47. Carthage having set down the Bookes of holy Scripture, gives the reason, because, We have received from our Fathers that these are to be read in the Church. 8. Augustine Cont. [...]p. Fundam. c. 5. speaking of the Acts of the Apostles, saith: To which book I must give credit, if I give credit to the Gospell, because the Catholique Church doth a like recommend to me both these Bookes. And in the same place he hath also these words: I would not believe the Gospell, unles the authority of the Catholique Church did move me. A saying so plain, that Zuinglius, is forced to cry out: Heere I Tom. 1. fol. 135. implore your equity to speak freely, whether this saying of Augustine seem not overbold, or else unadvisedly to have fallen from him.

15 But suppose they were assured what Books were Canonicall, this will little avail them, unles they be likewise certain in what language they remain uncorrupted, or what Translations be true. Calvin Instit. c. 6. §. 11. acknowledgeth corruption in the Hebrew Text; which if it be taken without points, is so ambiguous, that scarcely any one Chapter, yes period, can be securely understood without the help of some Translation. If with points: These were after S. Hieroms time, invented by the perfidious Iewes, who either by ignorance might mistake, or upon malice force the Text, to favour their impieties. And that the Hebrew Text still retaines much ambiguity, is apparent by the disagreeing Translation of Novelists; which also proves the Greek, for the New Testament, not to be void of doubtfulnes, as Calvin Instit c. 7. §. 12. confesseth it to be corrupted. And although both the Hebrew and Greeke were pure, what doth this help, if only Scripture be the rule of faith, and so very few be able to examine the Text in these languages. All then must be reduced to the certainty of Translations into other tongues, wherein no private man having any premise, or assurance of infallibility, Protestants who rely upon Scripture alone, will find no certain ground for their faith: as accordingly Whitaker lib. de sancta Scriptura p. 52. affirmeth: Those who understand not the Hebrew and Greek doe erre often, and unavoidably.

[Page] 16 Now concerning the Translations of Protestants, it will be sufficient to set down what the laborious, exact, and jucicious Author of the Protestants Apology &c. dedicated to our late King Iames of famous memory, hath to thisTast. 1. Sect. 10. subd. 4: joyned with tract. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 10. subd. 2. purpose. To omit (saith he) particulars, whose recitall would be infinite, and to touch this point but generally only, the Translation of the New Testament by Luther is condemned by Andreas, O siander Keckermannus, and Zuinglius, who saith hereof to Luther. Thou dost corrupt the word of God, thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy Scriptures: how much are we ashamed of thee who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure, and now prove thee to be such a man? And in like manner doth Luther reject the Translation of the Zuinglians, terming them in matter of Divinity, fooles, Asses, Anuchrists, deceavers, and of Asse-like understanding. In so much that when Froschoverus the Zwinglian Printer of Zurich sent him a Bible translated by the Divines there, Luther would not receive the same, but sending it back reiected it, as the Protestant Writers Hospinianus, and Lavatherus witnesse. The translation set forth by Oecolampadius, and the Divines of Basil, is reproved by Beza, who affirmeth that the Basil Translation is in many places wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy Ghost. The translation of Castalio is condemned by Beza, as being sacrilegious, wicked, and Ethnicall. As concerning, Calvins translation, that learned Protestant Writer Carolus Molineus saith thereof: Calvin in his Harmony maketh the text of the Gospell to leap up and down: he useth violence to the letter of the Gospell, and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Bezas translation (to omit the dislike had thereof by Selneccerus the German Protestant of the Vniversity of Iena) the foresaid Molinaeus saith of him, de facto mutat textum; he actually changeth the text, and giveth farther sundry instances of his corruptions: as also Castalio that learned Calvinist, and most learned in the tongues, reprehendeth Beza in a whole book of this matter, and saith; that to note all his errours in translation, would require a great volume. And M. Parkes saith: As for the Geneva Bibles, it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors, which are both in the text, and in the margent; or else utterly prohibited. All which confirmeth your Maiesties grave and learned Censure, in your thinking the Geneva translation to be worst of all; and that in the Marginall notes annexed to the Geneva translation, some are very partiall, untrue, seditious, &c. Lastly concerning the English Translation, the Puritans say: Our translation of the Psalmes comprized in our Book of Common Prayer, doth in addition, subtraction, and alteration, differ from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least. In so much as they doe therefore professe to rest doubtfull, whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereunto. And M. Carlile saith of the English Translators, that they have depraved the sense, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant; that in many places they doe detort the Scriptures from the right sense. And that, they shew themselves to love darknesse more then light, falshood more then truth. And the Ministers of Lincolne Diocesse give their publike testimony, terming the English Translation: A Translation that taketh away from the Text; that addeth to the Text; and that, sometime to the changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. Not without cause therefore did your Majesty affirme, that you could never yet see a Bible well translated into English. Thus farre the Author of the Protestants Apology &c. And I cannot forbear to mention in particular that famous corruption of Luther, who in the Text where it is said (Rom. 3. v. 28. We accompt a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law, in favour of Iustification by faith alone, translateth (Iustified by faith ALONE.) As likewise the falsification of Zuinglius is no lesse notorious, who in the Gospels of S. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and in S. Paul, in place of, This is my Body, This is my Blood, translates, This signifies my Body, This signifies my blo [...]d. And here let Prorestants consider duely of these points. Salvation cannot be hoped for without true faith: Faith according to them relies upon Scripture alone: Scripture must be delivered to most of them by the Translations: Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men, in whom nothing is more certain then a most certain possibility to erre, and no greater evidence of truth, then that it is evident some of them imbrace falshood, by reason of their contrary translations. What then remaineth, but that truth, faith, salvation, and all, must in them rely upon a fallible, and uncertain ground? How many poore soules are lamentably seduced, while from preaching Ministers, they admire a multitude of Texts of divine Scripture, but are indeed the false translations, and corruptions of erring men? Let them therefore, if they will be assured of true Scriptures, fly to the alwaies visible Catholique Church, against which the gates of hell can never so farre prevaile, as that she shall be permitted to deceive the Christian world with false Scriptures. And Luther himselfe, by unfortunate experience, was at length forced to confesse thus much saying: If the Lib. cont. Zwingl. deverit. corp. Christiin Euchar. world last longer, it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of Councels, and to have recourse to them, by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now raigne. On the contrary side, the Translation approved by the Roman Church, is commended even by our adversaries: and D. Covel in particular saith, that it was used in the Church, one thousand In his answere unto M. Iohn Burges pag. 94. three hundred yeares agoe, and doubteth not to prefer Ibid. that Translation before others. In so much, that whereas the English translations be many, and among themselves disagreeing, he concludeth, that of all those the approved translation authorized by the Church of England, is that which commeth nearest to the vulgar, and is commonly called the Bishops Bible. So that the truth of that translation which we use, must be the rule to judge of the goodnesse of their Bibles: and therefore they are obliged to maintain our Translation if it were but for their own sake.

[Page] 17 But doth indeed the source of their manifold uncertainties stop here? No, The chiefest difficulty remaines, concerning the true meaning of Scripture: for attaining whereof, if Protestants had any certainty, they could not disagree so hugely as they doe. Hence M. Hooker saith: We areIn his Preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiast [...]call Pollicy. Sect. 6. 26. right sure of this, that Nature, Scripture, and Experience have all taught the world to seek for the ending of contentions, by submitting it selfe unto some iudiciall, and definitive sentence, whereunto neither part that contendeth may, under any pretence, refuse to stand. D. Fields words are remarkable, to this purpose: Seeing (saith he) the controversiesIn his treatise of the Church In his Epistle dedicatory to the L. Archbishop. of Religion in our times are grown in number so many, and in nature so intricate, that few have time and leasure, fewer strength of understanding to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out which among all the societies in the world, is that blessed company of holy ones, that houshold of Faith, that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the living God, which is the Pillar and ground of Truth, that so they may imbrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her iudgement?

18 And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture, ought to be received from the Church, it is also proved by what we have already demonstrated, that she it is, who must declare what Bookes be true Scripture; wherein if she be assisted by the Holy Ghost, why should we not believe her, to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them? Let Protestants therefore either bring some proofe out of Scripture, that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost in discerning true Scripture, and not in delivering the true sense thereof; Or else give us leave to apply against them, the argument, which S. Augustine opposed to the Manicheans, in these words; I would not Cont. ep. Fund. cap. 5. believe the Gospell, unlesse the authority of the Church did move me. Them therefore whom I obeye [...] saying, Believe the Gospell, why should I not obey saying to me, Doe not believe Manichaeus (Luther, Calvin, &c.) Choose what thou pleasest. If thou shalt say, believe the Catholiques; They warne me not to give any credit to you. If therefore I believe them, I cannot believe thee. If thou say, Do not believe the Catholiques, thou shalt not doe well in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus, because by the preaching of Catholiques I believed the Gospell it selfe. If thou say, you did well to believe them (Catholiques) commending the Gospell, but you did not well to believe them, discommending Manichaeus; Dost thou think me so very foolish, that without any reason at all, I should believe what thou wilt, and not believe what thou wilt not? And doe not Protestants perfectly resemble these men, to whom S. Augustine spake, when they will have men to believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture, but not to believe her condemning Luther, and the rest? Against whom, when they first opposed themselves to the Roman Church, S. Augustine may seem to have spoken no lesse prophetically, then doctrinally, when he said: Why should I not most Lib. de util. [...]e. cap. 14. diligently in [...]uire what Christ cōmanded of them before all others, by whose authority I was moved to believe, that Christ commanded any good thing? Canst thou better declare to me what he said, whom I would not have thought to have been; or to be, if the belief thereof had been recommended by thee to mee? This therefore I believed by fame, strengthned with celebrity, consent, Antiquity. But every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing deserving authority. What madnesse is this? Believe them (Catholiques) that we ought to believe Christ; but learn of us what Christ said Why, I beseech thee? Surely if they (Catholiques) were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, I would more easily perswade my selfe, that I were not to believe Christ, then that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I believed him. If therefore we receive the knowledge of Christ, and Scriptures from the Church, from her also must we take his doctrine, and the interpretation thereof.

19 But besides all this, the Scriptures cannot be Iudge of Controversies; who ought to be such, as that to him not only the learned, or Veterans, but also the unlearned, and Novices, may have recourse: for these being capable of salvation, and endued with faith of the same nature with that of the learned, there must be some universall Iudge, which the ignorant may understand, and to whom the greatest Clerks must submit. Such is the Church: and the Scripture is not such.

20 Now, the inconveniences which follow by referring all Controversies to Scripture alone, are very clear. For by this principle, all is finally in very deed and truth reduced to the internall private Spirit, because there is really no middle way betwixt a publiqu [...] externall, and a private internall voyce; and whosoever refuseth the one, must of necessity adhere to the other.

21 This Tenet also of Protestants, by taking the office of Iudicature from the Church, comes to conferre it upon every particular man, who being driven from submission to the Church, cannot be blamed if he trust himselfe as farre as any other, his conscience dictating, that wittingly he meanes not to cozen himself, as others malitiously may doe. Which inference is so manifest, that it hath extorted from divers Protestants the open Confession of so vast an absurdity. Hear Luther: The Governours T [...]m. [...]. Wittemberg. fol. 375. of Churches and Pastors of Christs sheep have indeed power to teach, but the sheep ought to give judgement whether they propound the voice of Christ, or of Aliens. Lubertus saith: As we have In lib. de principiis Christian. dogm lib 6 [...]. 13. demonstrated that all publique Iudges may be deceived in interpreting; so we affirme, that they may erre in judging. All faithfull men are private Iudges, and they also have power to judge of doctrines and interpretations. Whitaker, even of the unlearned, saith: They De Sacra Scriptura pag. 529. ought to have recourse unto the more learned; but in the meane time we must be carefull not to attribute to them over-much, but so, that still we retaine our owne freedome. Bilson also affirmeth; that, The people In his true differ [...]nce part. 2. must be discerners, and Iudges of that which is taught. This same pernicious doctrine is delivered by Brentius, Zanchius, Cartwright, and others exactly [Page] cited byTract. 2. cap, 1. Sect. 1. Brerely; and nothing is more common in every Protestants mouth, then that he admits of Fathers, Councells, Church &c. as farre as they agree with Scripture; which upon the matter is himselfe. Thus Heresy ever fals upon extreames: It pretends to have Scripture alone for judge of Controversies, and in the meane time sets up as many Iudges, as there are men and women in the Christian world. What good Statesmen would they be, who should ideate, or fancy such a Cō mon wealth, as these men haue framed to themselues a Church? They verifie what S. Augustine objecteth against certaine Heretiques. You see Lib. 32. cont▪ Faust. that you goe about to overthrow all authority of Scripture, and that every mans minde may be to himselfe a Rule, what he is to allow, or disallow in every S [...]ipture.

22 Moreover what confusion to the Church, what danger to the Common wealth, this deniall of the authority of the Church, may bring, I leaue to the consideration of any judicious, indifferent man. I will only set down some words of D. Potter, who speaking of the Proposition of revealed Truths, sufficient to proue him that gain-saith them to be an Heretique, saith thus: This Proposition Pag. 247▪ of revealed truths, is not by the infallible determination of Pope, or Church; (Pope, & Church being excluded, let us heare what more secure rule he will prescribe) but by whatsoever meanes a man may be convinced in conscience of divine revelation. If a Preacher doe clear any point of faith to his Hearers; if a private Christian doe make it appeare to his Neighbour, that any conclusion, or point of faith is delivered by divine revelation of Gods word; if a man himselfe (without any Teacher) by reading the Scriptures, or hearing them read, be convinced of the truth of any such conclusion: this is a sufficient proposition to proue him that gainsaith any such proofe, to be an Heretique, and obstinate opposer of the faith. Behold what goodly safe Propounders of faith arise in place of Gods universall visible Church, which must yeeld to a single Preacher, a Neighbour, a man himselfe if he can read, or at least haue eares to heare Scripture read. Verily I doe not see, but that every well-governed Civill Commonwealth, ought to concurre towards the exterminating of this doctrine, whereby the Interpretation of Scripture is taken from the Church, and conferred upon every man, who, whatsoever is pretended to the contrary, may be a passionate seditious creature.

23 Moreover, there was no Scripture, or written word for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses, whom all acknowledge to haue been the first Author of Canonicall Scripture: And againe for about two thousand yeares more, from Moyses to Christ our Lord, holy Scripture, was only among the people of Israel; and yet there were Gentiles endued in those daies with divine Faith, as appeareth in Iob, and his friends. Wherefore during so many ages, the Church alone was the Decider of Controversies, and Instructer of the faithfull. Neither did the word written by Moyses, depriue the Church of her former Infallibility, or other qualities requisite for a Judge: yea D. Potter acknowledgeth, that besides the Law, there was a living Iudge in the Iewish Church, endued with an absolutely infallible direction in cases of moment; as all points belonging to divine Faith are. Now, the Church of Christ our Lord, was before the Scriptures of the New Testament, which were not written instantly, nor all at one time, but successiuely upon severall occasions; and some after the decease of most of the Apostles: and after they were written, they were not presently knowne to all Churches: and of some there was doubt in the Church for some Ages after our Saviour. Shall we then say, that according as the Church by little and little received holy Scripture, she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility, and power to decide Cōtroversies in Religion? That some time Churches had one Iudge of Controversies, and others another? That with moneths, or yeares, as new Canonicall Scripture grew to be published, the Church altered her whole Rule of faith, or Iudge of Controversies? After the Apostles time, and after the writing of Scriptures, Heresies would be sure to rise, requiring in Gods Church for their discovery and condemnation, Infallibilitie, either to write new Canonicall Scripture, as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emergent heresies; or infallibilitie to interpret Scriptures, already written, or, without Scripture, by divine unwritten Traditions, and assistants of the holy Ghost to determine all Controversies, as Tertullian saith: The soule is De test. anim. cap. 5. before the letter; and speech before Bookes; and sense before stile. Certainly such addition of Scripture, with derogation, or subtraction from the former power and infallibilitie of the Church, would haue brought to the world division in matters of faith, and the Church had rather lost, then gained by holy Scripture (which ought to be far from our tongues and thoughts,) it being manifest, that for decision of Controversies, infallibilitie setled in a living Iudge, is incomparably more usefull and fit, then if it were conceived, as inherent in some inanimate writing. Is there such repugnance betwixt Infallibility in the Church, and Existence of Scripture, that the production of the one, must be the destruction of the other? Must the Church wax dry, by giving to her Children the milke of sacred Writ? No, No. Her Infallibility was, and is derived from an inexhausted fountaine. If Protestants will haue the Scripture alone for their Iudge, let them first produce some Scripture affirming, that by the entring thereof, Infallibilitie went out of the Church, D. Potter may remember what himselfe teacheth; That the Church is still endued with infallibility in points fundamentall, and consequently, that infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the truth, the sanctity, yea with the sufficiency of Scripture, for all matters necessary to Salvation. I would therefore gladly know, out of what Text he imagineth that the Church by the comming of Scripture, was deprived of infallibility in some points, and not in others? He affirmeth that the Iewish Synagogue retained infallibility in her selfe, notwithstanding the writing of the Old Testament; [Page] and will he so unworthily and unjustly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibilitie by reason of the New Testament? E [...]pecially if we consider, that in the Old Testament, Lawes, Ceremonies, Rites, Punishments, Iudgements, Sacraments, Sacrifices &c. were more particularly, and minutely delivered to the Iewes, then in the New Testament is done; our Saviour leaving the determination, or declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church, which therefore stands in need of infallibility more then the Iewish Synagogue, D. Potter, Pag. 24. (1) against this argument, drawne from the power and infallibilitie of the Synagogue, objects; that we might as well inferre, that Christians must haue one soveraigne Prince over all because the Iewes had one chiefe Iudge. But the disparitie is very cleare. The Synagogue was a type, and figure of the Church of Christ [...] so their civill government of Christian Common wealths, or kingdomes. The Church succeeded to the Synagogue, but not Christian Princes to Iewish Magistrates: And the Church is compared to a house, orHeb. 13. family; to anCant. 2. Army, to a1. Cor. 10. Ephes. 4. body; to aMat. 12. kingdome &c. all which require one Master, on [...] Generall, one head, one Magistrate, one spiritual King; as our blessed Saviour with fiet Vnm ovile, Ioan. c. 10. joyned Vnus Pastor. One sheepfold, one Pastour: But all distinct kingdomes, or Common-wealths, are not one Army, Family, &c. And finally, it is necessary to salvation, that all haue recourse to one Church; but for temporall weale, there is no need that all submit, or depend upon one temporall Prince, kingdome, or Common-wealth: and therefore our Saviour hath left to his whole Church, as being One, one Law, one Scripture, the same Sacraments, &c. Whereas kingdomes haue their severall Lawes, different governments, diversity of Powers, Magistracy &c. And so this objection returneth upon D. Potter. For as in the One Community of the Iewes, there was one Power and Iudge, to end debates, and resolue difficulties▪ so in the Church of Christ, which is One, there must be some one Authority to decide all Controversies in Religion.

24 This discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. IrenaeusLib. 5. c. 4. in these words. What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures, ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches? to which order many Nations yeeld ossent, who belieue in Christ, having salvation written in their hearts by the spirit of God, without letters or Iuke, and diligently keeping ancient Tradition. It is easie to receiue the truth from Gods Church, seeing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her, as in a rich storehouse, all things belonging to truth. For what? if there should arise any contention of some small question, ought wee not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches, and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question?

25 Besides all this, the doctrine of Protestants is destructiue of it selfe. For either they have certaine, and infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting Scripture; or they haue not. If not; then the Scripture (to them) cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith, nor a meet Iudge of Controversies. If they h [...]ue certaine infallible meanes, and so cannot erre in their interpretations of Scriptures; then they are able with infallibility to heare, examine, and determine all controversies of faith; and so they may be, and are Iudges of Controversies, although they use the Scripture as a Rule. And thus, against their own doctrine, they constitute another Iudge of Controversies, besides Scripture alone.

26 Lastly, [...] D. Potter, whether this Assertion, (Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controversies in saith,) be a fundamentall point of faith, or no? He must be well advised, before he say, that it is a fundamentall point. For he will haue against him, as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone, it is impossible to knowe what Bookes be Scripture, which yet to Protestants is the most necessary and chiefe point of all other. D. Covell expresly saith: Doubtlesse In his defence of M. Hookers books art. 4. p. [...]1. it is a tolerable opinion in the Church of Rome, if they goe no further, as some of them doe not (hee should haue said as none of them doe) to affirme, that the Scriptures are holy & divine in themselves, but so esteemed by us, for the authority of the Church. He will likewise oppose himselfe to those his Brethren, who grant that Controversies cannot be ended, without some externall living authority, as we noted before. Besides, how can it be in us a fundamentall errour to say, the Scripture alone is not Iudge of Controversies, seeing (notwithstanding this our beliefe) wee use for interpreting of Scripture, all the meanes which they prescribe; as Prayer, Conferring of places, Consulting the Originals &c▪ and to these adde the Instruction, and Authority of Gods Church, which even by has confession cannot erre damna [...]ly, and may afford us more help, then can be expected from the industry, learning, or wit of any private person: and finally D. Potter grants, that the Church of Rome doth not maintain any fundamentall errour against faith; and consequently, he cannot affirme that our doctrine in this present Controversie is damnable. If he answer, that their Tenet, about the Scriptures being the only Iudge of Controversies, is not a fundamentall point of faith: then, as he [...]eacheth that the universall Church may erre in points not fundamentall; so I hope he will n [...]t deny, but particular Churches, and private men, are much more obnoxious to errour in such points; and in particular in this, that Scripture alone is Iudge of Controversies: And so, the very principle upon which their whole faith is grounded, remaines to them uncertaine: and on the other side, for the selfe same reason, they are not certaine, but that the Church is Iudge of Controversies; which if she be, then their case is lamentable, who in generall deny her this authority, & in particular controversies oppose her definitions. Besides among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. to the questions, Whether the Church haue authority to determine controversies in faith; And, To interpret holy Scripture? The answer to both is Affirmatiue.

27 Since then, the visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Meanes whereby the [Page]revealed truth of Almighty God are conveyed to our understanding; it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himselfe; which blessed S. Augustine plainly affirmeth, when speaking of the Controversy about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques, he saith. T [...]is De unit. Eccles. c. 22. is neither openly, nor evidently read, neither by you nor by me; yet if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony, and that he should be consulted in this question, we should make no doubt to performe what he should say, least we might seem to gainsay not him so much as Christ, by whose testimony he was recommended. Now Christ beareth witnesse to his Church. And a little after: Whosoever refuseth to follow the practise of the Church, doth resist our Saviour himselfe, who by his testimony recommends the Church. I conclude therefore with this argument. Whosoever resisteth that meanes which infallibly proposeth to us Gods Word or R [...] velation, commits a sinne, which, unrepented, excludes salvation: But whosoever resisteth Christs visible Church, doth resist that meanes, which infallibly proposeth Gods word or revelation to us: Therefore whosoever resisteth Christs visible Church, commits a sinne; which unrepented, excludes salvation. Now what visible Church was extant, when Luther began his pretended Reformation, whethe [...] it were the Roman, or Protestant Church; and whether he, and other Protestants doe not oppose that visible Church, which was spread over the world, before, and in Luthers time, is easy to be determined, and importeth every one most seriously to ponder, as a thing whereon eternall salvation dependeth. And because our Adversaries doe here most insist upon the distinction of points fundamentall, and not fundamentall; and in particular teach, that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall, it will be necessary to examine the truth, and weight of this evasion, which shall be done in the next Chapter.

ANSVVER TO THE SECOND CHAPTER.
Concerning the meanes, whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding; and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion.

AD §. 1. He that would usurpe an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people, need not put himselfe to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disanulling the Lawes, made to maintain the common liberty; for he may frustrate their intent, and compasse his own designe as well, if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases, and adde to them what he pleases, and to have his interpretations and additions stand for Lawes; if he can rule his people by his lawes, and his Lawes by his Lawyers. So the Church of Rome, to establish her tyranny over mens consciences, needed not either to abolish or corrupt the holy Scriptures, the Pillars and supporters of Christian liberty (which in regard of the numerous multitude of copies dispersed through all places, translated into almost all languages, guarded with all sollicitous care and industry, had been an impossible attempt;) But the more expedite way, and therefore more likely to be successefull, was to gain the opinion and esteem of the publique and authoriz'd interpreter of them, and the Authority of adding to them what doctrine she pleas'd under the title of Traditions or Definitions. For by this meanes, she might both serve her selfe of all those clauses of Scripture, which might be drawen to cast a favourable countenance upon her ambitious pretences, which in case the Scripture had been abolished, shee could not have done; and yet be secure [Page] enough of having either her power limited, or her corruptions and abuses reformed by them; this being once setled in the mindes of men, that unwritten doctrines, if proposed by her, were to be receiv'd with equall reverence to those that were written: and that the sense of Scripture was not that which seem'd to mens reason and understanding to be so, but that which the Church of Rome should declare to be so, seem'd it never so unreasonable, and incongruous. The matter being once thus ordered, and the holy Scriptures being made in effect not your directors and Iudges (no farther then you please) but your servants and instruments, alwaies prest and in readinesse to advance your designes, and disabled wholly with mindes so qualified to prejudice or impeach them; it is safe for you to put a crown on their head, and a reed in their hands, and to bow before them, & cry, Haile King of the Iewes! to pretend a great deale of esteem, and respect, & reverence to them, as here you doe. But to little purpose is verball reverence without entire submission and syncere obedience; and, as our Saviour said of some, so the Scripture, could it speak, I believe would say to you, Why call ye mee Lord, Lord, and doe not that which I command you? Cast away the vaine and arrogant pretence of Infallibility, which makes your errors incurable. Leave picturing God, and worshipping him by pictures. Teach not for Doctrine the Commandments of men. Debarre not the Laity of the Testament of Christs blood. Let your publique Prayers and Psalmes and Hymmes be in such language as is for the edification of the Assistants. Take not from the Clergy that liberty of Marriage which Christ hath left them. Doe not impose upon men that Humility of worshipping Angels which S. Paul condemnes. Teach no more proper sacrifices of Christ but one. Acknowledge them that dye in Christ to be blessed, and to rest from their labours. Acknowledge the Sacrament after consecration, to be Bread and Wine, as well as Christs body and blood. Acknowledge the gift of continency without Marriage not to be given to all. Let not the weapons of your warfare be carnall; such as are Massacres, Treasons, Persecutions, and in a word all meanes either violent or fraudulent: These and other things, which the Scripture commands you, doe, and then we shall willingly give you such Testimony as you deserve; but till you doe so, to talk of estimation, respect, and reverence to the Scripture, is nothing else but talk.

2 For neither is that true which you pretend, That we possesse the Scripture from you, or take it upon the integrity of your Custody, but upon Vniversall Tradition, of which you are but a little part. Neither, if it were true that Protestants acknowledged, The integrity of it to have been guarded by your alone Custody, were this any argument of your reverence towards them. For first, you might preserve them entire, not for want of Will, but of Power to corrupt them, as it is a hard thing to poyson the Sea. And then having prevailed so farre with men, as either not to look at all into them, or but only through such spectacles as you should please to make for them, and to see nothing in them, though as cleere as the sunne, if it any way made against you, [Page] you might keep them entire, without any thought or care to conforme your doctrine to them, or reforme it by them (which were indeed to reverence the Scriptures) but out of a perswasion, that you could qualify them well enough with your glosses and interpretations, and make them sufficiently conformable to your present Doctrine, at least in their judgement, who were preposses'd with this perswasion, that your Church was to judge of the sense of Scripture, not to be judged by it.

3. For, whereas you say, No cause imaginable could avert your will, from giving the function of supreme and sole Iudge to holy writ; but that the thing is impossible; and that by this meanes controversies are encreased and not ended: you mean perhaps. That you can or will imagine no other cause but these. But sure there is little Reason you should measure other mens imaginations by your own, who perhaps may be so clouded and vail'd with prejudice, that you cannot, or will not see that which is most manifest. For what indifferent and unprejudicate man may not easily conceive another cause which (I doe not say does, but certainly) may pervert your wills, and avert your understandings from submitting your religion and Church to a tryall by Scripture. I mean the great and apparent and unavoidable danger which by this meanes you would fall into, of loosing the Opinion which men have of your Infallibility, and consequently your power and authority over mens consciences, and all that depends upon it; so that though Diana of the Ephesians be cryed up, yet it may be feared that with a great many among you (though I censure or judge no man) the other cause which wrought upon Demetrius and the Craftsmen, may have with you also the more effectuall, though more secret influence: and that is, that by this craft we have our living; by this craft, I mean of keeping your Proselytes from an indifferent tryall of your Religion by Scripture, and making them yeeld up and captivate their judgement unto yours. Yet had you only said de facto, that no other cause did avert your own will from this, but only these which you pretend; out of Charity I should have believed you: But seeing you speak not of your selfe, but of all of your side, whose hearts you cannot know; and professe not only, That there is no other cause, but that No other is imaginable, I could not let this passe without a censure. As for the impossibility of Scriptures being the sole judge of Controversies, that is, the sole rule for man to Iudge them by (for we mean nothing else) you only affirme it without proofe, as if the thing were evident of it selfe. And therefore I, conceiving the contrary to be more evident, might well-content my selfe to deny it without refutation. Yet I cannot but desire you to tell me, If Scripture cannot be the Iudge of any Controversy, how shall that touching the Church and the notes of it be determined? And if it be the sole judge of this one, why may it not of others? Why not of All? Those only excepted wherein the Scripture it selfe is the subject of the Question, which cannot be determined but by naturall reason, the only principle, beside Scripture, which is common to Christians.

[Page] 4 Then for the Imputation of increasing contentions and not ending them, Scripture is innocent of it; as also this opinion; That controversies are to be decided by Scripture. For if men did really and sincerely submit their judgements to Scripture, and that only, and would require no more of any man but to doe so, it were impossible but that all controversies, touching things necessary and very profitable should be ended: and if others were continued or increased, it were no matter.

5 In the next wordes we have direct Boyes-play; a thing given with one hand and taken away with the other; an acknowledgement made in one line, and retracted in the next. We acknowledge (say you) Scripture to be a perfect rule, for as much as a writing can be a Rule, only wee deny that it excludes unwritten tradition. A si [...] you should have said, we acknowledge it to be as perfect a rule as a writing can be; only we deny it to be as perfect a rule as a writing may be. Either therefore you must revoke your acknowledgement, or retract your retractation of it; for both cannot possibly stand together. For if you will stand to what you have granted, That Scripture is as perfect a rule of Faith as a writing can be: you must then grant it both so Compleat, that it needs no addition, and so evident, that it needs no interpretation: For both these properties are requisite to a perfect rule; and a writing is capable of both these properties.

6 That both these Properties are requisite to a perfect rule, it is apparent: Because that is not perfect in any kind which wants some parts belonging to its integrity: As he is not a perfect man that wants any part appertaining to the Integrity of a Man; and therefore that which wants any accession to make it a perfect rule, of it selfe is not a perfect Rule. And then, the end of a r [...]le is to regulate and direct. Now every instrument is more or lesse perfect in its kinde, as it is more or lesse fit to attain the end for which it is ordained: But nothing obscure or unevident while it is so, is fit to regulate and direct them to whom it is so: Therefore it is requisite also to a rule (so farre as it is a Rule) to be evident; otherwise indeed it is no rule, because it cannot serve for direction. I conclude therefore, that both these properties are required to a perfect Rule: both to be so compleat as to need no Addition; and to be so evident as to need no Interpretation.

7 Now that a writing is capable of both these perfections, it is so plain, that I am even ashamed to prove it. For he that denies it must say, That something may be spoken which cannot be written. For if such a compleat and evident rule of faith may be delivered by word of mouth, as you pretend it may, and is; and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written; then such a compleat and evident rule of faith may also be written. If you will have more light added to the Sunne, answer me then to these Questions. Whether your Church can set down in writing all these, which she pretends to be divine unwritten Traditions, and adde them to the verities already written? And whether she can set us down such interpretations of all obscurities in the Faith as shall need no farther interpretations? If shee [Page] cannot, then she hath not that power which you pretend she hath, of being an Infallible teacher of all divine verities, and an infallible interpreter of obscurities in the faith: for she cannot teach us all divine verities, if she cannot write them down; neither is that an interpretation which needs again to be interpreted: If she can; Let her doe it, and then we shall have a writing, not only capable of, but, actually endowed with both these perfections, of being both so compleat as to need no Addition, and so evident as to need no Interpretation. Lastly, whatsoever your Church can doe or not doe, no man can without Blasphemy deny, that Christ Iesus, if he had pleas'd, could have writ us a rule of Faith so plaine and perfect, as that it should have wanted neither any part to make up its integrity, nor any cleerenesse to make it sufficiently intelligible: And if Christ could have done this, then the thing might have been done; a writing there might have been indowed with both these properties. Thus therefore I conclude, a writing may be so perfect a Rule, as to need neither Addition nor Interpretation; But the Scripture you acknowledge a perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule, therefore it needs neither Addition nor Interpretation.

8 You will say, that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith, yet it must be beholding to Tradition to give it this Testimony, that it is a Rule of Faith, and the Word of God. I answere: First, there is no absolute necessity of this. For God might, if he thought good, give it the attestation of perpetuall miracles. Secondly, that it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith, another to be proved so unto us. And thus though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of Faith, by its own saying so, for nothing is prov'd true by being said or written in a book, but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe; yet it may be so in it selfe, and containe all the materiall objects, all the particular articles of our Faith, without any dependance upon Tradition; even this also not excepted, that this writing doth containe the rule of Faith. Now when Protestants affirme against Papists, that Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith, their meaning is not, that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved, which are to be believed: For it can never be prov'd by Scripture to a gainsayer, that there is a God, or that the book called Scripture is the word of God; For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spoken, will believe them never a whit the more because you can shew them written: But their meaning is, that the Scripture, to them which presuppose it Divine, and a Rule of Faith, as Papists and Protestants doe, containes all the materiall objects of Faith; is a compleat and totall, and not only an imperfect and a partiall Rule.

9 But every Book, and Chapter, and Text of Scripture is infallible and wants no due perfection, and yet excludes not the Addition of other bookes of Scripture; Therefore the perfection of the whole Scripture excludes not the Addition of unwritten Tradition. I answere; Every Text of Scripture though it have the perfection belonging to a Text of Scripture, yet it hath not the perfection requisite to a perfect Rule of [Page]Faith; and that only is the perfection which is the subject of our discourse. So that this is to abuse your Reader with the ambiguity of the word Perfect. In effect, as if you should say, A text of Scripture may be a perfect Text, though there be others beside it; therefore the whole Scripture may be a perfect Rule of Faith, though there be other parts of this Rule, besides the Scripture, and though the Scripture be but a part of it.

10 The next Argument to the same purpose is, for Sophistry, cosen german to the former. When the first bookes of Scripture were written, they did not exclude unwritten Tradition: Therefore now also, that all the bookes of Scripture are written, Traditions are not excluded. The sense of which argument (if it have any) must be this. When only a part of the Scripture was written, then a part of the divine doctrine was unwritten; Therefore now when all the Scripture is written, yet some part of the divine doctrine is yet unwritten. If you say, your conclusion is not that it is so, but without disparagement to Scripture, may be so: without disparagement to the truth of Scripture, I grant it; but without disparagement to the Scriptures being a perfect Rule, I deny it. And now the Question is not of the Truth, but the perfection of it; which are very different things, though you would faine confound them. For Scripture might very well be all true, though it containe not all necessary Divine Truth. But unlesse it doe so, it cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith; for that which wants any thing is not perfect. For I hope you doe not imagine, that we conceive any antipathy between Gods word written and unwritten, but that both might very well stand together. All that we say is this, that we have reason to believe that God de Facto, hath ordered the matter so, that all the Gospell of Christ, the whole covenant between God and man, is now written. Whereas if he had pleas'd, he might so have disposed it, that part might have been written, and part unwritten: but then he would have taken order, to whom we should have had recourse, for that part of it which was not written; which seeing he hath not done (as the progresse shall demonstrate) it is evident he hath left no part of it unwritten. We know no man therefore that saies, It were any injury to the written Word to be joyn'd with the unwritten, if there were any wherewith it might be joyn'd; but that we deny. The fidelity of a Keeper may very well consist with the authority of the thing committed to his custody. But we know no one [...]ociety of Christians that is such a faithfull Keeper as you pretend. The Scripture it selfe was not kept so faithfully by you, but that you suffered infinite variety of Readings to creep into it; all which could not possibly be divine, and yet, in severall parts of your Church, all of them, untill the last Age, were so esteem'd. The interpretations of obscure places of Scripture, which without Question the Apostles taught the Primitive Christians, are wholy lost; there remaines no certainty scarce of any one. Those Worlds of Miracles, which our Saviour did, which were not written, for want of writing are vanished out of the memory of men. And many profitable things which the Apostles taught and [Page] writ not, as that which S. Paul glances at, in his second Epistle to the Thessalon. of the cause of the hindrance of the comming of Antichrist, are wholly lost and extinguished. So unfaithfull or negligent hath been this keeper of Divine verities; whose eyes, like the keepers of Israell (you say) have never flumbred nor slept. Lastly, we deny not but a Iudge and a Law might well stand together, but we deny that there is any such Iudge of Gods appointment. Had he intended any such Iudge, he would have nam'd him, least otherwise (as now it is) our Iudge of controversies should be our greatest controversy.

11 Ad § 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In your second Paragraph, you summe up those arguments wherewith you intend to prove, that Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in controversies. Wherein I professe unto you before hand, that you will fight without an Adversary. For though Protestants, being warranted by some of the Fathers, have called Scripture the Iudge of Controversies; and you in saying here, That Scripture alone cannot be Iudge, imply that it may be called in some sense a Iudge, though not alone: Yet to speak properly (as men should speak when they write of Controversies in Religion) the Scripture is not a Iudge of Controversies, but a Rule, only and the only Rule for Christians to judge them by. Every man is to judge for himselfe with the Iudgement of Discretion, and to choose either his Religion first, and then his Church, as we say: or as you, his Church first, and then his Religion. But by the consent of both sides, every man is to judge and choose: and the Rule whereby he is to guide his choyce, if he be a naturall man, is Reason, if he be already a Christian, Scripture, which we say is the Rule to judge controversies by. Yet not all simply, but all the Controversies of Christians, of those, that are already agreed upon This first Principle that, the Scripture is the word of God. But that there is any man, or any company of men appointed to be judge for all men, that we deny, and that I believe you will never prove. The very truth is, we say no more in this matter, then evidence of Truth hath made you confesse in plain termes in the beginning of this chapter, viz. That Scripture is a perfect Rule of faith, for as much as a writing can be a rule. So that all your reasons whereby you labour to dethrone the Scripture from this office of Iudgeing, we might let passe as impertinent to the conclusion which we maintaine, and you have already granted; yet out of curtesy we will consider them.

12 Your first is this; a Iudge must be a person fit to end controversies, but the Scripture is not a person, nor fit to end controversies, no more then the Law would be without the Iudges, therefore though it may be a Rule it cannot be a Iudge. Which conclusion I have already granted. Only my request is, that you will permit Scripture to have the properties of a Rule, that is, to be fit to direct every one that will make the best use of it, to that end for which it was ordained. And that is as much as we need desire. For as if I were to goe a journey and had a guide which could not erre, I needed not to know my way: so on the other side if I know my way or have a plain rule to know it by, I shall need no guide. Grant therefore Scripture to be such a Rule, [Page] and it will quickly take away all necessity of having an infallible guide. But without a living Iudge it will be no fitter (you say) to end Controversies, then the Law alone to end suits. I answere, if the Law were plain and perfect, and men honest and desirous to understand aright, and obey it, he that saies it were not fit to end controversies, must either want understanding himself, or think the world wants it. Now the Scripture, we pretend, in things necessary is plain & perfect, and men, we say, are oblig'd, under pain of Damnation, to seek the true sense of it, and not to wrest it to their preconceived Phansies. Such a law therefore to such men cannot but be very fit to end all controversies, necessary to be ended. For others that are not so, they will end when the world ends, and that is time enough.

12 Your next encounter is with them, who acknowledging the Scripture a Rule only and not a Iudge, make the holy Ghost, speaking in Scripture, the judge of Controversies. Which you disprove by saying, That the holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us, then the Scripture in which he speakes. But by this reason neither the Pope, nor a Councell can be a Iudge neither. For first, denying the Scriptures, the writings of the Holy Ghost, to be judges, you will not I hope offer to pretend, that their decrees, the writings of men are more capable of this function: the same exceptions at least, if not more, and greater lying against them as doe against Scripture. And then what you object against the holy Ghost, speaking in Scripture, to exclude him from this office, The same I returne upon them and their decrees, to debarre them from it; that they speaking unto us only in their decrees, are no more intelligible then the decrees in which they speak. And therefore if the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture may not be a judge for this reason; neither may they, speaking in their decrees, be judges for the same Reason. If the Popes decrees (you will say) be obscure, he can explain himselfe, and so the Scripture cannot. But the holy Ghost, that speaks in Scripture, can doe so, if he please, and when he is pleas'd will doe so. In the mean time it will be fit for you to wait his leasure, and to be content, that those things of Scripture which are plain should be so, and those which are obscure should remain obscure, untill he please to declare them. Besides he can (which you cannot warrant me of the Pope or a Councell) speak at first so plainly, that his words shall need no farther explanation; and so in things necessary we believe he has done. And if you say, the Decrees of Councells touching Controversies, though they be not the Iudge, yet they are the Iudges sentence: So, I say, the Scripture, though not the Iudge, is the sentence of the Iudge. When therefore you conclude, That to say a Iudge is necessary for deciding controversies, about the meaning of Scripture, is as much as to say, he is necessary to decide what the holy Ghost speakes in Scripture: This I grant is true, but I may not grant that a Iudge (such a one as we dispute of) is necessary either to doe the one, or the other. For if the Scripture (as it is in things necessary) be plain, why should it be more necessary to have a judge to interpret them in plain places, then to have a judge to interpret the meaning of [Page] a Councell's decrees, and others to interpret their Interpretations, and others to interpret theirs, and so on for ever? And where they are not plaine, there if we, using diligence to finde the truth, doe yet misse of it and fall into errour, there is no danger in it. They that erre, and they that doe not erre may both be saved. So that those places which containe things necessary, and wherein errour were dangerous, need no infallible interpreter because they are plaine: and those that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary, neither is errour in them dangerous.

13 The Law-maker speaking in the Law, I grant it, is no more easily understood then the Law it selfe, for his speech is nothing else but the Law: I grant it very necessary, that besides the Law-maker speaking in the Law, there should be other Iudges to determine civill and criminall Controversies, and to giue every man that Iustice which the Law allowes him. But your Argument drawn from hence to shew a necessitie of a visible Iudge in Controversies of Religion, I say is Sophisticall: and that for many Reasons.

14 First, Because the variety of Civill cases is infinite, and therefore there cannot be possibly Lawes enough provided for the determination of them: and therefore there must be a Iudge to supply out of the Principles of Reason the interpretation of the Law, where it is defectiue. But the Scripture (we say) is a perfect Rule of Faith, and therefore needs no supply of the defects of it.

15 Secondly, To execute the Letter of the Law, according to rigour, would be many times unjust, and therefore there is need of a Iudge to moderate it; whereof in Religion there is no use at all.

16 Thirdly, In Civill and Criminall causes the parties haue for the most part so much interest, and very often so little honesty, that they will not submit to a Law though never so plaine, if it bee against them; or will not see it to be against them, though it be so never so plainly: whereas if men were honest, and the Law were plaine and extended to all cases, there would be little need of Iudges. Now in matters of Religion, when the Question is, whether every man bee a fit Iudge and chooser for himselfe, we suppose men honest, and such as understand the difference between a Moment and Eternity. And such men, we conceiue, will think it highly concernes them to be of the true Religion, but nothing at all that this or that Religion should be the true. And then wee suppose that all the necessary points of Religion are plaine and easie, & consequently every man in this cause to be a competent Iudge for himselfe; because it concernes himselfe to judge right as much as eternall happinesse is worth. And if through his own default he judge amisse he alone shall suffer for it.

17 Fourthly, In Civill Controversies we are obliged only to externall passiue obedience, and not to an internall and actiue. Wee are bound to obey the sentence of the Iudge, or not to resist it, but not alwaies to belieue it just. But in matters of Religion, such a judge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue, to haue judged right. So that in Civill Controversies every honest understanding man is fit [Page] to be a Iudge; But in religion none but he that is infallible.

18 Fiftly, In Civill Causes there is meanes and power, when the Iudge has decreed, to compell men to obey his sentence: otherwise, I belieue, Laws alone, would be to as much purpose, for the ending of differences, as Lawes and Iudges both. But all the power in the world is neither fit to convince, nor able to compell a mans conscience to consent to any thing. Worldly terrour may prevaile so far as to make men professe a Religion which they belieue not, (such men I meane, who know not that there is a Heaven provided for Martyrs, and a Hell for those that dissemble such truths as are necessary to bee professed:) But to force, either any man to belieue what he belieues not, or any honest man to dissemble what he does beleiue (if God commands him to professe it,) or to professe what he does not belieue, all the Powers in the World are too weak, with all the powers of Hell, to assist them.

19 Sixtly, In Civill Controversies the case cannot be so put, but there may be a Iudge to end it, who is not a party: In Controversies of Religion, it is in a manner impossible to bee avoided but the Iudge must be a partie. For this must be the first, whether hee be a judge or no, and in that he must be a partie. Sure I am, the Pope, in the controversies of our time, is a chiefe partie; for it highly concernes him, even as much as his Popedome is worth, not to yeeld any one point of his Religion to be erroneous. And hee is a man subject to like passions with other men. And therefore we may justly decline his sentence, for feare temporall respects should either blinde his judgement, or make him pronounce against it.

20 Seaventhly, In Civill Controversies, it is impossible Titius should hold the land in question and Sempronius too: and therefore either the Plaintiffe must injure the Defendant, by disquieting his possession, or the Defendant wrong the Plaintiffe by keeping his right from him. But in Controversies of Religion the Case is otherwise. I may hold my opinion and doe you no wrong, and you yours and doe mee none. Nay we may both of us hold our opinion, and yet doe our selues no harme; provided, the difference be not touching any thing necessary to salvation, and that we loue truth so well, as to bee diligent to informe our Conscience, and constant in following it.

21 Eightly, For the ending of Civill Controversies, who does not see it is absolutely necessary, that not only Iudges should bee appointed, but that it should be known and unquestioned who they are? Thus all the Iudges of our Land are known men, known to be Iudges, and no man can doubt or question, but these are the Men. Otherwise if it were a disputable thing, who were these Iudges, and they had no certain warrant for their Authority, but only some Topicall congruities, would not any man say such Iudges, in all likelyhood, would rather multiply Controversies, then end them?

22 Ninthly, and lastly, For the deciding of Civill Controversies men may appoint themselues a judge. But in matters of Religion, this office may be given to none but whom God hath designed for it: who doth not alwaies giue us those things which we conceiue most expedient for our selues.

[Page] 23 So likewise if our Saviour, the King of Heaven, had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some Visible Iudge finally determined, who can doubt, but in plaine termes hee would haue expressed himselfe about this matter? He would haue said plainely. The Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all emergent Controversies. For that our Saviour design'd the Bishop of Rome to this Office, & yet would not say so, nor cause it to be written—ad Rei memoriam—by any of the Evangelists or Apostles, so much as once; but leaue it to bee drawn out of uncertain Principles, by thirteen or fourteen more uncertain consequences, He that can beleiue it, let him. All these Reasons, I hope, will convince you, that though we haue, and haue great necessity of, Iudges in Civill and Criminall causes: yet you may not conclude from thence, that there is any publique authoriz'd Iudge to determine Controversies in Religion, nor any necessity there should be any.

24 But the Scripture stands in need of some watchfull and unerring eye to guard it, by meanes of whose assured vigilancy, we may undoubtedly receiue it syncere and pure. Very true, but this is no other then the watchfull eye of divine providence: the goodnesse whereof will never suffer, that the Scripture should be depraved and corrupted, but that in them should be alwaies extant a conspicuous and plain way to eternall happinesse. Neither can any thing be more palpably unconsistent with his goodnesse, then to suffer Scripture to be undiscernably corrupted in any matter of moment, and yet to exact of men the beliefe of those verities, which without their fault, or knowledge, or possibility of prevention, were defac'd out of them. So that God requiring of men to belieue Scripture in its purity, ingages himselfe to see it preserv'd in sufficient purity, and you need not feare but he will satisfie his ingagement. You say, we can haue no assurance of this but your Churches Vigilancie. But if we had no other we were in a hard case; for who could then assure us that your Church has been so vigilant, as to guard Scripture from any the least alteration? There being various Lections in the ancient copies of your Bibles, what security can your new rail'd Office of Assurance giue us, that, that reading is true which you now receiue, and that false which you reject? Certainly they that anciently received and made use of these divers Copies, were not all guarded by the Churches vigilancy from having their Scripture alter'd from the puritie of the Originall in many places. For of different readings, it is not in nature impossible that all should bee false, but more then one cannot possibly be true. Yet the want of such a protection was no hinderance to their salvation, and why then shall the having of it be necessary for ours? But then this Vigilancy of your Church, what meanes haue we to be ascertain'd of it? First, the thing is not evident of it selfe; which is evident, because many doe not belieue it. Neither can any thing be pretended to giue evidence to it, but only some places of Scripture; of whose incorruption more then any other what is it that can secure me? If you say the Churches vigilancy, you are in a Circle, proving the Scriptures uncorrupted by the Churches vigilancy, & the Churches vigilancy by the incorruption of some places of Scripture, and againe [Page] the incorruption of those places by the Churches vigilancy. If you name any other meanes, then that meanes which secures mee of the Scriptures incorruption in those places, will also serue to assure me of the same in other places. For my part, abstracting from Divine Providence, which will never suffer the way to Heaven to bee block'd up or made invisible, I know no other meanes (I meane no other naturall and rationall meanes) to be assured hereof, then I haue that any other Book is uncorrupted. For though I haue a greater degree of rationall and humane Assurance of that then this, in regard of divers considerations which make it more credible, That the Scripture hath been preserv'd from any materiall alteration; yet my assurance of both is of the same kinde and condition, both Morall assurances, and neither Physicall or Mathematicall.

25 To the next Argument the Reply is obvious; That though we doe not belieue the books of Scripture to be Canonicall because they say so, For other books that are not Canonicall may say they are, and those that are so may say nothing of it: yet we belieue not this upon the authority of your Church, but upon the Credibilitie of Vniversall Tradition, which is a thing Credible of it selfe, and therefore fit to bee rested on; whereas the Authority of your Church is not so. And therefore your rest thereon is not rationall but meerly voluntary. I might as well rest upon the judgement of the next man I meet, or upon the chance of a Lottery for it. For by this meanes I only know I might erre, but by relying on you I know I should erre. But yet (to returne you one suppose for another) suppose I should for this and all other things submit to her direction, how could shee assure mee that I should not be mis-led by doing so? She pretends indeed infallibility herein, but how can she assure us that she hath it? What, by Scripture [...] That you say cannot assure us of its own Infallibility, and therefore not of yours. What then, by Reason? That you say may deceiue in other things, and why not in this? How then will she assure us hereof, By saying so? Of this very affirmation there will remain the same Question still, How it can proue it selfe to be infallibly true. Neither can there be an end of the like multiplied Demands, till we rest in somthing evident of it selfe, which demonstrates to the world that this Church is infallible. And seeing there is no such Rock for the Infallibility of this Church to be setled on, it must of necessity, like the Iland of Delos, flote up and down for ever. And yet upon this point according to Papists all other Controversies in faith depend.

26 To they 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. §. The summe and substance of the Ten next Paragraphs is this, That it appeares, by the Confessions of some Protestants, and the Contentions of others, that the Questions about the Canon of Scripture, what it is: and about the Various reading and Translations of it, which is true and which not, are not to bee determined by Scripture, and therefore that all Controversies of Religion are not decidable by Scripture.

27 To which I have already answered saying, That when Scripture is affirm'd to be the rule by which all controversies of Religion [Page] are to be decided, Those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it selfe. For as that generall saying of Scripture, He hath put all things under his feet, is most true, though yet S. Paul tels us, That when it is said, he hath put all things under him, it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things under him: So when we say that all controversies of Religion are decidable by the Scripture, it is manifest to all, but cavillers, that we doe and must except from this generality, those which are touching the Scripture it selfe. Iust as a Merchant shewing a ship of his own, may say, all my substance is in this ship; and yet never intend to deny, that his ship is part of his substance, nor yet to say that his ship is in it selfe. Or as a man may say, that a whole house is supported by the foundation, and yet never mean to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house, or to say that it is supported by it selfe. Or as you your selves use to say, that the Bishop of Rome is head of the whole Church, and yet would think us but captious sophisters should we inferre from hence, that either you made him no part of the whole, or else made him head of himselfe. Your negative conclusion therefore, that these Questions touching Scripture, are not decidable by Scripture, you needed not have cited any Authorities, nor urged any reason to prove it; it is evident of it selfe, and I grant it without more adoe. But your corollary from it, which you would insinuate to your unwary reader, that therefore they are to be decided by your, or any visible Church, is a meere inconsequence, and very like his collection, who because Pamphilus was not to have Glycerium for his wife, presently concluded that he must have her; as if there had been no more men in the world but Pamphilus and himselfe. For so you as if there were nothing in the world capable of this office, but the Scripture, or the present Church, having concluded against Scripture, you conceive, but too hastily, that you have concluded for the Church. But the truth is, neither the one nor the other have any thing to doe with this matter. For first, the Question whether such or such a book be Canonicall Scripture, though it may be decided negatively out of Scripture, by shewing apparent and irreconcileable contradictions between it and some other book confessedly Canonicall; yet affirmatively it cannot but only by the testimonies of the ancient Churches: any book being to be received as undoubtedly Canonicall, or to be doubted of as uncertain, or rejected as Apocryphall, according as it was received, or doubted of, or rejected by them. Then for the Question, of various readings which is the true, it is in reason evident and confessed by your own Pope, that there is no possible determination of it, but only by comparison with ancient Copies. And lastly for controversies about different translations of Scripture, the learned have the same meanes to satisfy themselves in it, as in the Questions which happen about the translation of any other Author, that is, skill in the language of the Originall, and comparing translations with it. In which way if there be no certainty, I would know what certainty you have, that your Doway old, and Rhemish new Testament are true translations? And then for [Page] the unlearned those on your side are subject to as much, nay the very same uncertainty with those on ours. Neither is there any reason imaginable, why an ignorant English Protestant may not be as secure of the translation of our Church, that it is free from errour; if not absolutely, yet in matters of moment, as an ignorant English Papist can be of his Rhemist Testament, or Doway Bible. The best direction I can give them is to compare both together, and where there is no reall difference (as in the translation of controverted places I believe there is very little) there to be confident, that they are right; where they differ, there to be prudent in the choice of the guides they follow. Which way of proceeding, if it be subject to some possible errour, yet is it the best that either we, or you have; and it is not required that we use any better then the best we have.

28 You will say, Dependance on your Churches infallibility is a better. I answere, it would be so, if we could be infallibly certaine, that your Church is infallible, that is, if it were either evident of it selfe, and seen by its own light, or could be reduc'd unto and setled upon some Principle that is so. But seeing you your selves doe not so much as pretend, to enforce us to the belief hereof, by any proofes infallible and convincing, but only to induce us to it, by such as are, by your confession, only probable, and principall motives; certainly it will be to very little purpose, to put off your uncertainty for the first turne, and to fall upon it at the second: to please your selves in building your house upon an imaginary Rock, when you your selves see and confesse, that this very Rock stands it selfe at the best but upō a frame of timber. I answer secondly, that this cannot be a better way, because we are infallibly certain that your Church is not infallible, and indeed hath not the reall prescription of this priviledge, but only pleaseth her selfe with a false imagination and vaine presumption of it: as I shall hereafter demonstrate by many unanswerable arguments.

29 Now seeing I make no scruple or difficulty to grant the conclusion of this discourse, that these controversies about Scripture, are not decidable by Scripture▪ and have shewed, that your deduction from it, that therefore they are to be determin'd by the authority of some present Church, is irrationall, and inconsequent; I might well forbeare to tire my selfe with an exact and punctuall examination of your premises [...], which wether they be true or false, is to the Question disputed wholly impertinent. Yet because you shall not complaine of tergiver [...]ation, I will runne over them, and let nothing, that is materiall and considerable, passe without some stricture or animadversion.

30 You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that, That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is Gods word, is the Church: and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. Sect. 8. Let the Reader consult the place, and he shall finde that he and M. Hooker have been much abused, both by you here, and by M. Breerly and others before you, and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose, but very much directly to the contrary. There he tells us indeed, that ordinarily the first introduction and probable motive to the [Page]belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church, but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded, that in the same place he plainly denies. His words are, Scripture teacheth us, that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise, that it selfe is divine and sacred. The Question then being by what meanes we are taught this: some answere; that to learne it we have no other way then tradition. (Some answer so, but he doth not.) As namely that so we believe, because we from our Predecessors, and they from theirs have so received. But is this enough? That which all mens experience teacheth them, may not in any wise be denied: and by experience we all know, that The first outward motive, not the last assurane [...] whereon we rest. the first outward motive leading men to esteeme of the Scripture, is the Authority of Gods Church. For when we know The whole Church that he speaks of seemes to be that particular Church, wherein a man is bred and brought up; and the authority of this he makes an argument which presseth a mans modesty more then his reason. And in saying, it seemes impudent to be of a contrary mind without cause, he implyes; There may be a just cause to be of a contrary mind, and that then it were no impudence to be so. the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture, we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man, bred and brought up in the Church, to be of a contrary minde without cause. Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof, Therefore the authority of the Church is not the pause whereon we rest: we had need of more assurance, and the intrinsecall arguments afford it. the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it: so that the former inducement prevailing Somewhat, but not much, untill it be back'd and inforced by farther reason: it selfe therefore is not the farthest reason and the last resolution. somewhat with us before, doth now much more prevaile, when the very thing hath ministred farther reason. If Infidels, or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question, this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is, whereby the testimony of the Church, concerning Scripture, and our own perswasion, which Scripture it selfe hath setled, may be proved a truth infallible. Observe I pray; our persuasion, and the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture, may be proved true, therefore neither of them was in his account the farthest proofe. In which case the ancient Fathers, being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to rely upon the Scriptures, endeavoured still to maintaine the Authority of the bookes of God by arguments, such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable, if they judge thereof as they should. Neither is it a thing impossible, or greatly hard, even by such kinde of proofes, so to manifest and cleare that point, that no man living shall be able to deny it, without denying some apparent principle, such as all men acknowledge to be true. Naturall reason then built on principles common to all men, is the last resolution; unto which the Churches authority is but the first inducement. By this time I hope the reader sees sufficient proofe of what I said in my Reply to your Preface, that M. Breerelies great ostentation of exactnesse, is no very certain argument of his fidelity.

31 But, seeing the beliefe of the Scripture is a necessary thing, and cannot be prov'd by Scripture, how can the Church of England teach, as she doth, Art. 6. That all things necessary are contain'd in Scripture?

32 I have answered this already. And here again I say, That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be, That all the Divine verities, which Christ revealed to his Apostles, and the Apostles taught the Churches, are contained in Scripture. That is, all the materiall objects of our faith; whereof the Scripture is none, but only the meanes of conveying them unto us: which we believe not finally, and for it selfe, but for the matter contained in it. So that [Page] if men did believe the doctrine contained in Scripture, it should no way hinder their salvation, not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case, and yet no doubt but they might be saved. The end that God aimes at, is the beliefe of the Gospell, the covenant between God and man; the Scripture he hath provided as a meanes for this end, and this also we are to believe, but not as the last object of our faith, but as the instrument of it. When therefore we subscribe to the 6. Art. you must understand that, by Articles of Faith, they mean the finall and ultimate objects of it, and not the meanes and instrumentall objects; and then there will be no repugnance between what they say, and that which Hooker, and D. Covell, and D. Whitaker, and Luther here say.

33 But, Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture. Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. Iames. Kemnitius, and other Luth. the second of Peter, the second and third of Iohn. The Epist. to the Heb. the Epist. of Iames, of Iude, and the Apocalyps. Therefore without the Authority of the Church, no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall.

34 So also the Ancient Fathers, and not only Fathers, but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the authority of the very same bookes: and by their difference shewed, they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church. For had they done so, they must have agreed all with that Church, and consequently among themselves. Now I pray tell me plainly, Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonicall, or had they not? If they had not, it seemes there is no such great harme or danger in not having such a certainty whether some books be Canonicall or no, as you require: If they had, why may not Protestants, notwithstanding their differences, have sufficient certainty hereof, as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches, notwithstanding theirs?

35 You proceed. And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art. have these words, In the name of the Holy Scripture we doe vnderstand those Bookes, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church; you demaund, what they meane by them? Whether that by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall? I Answer for them. Yes, they are so. And whereas you inferre from hence, This is to make the Church Iudge: I haue told you already, That of this Controversie we make the Church the Iudge; but not the present Church, much lesse the present Roman Church, but the consent and testimony of the Ancient and Primitive Church. Which though it be but a highly probable inducement, and no demonstrative enforcement, yet me thinks you should not denie but it may be a sufficient ground of faith: Whose Faith, even of the Foundation of all your Faith, your Churches Authority, is built lastly and wholly upon Prudentiall Motives.

36 But by this Rule the whole booke of Esther must quit the Canon; because it was excluded by some in the Church: by Melito, Athanasius, [Page]and Gregory Nazianzen. Then for ought I know he that should thinke he had reason to exclude it now, might be still in the Church as well as Melito, Athanasius, Nazianzen were. And while you thus inveigh against Luther, and charge him with Luciferian heresies; for doing that which you in this very place confesse that Saints in Heaven before him have done, are you not partiall and a Iudge of evill thoughts?

37 Luther's censures of Ecclesiastes, Iob, and the Prophets, though you make such tragedies with them, I see none of them but is capable of a tolerable construction, and far from having in them any fundamentall heresie. He that condemnes him for saying, the booke of Ecclesiastes is not full, That it hath many abrupt things, condemnes him, for ought I can see; for speaking truth. And the rest of the censure is but a bold and blunt expression of the same thing. The booke of Iob may be a true History, and yet as many true stories are, and haue been an Argument of a Fable to set before us an example of Patience. And though the books of the Prophets were not written by themselves, but by their Disciples, yet it does not follow that they were written casually: (Though I hope you will not damne all for Heretikes, that say, some books of Scripture were written casually.) Neither is there any reason they should the sooner be call'd in question for being written by their Disciples, seeing being so written they had attestation from themselues. Was the Prophesie of Ieremie the lesse Canonicall, for being written by Baruch? Or because S. Peter the Master dictated the Gospell, and S. Marke the Scholler writ it, is it the more likely to be called in Question?

38 But leaving Luther, you returne to our English Canon of Scripture; And tell us, that in the new testament, by the above mentioned rule, (of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church) divers books must be canoniz'd. Not so For I may believe even those questioned bookes to have been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall: but I cannot in reason believe this of them so undoubtedly, as of those books which were never questioned. At least I have no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now: having the example of Saints in Heaven, either to justify, or excuse such their doubting or deniall.

39 You observe in the next place, that our sixt Article, specifying by name all the bookes of the Old Tstament, sh [...]ffles over these of the New with this generality—All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we doe receive, and account them Canonicall: And in this you phansy to your selfe a mystery of iniquity. But if this be all the shuffling that the Church of England is guilty of, I believe the Church, as well as the King, may give for her Motto, Honi soit qui mal [...] pense. For all the Bibles which since the composing of the Articles have been used and allowed by the Church of England, doe testify and even proclaime to the World, that by-Cōmonly received, they meant, received by the Church of Rome, and other Churches before the Reformation. I pray take the paines to look in them, and there you shall finde the bookes which the Church of England counts Apocryphall marked [Page] out and severed from the rest, with this title in the begining, The bookes called Apocrypha; and with this close or seal in the end, The end of the Apocrypha. And having told you by name, and in particular, what bookes only shee esteemes Apocryphall, I hope you will not put her to the trouble of telling you that the rest are in her judgement Canonicall.

40 But if by Commonly received, shee meant, by the Church of Rome; Then by the same reason, must she receive divers books of the old Testament which she reiects.

41 Certainly a very good consequence. The Church of England receives the Bookes of the New Testament, which the Church of Rome receives; Therefore she must receive the bookes of the old Testament which she receives. As if you should say, If you will doe as we, in one thing, you must in all things. If you will pray to God with us, ye must pray to Saints with us. If you hold with us, when we have reason on our side, you must doe so, when we have no reason.

42 The discourse following is but a vaine declamation. No man thinks that this Controversie is to be tryed by most voices, but by the Iudgement and Testimony of the ancient Fathers and Churches.

43 But, with what Coherence can we say in the former part of the Article, That by Scripture we mean those Bookes that were never doubted of; and in the latter say, We receive all the bookes of the new Testament, as they are commonly received, whereas of them many were doubted? I answere. When they say, of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church, They mean not, those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all, by any man in the Church; But such as were not at any time doubted of by the whole Church, or by all Churches, but had attestation, though not universall, yet at least sufficient to make considering men receive them for Canonicall. In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some, yet whose number and authority was not so great, as to prevaile against the contrary suffrages.

44 But, if to be commonly received, passefor a good rule to know the Canon of the new Testament by, why not of the Old? You conclude many times very well, but still when you doe so, it is out of principles which no man grants. For who ever told you, that to be commonly received is a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by? Have you been train'd up in Schooles of subtilty, and cannot you see a great difference, between these two, We receive the bookes of the new Testament as they are commonly received, and we receive those that are commonly received, because they are so? To say this, were indeed to make, being commonly received, a Rule or Reason to know the Canon by. But to say the former, doth no more make it a Rule, then you should make the Church of England the rule of your receiving them, if you should say, as you may, The bookes of the New Testament we receive for Canonicall, as they are received by the Church of England.

45 You demand, upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther [Page]against you, in some, and with you against Luther in others? And I also demand upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon, & agree neither with us, nor Luther? For sure your differing from us both, is of it selfe no more apparently reasonable, then our agreeing with you in part, and in part with Luther. If you say, your Churches infallibility is your ground: I demand againe some infallible ground both for the Churches infallibility, and for this, that Yours is the Church; and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands, untill you settle me upon a Rock; I mean, giue such an Answer, whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence. If you say, This is Vniversall Tradition: I reply, your Churches infallibility is not built upon it, and that the Canon of Scripture, as we receiue it, is. For wee doe not professe our selues so absolutely, and and undoubtedly certain; neither doe we urge others to be so, of those Books, which haue been doubted, as of those that never haue.

46 The Conclusion of your Tenth § is, That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it selfe alone, but by some extrinsecall authority: Which you need not proue, for no wise man denies it. But then this authority is that of Vniversall Tradition, not of your Church. For to me it is altogether as [...], that the Gospell of Saint Mathew is the word of God, as that all which your Church saies is true.

47 That Believers of the Scripture, by considering the divine matter, the excellent precepts, the glorious promises contained in it, may be confirmed in their faith, of the Scriptures divine Authority; & that among other inducements and inforcements hereunto, internall arguments haue their place and force, certainly no man of understanding can deny. For my part I professe, if the doctrine of the Scripture were not as good, and as fit to come from the fountain of goodnesse, as the Miracles, by which it was confirm'd, were great, I should want one main pillar of my faith, and for want of it, I feare should be much stagger'd in it. Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying, The Belieuer sees, by that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture, and by many internall Arguments, that the Scripture is of Divine Authority. By this (saith he) he sees it, that is, hee is moved to, and strengthned in his beliefe of it: and by this partly, not wholly; by this, not alone, but with the concurrence of other Arguments. He that will quarrell with him for saying so, must finde fault with the Master of the Sentences, and all his Schollers; for they all say the same. The rest of this Paragraph, I am as willing it should be true [...], as you are to haue it: and so let it passe, as a discourse wherein we are wholy unconcern'd. You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffred you to haue said so much Truth together, but to me it is sufficient, that it is nothing to the purpose.

48 In the next Division, out of your liberality, you will suppose, that Scripture, like to a corporall light, is by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our understanding to assent: yet notwithstanding this supposall, Faith still (you say) must goe before Scripture, because as [Page]the light is visible only to those that haue eyes: so the Scripture onely to those that haue the Eye of Faith. But to my understanding, if Scripture doe moue and determine our Vnderstanding to assent, then the Scripture, and its moving must be before this assent, as the cause must bee before its own effect; now this very assent is nothing else but Faith, and Faith nothing else then the Vnderstanding's assent. And therefore (upon this supposall) Faith doth▪ and must originally proceed from Scripture, as the effect from its proper cause: and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presuppos'd before the assent of faith, unto which it moues and determines, and consequently if this supposition of yours were true, there should need no other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith, Scripture it selfe being able (as here you suppose) to determine and moue the understanding to assent, that is to belieue them, and the Verities contained in them. Neither is this to say, that the eyes with which we see, are made by the light by which we see. For you are mistaken much, if you conceiue that in this comparison, Faith answers to the Eye. But if you will not pervert it, the Analogie must stand thus [...]; Scripture must answer to light; The eye of the soule, that is the Vnderstanding, or the faculty of assenting, to the bodily eye; And lastly assenting or believing to the act of seeing. As therefore the light, determining the Eye to see, though it presupposes the Eye which it determines, as every Action doth the object on which it is imployed, yet it selfe is presuppos'd and antecedent to the act of seeing, as the cause is alwaies to its effect: So, if you will suppose that Scripture, like light, moues the understanding to assent, The Vnderstanding (that's the eye and object on which it works) must bee before this influence upon it; But the Assent, that is the beliefe whereto the Scripture moues, and the understanding is mov'd, which answers to the act of seeing, must come after. For if it did assent already, to what purpose should the Scripture doe that which was done before? Nay indeed how were it possible it should be so, any more then a Father can beget a Sonne that he hath already? Or an Architect build an house that is built already? Or then this very world can bee made againe before it be unmade? Transubstantiation indeed is fruitfull of such Monsters. But they that haue not sworne themselues to the defence of Errour, will easily perceiue, that I am factum facere, and Factum infectum facere, are equally impossible. But I digresse.

49 The close of this Paragraph, is a fit cover for such a dish. There you tell us, That if there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget faith, this can be no other then the Church. By the Church, we know you doe, and must understand the Roman Church: so that in effect you say, no man can haue faith, but he must bee mou'd to it by your Churches Authority. And that is to say, that the King and all other Protestants, to whom you write, though they verily think they are Christians & belieue the Gospell, because they assent to the truth of it, and would willingly dye for it, yet indeed are Infidels and belieue nothing. The Scripture tells us, The heart of man knoweth no man, but the spirit of man which is in him. And who are you, to take upon [Page] you to make us belieue, that we doe not belieue, what we know we doe? But if I may think verily that I belieue the Scripture, and yet not belieue it; how know you that you belieue the Roman Church? I am as verily, and as strongly perswaded that I belieue the Scripture, as you are that you belieue the Church. And if I may be deceived, why may not you? Againe, what more ridiculous, and against sense and experience, then to affirme, That there are not millions amongst you and us that belieue, upon no other reason then their education, and the authority of their Parents and Teachers, and the opinion they haue of them? The tendernesse of the subject, and aptnesse to receiue impressions, supplying the defect and imperfection of the Agent! And will you proscribe from heaven all those believers of your own Creed, who doe indeed lay the foundation of their Faith (for I cannot call it by any other name) no deeper then upon the Authority of their Father, or Master, or parish Priest? Certainly, if these haue no true faith, your Church is very full of Infidels. Suppose Xaverius by the holynesse of his life had converted some Indians to Christianity, who could (for so I will suppose) haue no knowledge of your Church but from him, and therefore must last of all build their Faith of the Church upon their Opinion of Xaverius: Doe these remain as very Pagans after their conversion, as they were before? Are they brought to assent in their soules, and obey in their liues the Gospell of Christ, only to be Tantaliz'd and not saved, and not benefited but deluded by it, because, forsooth, it is a man and not the Church that begets faith in them? What if their motiue to beleeue be not in reason sufficient? Doe they therefore not belieue what they doe belieue, because they doe it upon insufficient motiues? They choose the Faith imprudently perhaps, but yet they doe choose it. Vnlesse you will haue us belieue that, that which is done, is not done, because it is not done upō good reason: which is to say, that never any man living ever did a foolish action. But yet I know not why the Authority of one holy man, which apparently has no ends upon me, joyn'd with the goodnesse of the Christian faith, might not be a far greater and more rationall motiue to me to imbrace Christianity, then any I can haue to continue in Paganisme. And therefore for shame, if not for loue of Truth, you must recant this fancie when you write again: and suffer true faith to be many times, where your Churches infallibility has no hand in the begetting of it. And be content to tell us hereafter, that we belieue not enough, and not goe about to perswade us, we belieue nothing, for feare with telling us what we know to be manifestly false, you should gain only this, Not to be believed when you speak truth. Some pretty sophismes you may happily bring us to make us belieue, we belieue nothing: but wise men know that Reason against Experience is alwaies Sophisticall. And therefore as he that could not answer Zenoe's subtilities against the existence of Motion, could yet confute them by doing that, which he pretended could not be done: So if you should giue me a hundred Arguments to perswade me, because I doe not belieue Transubstantiation▪ I doe not believe in God, and the Knots of them I [Page] could not untie, yet I should cut them in peeces with doing that, and knowing that I doe so, which you pretend I cannot doe.

50 In the thirteenth division, we haue again much adoe about nothing. A great deal of stirre you keep in confuting some, that pretend to know Canonicall Scripture to be such, by the Titles of the Books. But these men you doe not name, which makes me suspect you cannot. Yet it is possible there may be some such men in the world; for Gusman de Alfarache hath taught us that the Fooles hospitall is a large place.

51 In the fourteenth §. we haue very artificiall jugling. D. Potter had said, That the Scripture (hee desires to bee understood of those books wherein all Christians agree) is a principle, and needs not be proved among Christians. His reason was, because that needs no farther proofe which is believed already. Now by this (you say) he meanes either, that the Scripture is one of these first Principles, and most known in all sciences, which cannot be proved: which is to suppose, it cannot be proved by the Church; and that is to suppose the Question: Or hee meanes, That it is not the most known in Christianity, & then it may be prov'd. Where we see plainly, That two most different things, Most known in all Sciences, & Most known in Christianity, are captiously confounded. As if the Scripture might not be the first and most knowne Principle in Christianity, and yet not the most knowne in all Sciences? Or as if to be a First Principle in Christianity, and in all Sciences, were all one? That Scripture is a Principle among Christians, that is, so received by all that it need not be proved in any emergent Controversie to any Christian, but may be taken for granted, I think few will deny. You your selues are of this a sufficient Testimony; for urging against us many texts of Scripture, you offer no proofe of the truth of them, presuming we will not question it. Yet this is not to deny that Tradition is a Principle more knowne then Scripture; But to say, it is a principle not in Christianity but in Reason, nor proper to Christians, but common to all men.

52 But, it is repugnant to our practice to hold Scripture a Principle; because we are wont to affirme, that one part of Scripture may be knowne to be Canonicall, and may be interpreted by another. Where the former device is againe put in practice. For to be known to be Canonicall, and to be interpreted is not all one. That Scripture may be interpreted by Scripture, that Protestants grant, and Papists doe not deny; neither does that any way hinder but that this assertion—Scripture is the word of God, may be among Christians a common Principle. But the first, [...]That one part of Scripture may proue another part Canonicall, and need no proofe of its own being so; for that, you haue produc'd divers Protestants that deny it; but who they are that affirme it, nondum Constat.

53 It is superfluous for you to proue out of S. Athanasius, & S. Austine that we must receiue the sacred Canon upon the credit of Gods Church. Vnderstanding by Church, as here you explaine your selfe, The credit of Tradition. And that not the Tradition of the Present Church, which we pretend may deviate from the Ancient, but such a [Page]Tradition, which involues an evidence of Fact, and from hand to hand, from age to age, bringing us up to the times and persons of the Apostles, and our Saviour himselfe, commeth to be confirm'd by all these Miracles and other Arguments, whereby they convinc'd their doctrine to be true. Thus you. Now proue the Canon of Scripture which you receive by such Tradition and we will allow it. Proue your whole doctrine, or the infallibility of your Church by such a Tradition, & we will yeeld to you in all things. Take the alleaged places of S. Athanasius, and S. Austine, in this sense, (which is your own,) and they will not presse us any thing at all. We will say, with Athanasius, That only foure Gospels are to be received, because the Canons of the Holy and Catholique Church (understand of all Ages since the perfection of the Canon) haue so determined.

54 We will subscribe to S. Austin, and say, That we also would not belieue the Gospell, unlesse the Authority of the Catholique Church did moue us, (meaning by the Church, the Church of all Ages, and that succession of Christians which takes in Christ himselfe and his Apostles.) Neither would Zwinglius haue needed to cry out upon this saying, had he conceived as you now doe, that by the Catholique Church, the Church of all Ages, since Christ, was to be understood. As for the Councell of Carthage, it may speak not of such Books only, as were certainly Canonicall, and for the regulating of Faith, but also of those which were onely profitable, and lawfull to be read in the Church. Which in England is a very slender Argument that the book is Canonicall, where every body knowes that Apocryphall books are read as well as Canonicall. But howsoever, if you understand by Fathers, not only their immediate Fathers and Predecessors in the Gospell, but the succession of them from the Apostles; they are right in the Thesis, that whatsoever is received from these Fathers, as Canonicall, is to be so esteem'd; Though in the application of it, to this or that particular book they may happily erre, and think that Book received as Canonicall, which was only received as Profitable to be read; and think that Book, received alwaies, and by all, which was rejected by some, and doubted of by many.

55 But we cannot be certain, in what language the Scriptures remaine uncorrupted. Not so certain, I grant, as of that which wee can demonstrate: But certain enough, morally certain, as certain as the nature of the thing will beare. So certain we may be, and God requires no more. We may be as certain as S. Austin was, who in his second book of Baptisme, against the Donatists, c. 3. plainly implies, the Scripture might possibly be corrupted. He meanes sure in matters of little moment, such as concerne not the Covenant between God and Man. But thus he saith. The same S. Austin in his 48. Epist. cleerly intimates, Ne (que) enim sic pasuit integritas at (que) notitia literarum quamlibet illustris Episcopi, custodiri, quemadmodum scriptura Canonica tot linguarum literis & ordine & successione celebrationis Ecclesiasticae cus [...]oditur; contra quam non defuerunt tamen, qui sub non [...]ibus Apostol [...]rum multa confingere [...]t. Frustra quidem; Quia illa sic commendata, sic celebrata, sic nota est. Ferum quid po [...]sit adversus literas non Canonica authoritate funda [...]as etiam hinc demonstrabit impiae [...] audaciae, quod & adversus eos quae tanta notitiae mole firmatae sunt, fese erigere non praetermisit. Aug. ep. 48. ad Vincent. contra Donat▪ & Rogat. That in his judgement, the only preservatiue of the Scriptures integritie, was the translating it into so many Languages, and the generall and perpetuall use and reading of it in the Church: for want whereof the works of particular Doctors were more exposed to danger in this kinde; but the Canonicall Scripture being by this meanes guarded with universall [Page] care and diligence was not obnoxious to such attempts. And this assurance of the Scripture's incorruption, is common to us with him; we therefore are as certain hereof as S. Austin was, & that I hope was certain enough. Yet if this does not satisfie you, I say farther, We are as certain hereof as your own Pope Sixtus Quintus was. He in his Preface to his Bible tells us:In hac Germani text [...]s pervestigatione, satis perspicue inter omnes constat, nullum argumentum esse certius ac famius, quam antiquorum probatorum codicum latinorum fidem &c. sic Sixtus in praefat. That in the pervestigation of the true and genuine Text, it was perspicuously manifest to all men, that there was no Argument more [...]rme and certain to be relied upon, then the Faith of Ancient Books. Now this ground wee haue to build upon as well as He had: and therefore our certainty is as great, and stands upon as certain ground as his did.

56 This is not all I haue to say in this matter. For I will adde moreover, that we are as certaine in what Language the Scripture is uncorrupted, as any man in your Church was, untill Clement the 8th set forth your own approved Edition of your Vulgar translation. For you doe not, nor cannot, without extreme impudence deny, that untill then, there was great variety of Copies currant in divers parts of your Church, and those very frequent in various lections: all which Copies might possibly be false in some things, but more then one sort of them, could not possibly be true in all things. Neither were it lesse impudence to pretend, that any man in your Church, could untill Clement's time haue any certainty what that one true Copie and reading was (if there were any one perfectly true.) Some indeed that had got Sixtus his Bible, might after the Edition of that very likely think them selues cock-sure of a perfect true uncorrupted Translation, without being beholding to Clement; but how fowly they were abused and deceived that thought so, the Edition of Clemens, differing from that of Sixtus in a great multitude of places, doth sufficiently demonstrate.

57 This certainty therefore in what language the Scripture remaines uncorrupted, is it necessary to haue it, or is it not? If it be not, I hope we may doe well enough without it. If it be necessary, what became of your Church for 1500 yeares together? All which time you must confesse she had no such certainty: no one man being able truly and upon good ground to say, This or that Copy of the Bible is pure, and perfect, and uncorrupted in all things. And now at this present, though some of you are growne to a higher degree of Presumption in this point, yet are you as farre as ever, from any true and reall, and rationall assurance of the absolute purity of your Authentique Translation: which I suppose my selfe to haue prou'd unanswerably in divers places.

58 In the sixteenth Division, It is objected to Protestants in a long discourse transcrib'd out of the Protestants Apologie, That their translations of the Scripture are very different, and by each other mutually condemned▪ Luthers Translation by Zwinglius, and others: That of the Zwinglians by Luther. The Translation of Oecolampadius, by the Divines of Basill: that of Castalio by Beza: That of Beza by Castalio. That of Calvin, by Carolus Molinaeus. That of Geneva by M. Parks, & King Iames. And lastly one of our Translations by the Puritans.

[Page] 59 All which might haue been as justly objected against that great variety of Translations extant in the Primitive Church, & m [...]de use of by the Fathers and Doctors of it. For which I desire not that my word, but S. Austin's may be taken. They which haue translated the Scriptures out of the Hebrew into Greek, may be numbred, but the Latine Interpreters are innumerable. For whensoever any one, in the first times of Christianity, met with a Greek Bible, and seem'd to himselfe to haue some ability in both Languages, he presently ventur'd upon an Interpretation. So He, in his second book of Christian doctrine. Cap. 11. Of all these, that which was called the Italian Translation was esteemed best; so we may learne from the same S. Austin in the 15. Chap. of the same book. Amongst all these Interpretations (saith he) let the Italian be preferr'd: for it keeps closer to the Letter, and is perspicuous in the sense. Yet so farre was the Church of that time from presuming upon the absolute puritie and perfection, even of this best Translation, that S. Hierome thought it necessary to make a new Translation of the Old Testament, out of the Hebrew fountain, (which himselfe testifies in his Book de Viris illustribus,) And to correct the vulgar version of the New Testament, according to the truth of the Originall Greek; amending many errors which had crept into it, whether by the mistake of the Author, or the negligence of the Transcribers; which work he undertook & performed at the request of Damasus, Bishop of Rome. You constraine mee (saith he) to make a new work of an old: that after the Copies of the Scriptures haue been dispersed through the whole world, I should sit as it were an Arbitratour amongst them, and because they vary among themselues, should determine what are those things (in them) which consent with the Greek verity. And after: Therefore this present Preface promises the foure Gospels only corrected by collation with Greek Copies. But that they might not be very dissonant from the custome of the Latine Reading, I haue so tempered with my stile, the Translation of the Ancients, that, those things amended which did seem to change the sense, other things I haue suffered to remain as they were. So that in this matter Protestants must either stand or fall with the Primitiue Church.

60 The Corruption that you charge Luther with, and the falsification that you impute to Zwinglius, what haue we to doe with them? or why may not we as justly lay to your charge the Errours which Lyranus, or Paulus Brugensis, or Laurentius Valla, or Cajetan, or Erasmus, or Arias Montanus, or Augustus▪ Nebiensis, or Pagnine, haue committed in their Translations.

61 Which yet I say not, as if these Translations of Luther and Zwinglius were absolutely indefensible; for what such great difference is there between Faith without the Works of the Law, and Faith alone without the Works of the Law? or why does not, Without, Alone, signifie all one with, Alone, Without? Consider the matter a little better, and obserue the use of these phrases of speech in our ordinary talke, and perhaps you will begin to doubt whether you had sufficient ground for this invectiue. And then for Zwinglius, if it bee true (as they say it is) that the language our Saviour spake in, had no such word as, To signifie, [Page] but used alwaies, to be, insteed of it, as it is certain the Scripture does in a hundred places; then this Translation, which you so declaim against, will prove no falsification in Zwinglius, but a calumny in you.

62 But the faith of Protestants relies upon Scripture alone; Scripture is delivered to most of them by Translations; Translations depend upon the skill and honesty of Men, who certainly may erre because they are Men, and certainly doe erre, at least some of them, because their Translations are contrary. It seemes then the Faith, and consequently the Salvation of Protestants relies upon fallible and uncertaine grounds.

63 This Objection, though it may seeme to doe you great service for the present; yet I feare you will repent the time that ever you urged it against us as a fault, that we make mens salvation depend upon uncertainties. For the objection returnes upon you many waies, as first thus; The salvation of many millions of Papists (as they suppose and teach) depends upon their having the Sacrament of Pennance truly administred unto them. This again upon the Minister's being a true Priest. That such or such a man is Priest, not himselfe, much lesse any other can haue any possible certainty: for it depends upon a great many contingent and uncertain supposals. He that will pretend to be certain of it, must undertake to know for a certain all these things that follow.

64 First that he was baptized with due Matter. Secondly, with the due forme of words, (which he cannot know, unlesse he were both present and attentiue.) Thirdly, he must know that hee was baptiz'd with due Intention, and that is, that the Minister of his Baptisme was not a secret Iew, nor a Moore, nor an Atheist, (of all which kinds, I feare experience giues you just cause to feare, that Italy and Spaine haue Priests not a few,) but a Christian in heart, as well as Profession; (otherwise believing the Sacrament to be nothing, in giving it he could intend to giue nothing,) nor a Sam [...]satenian, nor an Arrian: but one that was capable of having due intention, from which they that belieue not the doctrine of the Trinity are excluded by you. And lastly, that he was neither drunk nor distracted at the administration of the Sacrament, nor out of negligence or malice omitted his intention.

65 Fourthly, he must undertake to know, that the Bishop which ordained him Priest, ordained him compleatly with due Matter, Form and Intention: and consequently, that he againe was neither Iew, nor Moore, nor Atheist, nor lyable to any such exception, as is unconsistent with due Intention in giving the Sacrament of Orders.

66 Fiftly, he must undertake to know, that the Bishop which made him Priest, was a Priest himselfe, for your rule is, Nihil dat quod non habet: And consequently, that there was again none of the former nullities in his Baptisme, which might make him incapable of Ordination; nor no invalidity in his Ordination, but a true Priest to ordaine him again, the requisite matter and forme and due intention all concurring.

67 Lastly, he must pretend to know the same of him that made him Priest, and him that made Him Priest, even untill he comes to the very [Page] fountain of Priesthood. For take any one in the whole train & succession of Ordainers, & suppose him, by reason of any defect, only a supposed & not a true Priest, then according to your doctrine he could not give a true, but only a supposed Priesthood; and they that receive it of him, & again, they that derive it from thē, can give no better then they received; receiving nothing but a name and shadow, can give nothing but a name and shadow: and so from age to age, from generation to generation being equivocall Fathers, beget only equivocall Sons; No Principle in Geometry being more certain then this, That the unsuppliable defect of any necessary Antecedent, must needs cause a nullity of all those Consequences which depend upon it. In fine, to know this one thing, you must first know ten thousand others, whereof not any one is a thing that can be known; there being no necessity that it should be true, which only can qualify any thing for an object of Science, but only, at the best, a high degree of probability that it is so. But then, that often thousand probables, no one should be false; that of ten thousand requisites, whereof any one may faile, not one should be wanting, this to mee is extreamly improbable, and even cosen german to Impossible. So that the assurance hereof is like a machine composed of an innumerable multitude of pieces, of which it is strangely unlikely but some will be out of order; and yet if any one be so, the whole fabrick of necessity falls to the ground. And he that shall put together, and maturely consider all the possible waies of lapsing, and nullifying a Priesthood in the Church of Rome, I believe will be very inclinable to think, that it is an hundred to one, that amongst a hundred seeming Priests, there is not one true one. Nay, that it is not a thing very improbable, that amongst those many millions, which make up the Romish Hierarchy, there are not twenty true. But be the truth in this what it will be, once this is certain, that They which make mens salvation (as you doe) depend upon Priestly Absolution, and this again (as you doe) upon the Truth and reality of the Priesthood that gives it, and this lastly upon a great multitude of apparent uncertainties, are not the fittest men in the world, to object to others as a horrible crime, That they make mens Salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain foundations. And let this be the first retortion of your Argument.

68 But suppose this difficulty assoyled, and that an Angell from Heaven should ascertain you (for other assurances you can have none) that the person, you make use of, is a true Priest, and a competent Minister of the Sacrament of Pennance; yet still the doubt will remain, whether he will doe you that good which he can doe, whether he will pronounce the absolving words with intent to absolve you! For perhaps he may bear you some secret malice, and project to himselfe your damnation, for a compleat Italian revenge. Perhaps (as the tale is of a Priest that was lately burnt in France) he may upon some conditions have compacted with the Divell to give no Sacraments with Intention. Lastly, he may be (for ought you can possibly know) a secret Iew, or Moore, or Anti-Trinitarian, or perhaps such a one as is so farre from intending your forgivenesse of sinnes and salvation by this Sacrament, [Page] that in his heart he laughes at all these things, and thinkes Sinne nothing, and Salvation a word. All these doubts you must have cleerely resolved (which can hardly be done but by another Revelatiō,) before you can upon good grounds assure your selfe, that your true Priest gives you true and effectuall absolution. So that when you have done as much as God requires for your Salvation, yet can you by no means be secure, but that you may have the ill luck to be damn'd: which is to make Salvation a matter of chaunce, and not of choice, and which a man may faile of, not only by an ill life, but by ill fortune. Verily a most comfortable Doctrine for a considering man lying upon death bed, who either feeles or feares that his repentance is but attritiō only, and not contrition, and consequently believes that if he be not absolved really by a true Priest, he cannot possibly escape damnation. Such a man for his comfort, you tell, first (you that will have mens salvation depend upon no uncertainties,) that though he verily believe that his sorrow for sinnes is a true sorrow, and his purpose of amendment a true purpose; yet he may deceive himselfe, perhaps it is not, and if it be not, he must be damned. Yet you bid him hope well: But Spes est rei incertae nomen. You tell him secondly, that though the party he confesses to, seem to be a true Priest, yet for ought he knowes, or for ought himselfe knowes, by reason of some secret undiscernable invalidity in his Baptisme or Ordination, he may be none: and if he be none, he can doe nothing. This is a hard saying, but this is not the worst. You tell him thirdly, that he may be in such a state that he cannot, or if he can, that he will not give the Sacrament with due Intention: and if he does not, all's in vaine. Put case a man by these considerations should be cast into some agonies; what advise, what comfort would you give him? Verily I know not what you could say to him, but this; that first for the Qualification required on his part, he might know that he desired to have true sorrow, and that that is sufficient. But then if he should aske you, why he might not know his sorrow to be a true sorrow, as well as his desire to be sorrowfull, to be a true desire, I believe you would be put to silence. Then secondly, to quiet his feares, concerning the Priest and his intention you should tell him, by my advice, that Gods goodnesse (which will not suffer him to damne men for not doing better then their best,) will supply all such defects as to humane endeavours were unavoidable. And therefore though his Priest were indeed no Priest, yet to him he should be as if he were one: and if he gave Absolution without Intention, yet in doing so he should hurt himselfe only and not his penitent. This were some comfort indeed, and this were to settle mens salvation upon reasonable certain grounds. But this I fear you will never say; for this were to reverse many Doctrines established by your Church, and besides to degrade your Priesthood from a great part of their honour, by lessening the strict necessity of the Laities dependance upon them. For it were to say, that the Priests Intention is not necessary to the obtaining of absolution; which is to say, that it is not in the Parsons power to damne whom he will in his Parish, because by this rule, God should supply [Page] the defect which his malice had caused. And besides it were to say, that Infants dying without Baptisme might be saved, God supplying the want of baptisme which to them is unavoidable. But beyond all this, it were to put into my mouth a full and satisfying answere to your Argument, which I am now returning, so that in answering my objection you should answer your own. For then I should tell you, that it were altogether as abhorrent from the goodnesse of God, and as repugnant to it, to suffer an ignorant Lay-mans soule to perish, meerely for being misled by an undiscernable false Translation, which yet was commended to him by the Church, which (being of necessity to credit some in this matter) he had reason to rely upon either above all other; or as much as any other, as it is to damne a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired Absolution, which his Ghostly Father perhaps was an Atheist and could not give him, o [...] was a villain and would not. This answere therefore, which alone would serve to comfort your penitent in his perplexities, and to assure him that he cannot faile of Salvation if he will not, for feare of inconveniences you must forbeare. And seeing you must, I hope you will come down from the Pulpit, and preach no more against others for making mens Salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain grounds, least by judging others, you make your selves and your own Church inexcusable, who are strongly guilty of this fault, above all the men and Churches of the World: whereof I have already given you two very pregnant demonstrations, drawn from your presumptions tying God and Salvation to your Sacraments; And the efficacy of them to your Priests Qualifications and Intentions.

69 Your making the Salvation of Infants depend on Baptisme a Casuall thing, and in the power of man to conferre, or not conferre, would yeild me a Third of the same nature. And your suspending the same on the Baptizer's intention a Fourth. And lastly your making the Reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist depend upon the casualties of the consecrators true Priesthood and Intention, and yet commanding men to believe it for certain that he is present, and to adore the Sacrament, which according to your Doctrine, for ought they can possibly know, may be nothing else but a piece of bread, so exposing them to the danger of Idolatry, and consequently of damnation, doth offer me a Fift demonstration of the same conclusion, if I thought fit to insist upon them. But I have no mind to draw any more out of this Fountaine; neither doe I think it charity to cloy the Reader with uniformity, when the subject affords variety.

70 Sixtly, therefore I returne it thus. The faith of Papists relyes alone upon their Churches infallibility. That there is any Church infallible, and that Theirs is it, they pretend not to believe, but only upon prudentiall motives. Dependance upon prudentiall motives they confesse to be obnoxious to a possibility of erring. What then remaineth but Truth, Faith, Salvation, and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground!

71 Seventhly, The faith of Papists relies upon the Church alone. [Page] The Doctrine of the Church is delivered to most of them by their Parish Priest, or Ghostly Father, or at least by a company of Priests, who for the most part sure, are men and not Angels, in whom nothing is more certain then a most certain possibility to erre. What then remaineth but that Truth, Faith, Salvation and all, must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground.

72 Eightly thus. It is apparent and undeniable, that many Thousands there are, who believe your Religion upon no better grounds, then a man may have for the beliefe almost of any Religion. As some believe it, because their forefathers did so, and they were good People. Some, because they were Christened, and brought up in it. Some, because many Learned and Religious men are of it. Some, because it is the Religion of their Country, where all other Religions are persecuted and proscribed▪ Some, because Protestants cannot shew a perpetuall succession of Professors of all their Doctrine. Some, because the service of your Church is more stately, and pompous, & magnificent. Some, because they find comfort in it. Some, because your Religion is farther spread, and hath more professors of it, then the Religion of Protestants. Some, because your Priests compasse Sea and Land to gain Proselytes to it. Lastly, an infinite number, by chance, and they know not why, but only because they are sure they are in the right. This which I say is a most certain experimented truth, and if you will deale ingenuously, you will not deny it. And without question he that builds his faith upon our English Translation, goes upon a more prudent ground then any of these can, with reason, be pretended to be. What then can you alleadge but that, with you, rather then with us, Truth and Faith and Salvation and all relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds.

73 Ninthly. Your Rhemish and Doway Translations are delivered to your Proselytes, (such I mean that are dispen [...]'d with for the reading of them,) for the direction of their Faith and lives. And the same may be said of your Translations of the Bible into other nationall languages, in respect of those that are licenc'd to read them. This I presume you will confesse. And moreover, that these Translations came not by inspiration, but were the productions of humane Industry; and that not Angels, but men were the Authors of them. Men I say, meere men, subject to the same Passions and to the same possibility of erring with our Translatours. And then how does it not unavoidably follow, that in them which depend upon these translations for their direction, Faith, and Truth, and Salvation, and all relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds?

74 Tenthly and lastly (to lay the axe to the root of the tree,) the Helena which you so fight for, your vulgar Translation, though some of you believe, or pretend to believe, it to be in every part and particle of it, the pure and uncorrupted word of God; yet others among you, and those as good & zealous Catholiques as you, are not so confident hereof.

75 First, for all those who have made Translations of the whole [Page] Bible or any part of it different many times in sense from the Vulgar, as Lyranus, Cajetan, Pagnine, Arias, Erasmus, Valla, Steuchus, and others, it is apparent and even palpable, that they never dreamt of any absolute perfection and authenticall infallibility of the Vulgar Translation. For if they had, why did they in many places reject it and differ from it?

76 Vega was present at the Councell of Trent, when that decree was made, which made the Vulgar Edition (then not extant any where in the world) authenticall, and not to be rejected upon any pretense whatsoever. At the forming this decree Vega I say was present, understood the mind of the Councell, as well as any man, and professes that he was instructed in it by the President of it, the Cardinall S. Cruce. And yet he hath written that the Councell in this decree, meant to pronounce this Translation free (not simply from all error) but only from such errors, out of which any opinion pernitious to faith and manners might be collected. This, Andradius in his defence of that Councell reports of Vega, and assents to it himselfe. Driedo, in his book of the Translation of Holy Scripture, hath these words very pregnant and pertinent to the same purpose; The See Apostolike, hath approved or accepted Hieroms Edition, not as so wholly consonant to the Originall, and so entire and pure and restored in all things, that it may not be lawfull for any man, either by comparing it with the Fountaine to examine it, or in some places to doubt, whether or no Hierome did understand the true sense of the Scripture; but only as an Edition to be prefer'd before all others then extant, and no where deviating from the truth in the rules of faith and good life. Mariana, even where he is a most earnest Advocate for the Vulgar Edition, yet acknowledges the imperfection of it in these words, The faults of the Vulgar Edition are not approved by the Decree of the Councell of Trent, Pro Edit. vulg. c. 21. p. 99. a multitude whereof we did collect from the variety of Copies. And againe, We maintaine that the Hebrew and Greeke, were by no meanes rejected by the Trent Fathers: And that the Latine edition is indeed approved, yet not so, as if they did deny that some places might be translated more plainly, some more properly; whereof it were easy to produce innumerable examples. And this he there professes to have learnt of Laines the then Generall of the Society: who was a great part of that Councell, present at all the Actions of it, and of very great authority in it.

77 To this so great authority he addes a reason of his opinion, which with all indifferent men will be of a farre greater authority. If the Councell (saith he) had purposed to approve an Edition in all respects, and to make it of equall authority and credit with the Fountaines, certainly they ought with exact care first to have corrected the errors of the Interpreter: which certainly they did not.

78 Lastly Bellarmine himselfe, though he will not acknowledge any imperfection in the Vulgar Edition,Bell. deverb [...] Deil. 2. c. 11. p. 120. yet he acknowledges that the case may, and does oft-times so fall out, that it is impossible to discerne which is the true reading of the Vulgar Edition, but only by recourse unto the Originalls, and dependance upon them.

[Page] 79 From all which it may evidently be collected, that though some of you flatter your selves with a vain imagination of the certain absolute purity and perfection of your Vulgar Edition; yet the matter is not so certain, and so resolved, but that the best learned men amongst you are often at a stand, and very doubtfull sometimes whether your Vulgar translation be true, and sometimes whether this or that be your Vulgar Translatiō, & sometimes undoubtedly resolved that your Vulgar Translation is no true Translation, nor consonant to the Originall, as it was at first delivered. And what thē can be alleadged, but that out of your own grounds it may be inferred & inforced upon you, that not only in your Lay-men, but your Clergy men & Schollers, Faith & Truth and Salvation & all depends upon fallible & uncertain grounds? And thus by ten severall retortions of this one Argument, I have endeavoured to shew you, how ill you have complyed with your own advise, which was to take heed of urging arguments that might be return'd upon you. I should now by a direct answer, shew that it presseth not us at all: but I have in passing done it already, in the end of the second retortion of this argument, and thither I referre the Reader.

80 Whereas therefore, you exhort them that will have assurance of true Scriptures, to fly to your Church for it: I desire to know (if they should follow your advise) how they should be assured that your Church can give them any such assurance; which hath been confessedly so negligent, as to suffer many whole books of Scripture to be utterly lost. Again, in those that remain, confessedly so negligent, as to suffer the Originalls of these that remain to be corrupted. And lastly, so carelesse of preserving the integrity of the Copies of her Translation, as to suffer infinite variety of Readings to come in to them, without keeping any one perfect Copy, which might have been as the Standard, and Polycletus his Canon to correct the rest by. So that which was the true reading, and which the false, it was utterly undiscernable, but only by comparing them with the Originalls, which also she pretends to be corrupted.

81 But Luther himselfe, by unfortunate experience, was at length enforced to confesse thus much, saying, If the world last longer, it will be again necessary to receive the Decrees of Councells, by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now reigne.

82 And what if Luther, having a Pope in his belly, (as he was wont to say that most men had,) and desiring perhaps to have his own interpretations passe without examining, spake such words in heat of Argument? Doe you think it reasonable that we should subscribe to Luther's divinations and angry speeches? will you oblige your selfe to answer for all the assertions of your private Doctors? If not; why doe you trouble us with what Luther saies, and what Calvin saies? Yet this I say not, as if these words of Luther made any thing at all for your present purpose. For what if he feared, or pretended to feare, that, the infallibility of Councells being rejected, some men would fall into greater errors, then were impos'd upon them by the Councells? Is this to confesse that there is any present visible Church, upon [Page] whose bare Authority we may infallibly receive the true Scriptures and the true sense of them? Let the Reader judge. But in my opinion, to feare a greater inconvenience may follow from the avoiding of the lesse, is not to confesse that the lesse is none at all.

83 For D. Covels commending your Translation, what is it to the businesse in hand? or how proves it the perfection of it, which is here contested, any more then S. Augustine's commending the Italian Translation, argues the perfection of that, or that there was no necessity that S. Hierome should correct it? D. Covell commends your Translation, and so does the Bishop of Chichester, and so does D. Iames, and so doe I. But I commend it for a good Translation, not for a perfect. Good may be good, and deserve commendations; and yet better may be better. And though he saies, that the then approved Translation of the Church of England, is that which cōmeth nearest the Vulgar, yet he does not say, that it agrees exactly with it. So that whereas you inferre, that the truth of your Translation must be the Rule to judge of the goodnesse of ours: this is but a vain florish. For to say of our Translations, That is the best which comes nearest the Vulgar, (and yet it is but one man that saies so,) is not to say, it is therefore the best because it does so. For this may be true by accident, and yet the truth of our Translation no way depend upon the truth of yours. For had that been their direction, they would not only have made a Translation that should come neere to yours, but such a one which should exactly agree with it, and be a Translation of your Translation.

84 Ad 17. §. In this Division you charge us with great uncertainty, concerning the true meaning of Scripture. Which hath been answered already, by saying, That if you speak of plain places, (and in such all things necessary are contained,) we are sufficiently certain of the meaning of them, neither need they any Interpreter. If of obscure and difficult places, we confesse we are uncertaine of the sense of many of them. But then we say there is no necessity we should be certain. For if Gods will had been we should haue understood him more certainly, he would haue spoken more plainly. And we say besides, that as we are uncertain, so are You too; which he that doubts of, let him read your Commentators upon the Bible, and obserue their various and dissonant interpretations, and he shall in this point need no further satisfaction.

85 But seeing there are contentions among us, we are taught by nature and Scripture, and experience (so you tell us out of M. Hooker) to seek for the ending of them, by submitting unto some Iudiciall sentence, whereunto neither part may refuse to stand. This is very true. Neither should you need to persuade us to seek such a meanes of ending all our Controversies, if we could tell where to finde it. But this wee know, that none is fit to pronounce, for all the world, a judiciall definitiue obliging sentence in Controversies of Religion, but only such a Man, or such a society of Men, as is authoriz'd thereto by God. And besides we are able to demonstrate, that it hath not been the pleasure of God to giue to any Man, or Society of Men any such authority. And therefore [Page] though we wish heartily that all Controversies were ended, as we doe that all sinne were abolisht, yet we haue little hope of the one, or the other, till the World be ended. And in the mean while, think it best to content our selues with, and to persuade others unto an Vnity of Charity and mutuall toleration; seeing God hath authoriz'd no man to force all men to Vnity of Opinion. Neither doe we think it fit to argue thus, To us it seemes convenient there should be one Iudge of all Controversies for the whole world, therefore God has appointed one: But more modest and more reasonable to collect thus, God hath appointed no such judge of Controversies, therefore, though it seemes to us convenient there should be one, yet it is not so: Or though it were convenient for us to haue one, yet it hath pleased God (for Reasons best known to himselfe) not to allow us this convenience.

86 D. Fields words which follow, I confesse, are somewhat more pressing: and if he had been infallible, and the words had not slipt unadvisedly from him, they were the best Argument in your Book. But yet it is evident out of his Book, & so acknowledg'd by some of your own, That he never thought of any one company of Christians invested with such authority from God, that all men were bound to receiue their Decrees without examination, though they seem contrary to Scripture and Reason, which the Church of Rome requires. And therefore if he haue in his Preface strained too high in cōmendation of the subject he writes of, (as Writers very often doe in their Prefaces and Dedicatory Epistles) what is that to us? Besides, by all the Societies of the World, it is not impossible, nor very improbable, hee might meane all that are, or haue been in the world, and so include even the Primitiue Church: and her Communion we shall embrace, her Direction we shall follow, her Iudgement we shall rest in, if wee belieue the Scripture, endeavour to finde the true sense of it, and liue according to it.

87 Ad 18. §. That the true Interpretation of the Scripture ought to be receaved from the Church, you need not prove, for it is very easily granted by them, who professe themselves very ready to receiue all Truths, much more the true sense of Scripture, not only from the Church, but from any societie of men, nay from any man whatsoever.

88 That the Churches Interpretation of Scripture is alwaies true, that is it which you would haue said: and that in some sense may bee also admitted. viz. if your speake of that Church (which before you spake of in the 14. §.) that is, of the Church of all Ages since the Apostles. Vpon the Tradition of which Church, you there told us, We were to receiue the Scripture, and to belieue it to bee the Word of God. For there you teach us, that our Faith of Scripture depends on a Principle which requires no other proofe, And that, such is Tradition, which from hand to hand, and age to age bringing us up to the Times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe, commeth to be confirmed by all those Miracles, and other Arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true. Wherefore the Ancient Fathers avouch that wee must receiue the sacred Scripture upon the Tradition of this Church. [Page] The Tradition then of this Church you say must teach us what is Scripture: and we are willing to belieue it. And now if you make it good unto us, that the same Tradition down from the Apostles, hath delivered from age to age, and from hand to hand, any interpretation of any Scripture, we are ready to embrace that also. But now, if you will argue thus: The Church in one sense, tells us what is Scripture, & we belieue, therefore if the Church taken in another sense, tell us, this or that is the meaning of the Scripture, we are to belieue that also; this is too transparent Sophistrie, to take any but those that are willing to be taken.

89 If there be any Traditiue Interpretation of Scripture, produce it, and proue it to be so; and we embrace it. But the Tradition of all ages is one thing; and the authority of the present Church, much more of the Roman Church, which is but a Part, and a corrupted Part of the Catholique Church, is another. And therefore though we are ready to receiue both Scripture and the sense of Scripture upon the authority of Originall Tradition, yet we receiue neither the one, nor the other, upon the Authority of your Church.

90 First for the Scripture, how can wee receiue them upon the Authority of your Church: who hold now those Books to be Canonicall, which formerly you rejected from the Canon? I instance, in the Book of Macchabees, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. The first of these you held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregories time, or else hee was no member of your Church, for it is apparentSee Greg. Mor. l. 19. c. 13. He held otherwise. The second you rejected from the Canon in S. Hieroms time, as it is evident out ofThus he testifies▪ Com in Esa. c. 6. in these words. Vnde & Paulas Apost. in Epist. ad Heb. quam Latina consuetudo non recipit and again in c. 8. in these, In Ep. qu [...]e ad Heb [...]aeos scribitur, licet eam Latina Consu [...] etudo inter Canoincas Scripturas no recipiat.) &c. many places of his Works.

91 If you say (which is all you can say) that Hierom spake this of the particular Roman Church, not of the Roman Catholique Church; I answer, there was none such in his time, None that was called so. Secondly, what he spake of the Roman Church, must be true of all other Churches, if your Doctrine of the necessity of the Conformity of all other Churches to that Church were then Catholique Doctrine. Now then choose whether you will, either that the particular Roman Church, was not then beleived to be the Mistresse of all other Churches (notwithstanding, Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, omnes qui sunt undi (que) fideles; which Card. Perron, and his Translatresse so often translates false:) Or if you say shee was, you will runne into a greater inconvenience, and be forced to say, that all the Churches of that time, rejected from the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews, together with the Roman Church. And consequently that the Catholique Church may erre in rejecting from the Canon Scriptures truly Canonicall.

92 Secondly, How can we receive the Scripture upon the authority of the Roman Church, which hath delivered at severall times Scriptures in many places, different and repugnant, for Authenticall & Canonicall? Which is most evident out of the place of Malachie, which is so quoted for the Sacrifice of the Masse, that either all the ancient Fathers had false Bibles, or yours is false. Most evident likewise [Page] from the comparing of the story of Iacob in Genesis, with that which is cited out of it, in the Epistle to the Hebrewes, according to the vulgar Edition. But aboue all, to any one, who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtus and Clement, so evident, that the wit of man cannot disguise it.

93 And thus you see what reason we haue to belieue your Antecedent, That your Church it is which must declare, what Books bee true Scripture. Now for the consequence, that certainty is as liable to exception as the Antecedent. For if it were true, that God had promised to assist you, for the delivering of true Scripture, would this oblige Him, or would it follow from hence that He had oblig'd himselfe, to teach you, not only sufficiently, but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of Scripture? God is not defectiue in things necessary: neither will he leave himselfe without witnesse, nor the World without meanes of knowing his will and doing it. And therefore it was necessary that by his Providence he should preserve the Scripture from any undiscernable corruptiō, in those things which he would haue known: otherwise it is apparent, it had not been his will, that these things should be known, the only meanes of continuing the knowledge of them being perished. But now neither is God lavish in superfluities, and therefore having given us meanes sufficient for our direction, and power sufficient to make use of these meanes, he will not constraine or necessitate us to make use of these meanes. For that were to crosse the end of our Creation, which was to be glorified by our free obedience: whereas necessity and freedome cannot stand together. That were to reverse the Law which he hath prescribed to himselfe in his dealing with men, and that is, to set life and death before him, and to leaue him in the hands of his own Counsell. God gaue the Wisemen a Starre to lead them to Christ, but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this starre: that was left to their liberty. God gaue the Children of Israel a Fire to lead them by night, and a Pillar of Cloud by day, but he constrained no man to follow them: that was left to their liberty. So he giues the Church, the Scripture: which in those things which are to be believed or done, are plain and easie to be follow'd, like the Wise men's Starre. Now that which he desires of us on our part, is the Obedience of Faith, and loue of the Truth, and desire to finde the true sense of it, and industry in searching it, and humility in following, and Constancy in professing it: all which if he should work in us by an absolute irresistible necessity, he could no more require of us, as our duty, then he can of the Sunne to shine, of the Sea to ebb & flowe, and of all other Creatures to doe those things which by meere necessity they must doe, and cannot choose. Besides, what an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture, whereas there are thousands of places of Scripture, which you doe not pretend certainly to understand, and about the Interpretation whereof, your own Doctors differ among themselues? If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture, why doe not your Doctors follow her infallible direction? [Page] And if they doe, how comes such difference among them in their Interpretations?

94 Again, why does your Church thus put her candle under a Bushell, and keep her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly, thus long wrapt up in napkins? Why sets she not forth Infallible Commentaries or Expositions upon all the Bible? Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians, that Scripture should be Interpreted? It is blasphemous to say so. The Scripture it selfe tells us, All Scripture is profitable. And the Scripture is not so much the Words as the Sense. And if it be not profitable, why does shee imploy particular Doctors to interpret Scriptures fallibly? unlesse we must think that fallible Interpretations of Scripture are profitable, and infallible interpretations would not be so?

95 If you say the Holy Ghost, which assists the Church in interpreting, will move the Church to interpret when he shall think fit, and that the Church will doe it when the Holy Ghost shall move her to doe it: I demand whether the Holy Ghost's moving of the Church to such works as these be resistible by the Church, or irresistible. If resistible, then the Holy Ghost may move, and the Church may not be moved. As certainly the Holy Ghost doth alwaies move to an action, when he shewes us plainly that it would be for the good of men, and honour of God. As he that hath any sense will acknowledge that an infallible exposition of Scripture could not but be, and there is no conceivable reason, why such a work should be put off a day, but only because you are conscious to your selves, you cannot doe it, and therefore make excuses. But if the moving of the Holy Ghost be irresistible, and you are not yet so mov'd to goe about this work; then I confesse you are excused. But then I would know, whether those Popes which so long deferred the calling of a Councell for the Reformation of your Church, at length pretended to be effected by the Councell of Trent, whether they may excuse themselves, for that they were not moved by the Holy Ghost to doe it? I would know likewise, as this motion is irresistible when it comes, so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your Church to any such publique Action, that it cannot possibly move without it? That is, whether the Pope now could not, if he would, seat himselfe in Cathedra, and fall to writing expositions upon the Bible for the directions of Christians to the true sense of it? If you say he cannot, you will make your selfe ridiculous. If he can, then I would know, whether he should be infallibly directed in these expositions, or no? If he should, then what need he to stay for irresistible motion? Why does he not goe about this noble worke presently? If he should not, How shall we know that the calling of the Councell of Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion, or upon humane importunity and suggestion, and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost? And consequently how shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no, seeing he assists none but what he himselfe moves to? And whether he did move the Pope to call this Councell, is a secret thing, which we cannot possibly know, nor perhaps the Pope himselfe.

[Page] 96 If you say, your meaning is only, That the Church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any Scripture, and not infallibly assisted positively to give the true sense of all Scripture: I put to you your own Question, why should we believe the Holy Ghost will stay there? Or, why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing, that is, in teaching the Church what Bookes be true Scripture? For if the Holy Ghosts assistance be promised to all things profitable, then will he be with them infallibly, not only to guard them from all errors, but to guide them to all profitable truths, such as the true senses of all Scripture would be. Neither could he stay there, but defend them irresistibly from all Vices; Nor there neither, but infuse into them irresistibly all Vertues: for all these things would be much for the benefit of Christians. If you say, he cannot doe this without taking away their free will in living; I say neither can he necessitate men to believe aright, without taking away their freewill in believing and in professing their belief.

97 To the place of S. Austine, I answere, That not the authority of the present Church, much lesse of a Part of it (as the Roman Church is) was that which alone mov'd Saint Austine to believe the Gospell, but the perpetuall Tradition of the Church of all Ages. Which you your selfe have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is prov'd, and which it selfe needs no proof; and to which you have referred this very saying of S. Austine, Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi &c. p. 55. And in the next place which you cite out of his book De Vtil. Cred. c. 14. he shewes, that his motives to believe, were, Fame, Celebrity, Consent, Antiquity. And seeing this Tradition, this Consent, this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Manichaeus, as to believe the Gospell, (the Christian Tradition being as full against Manichaeus as it was for the Gospell) therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds, that he had as much reason to disbelieve Manichaeus, as to believe the Gospell. Now if you can truly say, that the same Fame, Celebrity, Consent, Antiquity, that the same Vniversall and Originall Tradition, lyes against Luther and Calvin, as did against Manichaeus, you may doe well to apply the Argument against them; otherwise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names in steade of Manichaeus, unlesse you can shew the thing agrees to them as well as him.

98 If you say, that S. Austin speakes here of the authority of the Present Church, abstracting from consent with the Ancient, and therefore you, seeing you have the present Church on your side against Luther and Calvin, as S. Austin against Manichaeus, may urge the same words against them which S. Austin did against him;

99 I answer, First that it is a vaine presumption of yours that the Catholique Church is of your side. Secondly, that if S. Austine speake here of that present Church, which moved him to believe the Gospel, without consideration of the Antiquity of it, & its both Personall and Doctrinall succession from the Apostles; His argument will be like a Buskin that will serve anylegge. It will serve to keepe an Arrian, or a [Page] Grecian from being a Roman Catholique, as well as a Catholique from being an Arrian, or a Grecian? In as much as the Arrians and Grecians, did pretend to the title of Catholiques, and the Church, as much as the Papists now doe. If then you should haue come to an ancient Goth or Vandall, whom the Arrians converted to Christianity, and should haue mov'd him to your Religion; might he not say the very same words to you as S. Austin to the Manichaeans? I would not beleive the Gospell, unlesse the authority of the Church did move me. Them therefore whom I obeyed, saying beleive the Gospell, why should I not obey saying to me, doe not beleive the Homoousians? Choose what thou pleasest: if thou shalt say beleive the Arrians; they warne me not to give any credit to you. If therefore I beleive them, I cannot beleive thee. If thou say doe not beleive the Arriās, thou shalt not doe well to force me to the faith of the Homoousians, because by the preaching of the Arrians I beleived the Gospell it selfe. If you say, you did well to beleive them, commending the Gospell, but you did not well to beleive them discommending the Homoousians: Doest thou think me so very foolish, that without any reason at all, I should beleive what thou wilt, and not beleive what thou wilt not? It were easie to put these words into the mouth of a Grecian, Abyssine, Georgian, or any other of any Religion. And I pray bethinke your selves, what you would say to such a one in such a case, and imagine that we say the very same to you.

100 Whereas you aske, Whether Protestants doe not perfectly resemble those men to whom S. Austine spake, when they will have men to believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture, but not to believe her condemning Luther? I demand againe, whether you be well in your wits to say, that Protestants would have men believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture, whereas they accuse her to deliver many bookes for Scripture which are not so? and doe not bid men to receive any book which she delivers, for that reason, because she delivers it? And if you meant only, Protestants will have men to believe some bookes to be Scripture which the Roman Church delivers for such, may not we then aske, as you doe, Doe not Papists perfectly resemble these men, which will have men believe the Church of England delivering Scripture, but not to believe her condemning the Church of Rome?

101 And whereas you say S. Austine may seeme to have spoken Prophetically against Protestants, when he said, Why should I not most diligently enquire, what Christ commanded, of them before all others, by whose Authority I was moved to believe, that Christ Commanded any good thing? I answer. Vntill you can shew that Protestants believe that Christ commanded any good thing, that is, That they believe the truth of Christian Religion upon the Authority of the Church of Rome, this place must be wholly impertinent to your purpose; which is to make Protestants believe your Church to be the infallible expounder of Scriptures and judge of Controversies: nay rather is it not directly against your purpose? For why may not a member of the Church of England, who received his baptisme, education and Faith [Page] from the Ministery of this Church, say just so to you as S. Austine here to the Manichees? Why should I not most diligently inquire, what Christ commanded, of them (the Church of England) before all others, by whose Authority I was mov'd to believe, that Christ commanded any good thing, Can you, F. or K. or whosoever you are, better declare to me what he said, whom I would not have thought to have been or to be, if the belief thereof had been recommended by you to me? This therefore (that Christ Iesus did those miracles, and taught that Doctrine which is contained evidently in the undoubted Bookes of the New Testament) I believed by Fame, strengthned with Celebrity & Consent, (even of those which in other things are at infinite variance one with another,) and lastly by Antiquity (which gives an universall and a constant attestation to them). But every one may see that you, so few (in comparison of all those upon whose consent we ground our belief of Scripture,) so turbulent, (that you damne all to the fire, and to Hell, that any way differ from you; that you professe it is lawfull for you, to use violence and power whensoever you can have it, for the planting of your own doctrine, and the extirpation of the contrary;) lastly so new in many of your Doctrines, (as in the lawfulnesse, and expedience of debarring the Laity the Sacramentall Cup; the lawfulnesse and expedience of your Latine Service, Transubstantiation, Indulgences, Purgatory, the Popes infallibility, his Authority over Kings &c.) so new I say, in comparison of the undoubted bookes of Scripture, which evidently containeth, or rather is our Religion, and the sole, and adequate object of our faith: I say every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing deserving Authority (with wise and considerate men). What madnesse is this? Believe them the consent of Christians which are now, and have been ever since Christ in the World, that we ought to believe Christ; but learn of us what Christ said, which contradict and damne all other parts of Christendome. Why I beseech you? Surely if they were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, I would more easily perswade my selfe, that I were not to believe in Christ, then that I should learn any thing concerning him, from any other, then them by whom I believed him: at least, then that I should learn what his Religion was from you, who have wronged so exceedingly his Miracles and his Doctrine, by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the Confirmation of your new Doctrine; which might give us just occasion, had we no other assurance of them but your Authority, to suspect the true ones. Who with forging so many false Stories, and false Authors, have taken a faire way to make the faith of all Stories questionable; if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your Authority: who have brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confesse to be the word of Christ, and which, for the most, part make either for the honour or profit of the Teachers of them: which (if there were no difference between the Christian and the Roman Church) would be very apt to make suspicious men believe that Christian Religion was a humane invention, [Page] taught by some cunning Impostors, only to make themselves rich and powerfull; who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors: a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remain uncorrupted. For if you take this Authority upon you, upon the sixe Ages last past; how shall we know, that the Church of that time, did not usurpe the same authority upon the Authors of the sixe last Ages before them, and so upwards untill we come to Christ himselfe? Whose question'd Doctrines, none of them came from the fountain of Apostolike tradition, but have insinuated themselves into the Streames, by little and little, some in one age, and some in another, some more Anciently, some more lately, and some yet are Embrio's, yet hatching, and in the shell; as the Popes infallibility, the Blessed Virgins immaculate conception, the Popes power over the Temporalties of Kings, the Doctrine of Predetermination, &c. all which yet are, or in time may be impos'd upon Christians under the Title of Originall and Apostolike Tradition, and that with that necessity, that they are told, they were as good believe nothing at all, as not believe these things to have come from the Apostles, which they know to have been brought in but yesterday: which whether it be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus with themselves— I am told, that I were as good believe nothing at all, as believe some points which the Church teaches me, and not others: & somethings which she teaches to be Ancient and Certain, I plainly see to be New & False, therefore I will believe nothing at all. Whether I say the foresaid grounds be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus, and whether this conclusion be not too often made in Italy, & Spain, and France, and in England too, I leave it to the judgement of those that have wisdome and experience. Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so farre from being a sufficient Foundation for our belief in Christ, that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it; why should I not much rather conclude, Seeing we receive not the knowledge of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rome, neither from her must we take his Doctrine, or the Interpretation of Scripture?

102 Ad. §. 19. In this number, this Argument is contained. The Iudge of Controversies ought to be intelligible to learned and unlearned; The Scripture is not so, and the Church is so; Therefore the Church is the Iudge, and not the Scripture.

103 To this I answere: As to be understandible is a condition requisite to a Iudge, so is not that alone sufficient to make a Iudge; otherwise you might make your selfe Iudge of Controversies, by arguing; The Scripture is not intelligible by all, but I am, therefore I am Iudge of Controversies. If you say your intent was to conclude against the Scripture, and not for the Church: I demand why then, but to delude the simple with sophistry, did you say in the close of this §. Such is the Church, and the Scripture is not such? but that you would leave it to them to inferre in the end, (which indeed was more then you undertook in the beginning) Therefore the Church is Iudge and the Scripture not. I say Secondly; that you still runne upon a false supposition: [Page] that God hath appointed some Iudge of all Controversies that may happen among Christians, about the sense of obscure Texts of Scripture: whereas he has left every one to his liberty herein, in those words of S. Paul, Quis (que) abundet in sensu suo &c. I say thirdly. Whereas some Protestants make the Scripture Iudge of Controversies, that they have the authority of Fathers of warrant their manner of speaking: as ofContra Parm [...]a. l. 5. in Prin. Optatus.

104 But speaking truly and properly the Scripture is not a Iudge nor cannot be, but only, a sufficient Rule, for those to judge by, that believe it to be the word of God (as the Church of England and the Church of Rome both doe,) what they are to believe, and what they are not to believe. I say sufficiently perfect, and sufficiently intelligible in things necessary, to all that have understanding, whether they be learned or unlearned. And my reason hereof is convincing and Demonstrative; because nothing is necessary to be believed, but what is plainly revealed. For to say, that when a place of Scripture, by reason of ambiguous termes, lies indifferent between divers senses, whereof one is true, and the other is false, that God obliges men under pain of damnation, not to mistake through error and humane frailty, is to make God a Tyrant, and to say that he requires us certainly to attain that end, for the attaining whereof we have no certain meanes; which is to say, that, like Pharaoh, he gives no straw, and requires brick; that he reapes where he sowes not; that he gathers where he strewes not, that he will not be pleas'd with our utmost endeavours to please him, without full and exact and never failing performance; that his will is we should doe what he knowes we cannot doe; that he will not accept of us according to that which we have, but requireth of us what we have not. Which whether it can consist with his goodnes, with his wisdome, & with his word, I leave it to honest men to judge. If I should send a servant to Paris, or Rome, or lerusalem, and he using his utmost diligence not to mistake his way, yet notwithstanding, meeting often with such places where the road is divided into severall waies, whereof every one is as likely to be true, and as likely to be false as any other, should at length mistake and goe out of the way; would not any man say that I were an impotent, foolish and unjust master, if I should be offended with him for doing so? And shall we not tremble to impute that to God, which we would take in foule scorne, if it were imputed to our selves? Certainly, I for my part fear I should not loue God if I should think so strangely of him.

105 Againe. When you say, that unlearned, and ignor ant men cannot understand Scripture, I would desire you to come out of the clouds, and tell us what you meane: Whether, that they cannot understand all Scripture, or that they cannot understand any Scripture, or that they cannot understand so much as is sufficient for their direction to Heaven. If the first; I believe the Learned are in the same case. If the Second; every mans experience will confute you: for who is there that is not capable of a sufficient understanding of the Story, the Precepts, the Promises, and the Threats of the Gospell? If the third; [Page] that they may understand something, but not enough for their Salvations; I aske you, first. Why then doth S. Paul say to Timothy, The Scriptures are able to make him wise unto Salvation? Why does Saint Austine say, Eaquae manifest [...] posita sunt in sacris Scripturis, omnia continent quae pertinent and Fidem Mores (que) vivendi? Why does every one of the four Evangelists intitle their book The Gospell, if any necessary and essentiall part of the Gospell were left out of it? Can we imagine, that either they omitted something necessary, out of ignorance not knowing it to be necessary? Or knowing it to be so, malitiously concealed it? Or out of negligence' did the work they had undertaken by halfes? If none of these things can without Blasphemy be imputed to them, considering they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this work, then certainly it most evidently followes, that every one of them writ the whole Gospell of Christ; I mean all the essentiall and necessary parts of it. So that if we had no other book of Scripture, but one of them alone, we should not want any thing necessary to Salvation. And what one of them has more then another, it is only profitable, and not necessary. Necessary indeed to be believed, because revealed; but not therefore revealed, because necessary to be believed.

106 Neither did they write only for the learned, but for all men. This being one especial meanes of the preaching of the Gospel, which was commanded to be preached, not only to learned men but to all men. And therefore, unlesse we will imagine the Holy Ghost and them to have been wilfully wanting to their own desire and purpose, we must conceive, that they intended to speak plain, even to the capacity of the simplest; at least touching all things necessary to be published by them, and believed by us.

107 And whereas you pretend it is so easie, and obvious both for the learned and the ignorant, both to know which is the Church, and what are the Decrees of the Church, and what is the sense of those Decrees: I say, this is a vaine pretense.

108 For first; How shall an unlearned man whom you haue supposed now ignorant of Scripture, how shall he know which of all the Societies of Christians is indeed the Church? You will say perhaps, he must examine them by the notes of the Church, which are perpetuall Visibilitie, Succession, Conformitie with the ancient Church. &c. But how shall he know, first, that these are the notes of the Church, unlesse by Scripture, which you say he understands not? You may say perhaps, he may be told so. But seeing men may deceive, and be deceived, and their words are no demonstrations, how shall he be assured that what they say is true? So that at the first he meets with an impregnable difficulty, and cannot know the Church but by such notes, which whether they be the notes of the Church he cannot possibly know. But let us suppose this Isthmus digged through, and that he is assured these are the notes of the true Church: How can he possible be a competent Iudge, which society of Christians hath title to these notes, and which hath not? Seeing this triall of necessity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monuments of Christian Antiquity, which [Page] no unlearned can haue, because he that hath it cannot be unlearned. As for example, how shall he possibly be able to know whether the Church of Rome hath had a perpetuall Succession of Visible Professors, which held alwayes the same Doctrine which they now hold, without holding any thing to the contrary; unlesse he hath first examined, what was the Doctrine of the Church in the first age, what in the second, and so forth? And whether this be not a more difficult work, then to stay at the first Age, and to examine the Church by the conformity of her Doctrine, with the Doctrine of the first age, every man of ordinary understanding may judge.

108 Let us imagine him advanc'd a step farther, and to know which is the Church: how shall he know what that Church hath decreed, seeing the Church hath not been so carefull in keeping of her decrees, but that many are lost, and many corrupted? Besides, when even the Learned among you are not agreed concerning divers things, whether they be De Fide or not; how shall the unlearned doe? Then for the sense of the Decrees, how can he be more capable of the understanding of them, then of plain Texts of Scripture, which you will not suffer him to understand? Especially, seeing the Decrees of divers Popes and Councells are conceived so obscurely, that the Learned cannot agree about the sense of them. And then they are written all in such languages which the ignorant understand not, and therefore must of necessity rely herein upon the uncertain and fallible authority of some particular men, who informe them that there is such a Decree. And if the Decrees were translated into Vulgar languages, why the Translators should not be as fallible as you say the Translators of Scripture are, who can possibly imagine?

109 Lastly, how shall an unlearned man, or indeed any man, be assured of the certainty of that Decree, the certainty whereof depends upon suppositions which are impossible to be known whether they be true or no? For it is not the Decree of a Councell, unlesse it be confirmed by a true Pope. Now the Pope cannot be a true Pope if he came in by Simony: which whether he did or no, who can answer mee? He cannot be true Pope unlesse he were baptized, and baptized he was not, unlesse the Minister had due Intention. So likewise he cannot be a true Pope, unlesse he were rightly ordained Priest, and that again depends upon the Ordainers secret Intention, and also upon his having the Episcopall Character. All which things, as I have formerly proved, depend upon so many uncertain suppositions, that no humane judgement can possibly be resolved in them. I conclude therefore, that not the learnedst man amongst you all, no not the Pope himselfe, can, according to the grounds you goe upon, have any certainty, that any Decree of any Councell is good and valid, and consequently, not any assurance that it is indeed the Decree of a Councell.

110 Ad §. 20. If by a private spirit, you mean, a particular perswasion that a Doctrine is true, which some men pretend, but cannot prove to come from the spirit of God: I say to referre Controversies to Scripture, is not to referre them to this kind of private Spirit. For [Page] is there not a manifest difference between saying, the spirit of God tels me that this is the meaning of such a Text (which no man can possibly know to be true, it being a secret thing) & between saying, these & these Reasons I have to shew, that this or that is true doctrine, or that this or that is the meaning of such a Scripture? Reason being a Publique and certain thing and exposed to all mens tryall and examination. But now if by privat spirit you understand every mans particular Reason, then your first and second inconvenience will presently be reduced to one, and shortly to none at all.

111 Ad §. 20. And does not also giving the office of Iudicature to the Church, come to conferre it upon every particular man? For before any man believes the Church infallible, must he not have reason to induce him to believe it to be so? and must he not judge of those reasons, whether they be indeed good and firme, or captious and sophisticall? Or would you have all men believe all your Doctrine upon the Churches infalli [...]y, and the Churches infallibility they know not why?

112 Secondly, supposing they are to be guided by the Church, they must use their own particular reason to find out which is the Church. And to that purpose you your selves give a great many notes, which you pretend first to be Certain notes of the Church, and then to be peculiar to your Church, and agreeable to none else; but you doe not so much as pretend, that either of those pretenses is evident of it selfe, and therefore you goe about to prove them both by reasons; and those reasons I hope every particular man is to judge of, whether they doe indeed conclude and convince that which they are alleadged for: that is, that these markes are indeed certain notes of the Church, and then that your Church hath them, and no other.

113 One of these notes, indeed the only note of a true and uncorrupted Church, is conformity with Antiquity; I mean the most ancient Church of all, that is the Primitive and Apostolique. Now how is it possible any man should examine your Church by this note, but he must by his own particular judgement, find out what was the doctrine of the Primitive Church, and what is the Doctrine of the present Church, and be able to answer all these Arguments which are brought to prove repugnance between them? otherwise he shall but pretend to make use of this note for the finding the true Church, but indeed make no use of it, but receive the Church at a venture, as the most of you doe; not one in a hundred being able to give any tolerable reason for it. So that in stead of reducing men to particular reason, you reduce them to none at all, but to chance and passion, and prejudice and such other waies, which if they lead one to the truth, they lead hundreds, nay thousands to falshood. But it is a pretty thing to consider, how these men can blow hot and cold out of the same mouth to serve severall purposes. Is there hope of gaining a Proselite? Then they will tell you, God hath given every man Reason to follow; and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the Ditch. That it is no good reason for a mans religion, that he was borne and brought up in [Page] it: For then a Turke should have as much reason to be a Turke; as a Christian to be a Christian. That every man hath a judgement of Discretion; which if they will make use of they shall easily finde: that the true Church hath alwaies such and such markes, and that their Church has them, and no other but theirs. But then if any of theirs be perswaded to a syncere and sufficient tryall of their Church▪ even by their own notes of it, and to try whether they be indeed so conformable to Antiquity as they pretend, then their note is changed: you must not use your own reason nor your judgement, but referre all to the Church, and believe her to be conformable to Antiquity, though they have no reason for it, nay though they have evident reason to the contrary. For my part, I am certain that God hath given us our Reason to discern between Truth and Falshood, and he that makes not this use of it, but beleeves things he knowes not why, I say it is by chance that he believes the Truth, and not by choice: and that I cannot but feare, that God will not accept of this Sacrifice of fooles.

114 But you that would not have men follow their reason, what would you have them to follow? their Passion? Or pluck out their eyes and goe blindfold? No, you say you would have them follow Authority. On gods name let them; we also would have them follow Authority; for it is upon the Authority of Vniversall Tradition, that we would have them believe Scripture. But then as for the Authority which you would have them follow, you will let them see reason why they should follow it. And is not this to goe a little about? to leave reason for a short turne, and then to come to it again, and to doe that which you condemne in others? It being indeed a plain impossibility for any man to submit his reason but to reason: for he that does it to Authority, must of necessity think himselfe to have greater reason to believe that Authority. Therefore the confession cited by Brerely, you need not think to have been extorted from Luther and the rest. It came very freely from them, and what they say you practise as much as they.

115 And whereas you say that a Protestant admits of Fathers, Councells, Church, as farre as they agree with Scripture, which upon the matter is himselfe: I say you admit neither of them, nor the Scripture it selfe, but only so farre as it agrees with your Church: and your Church you admit because you think you have reason to doe so: so that by you as well as by Protestants all is finally resolved into your own reason.

116 Nor doe Heretiques only but Romish Catholiques also set up as many judges, as there are men and women in the Christian world. For doe not your men and women judge your Religion to be true, before they believe it, as well as the men and women of other Religions? Oh but you say, They receive it not because they think it agreeable to Scripture, but because the Church tells them so. But then I hope they believe the Church because their own reason tells them they are to doe so. So that the difference between a Papist and a Protestant is this, not that the one judges and the other does not judge, but that the one judges his guide to be infallible, the other his way to be [Page] manifest. This same pernitious Doctrine is taught by Brentius, Zanchius, Cartwright, and others. It is so in very deed: But it is taught also by some others, whom you little think of. It is taught by S. Paul, where he saies, Try all things, hold fast that which is good. It is taught by S. Iohn, in these words, Belieue not every Spirit, but try the Spirits whether they be of God or no. It is taught by S. Peter, in these, Bee yee ready to render a reason of the hope that is in you. Lastly, this very pernitious Doctrine is taught by our Saviour, in these words, If the blinde lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. And why of your selues iudge you not what is right? All which speeches, if they doe not advise men to make use of their Reason for the choice of their Religion, I must confesse my selfe to understand nothing. Lastly, not to bee infinite, it is taught by M. Knot himselfe, not in one page only, or chapter of his Book, but all his Book over, the very writing and publishing whereof, supposeth this for certaine, that the readers are to be Iudges, whether his Reasons which he brings, be strong and convincing; of which sort wee haue hetherto met with none: or else captious, or impertinences, as indifferent men shall (as I suppose) haue cause to judge them.

117 But you demand, What good Statesmen would they be, who should ideate, or fancy such a Commonwealth, as these men haue framed to themselues a Church? Truly if this be all the fault they haue, that they say, Every man is to use his own iudgement in the choice of his Religion, and not to belieue this or that sense of Scripture, upon the bare Authority of any Learned man or men, when he conceiues he has reasons to the contrary, which are of more weight then their Authority: I know no reason but, notwithstanding all this, they might be as good Statesmen as any of the Society. But what has this to doe with Common-wealths, where men are bound only to externall obedience, unto the Laws and judgements of Courts, but not to an internall approbation of them, no nor to conceale their Iudgment of them, if they disapprove them? As if I conceiued I had reason to mislike the law of punishing simple theft with death, as St Thomas Moore did, I might professe lawfully my judgement, and represent my Reasons to the King or Common-wealth in a Parliament, as S• Thomas Moore did, without committing any fault, or fearing any punishment.

118 To the place of S. Austin, wherewith this Paragraph is concluded, I shall need giue no other Reply, but onely to desire you to speak like an honest man, and to say, whether it be all one for a man, to allow and disallow in every Scripture what he pleases, which is, either to dash out of Scripture such Texts or such Chapters, because they crosse his opinion [...] or to say (which is worse,) Though they be Scripture they are not true? Whether I say for a man thus to allow and disallow in Scripture what he pleases, be all one, and no greater fault, then to allow that sense of Scripture which he conceiues to be true and genuine, and deduc'd out of the words, and to disallow the contrary? For Gods sake, Sr, tell me plainly; In those Texts of Scripture, which you alleage for the infallibility of your Church, doe not you allow what sens [...] you think true, and disallow the contrary? And doe you not this by [Page] the direction of your private reason? If you doe, why doe you condemne it in others? If you doe not, I pray you tell me what direction you follow? or whether you follow none at all? If none at all, this is like drawing Lots, or throwing the Dice for the choice of a Religion. If any other: I beseech you tell me what it is. Perhaps you will say, the Churches Authority; and that will be to dance finely in a round, thus, To belieue the Churches Infallible Authority, because the Scriptures avouch it; & to belieue that Scriptures say and mean so, because they are so expounded by the Church. Is not this for a Father to beget his Sonne, and the Sonne to beget his Father? For a foundation to support the house, and the house to support the foundation? Would not Campian haue cryed out at it, Ecce quos gyros, quos Maeandros? And to what end was this going about, when you might as well at first haue concluded the Church infallible because she saies so; as thus to put in Scripture for a meere stale, and to say, the Church is infallible because the Scripture saies so, and the Scripture meanes so because the Church saies so, which is infallible? Is it not most evident therefore to every intelligent man, that you are enforced of necessity to doe that your selfe, which so tragically you declaime against in others? The Church, you say, is infallible; I am very doubtfull of it: How shall I know it? The Scripture you say affirmes it, as in the 59. of Esay, My spirit that is in thee, &c. Well I confesse I finde there these words: but I am still 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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: Therefore there was then an infallible Iudge. Iust as if I should say, Yorke is not my way from Oxford to London, therefore Bristol is: Or a dogge is not a horse, therefore he is a man. As if God had no other waies of revealing himselfe to men, but only by Scripture and an infallible Church. S. Chrysostome and Isidorus Pelusiota conceaved he might use other meanes. And S. Paul telleth us that the [...] might be known by his workes; and that they had the Law written in their hearts. Either of these waies might make some faithfull men without either necessity of Scripture or Church.

125 But D. Potter saies, you say, In the Iewish Church there was a living Iudge, indowed with an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment: as all points belonging to divine Faith are. And where was that infallible direction in the Iewish Church when they should have received Christ for their Messias, and refused him? Or perhaps this was not a case of moment. D. Potter indeed might say very well, not that the high Priest was infallible, ( [...]or certainly he was not) but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed, though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed. Besides, it is one thing to say, that the living judge in the Iewish Church, had an infallible direction: another, that he was necessitated to follow this direction. This is the priviledge which you challenge. But it is that, not [Page] this, which the Doctor attributes to the Iewes. As a man may truely say, the wise men had an infallible direction to Christ, without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it, and could not do [...] otherwise.

126 But either the Church retaines still her infallibility, or it was devested of it upon the receiving of Holy Scripture; which is absurd. An argument me thinkes like this, Either you have hornes or you have lost them: but you never lost them, therefore you have them still. If you say you never had hornes; so say I, for ought appeares by your reasons, the Church never had infallibility.

127 But some Scriptures were received in some places and not in others: therefore if Scriptures were the Iudge of Controversies, some Churches had one Iudge and some another. And what great inconvenience is there in that, that one part of England should have one Iudge, and another another? especially seeing the bookes of Scripture which were received by those that received fewest, had as much of the doctrine of Christianity in them, as they all had which were received by any; all the necessary parts of the Gospell being contained in every one of the four Gospells, as I have prov'd: So that they which had all the bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous: For it was not superfluous but profitable, that the same thing should be said divers times, and be testified by divers witnesses: And they that had but one of the four Gospells wanted nothing necessary: and therefore it is vainly infer'd by you, that with months and yeares, as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published, the Church altered her rule of Faith and judge of Controversies.

128 Heresies you say, would arise after the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures: These cannot be discovered, condemned & avoyded, unlesse the Church be infallible; Therefore there must be a Church infallible. But I pray tell me, Why cannot Heresies be sufficiently discovered, condemned, & avoided, by them which believe Scripture to be the rule of Faith? If Scripture be sufficient to Informe us what is the faith, it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresy: seeing Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from, and an opposition to the faith. That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked; and one contrary cannot but manifest the other. If any one should deny, that there is a God: That this God is omnipotent, omniscient, good, just, true, mercifull, a rewarder of them that seek him, a punisher of them that obstinatly offend him; that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God, and the Saviour of the World: that it is he by obedience to whom men must look to be saved: If any man should deny either his Birth, or Passion, or Resurrection, or Assention, or sitting at the right hand of God: his having all power given him in Heaven and Earth▪ That it is he whom God hath appointed to be judge of the quick and the dead: that all men shall rise again at the last day: That they which believe and repent shall be sav'd: That they which doe not believe or repent shall be damned: If a man should hold, that either the keeping of the Mosaicall Law is necessary to Salvation: or that good works are [Page] not necessary to Salvation: In a word, if any man should obstinatly contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture, who does not see, that every one which believes the Scripture, hath a sufficient meanes to discover, and condemne, and avoid that Heresy, without any need of an infallible guide? If you say, that the obscure places of Scripture contain matters of Faith: I answere, that it is a matter of faith to believe that the sense of them, whatsoever it is, which was intended by God is true; for he that does not doe so calls Gods Truth into question. But to believe this or that to be the true sense of them, or, to believe the true sense of them, and to avoid the false, is not necessary either to Faith or Salvation. For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known, how could it stand with his wisdome, to be so wanting to his own will and end, as to speak obscurely? or how can it consist with his justice, to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words, which he himselfe hath not revealed? Suppose there were an absolute Monarch, that in his own absence from one of his Kingdomes, had written Lawes for the government of it, some very plainly, and some very ambiguously, and obscurely, and his Subjects should keep those that were plainly written with all exactnesse, and for those that were obscure, use their best diligence to find his meaning in them, and obey them according to the sense of them which they conceived; should this King either with justice or wisdome be offended with these Subjects, if by reason of the obscurity of them, they mistook the sense of them, and faile of performance, by reason of their errour?

128 But, It is more usefull & fit, you say, for the deciding of Controversies, to haue besides an infallible rule to goe by, a living infallible Iudge to determine them: & from hence you conclude, that certainly there is such a Iudge. But why then may not another say, that it is yet more usefull for many excellent purposes, that all the Patriarchs should bee infallible, then that the Pope only should? Another, that it would bee yet more usefull, that all the Archbishops of every Province should be so, then that the Patriarchs only should be so. Another, That it would be yet more usefull, if all the Bishops of every Diocesse were so. Another, that it would be yet more available, that all the Parsons of every Parish should be so. Another, that it would be yet more excellent, if all the Fathers of Families were so. And lastly, another, that it were much more to be desired that every Man and every Woman were so▪ just as much as the prevention of Controversies, is better then the decision of them, and the prevention of Heresies better then the condemnation of them; and upon this ground conclude, by your own very cōsequence, That not only a generall Councell, nor only the Pope, but all the Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Pastors, Fathers, nay all the men in the World are infallible. If you say now, as I am sure you will, that this conclusion is most grosse, and absurd against sense and experience, then must also the ground be false, from which it evidently and undeniably follows, viz. that, That course of dealing with men seems alwaies more fit to Divine Providence, which seemes most [...] to humane reason.

[Page] 129 And so likewise, That there should men succeed the Apostles, which could shew the [...]selues to be their successours, by doing of Miracles, by speaking all kinde of languages, by delivering men to Satan, as S. Paul did Hymenaeus, and the incestuous Corinthian, it is manifest in humane reason it were incomparably more fit and usefull for the decision of Controversies, then that the successour of the Apostles should haue none of these gifts, and for want of the signes of Apostleship, be justly questionable whether he be his successour or no: and will you now conclude, That the Popes haue the gift of doing Miracles, as well as the Apostles had?

130 It were in all reason very usefull and requisite, that the Pope should, by the assistance of Gods Spirit, be freed from the vices & passions of men, lest otherwise, the Authority given him for the good of the Church, he might imploy (as divers Popes you well know haue done) to the disturbance, and oppression and mischiefe of it. And will you conclude from hen [...]e, That Popes are not subject to the sins and passions of other men? That there never haue been ambitious, covetous, lustfull, tyrannous Popes.

131 Who sees not that for mens direction it were much mor [...] beneficiall for the Church, that Infallibility should be setled in the Popes Person, then in a generall Councell: That so the meanes of deciding Controversies might be speedy, easy and perpetuall, whereas that of generall Councells is not so. And will you hence inferre, that not the Church Representative, but the Pope is indeed the infallible Iudge of Controversies? certainly if you should, the Sorbon Doctors would not think this a good conclusion.

132 It had been very commodious (one would think) that, seeing either Gods pleasure was the Scripture should be translated, or else in his Providence he knew it would be so, that he had appointed some men for this businesse, and by his Spirit assisted them in it, that so we might have Translations as Authenticall as the Originall: yet you see God did not think fit to doe so.

133 It had been very commodious (one would think) that the Scripture should have been, at least for all things necessary, a Rule, plain and perfect: And yet you say, it is both imperfect and obscure, even in things necessary.

134 It had been most requisite (one would think) that the Copies of the Bibles, should have been preserved free from variety of readings, which makes men very uncertain in many places, which is the word of God, and which is the errour or presumption of man: and yet we see God hath not thought fit so to provide for us.

135 Who can conceive, but that an Apostolike Interpretation of all the difficult places of Scripture, would have been strāgely beneficiall to the Church, especially there being such danger in mistaking the sense of them, as is by you pretended, and God in his providence foreseeing that the greatest part of Christians, would not accept of the Pope for the Iudge of Controversies? And yet we see God hath not so ordered the matter.

[Page] 136 Who doth not see, that supposing the Bishop of Rome, had been appointed Head of the Church, and [...]dge of Controversies, that it would have been infinitely beneficiall to the Church, perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible, that in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received, this one Proposition had been set down in Termes, The Bishops of Rome shall be alwaies Monarchs of the Church, & they either alone, or with their adherents, the Guides of faith, and the Iudges of Controversies that shall arise amongst Christians? This, if you will deal ingenuously, you cannot but acknowledge; for then all true Christians would have submitted to him, as willingly as to Christ himselfe, neither needed you and your fellowes, have troubled your selfe to invent so many Sophismes for the proofe of it. There would have been no more doubt of it among Christians, then there is of the Nativity, Passion, Resurrection or Ascention of Christ. You were best now rubbe your forehead hard, and conclude upon us, that because this would have been so usefull to have been done, therefore it is done. Or if you be (as I know you are) too ingenuous to say so, then must you acknowledge, that the ground of your Argument, which is the very ground of all these absurdities, is most absurd; and that it is our duty to be humbly thankfull for those sufficient, nay abundant meanes of Salvation, which God hath of his own goonesse granted us: and not conclude, he hath done that which he hath not done, because forsooth, in our vain judgements it seemes convenient he should have done so.

137 But you demand what repugnance there is betwixt infallibility in the Church, and existence of Scripture, that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other? Out of which words I can frame no other argument for you thē this. There is no Repugnance between the Scriptures existence, and the Churches infallibility, therefore the Church is infallible. Which consequence will then be good, when you can shew, that nothing can be untrue, but that only which is impossible; that whatsoever may be done, that also is done. Which, if it were true, would conclude both you and me to be infallible, as well as either your Church, or Pope: in as much as there is no more repugnance between the Scriptures existence and our infallibility, then there is between theirs.

138 But if Protestants will have the Scripture alone for their Iudge, let them first produce some Scripture, affirming, that by the entring thereof, infallibility went out of the Church. This Argument put in forme runs thus. No Scripture affirmes that by the entring thereof, infallibility went out of the Church: Therefore there is an infallible Church, & therefore the Scripture alone is not Iudge, that is, the Rule to judge by. But as no Scripture affirmes that by the entring of it, Infallibility went out of the Church, so neither doe we, neither have we any need to doe so. But we say, that it continued in the Church even together with the Scriptures, so long as Christ & his Apostles were living, and then departed: God in his providence having provided a plain and infallible Rule, to supply the defect of liuing and infallible Guides. Certainly [Page] if your cause were good, so great a wit as yours is, would devise better Arguments to maintain it. We can shew no Scripture affirming Infallibility to haue gone out of the Church, therefore it is Infallible. Somewhat like his discourse that said, It could not bee prov'd out of Scripture, that the King of Sweden was dead, therefore hee is still living. Me thinks in all reason, you that challenge privileges, and exemption from the condition of Men, which is to be subject to errour; You that by vertue of this privilege usurp authority over mens consciences, should produce your Letters-patents from the King of Heaven, & shew some expresse warrant for this Authority you take upon you, otherwise you know the rule is, Vbicontrarium non manifestè probatur praesumitur pro libertate.

139 But D. Potter may remember what himselfe teacheth, That the Church is still endued with Infallibility in points Fundamentall, and consequently that Infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the Truth, the Sanctitie, yea with the sufficiency of Scripture, for all matters necessary to salvation. Still your discourse is so far from hitting the white, that it roves quite besides the But. You conclude that the infallibility of the Church may well agree with the Truth, the Sanctity, the Sufficiency of Scripture. But what is this but to abuse your Reader with the proofe of that which no man denies? The Question is not, whether an infallible Church might agree with Scripture, but whether, there be an Infallible Church? Iam dic Posthume de tribus Capellis. Besides, you must know there is a wide difference between, being infallible in Fundamentals, and being an infallible Guide even in Fundamentals. D. Potter saies, that the Church is the former: that is, There shall be some men in the world, while the world lasts, which erre not in Fundamentals; for otherwise there should be no Church: For to say, the Church, while it is the Church, may erre in Fundamentalls, implies contradiction, and is all one as to say, The Church: while it is the Church, may not be the Church. So that to say, that the Church is infallible in Fundamentalls, signifies no more but this, There shall be a Church in the world for ever. But wee utterly deny the Church to be the latter; for to say so, were to oblige our selves to finde some certain Society of men, of whom we might be certain, that they neither doe, nor can erre in Fundamentals, nor in declaring what is Fundamentall, what is not Fundamentall: and consequently to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals, would be to make it infallible in all things, which she proposes and requires to be believed. This therefore we deny both to your and all other Churches of any one denomination, as the Greek, the Roman, the Abyssine: that is indeed, we deny it simply to any Church. For no Church can possibly be fit to be a Guide, but only a Church of some certain denominatiō. For otherwise no man can possibly know which is the true Church, but by a pre-examination of the doctrine controverted, and that were not to be guided by the Church to the true doctrine, but by the true doctrine to the Church. Hereafter therefore, when you heare Protestants say, The Church is Infallible in Fundamentalls, you must not [Page] conceiue them, as if they meant as you doe, that some Society of Christians, which may be known by adhering to some one Head, for example, the Pope, or the Bishop of Constantinople, is infallible in these things: but only thus, That true Religion shall never be so farre driven out of the world, but that it shall alwaies haue some where or other, some that believe and professe it, in all things necessary to salvation.

140 But, you would therefore gladly know out of what Text he imagines that the Church, by the comming of Scripture, was deprived of infallibility in some points, and not in others? And I also would gladly know, why you doe thus frame to your self vaine imaginations, & thē father them upon others? We yeeld unto you, That there shall be a Church which never erreth in some points because (as wee conceive,) God hath promised so much; but not, there shall be such a Church which doth or can erre in no points, because we finde not that God hath promised such a Church; and therefore wee may not promise such a one to our selves. But for the Churches being deprived by the Scripture of Infallibility, in some points and not in others, that is a wild notion of your own, which we haue nothing to doe with.

141 But he affirmeth, that the Iewish Church retained Infallibility in her selfe; and therefore it is unjustly, and unworthily done of him to depriue the Church of Christ of it. That the Iewes had sometimes an infallible miraculous direction from God, in some cases of moment, hee doth affirme and had good warrant: but that the Synagogue was absolutely Infallible, he no where affirmes, and therefore it is unjustly & unworthily done of you to obtrude it upon him. And indeed how can the Infallibility of the Synagogue be conceived, but only by setling it in the High Priest, and the company adhering and subordinate unto him? And whether the high Priest was Infallible, when he believed not Christ to be the Messias, but condemn'd and excommunicated thē that so professed, and caused him to be crucified for saying so, I leaue it to Christians to judge. But then suppose God had been so pleased to doe as he did not, to appoint the Synagogue an infallible guide: Could you by your rules of Logick constrain him, to appoint such a one to Christians also, or say unto him, that, in wisdome he could not doe otherwise? Vaine man that will be thus alwaies tying God to your imaginations! It is well for us that he leaves us not without directions to him, but if he will doe this sometime by living Guides, sometime by written rules, what is that to you? may not he doe what he will with his own?

142 And whereas you say for the further enforcing of this Argugument, that there is greater reason to think the Church should be infallible, then the Synagogue: because to the Synagogue all Laws and Ceremonies &c. were more particularly, and minutely delivered, then in the new Testament is done, our Saviour leaving particulars to the determination of the Church. But I pray walk not thus in generality, but tell us what particulars? If you mean particular rites, & ceremonies, and orders for goverment, we grant it, and you know we doe so. Our Saviour [Page] our only hath left a generall injunction by S. Paul, Let All things bee done decently and in Order. But what Order is fittest, i. e. what Time, what Place, what Manner, &c. is fittest, that he hath left to the discretion of the Governers of the Church. But if you mean, that hee hath only concerning maters of faith, the subject in Question, prescribed in generall, that we are to heare the Church, and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to belieue: The Church being nothing else but an aggregation of Believers, this in effect is to say, He hath left it to all Believers to determine what Particulars they are to believe. Besides it is so apparently false, that I wonder you could content your selfe, or think we should be contented with a bare saying, without any shew or pretence of proofe.

143 As for D. Potters objection against this Argument, That as well you might inferre, that Christians must haue all one King, because the Iewes had so, For ought I can perceive, notwithstanding any thing answered by you, it may stand still in force, though the truth is, it is urg'd by him not against the Infallibility but the Monarchy of the Church. For whereas you say, the disparity is very cleare: Hee that should urge this argument for one Monarch over the whole world, would say that this is to deny the Conclusion, and reply unto you, that there is disparity, as matters are now order'd, but that there should not be so. For that there was no more reason to believe that the Ecclesiasticall government of the Iews was a Pattern for the Ecclesiasticall government of Christians, then the Civill of the Iewes, for the Civill of the Christians. He would tell you, that the Church of Christ, and all Christian Commonwealths, and Kingdomes, are one and the same thing: and therefore he sees no reason why the Synagogue should be a Type and Figure of the Church, and not of the Commonwealth. He would tell you, that as the Church succeeded the Iewish Synagogue, so Christian Princes should succeed to Iewish Magistrates: that is the Temporal Governours of the Church should be Christians. He would tell you, that as the Church is compar'd to a house, a Kingdome, an Army, a Body, so all distinct Kingdomes might and should be one Armie, one Familie, &c. and that it is not so, is the thing he complaines of. And therefore you ought not to think it enough to say it is not so, but you should shew why it should not be so; and why this argument will not follow, The Iewes had one King, therefore all Christians ought to haue: as well as this, The Iewes had one High Priest over them all, therefore all Christians also ought to haue. Hee might tell you moreover, that the Church may haue one Master, one Generall, one Head, one King, and yet he not be the Pope, but Christ. He might tell you, that you beg the Question, in saying without proof, that it is necessary to salvation, that all (whether Christians or Churches) have recourse to one Church, if you mean by one Church, one particular Church, which is to govern and direct all others: and that unlesse you mean so, you say nothing to the purpose. And besides, he might tell you, and that very truly, that it may seeme altogether as available for the Temporall good of Christians to be under one Temporall [Page] Prince, or Comonwealth, as for their salvatiō, to be subordinate to one Visible Head. I say as necessary, both for the prevention of the effusion of the Blood of Christians by Christians, & for the defence of Christendome, from the hostile invasions of Turks, & Pagans. And frō al this he might infer, that though now, by the fault of men, there were in severall Kingdomes, severall Lawes, Governments and Powers; yet that it were much more expedient, that there were but one. Nay, not only expedient, but necessary; if once your ground be setled for a generall rule, that what kinde of government the Iewes had, that the Christians must haue. And if you limit the generality of this Proposition, and frame the Argument thus: What kinde of Ecclesiasticall government the Iews had, that the Christians must haue, But They were governed by one High Priest, therefore These must be so: He will say that the first proposition of this syllogisme, is altogether as doubtfull as the conclusion; and therefore neither fit nor sufficient to prove it, untill it selfe be proved. And then besides, that there is as great reason to believe this, That what kinde of Civill government the Iews had, that the Christians must haue. And so D. Potters objection remaines still unanswered: That there is as much reason to conclude a necessity of one King over all Christian Kingdomes, from the Iews having one King; as one Bishop over all Churches, from their being under our High Priest.

144 Ad §. 24.Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. Neither is this Discourse confirm'd by Irenaeus at all. Whether by this discourse you mean that immediatly forgoing, of the analogy between the Church and the Synagogue, to which this speech of Irenaeus, alleadged here by you, is utterly and plainly impertinent; Or whether by this discourse, you mean (as I think you doe) not your discourse, but your conclusion which you discourse on, that is, that Your Church is the infallible Iudge in Controversies. For neither has Irenaeus one syllable to this purpose; neither can it be deduced out of what he saies, with any colour of consequence. For first in saying, What if the Apostles had not left Scripture, ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition? And in saying, That to this order many Nations yeild assent, who believe in Christ, having Salvation written in their hearts, by the Spirit of God, without Letters or Inke, and diligently keeping ancient Tradition: Doth he not plainly shew, that the Tradition he speakes of, is nothing else, but the very same that is written: nothing but to believe in Christ? To which, whether Scripture alone, to them that believe it, be not a sufficient guide, I leave it to you to judge. And are not his wordes just as if a man should say, If God had not given us the light of the Sunne, we must have made use of candles and torches: If we had had no eyes, we must have felt out our way: If we had no leggs, we must have used crutches. And doth not this in effect import, that while we have the Sunne, we need no candles? While we have our eyes, we need not feele out our way▪ While we enjoy our leggs, we need not crutches? And by like reason, Irenaeus in saying, If we had had no Scripture, we must have followed Tradition, and they that have none, doe well to doe so, doth he not plainly import [Page] that to them that have Scripture, and believe it, Tradition is unnecessary? which could not be, if the Scripture did not contain evidently the whole tradition. Which whether Irenaeus believed or no, these words of his may informe you, Non enim per alios &c. we have received the disposition of our Salvation from no others, but from them, by whom the Gospell came unto us. Which Gospell truly, the Apostles first preached, and after wards by the will of God, delivered in writing to us, to be the Pillar and Foundation of our faith. Bellarm. de ve [...]bo Dei l. 4. c▪ 11. Vpon which place Bellarmine's two observations, and his acknowledgment ensuing upon them, are very considerable, and as I conceive, as home to my purpose as I would wish them. His first Notandum is, That in the Christian Doctrine, some things are simply necessary for the Salvation of all men; as the knowledge of the Articles of the Apostles Creed; and besides, the knowledg of the ten Commandements, and some of the Sacraments. Other things not so necessary, but that a man may be saved, without the explicit knowledge, and belief, and profession of them. His Second Note is, That those things which were simply necessary, the Apostles were wont to preach to all men; But of other things not all to all, but somethings to all, to wit, those things which were profitable for all, other things only to Prelats and Priests. These things premised, he acknowledgeth, That all those things were written by the Apostles, which are necessary for all, and which they were wont openly to preach to all; But that other things were not all written: And therefore, when Irenaeus saies that the Apostles wrot what they Preach in the World, it is true, saith he, and not against Traditions, because they preached not to the People all things, but only those things, which were necessary or profitable for them.

145 So that at the most; you can inferre from hence, but only a suppositive necessity of having an infallible Guide, and that grounded upon a false supposition, In case we had no Scripture, but an absolute necessity hereof, and to them who have and believe the Scripture, which is your assumption, cannot with any colour from hence be concluded, but rather the contrary.

146 Neither because (as He saies) it was then easy to receive the Truth from Gods Church, then, in the Age next after the Apostles, Then, when all the ancient and Apostolike Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith: Will it therefore follow that now, 1600 yeares after, when the ancient Churches are divided almost into as many Religions as they are Churches, every one being the Church to it selfe, and hereticall to all other, that it is as easy, but extremely difficult or rather impossible, to find the Church first independently of the true Doctrine, and then to find the truth by the Church.

147 As for the last clause of the sentence, it will not any whit advantage, but rather prejudice your assertion. Neither will I seek to avoid the pressure of it, by saying, that he speaks of small Questions, and therefore not of Questions touching things necessary to Salvation, which can hardly be called small Questions; But I will favour you so farre, as to suppose, that saying this of small Questions, it is probable, he would have said it much more of the Great: but I will answere that [Page] which is most certain and evident, and which I am confident, you your selfe, were you as impudent as I believe you modest, would not deny; that the ancient Apostolique Churches are not now, as they were in Irenaeus's time: then they were all at unity about matters of faith, which unity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in, came from some one common Fountaine, and they had no other then of Apostolike Preaching. And this is the very ground of Tertullian's so often mistaken Prescription against Heretiques, Variasse debuerat Error Ecclesiarum, quod autem apud multos unum est, non est erratum sed traditum: If the Churches had erred they could not but have varied, but that which is one among so many, came not by Error but Tradition. But now the case is altered, and the mischiefe is, that these ancient Churches are divided among themselves; and if we have recourse to them, one of them will say this is the way to heaven, another that. So that now in place of receiving from them certain and cleare truths, we must expect nothing but certain and cleare contradictions.

148 Neither will the Apostles depositing with the Church, all things belonging to truth, be any proof that the Church shall certainly keep this depositum, entire, and syncere, without adding to it, or taking from it; for this whole depositum was committed to every particular Church, nay, to every particular man, which the Apostles converted. And yet no man, I think, will say, that there was any certainty, that it should be kept whole and inviolate by every man, and every Church. It is apparent out of Scripture, it was committed to Timothy, and by him consigned to other faithfull men: and yet S. Paul thought it not superfluous, earnestly to exhort him to the carefull keeping of it: which exhortation you must grant had been vain and superfluous, if the not keeping of it had been impossible. And therefore though Irenaeus saies, The Apostles fully deposited in the Church all truth, yet he saies not, neither can we inferre from what he saies, that the Church should alwaies infallibly keep this depositum, entire without the losse of any truth, and syncere without the mixture of any falshood.

149 Ad §. 25. But you proceed and tell us, That beside all this, the Doctrine of Protestants is destructive of it selfe. For either they have certain and Infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting; or no [...] If not, Scripture to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith: If they have, and so cannot erre in interpreting Scripture, then they are able with infallibility to heare and determine all controversies of faith; and so they may be, and are Iudges of Controversies, although they use the Scripture as a Rule. And thus against their own doctrine, they constitute another Iudge of Controversies beside Scripture alone. And may not we with as much reason substitute Church and Papists, instead of Scripture and Protestants, and say unto you, Besides all this, the doctrine of Papists is destructive of it selfe. For either they have certain and infallible meanes not to erre, in the choice of the Church, and interpreting her decrees, or they have not: If not, then the Church to them cannot be a sufficient (but meerely a phantasticall) ground for infallible faith, nor a meet Iudge of Controversies: (For unlesse I be infallibly sure [Page] that the Church is Infallible, how can I be upon her Authority infallibly sure, that any thing she saies is Infallible?) If they have certain▪ infallible meanes, and so cannot erre in the choice of their Church, and in interpreting her decrees, then they are able with Infallibility to heare, examine, and determine all controversies of faith, although they pretend to make the Church their Guide. And thus against their own Doctrine, they constitute another Iudge of controversies, besides the Church alone. Nay every one makes himselfe a chooser of his own Religion, and of his own sense of the Churches decrees, which very thing in Protestants they so highly condemne: and so in judging others, condemne themselves.

150 Neither in saying thus haue I only cry'd quittance with you: but that you may see how much you are in my debt, I will shew unto you, that for your Sophisme against our way, I haue given you a Demonstration against yours. First, I say, your Argument against us, is a transparent fallacy. The first part of it lyes thus: Protestants haue no meanes to interpret, without errour, obscure and ambiguous places of Scripture; therefore plain places of Scripture cānot be to thē a sufficiēt ground of Faith. But though we pretend not to certain meanes of not erring, in interpreting all Scripture, particularly such places as are obscure and ambiguous, yet this me thinks should be no impediment but that we may have certain meanes of not erring in and about the sense of those places, which are so plain and cleer that they need no Interpreters; and in such we say our Faith is contain'd. If you aske me how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these places? I aske you again, can you be sure that you understand what I, or any man else saies? They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles preach, could they haue sufficient assurance, that they understood at any time, what they would have them doe? if not, to what end did they heare them? If they could, why may we not be as well assured, that we understand sufficiently, what we conceive plaine in their writings?

151 Againe, I pray tell us, whether you doe certainly know the sense of these Scriptures, with which you pretend you are led to the knowledge of your Church? If you doe not, how know you that there is any Church Infallible, and that these are the notes of it, & that this is the, Church that hath these notes? If you doe, then give us leave to haue the same meanes, and the same abilities to know other plain places, which you have to know these. For if all Scripture be obscure, how come you to know the sense of these places? If some places of it be plain, why should we stay here?

152 And now, to come to the other part of your dilemma; in saying, If they have certain meanes, and so cannot erre, mee thinkes you forget your selfe very much, and seeme to make no difference, between, having certain meanes to doe a thing, and the actuall doing of it. As if you should conclude, because all men have certain meanes of Salvation, therefore all men certainly must be saved, and cannot doe otherwise; as if whosoever had a horse must presently get up and ride; Whosoever had meanes to find out a way, could not neglect those [Page] meanes and so mistake it, God be thanked, that we have sufficient meanes to be certain enough of the truth of our Faith. But the Priviledge of not being in possibility of erring, that we challenge not, because we have as little reason as you to doe so: and you have none at all. If you aske, seeing we may possibly erre, how can we be assured we doe not? I ask you again, seeing your eye-fight may deceive you, how can you be sure you see the Sunne, when you doe see it? Perhaps you may be in a dream, and perhaps you, and all the men in the World have been so, when they thought they were awake, and then only awake, when they thought they dreamt. But this I am sure of, as sure as that God is good, that he will require no impossibilities of us: not an Infallible, nor a certainly—unerring belief, unlesse he hath given us certain meanes to avoid error; and if we use those which we have, will never require of us, that we use that which we have not.

153 Now from this mistaken ground, that it is all one to have meanes of avoiding errour, and to be in no danger nor possibility of errour; You inferre vpon us as an absurd conclusion, That we make our selves able to determine Controversies of faith with Infallibility, and Iudges of Controversies. For the latter part of this inference, we acknowledge and imbrace it. We doe make our selves Iudges of controversies: that is, we doe make use of our own understanding in the choice of our Religion. But this, if it be a crime, is common to us with you, (as I have proved above) and the difference is, not that wee are choosers, and you not choosers, but that we, as we conceive, choose wisely, but you being wilfully blind choose to follow those that are so too; not remembring what our Saviour hath told you, when the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. But then again I must tell you, you have done ill to confound together, Iudges, and infallible Iudges; unlesse you will say, either that we have no Iudges in our Courts of Civill judicature, or that they are all Infallible.

154 Thus haue we cast off your dilemma, and broken both the hornes of it. But now my retortion lies heavy upon you, and will not be turned off. For first you content not your selves with a morall certainty of the things you beleive, nor with such a degree of assurance of them, as is sufficient to produce obedience to the condition of the new Covenant, which is all that we require. Gods Spirit, if he please, may work more, a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence. But neither God doth, nor man may require of us as our dutie, to give a greater assent to the conclusion then the premises deserue; to build an infallible Faith upon Motives that are only highly credible, and not infallible, as it were a great and heavy building upon a foundation that hath not strength proportionable. But though God require not of us such unreasonable things, You doe, and tell men they cannot be saved, unlesse they beleive your proposals with an infallible Faith. To which end they must beleive also your Propounder, your Church, to be simply Infallible. Now how is it possible for them to give a rationall assent to the Churches infallibility, unlesse they have some infallible meanes to know that she is infallible? Neither can they infallibly [Page] know the infallibility of this meanes, but by some other, and so on for ever: unlesse they can dig so deep as to come at length to the Rock, that is, to settle all upon something evident of it selfe, which is not so much as pretended. But the last resolution of all is into Motives, which indeed upon examination will scarce appeare probable, but are not so much as avouched to be any more then very credible. For example, if I aske you why you doe beleive Transubstantiatiō? What can you answer, but because it is a Revelation of the Prime Verity. I demaund again, how can you assure your selfe or me of that, being ready to embrace it if it may appeare to be so? And what can you say, but that you know it to be so, because the Church saies so, which is Infallible. If I aske, what meane You by your Church? You can tell me nothing, but the company of Christians which adhere to the Pope. I demaund then lastly: Why should I beleive this company to be the infallible Propounder of Divine Revelation? And then you tell me, that there are many Motives to induce a man to this beleife. But are these Motives lastly infallible? No say you, but very credible. Well, let them passe for such, because now we have not leasure to examine them. Yet me thinks seeing the Motives to believe the Churches infallibility, are only very credible, it should also be but as credible that your Church is Infallible, and as credible, and no more, perhaps somewhat lesse, that her proposals, particularly Transubstantiation, are Divine Revelations. And me thinks You should require only a Morall, and modest assent to them, and not a Divine as you call it, and infallible Faith. But then of these Motives to the Churches Infallibility, I hope you will give us leave to consider, and judge whether they be indeed Motives, and sufficient; or whether they be not Motives at all, or not sufficient; or whether these Motives or inducements to your Church be not impeached, and opposed with Compulsives, and enforcements from it; or lastly, whether these Motives which You use, be not indeed only Motives to Christianity, and not to Popery: giue me leave for distinction sake to call your Religion so. If we may not judge of these things, how can my judgment be moved with that which comes not within its cognizance? If I may, then at least I am to be a Iudge of all these Controversies. 1. Whether every one of these Motives be indeed a Motive to any Church? 2. If to some, whether to Yours? 3. If to Yours, whether sufficient, or insufficient? 4. Whether other Societies haue not as many, and as great Motives to draw me to them? 5. Whether I haue not greater reason to beleive you doe erre, then that you cannot? And now Sir I pray let me trouble You with a few more Questions. Am I a sufficient Iudge of these Controversies, or no? If of these, why shall I stay here, why not of others? Why not of all? Nay doth not the true examining of these few, containe and lay upon me the examination of all? What other Motives to your Church have you, but your Notes of it? Bellarmine gives some 14. or 15. And one of these fifteene containes in it the examination of all controversies, and not only so, but of all uncontroverted Doctrines. For how shall I, or can I know the Church of Romes [Page] conformity with the Ancient Church, unlesse I know first what the Ancient Church hid hold, and then what the Church of Rome doth hold; and lastly, whether they be conformable, or if in my judgment they seeme not conformable, I am then to think the Church of Rome not to be the Church, for want of the Note which she pretends is proper, and perpetuall to it. So that for ought I can see, Iudges we are and must be of all sides, every one for himselfe, and God for us all.

155 Ad § 26. I answere; This assertion, that Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controversies in Faith, if it be taken properly, is neither a Fundamentall nor Vnfundamentall point of Faith, nor no point of Faith at all, but a plaine falshood. It is not a Iudge of Controversies but a Rule to Iudge them by; and that not an absolutly perfect Rule, but as perfect as a written Rule can be; which must alwayes need something else, which is either evidently true, or evidently credible to give attestation to it, and that in this case is Vniversall Tradition. So that Vniversall Tradition is the Rule to judge all Controversies by. But then because nothing besides Scripture, comes to us with as full a streame of Tradition as Scripture, Scripture alone, and no unwritten Doctrine, nor no Infallibility of any Church, having attestation from Tradition truely Vniversall; for this reason we conceive, as the Apostles persons while they were liuing were the only Iudges of controversies, so their Writings, now they are dead, are the only Rule for us to judge them by: There being nothing unwritten, which can goe in upon halfe so faire cards, for the title of Apostolike Tradition, as these things which by the confession of both Sides are not so: I mean the doctrine of the Millenaries, and of the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants.

156 Yet when we say, the Scripture is the only Rule to judge all Controversies by, me thinks you should easily conceiue, that wee would be understood of all those that are possible to be judg'd by Scripture, and of those that arise among such as believe the Scripture. For if I had a controversie with an Atheist whether there were a God or no, I would not say, that the Scripture were a Rule to judge this by: seeing that doubting whether there be a God or no, he must needs doubt whether the Scripture be the word of God: or if hee does not, hee grants the Question, and is not the man we speak of. So likewise, if I had a controversie about the Truth of Christ with a lew, it would be vainly done of me, should I presse him which the Authority of the new Testament which he believes not, untill out of some principles common to us both, I had persuaded him that it is the Word of God. The New Testament therefore while he remaines a Iew would not be a fit Rule to decide this Controversie; In as much as that which is doubted of it selfe, is not fit to determine other doubts. So likewise if there were any that believed Christian Religion, and yet believed not the Bible to be the Word of God, though they believed the matter of it to be true, (which is no impossible supposition, for I may believe a book of S. Austines, to containe nothing but the Truth of God, & yet not to haue been inspired by God himselfe,) against such men therefore there were no disputing out of the Bible; because nothing in question [Page] can be a proof to it selfe. When therefore we say the Scripture is a sufficient meanes to determine all controversies, we say not this, either to Atheists, Iewes, Turks, or such Christians (if there be any such) as believe not Scripture to be the word of God. But among such men only, as are already agreed upon this, That the Scripture is the Word of God, we say all controversies that arise about Faith, are either not at all decidable & consequently not necessary to be believed one way or other, or they may be determined by Scripture. In a Word, That all things necessary to be believed are evidently contain'd in Scripture, and what is not there evidently contained, cannot be necessary to be believed. And our reason hereof is convincing; because nothing can challenge our beliefe, but what hath descended to us from Christ by Originall and Vniversall Tradition: Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us, Therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our beliefe. Now then to come up closer to you, and to answer to your Question, not as you put it, but as you should haue put it: I say, That this position, Scripture alone is the rule whereby they which belieue it to be Gods Word are to judge all Controversies in Faith, is no fundamē tall point. Though not for your Reasons: For your first and strongest reason you see is plainly voided and cut off by my stating of the Question as I haue done, and supposing in it that the parties at variance are agreed about this, That the Scripture is the word of God; and consequently that this is none of their Controversies. To your second, That Controversies cannot be ended without some living Authority, We haue said already, that necessary Controversies may be & are decided. And if they be not ended, this is not through defect of the Rule, but through the default of Men. And for these that cannot thus be ended, it is not necessary they should be ended. For if God did require the ending of them, he would have provided some certain meanes for the ending of them. And to your Third, I say, that your pretence of using these meanes is but hypocriticall: for you use them with prejudice, and with a setled resolution not to believe any thing which these meanes happily may suggest into you, if it any way crosse your pre-conceav'd persuasion of your Churches infallibility. You give not your selves liberty of judgement in the use of them, nor suffer your selves to bee led by them to the Truth, to which they would lead you, would you but be as willing to believe this consequence, Our Church doth oppose Scripture, therefore it doth erre, therefore it is not Infallible, as you are resolute to believe this, The Church is infallible, therefore it doth not erre, and therefore it doth not oppose Scripture, though it seem to doe so never so plainly.

157 You pray, but it is not that God would bring you to the true Religion, but that he would confirm you in your own. You conferre places, but it is that you may confirm, or colour over with plausible disguises your erroneous doctrine, not that you may judge of them & forsake them if there be reason for it. You consult the Originalls, but you regard them not when they make against your Doctrine or Translation.

[Page] 158 You adde not only the Authority, but the Infallibility, not of Gods Church, but of the Roman, a very corrupt and degenerous part of it: whereof D. Potter never confessed, that it cannot erre damnably. And which being a company made up of particular men, can afford you no help, but the industry, learning, and wit of private men: and that these helps may not help you out of your errour, tell you, that you must make use of none of all these to discover any errour in the Church, but only to maintaine her impossibility or erring. And lastly, D. Potter assures himselfe that your Doctrine and practises are damnable enough in themselves; Only he hopes (and spes est rei incertae nomen) he hopes, I say, that the Truths which you retain, especially the necessity of repentance and faith in Christ, will bee as an antidote to you against the errours which you maintain; and that your superstructions may burne, yet they amongst you, Qui sequun tur Absalonem in simplicitate cor dis may be saved, yet so as by fire. Yet his thinking so is no reason for you or me to think so, unlesse you suppose him infallible; and if you doe, why doe you write against him?

159 Notwithstanding, though not for these reasons, yet for others, I conceive this Doctrine not Fundamentall: Because if a man should believe Christian Religion wholly, and entirely, and live according to it, such a man, though he should not know or not believe the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith, no nor to be the word of God, my opinion is he may be saved; and my reason is, because he performes the entire condition of the new Covenant, which is, that we believe the matter of the Gospell, and not that it is contained in these or these Bookes. So that the Bookes of Scripture are not so much the objects of our faith, as the instruments of conveying it to our understanding; and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrine, as requisite to the well being of it. Irenaeus tels us (as M. K. acknowledgeth) of some barbarous Nations, that believed the Doctrine of Christ, and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God, for they never heard of it, and Faith comes by hearing: But these barbarous people might be saved: therefore men might be saved without believing the Scripture to be the word of God; much more without believing it to be a Rule, and a perfect Rule of Faith. Neither doubt I, but if the bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church, where they had been before received, and had been doubted of, or even rejected by those barbarous nations, but still by the bare beliefe and practise of Christianity, they might be saved: God requiring of us under pain of damnation, only to believe the verities therein contained, and not the divine Authority of the bookes wherein they are contained. Not but that it were now very strange and unreasonable, if a man should belieue the matter of these bookes, and not the Authority of the bookes: and therefore if a man should professe the not believing of these, I should have reason to fear he did not believe that. But there is not alwaies an equall necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief whereof there is an equall reason. We have I believe as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eight [Page]K. of England, as that Iesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pila [...]: yet this is necessary to be believed, and that is not so. So that if any man should doubt of or disbelieve that, it were most unreasonably done of of him, yet it were no mortall sinne, nor no sinne at all: God having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all which reason induceth them to believe. Therefore as an Executor, that should performe the whole will of the dead; should fully satisfy the Law, though he did not believe that Parchment to be his written Will, which indeed is so? So I believe, that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity, and lives according to them, should be saved, though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists, or the Epistles by the Apostles.

160 This discourse whether it be rationall and concluding or no, I submit to better judgement; But sure I am, that the corollary which you draw from this position, that this point is not Fundamenta [...], is very inconsequent; that is, that we are uncertain of the truth of it, because we say the whole Church, much more particular Churches and privat men may erre in points not Fundamentall. A pretty sophisme, depending upon this Principle, that whosoever possibly may erre, he cannot be certain that he doth not erre. And upon this ground, what shall hinder me from concluding, that seeing you also hold, that neither particular Churches, nor private men are Infallible even in Fundamentalls, that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity, remain to you uncertain? A Iudge may possibly erre in judgement, can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right? A travailer may possibly mistake his way, must I therefore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber? Or can our London carrier have no certainty, in the middle of the day, when he is sober and in his wits, that he is in the way to London? These you see are right worthy consequences, and yet they are as like your own, as an egge to an egge, or milke to milke.

161 And for the selfe same reason (you say) we are not certain, that the Church is not Iudge of Controversies: But now this selfe same appears to be no reason, and therefore, for all this, we may be certain enough that the Church is no Iudge of Controversies. The ground of this sophisme is very like the former, viz. that we can be certain of the falshood of no propositions, but these only which are damnable errors. But I pray good Sir, give me your opinion of these: The Snow is black, the Fire is cold, that M. knot is Archbishop of Toledo, that the whole is not greater then a part of the whole, that twise two make not foure: In your opinion, good Sir, are these damnable Haeresies? or because they are not so, have we no certainty of the falshood of them? I beseech you Sir to consider seriously, with what strange captions, you have gone about to delude your King and your Country; and if you be convinced, they are so, give glory to God, and let the world know it, by your deserting that Religion, which stands upon such deceitfull foundations.

[Page] 162 Besides (you say) among publique conclusions defended in Oxford, the yeare 1633. to the Questions, Whether the Church have authority to determine controversies of Faith? And to interpret holy Scripture? The answere to both is affirmative. But what now if I should tell you, that in the year 1632. among publique Conclusions defended in Doway, one was, That God predeterminates men to all their Actions good, bad, and indifferent? Will you think your selfe obliged to be of this opinion? If you will, say so: If not, doe as you would be done by. Again, me thinkes so subtil a man as you are, should easily apprehend a wide difference between Authority to doe a thing, and Infallibility in doing it: & againe, between a conditionall infallibility & an absolute. The former, the Doctor together with the Article of the Church of England, attributeth to the Church, nay to particular Churches, and I subscribe to his opinion: that is, an Authority of determining controversies of faith, according to plain and evident Scripture and Vniversall Tradition, and Infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule. As if there should arise an Heretique, that should call in Question Christs Passion and Resurrection, the Church had Authority to decide this Controversy, and infallible direction how to doe it, and to excommunicate this man, if he should persist in errour. I hope you will not deny but that the Iudges have Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversies; and yet I hope you will not say, that they are absolutely Infallible in their determinations. Infallible while they proceed according to Law, and if they doe so: but not infallibly certain that they shall ever doe so. But that the Church should be infallibly assisted by Gods spirit to decide rightly all emergent Controversies, even such as might be held diversly of divers men, Salva compage fidei, and that we might be absolutely certain that the Church should never faile to decree the truth, whether she used meanes or no, whether she proceed according to her Rule or not; or lastly that we might be absolutely certain that she would never fail to proceed according to her Rule, this the defender of these conclusions said not: and therefore said no more to your purpose, then you have all this while, that is, just nothing.

163 Ad §. 27. To the place of S. Austin alleaged in this paragraph. I Answer. First that in many things you will not bee tried by S. Augustines judgement, nor submit to his authority; not concerning Appeals to Rome, not concerning Transubstantiation, not touching the use and worshiping of Images, not concerning the State of Saints soules before the day of judgement, not touching the Virgin Maries freedome from actuall and originall sinne, not touching the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants, not touching the damning Infants to hell that dye without Baptisme, not touching the knowledge of Saints departed, not touching Purgatory, not touching the fallibility of Councells, even generall Councells, not touching perfection and perspicuity of Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation, not touching Auricular Confession, not touching the halfe Communion, not touching Prayers in an unknown tongue; In these things, I say, you will not stand to S. Austines judgement, and therefore can with no reason [Page] or equity require us to doe so in this matter. 2. To S. Augustine in heat of disputation against the Donatists, and ransacking all places for arguments against them, we oppose S. Austine out of this heat, delivering the doctrine of Christianity calmely, and mode rately; where he saies, In iis quae apertè posita sunt in sacris Scripturis, omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent [...]idem, mores' (que) vivendi. 3 Wee say, he speaks not of the Roman but the Catholique Church, of farre greater extent, and therefore of farre greater credit and authority then the Roman Church. 4 He speaks of a point not expressed, but yet not contradicted by Scripture; whereas the errors we charge you with, are contradicted by Scripture. 5 He saies not that Christ has recommended the Church to us for an Infallible definer of all emergent controversies, but for a credible witnesse of Ancient Tradition. Whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the practise of the Church (understand of all places and ages) though he be thought to resist our Saviour, what is that to us, who cast off no practises of the Church, but such as are evidently post-nate to the time of the Apostles, and plainly contrary to the practise of former and purer times. Lastly it is evident, and even to impudence it selfe undeniable, that upon this ground, of beleiving all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ, Error was held, for example, the necessity of the Eucharist for infants, and that in S. Austines time, and that by S. Austine himselfe: and therefore without controversy this is no certain ground for truth, which may support falshood as well as 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 si [...]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 [Page]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 p [...]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 Pa [...]stors, and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman, whose Communion and doctrine, Luther then for [...]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 [...]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; se [...]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 [Page] 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 every one is obliged, not to believe the contrary of any one point, known to be testified by God. For that were in fact to affirme, that God could be deceived, or would deceive, which were to overthrow the whole certainty of our faith, wherein the thing most principall, is not the point which we believe, which Divines call the Materiall Object, but the chiefest is the Motive for which we believe, to wit, Almighty Gods infallible revelation, or authority, which they terme the Formall Object of our faith. In two senses therefore, and with a double relation, points of faith may be called fundamentall, and necessary to salvation, The one is taken with reference to the Affirmative Precept, when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and believe them explicitely and severally. In this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith, which D. Potter Pag. 209. to no purpose laboureth to prove against his Adversary, who in expresse words doth grant and explicate Charity Mistaken cap. 8. Pag [...] 75. it. But the Doctor thought good to dissemble the matter, and not to say one pertinent word in defence of his distinction, as it was impugned by Charity Mistaken, and as it is wont to be applied by Protestants. The other sense, according to which, points of faith may be called Fundamentall, and necessary to salvation, with reference to the Negative precept of faith, is such, that we cannot without grievous sinne, and forfeiture of salvation, disbelieve any one point, sufficiently propounded, as revealed by Almighty God. And in this sense we avouch, that there is no distinction in points of faith, as if to reject some must bee damnable, and to reject others, equally proposed as Gods word, might stand with salvation. Yea the obligation of the Negative precept is farre more strict, then is that of the Affirmative, which God freely imposed, and may freely release. But it is impossible, that he can dispense, or give leave to disbelieue, or deny what he affirmeth: & in this sense, sin & damnation are more inseparable from error in points not fundamentall, then from ignorance in Articles fundamentall. All this I shew by an example, which I wish to be particularly noted for the present, and for divers other occasions hereafter. The Creed of the Apostles containes divers fundamentall points of faith, as the Deity, Trinity of Persons, Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of our Saviour Christ &c. It containes also some points, for their matter, and nature in themselves not fundamentall; as under what Iudge our Saviour suffered, that he was buried, the circumstance of the time of his Resurrection the third day &c. But yet neverthelesse, whosoever once knowes that these points are contained in the Apostles Creed, the deniall of them is damnable, and is in that sense a fundamentall error; and this is the precise point of the present question.

3 And all that hitherto hath been said, is so manifestly true, that no Protestant or Christian, if he doe but understand the termes, and state of the Question, can possibly deny it: In so much as I am amazed, that men who otherwise are endued with excellent wits, should so enslave themselves to their Predecessors in Protestantisme [...], as still to harp on this distinction, and never regard how impertinently, & untruly it was implied by them at first, to make all Protestants seem to be of one fayth, because forsooth they agree in fundamentall points. For the difference among Protestants, consists not in that some believe some points, of which others are ignorant, or not bound expressely to know (as the distinction ought to be applied;) but that some of them disbelieve, and directly, wittingly, and willingly oppose what others doe believe to be testified by the word of God, wherein there is no difference between points fundamentall, and not fundamentall; Because till points fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God, it is not against faith to reject them, or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to believe them; and the like is of points not fundamentall, which assoone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine Truths, they can no more be denyed, then points fundamentall propounded after the same manner. Neither will it avayle them to their other end, that for preservation of the Church in being, it is sufficient that she doe not erre in points fundamentall. Fo [...] if in the mean time she maintain any one Errour against Gods revelation, be the thing in it selfe never so small, her Errour is damnable, and destructive of salvation.

4 But D. Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make use of their distinction, doth finally overthrow it, and yields to as much as we can desire. For, speaking of that measure Pag. 211▪ & Quantity of faith without which none can be saved, he sayth: It is enough to believe some things by a vertuall faith, or by a generall, and as it were, a negative faith, whereby they are not denyed or contradicted. Now our question is in case that divine truths, although not fundamentall, be denied and contradicted; aad therefore, even according to him, all such deniall excludes salvation. After, he speaks more plainly. It is true (saith he) whatsoever Pag. 212▪ is revealed in Scripture, or propoundid by the Church out of Scripture, is in some sense fundamentall, in regard of the divine authority of God, and his word, by which it is recommended: that is, such as may not be de [...]ied, or contradicted without Infidelity: such as every Christian is bound with humility, and reverence to believe, whensoever the knowledge thereof is offered to him. And further: Where Pag. 250▪ the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded; there he that opposeth, is convinced of error, and he who is thus convinced is an Heretique, and Heresie is a work of the flesh which excludeth from heaven[Page](Gal. 5. 20. 21.) And hence it followeth, that it is FVNDAMENTALL to a Christians FAITH, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed Truths of God, whereof he may be convinced that they are from God. Can any thing be spoken more clearly or directly for us, that it is a Fundamentall error to deny any one point, though never so small, if once it be sufficiently propounded, as a divine truth, and that there is, in this sense, no distinction betwixt points fundamentall, and not fundamentall? And if any should chance to imagine, that it is against the foundation of faith, not to believe points Fundamentall, although they be not sufficiently propounded, D. Potter doth not admit of thisPag. 246. difference betwixt points fundamentall, and not fundamentall. For he teacheth, that sufficient proposition of revealed truth is required before a man can be convinced, and for want of sufficient conviction he excuseth the Disciples from heresy, although they believed not our Saviours Resurrection,Pag. 246. which is a very fundamentall point of faith. Thus then I argue out of D. Potters own confession: No error is damnable unlesse the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God: Every error is damnable, if the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God: Therefore all errors are alike for the generall effect of damnation, if the difference arise not from the manner of being propounded. And what now is become of their distinction?

5 I will therefore conclude with this Argument. According to all Philosophy and Divinity, the Vnity, and distinction of every thing followeth the Nature and Essence thereof, and therefore if the Nature and being of faith, be not taken from the matter which a man believes, but from the motive for which he believes, (which is Gods word or Revelation) we must likewise affirme that the Vnity, and Diversity of faith, must be measured by Gods revelation (which is alike for all objects) and not by the smalnesse, or greatnesse of the matter which we believe. Now, that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatnesse, or smalnesse of the things believed, is manifest; because otherwise one who believes only fundamentall points, and another who together with them, doth also believe points not fundamentall, should have faith of different natures, yea there should be as many differences of faith, as there are different points which men believe, according to different capacities, or instruction &c. all which consequences are absurd, and therefore we must say, that Vnity in Faith doth not depend upon points fundamentall, or not fundamentall, but upon Gods revelation equally or unequally proposed: and Protestants pretending an Vnity only by reason of their agreement in fundamentall points, doe indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them, and since they disagree in things Equally revealed by Almighty God, it is evident that they forsake the very Formall motive of faith, which is Gods revelanon and consequently loose all Faith, and Vnity therein.

6 The first part of the Title of this Chapter (That the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall in the sense of Protestants, is both impertinent and untrue) being demonstrated; let us now come to the second: That the Church is infallible in all her definitions, whether they concerne points fundamentall, or not fundamentall, And this I prove by these reasons.

7 It hath been shewed in the precedent Chapter, that the Church is Iudge of Controversies; which she could not be, if she could erre in any one point, as Doctor Potter would not deny, if he were once perswaded that she is Iudge. Because if the could erre in some points, we could not rely upon her Authority and Iudgment in any one thing.

8 This same is proved by the reason we alleadged before, that seeing the Church was infallible in all her definitions ere Scripture was written (unlesse we will take away all certainty of faith for that time) we cannot with any shew of reason affirme, that shee hath been deprived thereof by the adjoyned confort, and helpe of sacred writ.

9 Moreover to say, that the Catholique Church may propose any false doctrine, maketh her lyable to damnable sinne and error; and yet D. Potter teacheth that the Church cannot erre damnably. For if in that kind of Oath, which Divines call Assertorium, wherein God is called to witnesse, every falshood is a deadly sinne in any private person whatsoever, although the thing be of it selfe neither materiall, nor prejudiciall to any; because the quantity, or greatnesse of that sinne is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed, as by the manner▪; and authority whereby it is avouched, and by the injury that is offered to Almighty God in applying his testimony to a falshood: in which respect it is the unanimous consent of all Divines, that in such kind of Oathes, no levitas materiae, that is, smallnes of matter, can excuse from a morall sacriledge, against the morall vertue of Religion which respects worship due to God: If I say, every least falshood be deadly sinne in the foresaid kind of Oath; much more pernicious a sinne must it be in the publique person of the Catholique Church to propound untrue Articles of faith, thereby fastning Gods prime Verity to falshood, and inducing and obliging the world to doe the same. Besides, according to teh doctrine of all Divines, it is not only injurious to Gods Eternall Verity, to disbelieve things by him revealed, but also to propose as revealed truths, things not revealed: as in common wealths it is a haynous offence to coyne either by counterfeiting the metall or the stamp, or to apply the Kings seale to a writing counterfeit, although the contents were supposed to be true. And whereas, to shew the detestable sinne of such pernitious fictions, the Church doth most exemplarly punish all broachers of fained revelations, visions; miracles, prophecies &c. as in particular appeareth in the Councell ofSub. Leon. [...]0. Sess. 11. Lateran, excommunicating such persons; if the Church her selfe could propose false revelations, she herselfe should have been the first, & chiefest [Page] deserver to have been censured, and as it were excommunicated by herselfe. For (as the holy Ghost saith inCap. 13. v. [...]. Iob) doth God need your lye, that for him you may speak deceipts? And that of the Apocalyps is most truly verified in fictitious revelations: If any Cap. ult. v. 18. shall adde to these things, God will adde unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and D. Potter saith, to adde Pag. 122. to it (speaking of the Creed) is high presumption, almost as great as to detract from it. And therefore to say the Church may addefalse Revelations, is to accuse her of high presumption, and of pernitious errour excluding salvation.

10 Perhaps some will here reply that although the Church may erre, yet it is not imputed to her for sinne, by reason shee doth not erre upon malice, or wittingly, but by ignorance, or mistake.

11 But it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cannot serve. For if the Church be assisted only for points fundamentall, she cannot but know, that she may erre in points not fundamentall, at least she cannot be certain that she cannot erre, and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernitious temerity, in proposing points not fundamentall, to be believed by Christians; as matters of faith, wherein she can have no certainty, yea which alwaies imply a falshood. For although the thing might chance to be true, and perhaps also revealed; yet for the matter, she for her part, doth alwaies expose her selfe to danger of falshood and error; and in fact doth alwaies erre in the [...]anner in which she doth propound any matter not fundamentall; because shee proposeth it as a point of faith certainly true, which yet is alwaies uncertain, if she in such things may be deceived.

12 Besides, if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall, she may erre in proposing some Scripture for Canonicall, which is not such: or else not erre in keeping and conserving from corruptions such Scriptures as are already believed to be Canonicall. For I will suppose, that in such Apocrypha [...] Scripture as she delivers, there is no fundamentall error against faith, or that there is no falshood at all, but only want of divine testification: in which case D. Potter must either grant, that it is a fundamentall error, to apply divine revelation to any point not revealed, or else must yeeld, that the Church may erre in her Proposition, or Custody of the Canon of Scripture. And so we cannot be sure whether she have not been deceived already, in Bookes recommended by her, and accepted by Christians. And thus we shall have no certainty of Scripture, if the Church want certainty in all her definitions. And it is worthy to be observed, that some Bookes of Scripture which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall, have been afterward received for such; but never any one book, or syllable defined by the Church to be Canonicall, was afterward questioned, or rejected for Apocryphall. A signe, that Gods Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost, never to propose as divine truth, any thing not revealed by God: and that, O [...]ission to define points not sufficiently discussed is laudable, but Commission in propounding things not revealed, inexcusable; into which precipitation our Saviour Christ never hath, nor never will permit his Church to fall.

13 Nay, to limit the generall promises of our Saviour Christ made to his Church to points only fundamentall, namely, that the gates Mar. 16. 18. of hell shall not prevail against her: and that, the holy Ghost Ioan. 16. 13. shall lead her into all truth &c. is to destroy all faith. For we may by that doctrine, and manner of interpreting the Scripture, limit the Infallibility of the Apostles words, & preaching, only to Points fundamentall: and whatsoever generall Texts of Scripture shall be alleadged for their infallibility, they may, by D. Potter example be explicated, and restrained to points fundamentall. By the same reason it may be farther affirmed, that the Apostles, and other writers of Canonicall Scripture, were endued with infallibility, only in setting down points fundamentall. For if it be urged, that all Scripture is divinely inspired; that it is the word of God &c. D. Potter hath afforded you a ready answer, to say, that Scripture is inspired &c. only in those parts, or parcels, wherein it delivereth fundamentall points. In this manner D. Fotherby saith: The Apostle In his Sermons. Serm. 2. pag. 50. twice in one Chapter professed, that this he speaketh, and not the Lord, He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the expresse word of God, that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man. D. Potter also speaks very dangerously towards this purpose, Sect. 5. where he endeavoureth to prove, that the infallibility of the Church is limited to points fundamentall, because as Nature, so God is neither defective in Pag. 150. necessaries, nor lavish in supers [...]uities. Which reason doth likewise prove that the infallibility of Scripture, and of the Apostles must be restrained to points necessary to salvation, that so God be not accused, as defective in necessaries, or lavish in supers [...]uities. In the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose, where speaking of these words: The Spirit shall lead you into all truth, and shall abide with Ioan. c. 16. 13. &c. [...]4. 16. you for ever, he saith: Though that promise was Pag. 151. 152. directly, and primarily made to the Apostles (who had the Spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner, then any since them) yet it was made to themfor the behoof of the Church, and is verified in the Church Vniversall. But all truth is not simply all, but all of some kind. To be led into all truths, is to know, and believe them. And who is so simple as to be ignorant, that there are many millions of truths (in Nature, History, Divinity) whereof the Church is simply ignorant. How many truths lye unrevealea in the infinite treasury of Gods wisdome, wherewith the Church is not acquainted &c. so then, the truth it selfe enforceth us to understand by (all truths) not simply all, not all which God can possibly reveal, but all pertaining to the substance of faith, all truth absolutely necessary to salvation. Mark what he saith. That promise (The spirit shall lead you into all truth,) was made directly[Page]to the Apostles, and is verified in the universall Church, but by all truth is not understood simply all, but all apperraining to the substance of faith, and absolutely necessary to salvation. Doth it not hence follow, that the promise made to the Apostles of being led into all truth, is to be understood only of all truth absolutely necessary to salvation? and consequently their preaching, and writing, were not infallible in points not fundamentall? or if the Apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as divine truth, the like must be affirmed of the Church, because D. Potter teacheth, the said promise to be verified in the Church. And as he limits the aforesaid words to points fundamentall; so may he restrain, what other text soever that can be brought for the universall infallibility of the Apostles or Scriptures. So he may; and so he must, least otherwise he receive this answer of his own from himselfe, How many truths lye unrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome, wherewith the Church is not acquainted? And therefore to verify such generall sayings, they must be understood of truths absolutely necessary to Salvation. Are not these fearfull consequences? And yet D. Potter will never be able to avoid them, till he come to acknowledge the infallibility of the Church in all points by her proposed as divine truths; and thus it is universally true that she is lead into all truth, in regard that our Saviour never permits her to define, or teach any falshood.

14 All, that with any colour may be replied to this argument is; That if once we call any one Book, or parcell of Scripture in question; although for the matter it contain no fundamentall error, yet it is of great importance and fundamentall, by reason of the consequence; because if once we doubt of one Book received for Canonicall, the whole canon is made doubtfull and uncertain, and therefore the infallibility of Scripture must be universall, and not confined within compasse of points fundamentall.

15 I answere: For the thing it selfe it is very true, that if I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture received for such, I may doubt of all: and thence by the same parity I inferre, that if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some points, we could not believe her in any one, and consequently not in propounding Canonicall Bookes, of any other points fundamentall, or not fundamentall; which thing being most absurd, and withall most impious, we must take away the ground thereof, and believe that she cannot erre in any point great or small: and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intend to prove. Yet I adde, that Protestants cannot make use of this reply with any good coherence to this their distinction, and some other doctrines which they defend. Por if D. Potter can tell what points in particular be fundamentall (as in his 7. Sect. he pretendeth) then he may be sure, that whensoever he meetes with such points in Scripture, in them it is infallibly true, although it might erre in others: and not only true but cleere, because Protestants teach, that in matters necessary to Salvation, the Scripture is so cleere, that all such necessary truths are either manifestly contained therein, or may be cleerely deduced from it, Which Doctrines being put together, to wit: That Scriptures cannot erre in points fundamentall; that they cleerely containe all such points; and that they can tell what points in particular be such, I mean fundamentall; it is manifest, that it is sufficient for Salvation, that Scripture be infallible only in points fundamentall. For supposing these doctrines of theirs to be true, they may be sure to find in Scripture all points necessary to Salvation, although it were fallible in other points of lesse moment. Neyther will they be able to avoid this impiety against holy Scripture, till they renounce their other doctrines. and in particular, till they believe that Christs promise to his Church, are not limited to points fundamentall.

16 Besides, from the fallibility of Christs Catholique Church in some points, it followeth, that no true Protestant earned, or unlearned, doth or can with assurance believe the universall Church in any one point of doctrine. Not in points of lesser moment, which they call not fundamentall; because they believe that in such points she may erre. Not in fundamentalls; because they must know what points be fundamentall, before they goe to learn of her, least otherwise they be rather deluded, then instructed; in regard that her certain, and infallible direction extends only to points fundamentall. Now, if before they addresse themselves to the Church, they must know what points are fundamentall, they learn not of her, but will be as fit to teach, as to be taught by her: How then are all Christians so often, so seriously, upon so dreadfull menaces, by Fathers, Scriptures, and our blessed Saviour himselfe, counselled and commanded to seeke, to hear, to obey the Church? S. Austine was of a very different mind from Protestants: If (saith he) the Epist. 118. Church through the whole world practise any of these things, to dispute whether that ought to be so done, is a most insolent madnesse. And in another place he saith, That which Lib. 4. de. Bapt. c. 24. the whole Church holds, and is not ordained by Councels, but hath alwaies been kept, is most rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolicall authority. The same holy Father teacheth, that the custome of baptizing children cannot be proved by Scripture alone, and yet that it is to be believed, as derived from the Apostles. The custome of our Mother the Lib. 10. de Gene [...]i ad liter. cap. 23. Church (saith he) in baptizing infants i [...] in no wise to be contemned, nor to be accounted superfluous, nor is it at all to be believed. unlesse it were an Apostolicall Tradition, And elsewhere. Christ Serm. 14. de verbis Apost. c. 18. is of profit to Children baptized; Is he therefore of profit to persons not believing? But God forbid, that I should say infants doe not believe. I have already said, he believes in another, who finned in another. It is said, be believes, and it is of force, and he is reckoned among the faithfull that are baptized. This the authority of our Mother the Church hath; against this strength, against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in pieces. To this argument the Protestants in the Conference [Page] at Ratishon, gaue this round answer: Nos ab Augustino See Protocoll. Mon [...]ch. edit. 2. p. 307. hac in parte libere dissentimas. In this we plainly disagree from Augustine. Now if this doctrine of baptizing Infants be not fundamentall in D. Potters sense, then according to S. Augustine, the infallibility of the Church extends to points not fundamentall. But if on the other side it be a fundamentall point; then according to the same holy Doctour, we must rely on the authority of the Church, for some fundamentall point, not contained in Scripture, but delivered by Tradition. The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not rebaptizing of those who were baptized by Heretiques, whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner. Wee follow Lib. 1. cont. Crescon. cap. 32. & 34. indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of Canonicall all Scriptures. But how? Consider his words: Although verily there be brought no example for this point out of the Canonicall Scriptures, yet even in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by us, while we doe that, which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend, that so, because the holy Scripture cannot deceaue us, whosoever is afraid to be deceaved by the obscurity of this question, must haue recourse to the same Church concerning it, which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate to us. Among many other points in the aforesaid words, we are to obserue, that according to this holy Father, when we prove some points not particularly contained in Scripture, by the authority of the Church, even in that case we ought not to be said to belieue such points without Scripture, because Scripture it selfe recommends the Church; and therefore relying on her we relye on Scripture, without danger of being deceaved by the obscurity of any question defined by the Church. And elsewhere he faithi Seeing this is De [...]nit. Eccles. c. 19. written in no Scripture, we must belieue the testimony of the Church, which Christ declareth to speak the truth. But it seemes D. Potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not rebaptizing such as were baptized by Heretiques, is no necessary point of faith, nor the contrary an heresie: wherein he contradicteth S. Augustine, from whom we haue now heard, that what the Church teacheth, is truly said to be taught by Scripture; and consequently to deny this particular point, delivered by the Church, is to oppose Scripture it selfe. Yet if he will needs hold, that this point is not fundamentall, we must conclude out of S. Augustine, (as we did concerning the baptizing of Children) that the infallibility of the Church reacheth to points not fundamentall. The same Father in another place, concerning this very question of the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretiques, saith: The De Bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this, but this Custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their tradition, as there are many things that the universall Church observeth which are therefore with good reason believed to haue been commanded by the Apostles, although they be not written. No lesse cleer is S. Chrysoslome for the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church. For treating these words (2. Thess. 2. Stand, & hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether by speech or by Epistle) saith: Hence it is Hom. 4. manifest that they delivered not all things by letter, but many things also without writing, and these also are worthy of beliefe. Let us therefore account the tradition of the Church to be worthy of beliefe. It is a Tradition: Seek no more. Which words are so plainly against Protestants, that Whitaker is as plaine with S. Chrysostome, saying: I answer De Sacra Script. p. 678. that this is an inconsiderate speech, and unworthy so great a Father. But let us conclude with S. Augustine, that the Church cannot approue any errour against faith, or good manners. The Church (saith he) being [...]p. 119. 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 theInstit. l. 4. Cap. 2, 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, inCent. Ep. Theol. ep. 74. 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 In Assertionib. art. 36, 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, Wo [...]ship and Invocation of [Page] 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 Tract. 1. c. 2. Sect. 14. after F. 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 mentionedCap. 1. v. 4. 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 Chark in the Tower disputation, the 4. daies conference. Church: The only principall origen of Fox Act. & Mon p. 402. Salvation: of all other points of The Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Consessions pag. 253. doctrine the chiefest and weightiest. Which yet, as we haue seen, is contrary to other Protestants, who teach that me [...] of good works is not a fundamentall Errour; yea, divers Protestants defend merit of good works, as may bee seen inTract. 3. Sect. 7. vnder m. n. 15. 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 Wo [...]ton denies that Protestants In his answer to a Popish pamphlet p. 68 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, Vid. Gul. Reginald. Calv. Turcis. lib. [...]. c. 6. 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 Pag. 113. 114. Motton in his Treatise of the kingdome of Israel. p. 94. 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, b [...]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 Pag. 121. 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 Pag. 122. in behalfe of Hookers, and Mortons opinion) was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church, though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurre [...]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 the totall deniall of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church. S. Hilary Comment. in Mat. c. 16. 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 Salvatio [...]. And yet D. Potter saith of the aforesaid doctrine of Hooker and Morton: The Pag. 123. Reader may be pleased to approue, or reject it, as he shall finde cause. And in another placePag. 253. 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 [...]s indeed a plain Heretique, or rather Atheist, Lucian like jesting at all Religion,A moderate examination &c. c. 1. paulò post initium. 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 Pag. 126. and the nature of it properly hereticall; because they taught that the Church remained only with them, in the part of Donat [...], 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 [...]rue Visible Church at all. It is then too too apparent, that you haue no agreement in specifying, what be fundamentall [Page] 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 fundamentall [...] 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 Pag. 241. very probable, that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths, whereof consists the V [...]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 fallP. 215. 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 S [...]ct, or Person, teaching, or applying Scriptures against her doctrine, or interpretation. Sixtly, the fearfull examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the Church upon pretence of her errors, haue failed, even in fundamentall points, and suffered shipwrack of their Salvation, ought to deter all Christians, from opposing her in any one doctrine, or practises as (to omit other, both ancient and modern heresies) we see that divers chiefe Protestants, pretending to reform the corruptions of the Church, are come to affirm, that for many Ages she erred to death, and wholy perished; which D. Potter, cannot deny to be a fundamentall Errour against that Article of our Creed, I believe the Catholique Church, as he a [...]irmeth it of the Donatists, because they confined the universall Church within Africa, or some other smal tract of soile. Least therefore I may fall into some fundamentall errour, it is most safe for me to belieue all the Decrees of that Church, which cannot err [...] fundamentally: especially if we adde; That according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines, one errour in faith, whether it be for the matter it selfe, great or small, d [...]stroies faith, as is shewed in Charity Mistaken; and consequently to accuse the Church of any one Errour, is to affirm, that she lost all faith, and erred damnably: which very saying is damnable, because it leaues Christ no visible Church on earth.

21 To all these arguments I adde this demonstration: D. Potter teacheth, that there neither [...]as Pag. 75▪ nor can be any iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ, no more then from Christ [Page]himselfe, But if the Church of Christ can erre in some points of faith, men not only may, but must forsake her in those, (unlesse D. Potter will haue them to believe one thing, and professe another:) and if such errours, and corruptions should fall out to be about the Churches Liturgy, publique Service, administration of Sacraments, and the like; they who perceive such errours, must of necessity leaue her externall Communion. And therefore if once we grant the Church may erre, i [...] followeth that men may, and ought to forsake her (which is against D. Potters own words,) or else they are inexcusable who left the Communion of the Roman Church, under pretence of Errours, which they grant, not to be fundumentall. And if D. Potter▪ think good to answer this argument, he must remember his own doctrine to be, that even the Catholique Church may erre in points not fundamentall.

22 Another argument for the universall Infallibility of the Church, I take out of D. Potters own words. If (saith he) we Pag. 97. did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique. These words cannot be true, unlesse he presuppose that the Church truly Catholique, cannot erre in points not fundamentall. For if she may erre in such points, the Roman Church which he affirmeth to erre only in points not fundamentall, may agree with the Church truly Catholique, if she likewise may erre in points not fundamentall. Therefore either he must acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words, or else must grant that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall, which is what we intended to proue.

23 If Words cannot perswade you, that in all Controversies you must rely upon the infallibility of the Church; at least yeeld your assent to Deeds. Hitherto I haue produced Arguments drawn, as it were, ex naturâ rei, from the Wisdome, and Goodnesse of God, who cannot faile to haue left some infallible meanes to determine Controversies, which, as we haue proved, can be no other, except a Visible Church, infallible in all her Definitions. But because both Catholiques and Protestants, receive holy Scripture, we may thence also proue the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concern Faith and Religion. Our Saviour speaketh clearly: The gates of Hell Mat. 16. shall not prevail against her. And; I will aske my Ioan. 14. Father, and he will giue you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth. And, But when he, the Spirit of Ioan. 16. truth commeth, he shall teach you all truth. The Apostle saith, that the Church is the Pillar, and ground 1. Tim. c. 3. of Truth. And, He gaue some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors, to the consummation of the Saints, unto the work of the Ministery, unto the edifying of the body of Christ: untill we meet all into the unity of faith, and knowle [...]ge of the Sonne of God, into a perfect man, into the measure of the age of the [...]ulnesse of Christ: that now we be not Children wavering, and carried about with every winde of doctrine in the wickednesse of men, in craftinesse, to the circumvention Ephes. 4. of Errour. All which words seem cleerly enough to proue, that the Church is universally infallible, without which, unity of faith could not be conserved against every winde of Doctrine: And yet Doctor Potter Pag. 151. 153. limits these promises and priviledges to fundamentall points, in which he grants the Church cannot erre. I urge the words of Scripture, which are universall, and doe not mention any such restraint. I alleadge that most reasonable, and receaved Rule, that Scripture is to be understood literally, as it soundeth, unlesse some manifest absurdity force us to the contrary. But all will not serue, to accord our different interpretations. In the mean time divers of Doctor Potters Brethren step in, and reject his limitation, as over large, and somewhat tasting of Papistry: And therefore they restrain the mentioned Texts, either to the Infallibility which the Apostles, and other sacred Writers had in penning of Scripture: or else to the invisible Church of the Elect; and to them, not absolutely, but with a double restriction, that they shall not fall damnably, and finally; and other men haue as much right as these, to interpose their opinion, and interpretation. Behold we are three at debate about the selfe same words of Scripture: We conferre divers places and Text: We consult the Originalls: We examine Translations. We endeavour to pray heartily: We professe to speak sincerely; To seek nothing but truth and salvation of our own soules, and that of our Neighbours; and finally we use all those meanes, which by Protestants themselues are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture: Neverthelesse we neither doe, or haue any possible meanes to agree, as long as we are left to our selues; and when we should chance to be agreed, the doubt would still remain whether the thing it selfe be a fundamentall point or no: And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God, the Lover of soules, hath left no certaine infallible meanes; to decide both this, and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture, or upon any other occasion. Our remedy therefore in these contentions must be, to consult, and heare God's Visible Church, with submissiue acknowledgment of her Power, and Infallibility in whatsoever she proposeth as a revealed truth: according to that divine advice of S. Augustine in these words. If at length Deutil. cred. cap. 8. thou seem to be sufficiently tossed▪ and hast a desire to put an end to thy paines, follow the way of the Catholique Discipline, which from Christ himselfe by the Apostles hath come down even to us, and from us shall descend to all posterity. And though I conceave that the distinction of points fundamentall, and not fundamentall hath now been sufficiently confuted; yet that no shadow of difficulty may remain, I will particularly refell a common saying of Protestants, that it is sufficient foe salvation, to belieue the Apostles Creed, which they hold to be a Summary of all fundamentall points of Faith.

[Page]

THE ANSVVER TO THE THIRD CHAPTER.
Wherein it is maintained, That the distinction of points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall, is in this present Controversie good and pertinent: And that the Catholique Church may erre in the latter kinde of the said points.

THis distinction is imployed by Protestants to many purposes, and therefore if it be pertinent and good, (as they understand and apply it) the whole edifice built thereon, must be either firme and stable, or if it be not, it cannot be for any default in this distinction.

2 If you obiect to them discords in matter of faith without any meanes of agreement, They will answer you, that they want not good and solid meanes of agreement in matters necessary to salvation, viz. Their beliefe of all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture; which who so belieues, must of necessity belieue all things necessary to salvation: and their mutuall suffering one another, to abound in their severall sense, in matters not plainly and undoubtedly there delivered. And for their agreement in all Controversies of Religion, either they haue meanes to agree about them, or not: If you say they haue, why did you before deny it? If they haue not meanes; why doe you finde fault with them, for not agreeing?

3 You will say, that their fault is, that by remaining Protestants they exclude themselues from the meanes of agreement, which you haue, and which by submission to your Church they might haue also. But if you haue meanes of agreement, the more shame for you that you still disagree. For who, I pray, is more inexcusably guilty, for the omission of any duty; they that either haue no meanes to doe it, or else know of none they haue, which puts them in the same case as if they had none: or they which professe to haue an easie and expedite means to doe it, and yet still leaue it undone? If you had been blind (saith our Saviour to the Pharisees) you had had no sinne, but now you say you see▪ therefore your sinne remaineth.

4 If you say, you doe agree in matters of Faith, I say this is ridiculous: for you define matters of faith to be those wherein you agree. So that to say, you agree in matters of faith, is to say, you agree in those things wherein you doe agree. And do not Protestants doe so likewise? Doe not they agree in those things, wherein they doe agree?

5 But you are all agreed that only those things wherein you doe agree are matters of faith. And Protestants if they were wise, would doe so too. Sure I am they haue reason enough to doe so: seeing all of them agree with explicite faith in all those things, which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture, that is, in all which God hath plainly [Page] revealed: and with an implicite faith, in that sense of the whole Scripture which God intended whatsoever it was. Secondly, That which you pretend is false; for else, why doe some of you hold it against faith, to take or allow the Oath of Allegiance, others as learned and honest as they, that it is against Faith and unlawfull to refuse it and allow the refusing of it? Why doe some of you hold, that it is de Fide, that the Pope is Head of the Church by divine Law, others the contrary? Some hold it de Fide, that the blessed Virgin was freefrom Actuall sinne, others that it is not so. Some, that the Popes Indirect power over Princes in Temporalties is de Fide, Others the contrary. Some, that it is Vniversall Tradition, and consequently de Fide, that the Virgin Mary was conceived in originall sinne, others the contrary.

6 But what shall we say now, if you be not agreed touching your pretended meanes of agreement, how then can you pretend to Vnity either Actuall or Potentiall more then Protestants may? Some of you say, the Pope alone without a Councell may determine all Controversies: But others deny it. Some, that a Generall Councell without a Pope may doe so: Others deny this. Some, Both in conjunction are infallible determiners: Others againe deny this. Lastly, some among you, hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councells by the Vniversal Church to be the only way to decide Controversies: which others deny, by denying the Church to be Infallible. And indeed what way of ending Controversies can this be, when either part may pretend, that they are part of the Church, and they receiue not the decree, therefore the whole Church hath not received it?

7 Againe, Meanes of agreeing differences are either Rationall and well grounded and of Gods appointment, or voluntary and taken up at the pleasure of men. Meanes of the former nature, we say, you haue as little as we. For where hath God appointed, that the Pope, or a Councell, or a Councell confirm'd by the Pope, or that Society of Christians which adhere to him, shall be the Infallible Iudge of Controversies. I desire you to shew any one of these Assertions plainely set down in Scripture, (as in all Reason a thing of this nature should be) or at least delivered with a full consent of Fathers, or at least taught in plain tearmes by any one Father for foure hundred yeares after Christ. And if you cannot doe this (as I am sure you cannot) and yet will still be obtruding your selues upō us for our Iudges, who will not cry out, —perisse frontem de rebus?

8 But then for meanes of the other kinde, such as yours are, we haue great abūdance of them. For besides all the waies which you haue devised, which we may make use of when wee please, we haue a great many more, which you yet haue never thought of, for which we haue as good colour out of Scripture as you haue for yours. For first, wee could if we would, try it by Lots, whose doctrine is true, and whose false. And you know it is written,Prov. 16. 33. The Lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposition of it is from the Lord. 2. We could referre them to the King, and you know it is written:Prov. 16. 10. A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King his mouth transgresseth not in judgement. Prov. 21. 1. The Heart of the [Page] King is in the hand of the Lord. We could referre the matter to any assembly of Christians assembled in the the name of Christ, seeing it is written,Mat. 18. 20. where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. We may referre it to any Priest, because it is written,Mat. 2. 7. The Priests lips shall preserve knowledg. Mat. 25. 2. The Scribes and Pharises sit in Moses chaire &c. To any Preacher of the Gospell, to any Pastor, or Doctor, for to every one of them Christ hath promisedMat. 28. 20. he will be with them alwaies even to the end of the world: & of every one of them it is said,Luk. 10. 16. He that heareth you heareth me: &c. To any Bishop or Prelate, for it is written,Heb. 13. 17. Obey your Prelates, and againeEphes. 4. 11. he hath given Pastors and Doctors, &c. least we should be carried about with every wind of doctrine. To any particular Church of Christians, seeing it is a particular Church which is called1. Tim. 3. 15. The house of God, a Pillar & ground of Truth: and seeing of any Particular Church it is writtenMat. 18. 17. He that heareth not the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Public [...]d. We might referre it to any man that prayes for Gods spirit, for it is written, Mat. 7. 8. Every one that asketh receiveth: and again,Ia. 1. 5. If any man want wisdome let him aske of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not. Lastly, we might referre it to the Iewes, for without all doubt of them it is written,Isay. 59. 21. my spirit that is in thee &c. All these meanes of agreement, whereof not any one but hath as much probability from Scripture, as that which you obtrude upon us, offer themselves upon a suddain to me: happily many more might be thought on, if we had time, but these are enough to shew, that would we make use of voluntary and devised meanes to determine differences, we had them in great abundance. And if you say these would faile us, and contradict themselves; so, as we pretend, have yours. There have been Popes against Popes: Councells against Councells: Councells confirmed by Popes, against Councells confirmed by Popes: Lastly the Church of some Ages against the Church of other Ages.

9 Lastly, whereas you find fault, That Protestants upbraided with their discords, answer that they differ only in points not Fundamentall, I desire you tell me whether they doe so, or doe not so; If they doe so, I hope you will not find fault with the Answer: If you say they doe not so, but in points Fundamentall also; then they are not members of the same Church one with another, no more then with you: And therefore why should you object to any of them, their differences from each other, any more then to your selves, their more and greater differences from you?

10 But they are convinc'd sometimes even by their own confessions, that the Ancient Fathers taught divers points of Popery: and then they reply, those Fathers may neverthelesse be saved, because those errors were not Fundamentall. And may not you also be convinc'd by the confessions of your own men, that the Fathers taught divers points held by Protestants against the Church of Rome, and divers against Protestants and the Church of Rome? Doe not your Purging Indexes, clip the tongues, and seal up the lips of a great many for such confessions? [Page] And is not the above cited confession of your Doway Divines, plain and full to the same purpose? And doe not you also, as freely as we, charge the Fathers with errors, & yet say they were saved? Now what else doe we understand by an unfundamentall error, but such a one with which a man may possibly be saved? So that still you proceed in condemning others for your own faults, and urging arguments against us, which returne more strongly upon your selves.

11 But your will is, we should remember that Christ must alwaies have a visible Church. Ans. Your pleasure shall be obeyed, on condition you will not forget, that there is a difference between perpetuall Visibility, and perpetuall Purity. As for the answere, which you make for us, true it is, we believe the Catholique Church cannot perish, yet that she may, and did erre in points not Fundamentall; and that Protestants were oblig'd to forsake these errors of the Church, as they did, though not the Church for her errors, for that they did not, but continued still members of the Church. For it is not all one (though you perpetually confound them) to forsake the errors of the Church, and to forsake the Church: or to forsake the Church in her Errors, and simply to forsake the Church: No more then it is for me to renounce my Brothers or my Friends Vices or Errors, and to renounce my Brother or my Friend. The Former then was done by Protestants, the latter was not done. Nay not only not from the Catholique, but not so much as from the Roman, did they seperate per omnia, but only in those practises which they conceived superstitious or impious. If you would at this time propose a forme of Liturgy, which both Sides hold lawfull, and then they would not joyne with you in this Liturgy, you might have some colour then to say, they renounce your communion absolutely. But as things are now ordered, they cannot joyne with you in prayers, but they must partake with you in unlawfull practises, and for this reason, they (not absolutely, but thus farre) separate from your communion. And this, I say, they were obliged to doe under pain of damnation. Not as if it were damnable to hold an error not damnable, but because it is damnable outwardly to professe & maintaine it, and to joyn with others in the practise of it, when inwardly they did not hold it. Now had they continued in your communion, that they must have done, vid. have professed to believe and externally practis'd your Errors, whereof they were convinced that they were Errors: which, though the matters of the Errors had been not necessary, but only profitable, whether it had not been damnable dissimulation and hypocrisy, I leave it to you to judge. You your selfe tell us within two pages after this, that you are obliged never to speak any one least lye against your knowledge, §. 2. now what is this but to live in a perpetuall lye?

12 As for that which in the next place you seeme so to wonder at, That both Catholiques and Protestants, according to the opinion of Protestants, may bee saved in their severall professions, because forsooth, we both agree in all Fundamentall points: I Anwere, this proposition so crudely set down, as you have here set it down, I know no Protestant will justify. For you seeme to make [Page] them teach, that it is an indifferent thing, for the attainment of salvation, whether a man believe the Truth or the Falshood; and that they care not in whether of these Religions a man live or dye, so he dye in either of them: whereas all that they say is this, That those amongst you which want meanes to find the Truth and so dye in error, or use the best meanes they can with industry, and without partiality to find the truth, and yet dye in error, these men, thus qualified, notwithstanding these errors may be saved. Secondly for those that have meanes to find the Truth, and will not use them, they conceive, though their case be dangerous, yet if they dye with a generall repentance for all their sinnes, knowne and unknowne, their Salvation is not desperate. The Truths which they hold, of Faith in Christ, and Repentance, being as it were an antidote against their errors, and their negligence in seeking the Truth. Especially seeing by confession of both sides we agree in much more thē is simply, & indispēsably necessary to salvatiō.

13 But seeing we make such various use of this distinction, is it not prodigiously strange that we will never be induc'd to give in a particular Catalogue what points be fundamentall? And why I pray is it so prodigiously strange that we give no answer to an unreasonable demand? God himself hath told us,Luk. 12. 48. That where much is given, much shall be required; where litle is given, litle shall be required. To Infants, Deafe-men, Madmen, nothing for ought wee knowe, is given, and if it bee so, of them nothing shall be required. Others perhaps may have meanes only given them to beleive,6. Heb. 11. That God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him; and to whom thus much only is given, to them it shall not be damnable, that they beleive but only thus much. Which methinks is very manifest from the Apostle, in the Epist. to the Heb: where having first said, that without faith it is impossible to please God, he subjoynes as his reason, for whosoever commeth unto God, must beleive that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him. Where in my opinion, this is plainly intimated, that this is the minimum quòd sic, the lowest degree of Faith, wherewith, in men capable of Faith, God will be pleased: and that with this lowest degree he will be pleased, where meanes of rising higher are deficient. Besides, if without this beliefe, that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him, God will not be pleased, then his will is that we should beleive it. Now his will it cannot be, that we should beleive a falshood, It must be therefore true, that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him. Now it is possible that they which never heard of Christ, may seek God, therefore it is true that even they shall please him, and be rewarded by him; I say rewarded, not with bringing them immediatly to salvation without Christ, but with bringing them according to his good pleasure, first, to faith in Christ, and so to salvation. To which beleife the story of Cornelius in the 10. chap. of the Acts of the Apostles, and S. Peter's words to him, are to me a great inducement. For first it is evident he beleeved not in Christ, but was a meer Gentile, & one that knew not but men might be worshipped, and yet we are assured that his prayers and almes (even while he was in that state) came up for a memoriall before [Page]God; That his prayer was heard, and his Almes had in remembrance in the sight of God. v. 4. that upon his, Then fearing God and working righteousnesse, (such as it was) he was accepted with God. But how accepted? Not to be brought immediatly to salvation, but to be promoted to a higher degree of the knowledge of Gods will: For so it is in the 4. & 5. v. Call for Simon whose sirname is Peter, he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to doe, and at the 33. vers. We are all here present before God, to heare all things that are cōmanded thee of God. So that though even in his Gentilisme, he was accepted in his present state, yet if he had continued in it, & refused to beleive in Christ after the sufficient revelation of the Gospell to him, and Gods will to have him beleive it, he that was accepted before, would not have continued accepted still; for then that condemnation had come upon him, that light was come unto him, and he loved darknesse more then light. So that (to proceed a step farther) to whom faith in Christ is sufficiently propounded, as necessary to Salvation, to them it is simply necessary & Fundamentall to believe in Christ, that is, to expect remission of sinnes and Salvation from him, upon the performance of the conditions he requires; among which conditions one is, that we believe what he has revealed, when it is sufficiently declared, to have been revealed by him: For by doing so, we set to our seale, that God is true, and that Christ was sent by him. Now that may be sufficiētly declared to one (all things considered,) which, (all things considered) to another is not sufficiently declared: and consequently that may be Fundamentall and necessary to one, which to another is not so. Which variety of circumstances, makes it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentalls, and proves your request as reasonable, as if you should desire us (according to the Fable) to make a coat to fit the Moon in all her changes; or to giue you a garment that will fit all statures; Or to make you a dyall to serve all meridians; or to designe particularly, what provision will serve an army for a year: whereas there may be an army of ten thousand, there may be of 100000. And therefore without seting downe a catalogue of Fundamentalls in particular (because none that can be given, can universally serve for all men, God requiring more of them to whom he gives more, and lesse of them to whom he gives lesse) we must content our selves by a generall description to tell you what is Fundamentall. And to warrant us in doing so, we have your own example §. 19. where being engaged to giue us a catalogue of Fundamentalls, in stead thereof you tell us only in generall, that all is fundamentall, and not to be disbeleeved under pain of damnation, which the Church hath defin'd. As you therefore think it enough to say in generall, that all is Fundamentall which the Church has defined, without setting down in particular a compleat-Catalogue of all things, which in any age the Church has defined (which I believe you will not undertake to doe, and if you doe, it will be contradicted by your Fellowes:) So in reason you might think it enough for us also to say in generall, that it is sufficient for any mans salvation, to believe that the Scripture is true, and containes all things necessary for salvation; and to doe his best endeavour to find and [Page]believe the true sense of it: without delivering any particular catalogue of the Fundamentalls of Faith.

14 Neither doth the want of such a catalogue leave us in such a perplexed uncertainty as you pretend. For though perhaps we cannot exactly distinguish in the Scripture, what is revealed because it is necessary, from what is necessary consequently and accidentally, meerely because it is revealed: yet we are sure enough, that all that is necessary any way is there, and therefore in believing all that is there, we are sure to believe all that is necessary. And if we erre from the true and intended sense of some, nay of many obscure or ambiguous texts of Scripture, yet we may be sure enough, that we erre not damnably: because, if we doe indeed desire and endeavour to finde the Truth, we may be sure we doe so, and as sure that it cannot consist with the revealed goodnesse of God, to damne him for error, that desires and indeavours to find the Truth.

15 Ad §. 2. The effect of this Paragraph (for as much as concernes us) is this, that for any man to deny belief to any one thing be it great or small known by him, to be revealed by almighty God for a truth, is in effect to charge God with falshood: for it is to say that God affirmes that to be Truth, which he either knowes to be not a Truth, or which he doth not know to be a Truth: and therefore without all controversy this is a damnable sinne. To this I subscribe with hand and heart: adding withall, that not only he which knowes, but he which believes (nay though it be erroneously) any thing to be revealed by God, and yet will not believe it, nor assent unto it, is in the same case, and commits the same sinne of derogation from Gods most perfect and pure Veracity.

16 Ad §. 3. I said purposely (known by himselfe, and belieues himselfe) For as, without any disparagement of a mans honesty, I may believe something to be false, which he affirmes, of his certain knowledge to be true, provided I neither know nor believe that he has so affirmed: So without any the least dishonour to Gods eternall neverfailing veracity, I may doubt of, or deny some truth revealed by him, if I neither know nor believe it to be revealed by him.

17 Seeing therefore the crime of calling Gods veracity into question, and consequently (according to your grounds) of erring Fundamentally, is chargeable upon those only, that believe the contrary of any one point known (not by others but themselves) to be testified by God: I cannot but fear (though I hope otherwise) that your heart condemned you of a great calumny and egregious sophistry, in imputing fundamentall, and damnable error to disagreeing Protestans; Because forsooth, some of them disbelieve, and directly wittingly and willingly oppose, what others doe believe to be testified by the word of God. The sophistry of your discourse will be apparent, if it be contrived into a syllogisme: Thus therefore in effect you argue;

Whosoever disbelieves any thing known by himselfe to be revealed by God, imputes falshood to God, and therefore errs fundamentally.

[Page] But Some Protestants disbelieve these things, which Others believe to be testified by God;

Therefore they impute falshood to God, and erre Fundamentally.

Neither can you with any colour pretend, that in these words known to be testified by God, you meant, not by himselfe, but by any other; Seeing he only in fact affirmes, that God does deceive or is deceived, who denyes some things which himselfe knowes or believes to be revealed by God, as before I have demonstrated. For otherwise if I should deny beleefe to some which God had revealed secretly to such a man as I had never heard of, I should be guilty of calling Gods veracity into Question, which is euidently false. Besides, how can it be avoided, but the Iesuits and Dominicans, the Dominicans and Franciscans must upon this ground differ Fundamentally, and one of them erre damnably, seeing the one of them disbelieves; and willingly opposes, what the others believe to be the word of God?

18 Whereas you say that the difference among Protestants consists not in this, that some believe some points of which others are ignorant, or not bound expresly to know: I would gladly know, whether you speak of Protestants differing in profession only, or in opinion also. If the first, why doe you say presently after, that some disbelieve, what others of them believe? If they differ in opinion, then sure they are ignorant of the truth of each other's opinions: it being impossible and contradictious, that a man should know one thing to be true, and believe the contrary, or know it and not believe it. And if they doe not know the truth of each others opinions, then, I hope, you will grant they are ignorant of it. If your meaning were, they were not ignorant, that each other held these Opinions, or of the sense of the opinions which they held: I Answere, this is nothing to the convincing of their understandings of the truth of them, and these remaining unconvinced of the truth of them, they are excusable if they doe not believe.

9 But ignorance of what we are expresly bound to know, is it selfe a fault, and therefore cannot be an excuse: and therefore if you could shew the Protestants differ in those points, the truth whereof (which can be but one) they were bound expresly to know, I should easily yeeld that one side must of necessity be in a mortall crime. But for want of proofe of this, you content your selfe only to say it; and therefore I also might be contented only to deny it, yet I will not, but give a reason for my deniall. And my reason is, because our obligation expresly to know any divine Truth, must arise from Gods manifest revealing of it, and his revealing unto us that he has revealed it, and that his will is, we should believe it: Now in the points controverted among Protestants, he hath not so dealt with us, therefore he hath not laid any such obligation upon us. The major of this syllogisme is evident, and therefore I will not stand to prove it. The minor also will be evident to him that considers, that in all the Controversies of Protestants, there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture, Reason with Reason, Authority with Authority: which how it can consist with the manifest revealing of the truth of either Side, I cannot [Page] well understand. Besides, though we grant that Scripture, Reason, and Authority, were all on one side, and the apparences of the other side all answerable: yet if we consider the strange power that education and prejudices instilled by it, haue over even excellent understandings, wee may well imagine, that many truths which in themselues are revealed plainly enough, are yet to such or such a man, prepossest with contrary opinions, not revealed plainly. Neither doubt I but God, who knows whereof we are made, and what passions we are subject unto, will compassionate such infirmities, and not enter into judgement with us for those things, which, all things considered, were unavoidable.

20 But till Fundamentalls (say you) be sufficiently proposed (as revealed by God) it is not against Faith to reject them; or rather it is not possible prudently to belieue them: And points unfundamentall being thus sufficiently proposed as divine Truths, may not be denied; Therefore you conclude there is no difference between them: Ans. A Circumstantiall point, may by accident become Fundamentall, because it may bee so proposed that the deniall of it, will draw after it the deniall of this Fundamentall truth, that all which God saies is true. Notwithstanding in themselues there is a main difference between them: Points fundamentall being those onely which are revealed by God, and commanded to bee preacht to all, and believed by all. Points circumstantiall being such, as though God hath revealed them, yet the Pastors of the Church are not bound under paine of damnation particularly to teach them unto all men every where, and the people may be securely ignorant of them.

21 You say, Not erring in points Fundamentall, is not sufficient for the preservation of the Church; because any Errour maintained by it against Gods revelation is destructive. I answer. If you mean against Gods Revelation known by the Church to be so, it is true; but impossible that the Church should doe so, for ipso Facto in doing it, it were a Church no longer. But if you mean against some Revelation, which the Church by errour thinks to bee no Revelation, it is false. The Church may ignorantly disbelieue such a Revelation, and yet continue a Church; which thus I proue. That the Gospell was to be preached to all Nations, was a Truth revealed before our Saviours Ascention, in these words, Goe and teach all Nations. Mat. 29. 19. Yet through prejudice or inadvertence, or some other cause, the Church disbelieved it; as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chap. of the Acts, untill the conversion of Cornelius, and yet was still a Church. Therefore to disbelieue some divine Revelation, not knowing it to be so, is not destructive of salvation, or of the being of the Church. Again, It is a plaine Revelation of God, that1. Cor. 11. 28. the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be administred in both kindes: and1. Cor. 14. 15. 16. 26. that the publique Hymnes and Prayers of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification; yet these Revelations the Church of Rome not seeing, by reason of the veile before their eyes, their Churches supposed infallibility, I hope the deniall of them shall not be laid to their charge, no otherwise then as building hay and stubble on the Foundations, not overthrowing the Foundation it selfe.

[Page] 22 Ad §. 2. In the beginning of this Paragraph, wee haue this Argument against this Distinction; It is enough (by D. Potters confession) to belieue some things negatiuely, i. e. not to deny them; Therefore all deniall of any divine truth excludes Salvation. As if you should say: One Horse is enough for a man to goe a journey: Therefore without a horse no man can goe a journey. As if some Divine Truthes, vi [...]. Those which are plainly revealed, might not be such, as of necessity were not to be denied: and others for want of sufficient declaration, deniable without danger. Indeed if D. Potter had said there had been no divine Truth, declared sufficiently or not declared, but must upon pain of damnation be believed, or at least not denied, then might you justly haue concluded as you doe: but now, that some may not be denied, and that some may be denied without damnation why they may not both stand together I doe not yet understand.

23 In the Remainder you in ferre out of D. Potters words, That all errours are alike damnable, if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different: which for ought I know, all Protestants, and all that haue sense must grant. Yet I deny your illation from hence, That the distinction of points into fundamentall and unfundamentall is vaine and uneffectuall for the purpose of Protestants. For though being alike propos'd as divine truths, they are by accident alike necessary, yet the reall difference still remaines between them, that they are not alike necessary to be proposed.

24 Ad §. 5. The next Paragraph, if it be brought out of the clouds, will I belieue haue in it these Propositions. 1. Things are distinguished by their different natures. 2. The Nature of Faith is taken, not from the matter believed, for then they that believed different matters should haue different Faiths, but from the Motive to it. 3. This Motiue is Gods Revelation. 4. This Revelation is alike for all obiects. 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God: Therefore they forsake the formall motiue of faith: and therefore haue no faith nor unity therein. Which is truly a very proper and convenient argument to close up [...] weak discourse, wherein both the Propositions are false for matter, confused and disordered for the forme, and the conclusion utterly inconsequent. First for the second Proposition, who knowes not that the Essence of all Habits (& therefore of Faith among the rest) is taken from their Act, and their Object? If the Habit be generall, from the Act and Object in generall, if the Habit be speciall, from the Act and Object in speciall. Then for the motiue to a thing, that it cannot be of the Essence of the thing to which it moues, who can doubt, that knows that a motiue is an efficient cause: and that the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect? For the fourth, that Gods Revelation is alike for all objects, It is ambiguous: and if the sense of it be, that his Revelation is an equall Motive to induce us to belieue all objects revealed by him, it is true, but impertinent: If the sense of it be, that all objects revealed by God are alike (that is, alike plainly and undoubtedly) revealed by him, it is pertinent, but most untrue. Witnesse the great diversity of Texts of Scripture, whereof some are so plain and [Page] evident, that no man of ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them. Some are so obscure and ambiguous, that to say this or this is the certain sense of them, were high presumption. For the 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God! In themselues perhaps, but not equally to them: whose understandings by reason of their different Educations are fashioned, and shaped for the entertainment of various opinions, and consequently some of them, more enclined to belieue such a sense of Scripture, others to belieue another; which to say that God will not take into his consideration in judging mens opinions, is to disparage his goodnesse. But to what purpose is it, that these things are equally revealed to both, (as the light is equally revealed to all blind men,) if they be not fully revealed to either? The sense of this Scripture, Why are they then baptiz'd for the dead? and this, He shall bee saved, yet so as by fire, and a thousand others, is equally revealed to you and to another interpreter, that is certainly to neither. Hee now conceiues one sense of them, and you another; and would it not be an excellent inference, if I should conclude now as you doe; That you forsake the formall motiue of faith, which is Gods revelation, and consequently loose all faith and unity therein? So likewise the Iesuites and Dominicans, the Franciscans and Dominicans disagree about things equa [...]ly revealed by Almighty God: and seeing they doe so, I beseech you let me understand, why this reason will not exclude them as well as Protestants from all faith and unity therein? Thus you haue fayl'd of your undertaking in your first part of your Title, and that is a very ill omen, especially in points of so streight mutuall dependance, that we shall haue but slender performance in your second assumpt. Which is, That the Church is infallible in all her Definitions, whether concerning points Fundamentall, or not Fundamentall.

25 Ad § 7. & 8. The Reasons in these two paragraphs, as they were alleaged before, so they were before answered, and thither I remit the Reader.

26 Ad §. 9. 10. 11. I grant that the Church cannot without damnable sinne, either deny any thing to be true, which she knowes to be Gods truth: or propose any thing as his truth, which she knowes not to be so. But that she may not doe this by ignorance or mistake, and so without damnable sinne, that you should haue proved, but haue not. But, say you this excuse cannot serue: for if the Church bee assisted onely for points fundamentall, she cannot but know that she may erre in points not fundamentall. Ans. It does not follow, unlesse you suppose, that the Church knowes that she is assisted no farther. But if, being assisted only so farre, she yet did conceaue by errour her assistance absolute and unlimited, or if knowing her assistance restrained to fundamentalls, she yet conceived by errour, that she should bee guarded, from proposing any thing but what was fundamentall, then the consequence is apparently false. But at least she cannot be certain that she cannot erre, and therefore cannot be excus'd from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing points not fundamentall, to be believed by Christians as matters of faith. Ans. Neither is this deduction worth any thing; unlesse it bee [Page] understood of such unfundamentall points, as shee is not warranted to propose by evident Text of Scripture. Indeed if she propose such, as matters of faith certainly true, she may well be questioned, Quo Warranto? Shee builds without a foundation, and saies thus saith the Lord, when the Lord doth not say so: which cannot be excus'd from rashnesse and high presumption; such a presumption, as an Embassadour should commit, who should say in his Masters name that for which hee hath no commission. Of the same nature, I say, but of a higher straine: as much as the King of Heaven, is greater then any earthly King. But though she may erre in some points not fundamentall, yet may shee haue certainty enough in proposing others; as for example, these, That Abraham begat Isaac, that S. Paul had a Cloak, that Timothy was sick; because these▪ though not Fundamentall. i. e. no essentiall parts of Christianity, yet are evidently, and undeniably set down in Scripture, and consequently, may be without all rashnes propos'd by the Church as certaine divine Revelations. Neither is your Argument concluding when you say, If in such things she may be deceived, she must be alwaies uncertain of all such things. For my sense may sometimes possibly deceiue me, yet I am certain enough that I see what I see, and feel what I feel. Our Iudges are not infallible in their judgements, yet are they certain enough, that they judge aright, and that they proceed according to the evidence that is given, when they condemne a theef, or a murtherer to the gallows. A Traveller is not alwaies certain of his way, but often mistaken: and does it therefore follow that hee can haue no assurance that Charing crosse is his right way from the Temple to White-Hall? The ground of your errour here, is your not distinguishing, between Actuall certainty and Absolute infallibility. Geometricians are not infallible in their own science: yet they are very certain of those things, which they see demonstrated. And Carpenters are not infallible, yet certain of the straightnesse of those things which agree with their rule and square. So though the Church be not infallibly certain, that in all her Definitions, whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters, she shall proceed according to her Rule, yet being certain of the infallibility of her rule, and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it, she may be certaine of the Truth of some particular decrees, and yet not certain that shee shall never decree but what is true.

27 Ad § 12. But if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall, she may erre in proposing Scripture, and so we cannot bee assur'd whether she haue not been deceived already. The Church may erre in her Proposition or custody of the Canon of Scripture, if you understand by the Church, any present Church of one denomination, fo [...] example, the Roman, the Greek, or so. Yet haue we sufficient certainty of Scripture, not from the bare testimony of any present Church, but from Vniversall Tradition, of which the testimony of any present Church is but a little part. So that here you fall into the Fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. For in effect this is the sense of your Argument: Vnlesse the Church be infallible, we can haue no certainty of [Page] Scripture from the authority of the Church: Therefore unlesse the Church be infallible, we can have no certainty here of at all. As if a man should say; If the vintage of France miscarry, we can have no wine from France: Therefore if that Vintage miscarry we can have no Wine at all. And for the incorruption of Scripture, I know no other rationall assurance we can have of it, then such as we have of the incorruption of other ancient Bookes, that is, the consent of ancient Copies: such I mean for the kind, though it be farre greater for the degree of it. And if the spirit of God give any man any other assurance hereof, this is not rationall and discursive, but supernaturall and infused. An assurance it may be to himselfe, but no argument to another. As for the infallibility of the Church, it is so farre from being a proofe of the Scriptures incorruption, that no proofe can be pretended for it, but incorrupted places of Scripture: which yet are as subject to corruption as any other, and more likely to have been corrupted (if it had been possible) then any other, and made to speak as they doe, for the advantage of those men, whose ambition it hath been a long time, to bring all under their authority. Now then, if any man should prove the Scriptures uncorrupted, because the Church saies so which is infallible: I would demand again touching this very thing, that there is an infallible Church, seeing it is not of it selfe evident, how shall I be assured of it? And what can he answer, but that the Scripture saies so in these and these places? Hereupon I would aske him, how shall I be assured, that the Scriptures are incorrupted in thse places? seeing it is possible, and not altogether improbable, that these men, which desire to be thought infallible, when they had the government of all things in their own hands, may have altered them for their purpose. If to this he answer again, that the Church is infallible, and therefore cannot doe so, I hope it would be apparent, that he runs round in a circle, and proves the Scriptures incorruption, by the Churches infallibility, and the Churches infallibility by the Scriptures incorruption, and that is in effect the Churches infallibility, by the Churches infallibility, and the Scriptures incorruption by the Scriptures incorruption.

28 Now for your observation, that some Bookes, which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall, have been afterwards received for such. But never any book or syllable defined for Canonicall, was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphall: I demand, touching the first sort, whether they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonicall or not? If not, seeing the whole faith was preached by the Apostles to the Church, and seeing after the Apostles, the Church pretends to no new Revelations, how can it be an Article of faith to believe them Canonicall? And how can you pretend, that your Church which makes this an article of faith, is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a divine truth which is not revealed by God? If they were, how then is the Church an infallible keeper of the Canō of Scripture, which hath suffered some Bookes of Canonicall Scripture, to be lost? & others to loose for a long time their being Canonicall, at [Page] least, the necessity of being so esteemed, and afterwards, as it were by the law of Post liminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalnesse unto them? If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church, the point was sufficiently discussed, and therefore your Churches omission to teach it for some ages, as an article of faith, nay degrading it from the number of articles of faith, and putting it among disputable problems, was surely not very laudable. If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles, and by the Apostles to the Church, then can it be no Revelation, and therefore her presumption in proposing it as such, is inexcusable.

19 And then for the other part of it, that never any book or syllable defined for Canonicall, was afterwards question'd or rejected for Apocryphall: Certainly it is a bold asseveration, but extreamly false. For I demand; The Book of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome, the Epistle of Saint Iames, and to the Heb. were they by the Apostles appoved for Canonicall, or no? If not, with what face dare you approve them, and yet pretend that all your doctrine is Apostolicall? Especially seeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rationall discourse from any other defined by them. If they were approved by them, this I hope was a sufficient definition: and therefore you were best rub your forehead hard, and say, that these Books were never questioned. But if you doe so, then I shall be bold to aske you, what bookes you meant in saying before, Some bookes which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall, have been afterwards received? Then for the book of Macchabes, I hope you will say, it was defin'd for Canonicall before S. Gregories time: and yet he, lib. 19. Moral, c. 13. citing a testimony out of it, prefaceth to it after this manner, Concerning which matter we doe not amisse if we produce a testimony out of Bookes although not Canonicall, yet set forth, for the edification of the Church. For Eleazar in the Book of Machabees. &c. Which if it be not to reject it from being Canonicall, is without question, at least to question it. Moreover, because you are so punctuall, as to talk of words and syllables, I would know whether before Sixtus Quint us his time, your Church had a defined Canon of Scripture, or not? If not, then was your Church surely a most Vigilant keeper of Scripture, that for 1500 yeares had not defined what was Scripture, and what was not. If it had, then I demand, was it that, set forth by Sixtus, or that, set forth by Clement, or a third different from both? If it were that set forth by Sixtus, then is it now condemned by Clement: if that of Clement, it was condemned I say, but sure you will say contradicted and question'd by Sixtus; If different from both, then was it question'd and condemned by both, and still lies under the condemnation. But then lastly, suppose it had been true, That both some Book not known to be Canonicall had been received, and that never any after receiving had been questioned: How had this been a signe that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost? In what mood or figure, would this conclusion follow out of these Premises? Certainly your flying to such poor signes, as these are, is to me a great signe, that you labour with penury of better arguments: [Page] and that, thus to catch at shadowes and bul [...]ushes, is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause.

30 Ad §. 13. We are told here, That the generall promises of Infallibility to the Church, must not be restrained only to points fundamentall: Because then the Apostles words and writings may also be so restrained. The Argument put in forme, and made compleat by supply of the concealed Proposition runs thus;

The Infallibility promised to the present Church of any age, is as absolute and unlimited, as that promised to the Apostles in their Preaching and Writings:

But the Apostles Infallibility is not to be limited to Fundamentalls:

Therefore neither is the Churches Infallibility thus to be limited.

Or thus;

The Apostles Infallibility in their Preaching and writing may be limited to Fundamentalls as well as the Infallibility of the present Church: But that is not to be done: Therefore this also is not to be done.

Now to this Argument, I answere, that if by may be as well, in the major Proposition, be understood, may be as possibly: it is true, but impertinent. If by it we understand, may be as iustly and rightly, It is very pertinent but very false. So that as D. Potter limits the infallibility of the Present Church unto Fundamentalls, so another may limit the Apostles unto them also. He may doe it de facto, but de iure he cannot; that may be done and done lawfully: this also may be done, but not lawfully. That may be done, and if it be done cannot be confuted: This also may be done, but if it be done, may easily be confuted. It is done to our hand in this very Paragraph, by five words taken out of Scripture, All Scripture is divinely inspired. Shew but as much for the Church: Shew where it is written, That all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired; and the Controversy will be at an end. Besides, there is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infallibility, as for the Apostles and Scriptures. For if the Church fall into error, it may be reformed by comparing it with the rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture. But if the Apostles have erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity, to whom shall we have recourse, for the discovering and correcting their error? Again, there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation: and if but wisemen have the ordering of the building, they will make it much a surer thing, that the foundation shall not fail the building, then that the building shall not fall from the foundation. And though the building be to be of Brick or Stone, and perhaps of wood, yet if it may be possibly, they will have a rock for their foundation, whose stability is a much more indubitable thing, then the adherence of the structure to it. Now the Apostles & Prophets, and Canonicall Writers, are the foundation of the Church, according to that of S. Paul, built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets; therefore their stability, in reason [Page] ought to be greater then the Churches, which is built upon them. Again, a dependent Infallibility (especially if the dependance be voluntary) cannot be so certain, as that on which it depends: But the Infallibility of the Church, depends upon the Infallibility of the Apostles, as the streightnesse of the thing regulated, upon the streightnesse of the Rule: and besides this dependance is voluntary, for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule; being nothing else but an aggregation of men, of which every one has free will, and is subject to passions and errour: Therefore the Churches infallibility, is not so certain as that of the Apostles.

31 Lastly, Quid verba audiam, cum fact a videam? If you be so Infallible as the Apostles were, shew it as the Apostles did; They went forth (saith S. Marke) and Preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming their words with Signes following. It is impossible that God should lye, and that the eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood, or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false. The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed, therefore it was intirely true, and in no part either false or uncertain. I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly, as a certain divine Truth, and which had the Atte [...]tation of Divine Miracles. For that the Apostles themselves, even after the sending of the holy Ghost, were, and through inadvertence or prejudice, continued for a time in an errour, repugnant to a revealed Truth, it is as I have already noted unanswerably evident, from the story of the Acts of the Apostles. For notwithstanding our Saviours expresse warrant & injunction, to goe and Preach to all Nations, yet untill S. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven, and by the conversion of Cornelius, both he and the rest of the Church, held it unlawfull for them, to goe or preach the Gospell to any but the Iewes.

32 And for those things which they professe to deliver as the dictates of humane reason and prudence, and not as divine Revelations, why we should take them to be divine revelations, I see no reason; nor how we can doe so, and not contradict the Apostles, and God himselfe. Therefore when S. Paul saies, in the 1. Epist. to the Cor. 7. 12. To the rest speak I, not the Lord; And again, concerning Virgins I have no commandement of the Lord, but I deliver my Iudgement: If we will pretend, that the Lord did certainly speak, what S. Paul spake, and that his judgement was Gods commandement, shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul, and that spirit by which he wrote? which moved him to write, as in other places divine Revelations, which he certainly knew to be such, so in this place, his own judgement, touching some things which God had not particularly revealed unto him. And if D. Potter did speak to this purpose (that the Apostles were Infallible only in these things which they spake of certain knowledge) I cannot see what danger there were in saying so. Yet the truth is, you wrong D. Potter. It is not he, but D. Stapleton in him, that speakes the words you cavill at. D. Stapleton▪ saith he, p. 140. is full and punctuall to this purpose: then sets down the effect of his discourse l. 8. Princ. Doct. 4. c. [Page] 15. and in that, the words you cavill at, and then, p. 150. he shuts up this paragraph with these words, thus D. Stapleton. So that if either the Doctrine, or the reason be not good, D. Stapleton, not D. Potter is to answer for it.

33 Neither doe D. Potter's ensuing words limit the Apostles infalbilitie to truths absolutely necessary to salvation, if you read them with any candor: for it is evident, he grants the Church infallible in Truths absolutely necessary; and as evident, that he ascribes to the Apostles, the spirits guidance, and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner then any since them. From whence, thus I argue: Hee that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentals, and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit, in a more high and absolute manner then to any since them, limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentals; But D. Potter grants to the Church such a limited infallibility, and ascribes to the Apostles, The Spirits infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner; therefore hee limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentals. I once knew a man out of curtesie, help a lame dog over a stile, and he for requitall bit him by the fingers: Iust so you serue D. Potter. He out of curtesie grants you, that those words, The Spirit shall lead you into all Truth, and shall abide with you ever, though in their high and most absolute sense, they agree only to the Apostles, yet in a conditionall, limited, moderate, secundary sense, they may be understood of the Church. But saies, that if they be understood of the Church, All, must not be simply all, No, nor so large an All, as the Apostles All, but all necessary to salvation. And you to requite his curtesie, in granting you thus much cavill at him, as if hee had prescribed these bounds to the Apostles also, as well as the present Church. Whereas, he hath explained himselfe to the contrary, both in the clause fore-mentioned, The Apostles, who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner then any since them, and in these words ensuing, whereof the Church is simply ignorant, and againe, w [...]erewith the Church is not acquainted. But most clearly in those which being most incompatible to the Apostles, you with an &c, I cannot but feare craftily, haue conceal'd: How many obscure Texts of Scripture which she understands not? How many Schoole Questions which she hath not, happily cannot determine? And for matters of fact it is apparent that the Church may erre; and then concludes, That we must understand by, All truths, not simply All, But (if you conceiue the words as spoken of the Church) All Truth absolutely necessary to salvation. And yet beyond all this, the negative part of his answer, agrees very well to the Apostles themselues, for that All which they were led into, was not simply All, otherwise S. Paul erred in saying, we know in part; but such an All, as was requisite to make them the Churches Foundations. Now such they could not be without freedome from errour in all those things which they delivered constantly, as certaine revealed Truths. For if we once suppose they may haue erred in some things of this nature, it will be utterly undiscernable what they haue erred in, & what they haue not. Whereas though wee suppose the Church hath [Page] err'd in somethings, yet we haue meanes to know, what she hath err'd in, and what she hath not. I mean by comparing the Doctrine of the present Church, with the doctrine of the Primitiue Church delivered in Scripture. But then last of all, suppose the Doctor had said (which I know he never intended) that this promise in this place made to the Apostles, was to bee understood only of a Truth absolutely necessary to salvation; Is it consequent that he makes their Preaching and Writing not Infallible in points not fundamentall? Doe you not blush for shame at this Sophistry? The Dr saies, no more was promised in this place; Therefore he saies no more was promised! Are there not other places besides this? And may not that be promised in other places, which is not promised in this?

34 But if the Apostles were Infallible, in all things propos'd by them as Divine Truths, the like must be affirm'd of the Church, because Doctor Potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the Church. True, hee does so, but not in so absolute a manner. Now what is oppos'd to Absolute, but limited, or restrained? To the Apostles then it was made, & to them only, yet the words are true of the Church. And this very promise might haue been made to it, though here it is not. They agree to the Apostles in a higher, to the Church in a lower sense: to the Apostles in a more absolute, to the Church in a more limited sense. To the Apostles absolutely, for the Churches direction: to the Church Conditionally by adherence to that direction, and so farre as she doth adhere to it. In a word, the Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit, efficaciter: The Church is led also into all truth by the Apostles writings, sufficienter. So that the Apostles and the Church, may be fitly compared to the Starre and the Wisemen. The Starre was directed by the finger of God, and could not but goe right to the place where Christ was: But the Wise men were led by the Starre to Christ; led by it, I say, not efficaciter, or irresistibiliter, but sufficienter, so that if they would they might follow it, if they would not, they might choose. So was it between the Apostles writing Scriptures, & the Church. They in their writing were Infallibly assisted to propose nothing as a divine Truth, but what was so. The Church is also led into all Truth, but it is by the intervening of the Apostles writings: But it is, as the Wisemen were led by the Starre, or as a Traveller is directed by a Mercuriall statue, or as a Pilot by his Card and Compasse▪ led sufficiently, but not irresistibly: led so that she may follow, not so that she must. For seeing the Church is a society of men, whereof every one (according to the Doctrine of the Romish Church) hath freewill in believing; it follows, that the whole aggregate has freewill in believing. And if any man say that at least it is morally impossible, that of so many w [...]ereof all may belieue aright, not any should doe so: I answer, It is true, if they did all giue themselues any liberty of judgement. But if all (as the case is here) captivate their understandings to one of them, all are as likely to erre as that one. And he more likely to erre then any other, because hee may erre and thinks he cannot, & because he conceiues the Spirit absolutly promis'd to the succession of Bishops, of which many haue been notoriously [Page] and confessedly wicked men, Men of the World: whereas this Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receiue, because he seeth him not, neither knoweth him. Besides, let us suppose, that neither in this nor in any other place, God had promised any more unto them, but to lead them into all Truth, necessary for their own & other mens salvation: Does it therefore follow that they were de facto, led no farther? God indeed is oblig'd by his Veracity to doe all that hee has promised, but is there any thing that binds him to doe no more? May not he be better then his word, but you will quarrell at him? May not his Bounty exceed his Promise? And may not we haue certainty enough that oftimes it does so? God did not promise to Solomon, in his vision at Gibeon, any more then what he askt, which was wisdome to govern his people, and that he gaue him. But yet I hope you will not deny that we haue certainty enough that he gaue him something which neither God had promised, nor he had asked. If you doe, you contradict God himselfe: For Behold (saith God) because thou hast asked this thing, I haue done according to thy word. Loe, I haue given thee a Wise and an Vnderstanding heart, so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee. And I haue also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches and honour, so that there shall not be any among the Kings like unto thee in all thy dayes. God, for ought appeares, never oblig'd himselfe by promise, to shew S. Paul those Vnspeakable mysteries, which in the third Heaven he shewed unto him: and yet I hope we haue certainty enough, that he did so. God promises to those that seek his Kingdome and the righteousnesse thereof, that all things necessary shall be added vnto them, and in rigour by his promise he is obliged to doe no more, and if hee giue them necessaries he hath discharged his obligation: Shall we therefore be so injurious to his bounty towards us, as to say it is determined by the narrow bounds of meere necessity? So though God had obliged himselfe by promise, to giue his Apostles infallibility onely in things necessary to salvation; neverthelesse it is utterly inconsequent, that he gaue them no more, then by the rigour of his promise he was engaged to doe; or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance that he gaue them: especially when he himselfe, both by his word, and by his works hath assured us, that he did assist them farther. You see by this time that your chaine of feareful consequences (as you call them) is turned to a rope of sand, and may easily bee avoided without any flying to your imaginary infallibility of the Church in all her proposalls.

35 Ad § 14. & 15. Doubting of a Book receaved for Canonicall, may signifie, either doubting whether it be Canonicall; or supposing it to be Canonicall, whether it be True. If the former sense were yours, I must then againe distinguish of the terme, received; For it may signify, either received by some particular Church, or by the present Church Vniversall, or the Church of all Ages. If you meant the word in either of the former senses, that which you say is not t [...]e. A man may justly and reasonably doubt of some Texts, or some Book received by some [Page] particular Church, or by the Vniversall Church of this present time, whether it be Canonicall or no: and yet haue just reason to belieue, & no reason to doubt, but that other Books are Canonicall. As Eusebius perhaps, had reason to doubt of the Epistle of S. Iames; the Church of Rome in Hierom's time of the Epistle to the Hebr. And yet they did not doubt of all the Books of the Canon, nor had reason to doe so. If by Received, you meant, Received by the Church of all Ages, I grant he that doubts of any one such Book, has as much reason to doubt of all. But yet here again I tell you, that it is possible a man may doubt of one such book, and yet not of all: because it is possible men may doe not according to reason. If you meant your words in the latter sense; then I confesse he that belieues such a Book to be Canonicall, i. e. the word of God, and yet (to make an impossible supposition) believes it not to be true, if he will doe according to reason, must doubt of all the rest, and belieue none. For there being no greater reason to believe any thing true, then because God hath said it, nor no other reason to belieue the Scripture to be true, but only because it is Gods word; hee that doubts of the Truth of any thing said by God, hath as much reason to belieue nothing that he saies: and therefore if he will doe according to reason, neither must nor can believe any thing he saies. And upon this ground you conclude rightly, that the infallibility of true Scripture must be Vniversall, and not confin'd to points fundamentall.

36 And this Reason why we should not refuse to beleiue any part of Scripture, upon pretence that the matter of it is not Fundamentall, you confesse to be convincing. But the same reason you say is as convincing for the Vniversall infallibility of the Church. For (say you) unlesse shee be Infallible in all things, we cannot belieue her in any one. But by this reason your Proselytes, knowing you are not Infallible in all things, must not, nor cannot belieue you in any thing. Nay you your selfe must not belieue your selfe in any thing, because you know that you are not Infallible in all things. Indeed if you had said wee could not rationally belieue her for her own sake, and upon her own word and authority in any thing, I should willingly grant the consequence. For an authority subject to errour can be no firm or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing: and if it were in any thing, then this authority being one & the same in all proposalls, I should haue the same reason to belieue all, that I haue to belieue one, and therefore must either doe unreasonably, in believing any one thing, upon the sole warrant of this authority, or unreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it. Let this therefore be granted; and what will come of it? Why then, you say, we cannot belieue her in propounding Canonicall Books. If you mean still (as you must doe unlesse you play the Sophister) not upon her own Authority, I grant it: For we belieue Canonicall Books not upon the Authority of the present Church, but upon Vniversall Tradition. If you mean, Not at all, and that with reason we cannot believe these Books to be Canonicall, which the Church proposes, I deny it. There is no more consequence i [...] [...]he Argument then in this, The Divell is not infallible, therefore if he saies there is one God, I cannot believe him. [Page] No Geometritian is Infallible in all things, therefore not in these things which the domonstrates. M. Knot is not Infallible in all things, therefore he may not believe that he wrote a Book, entituled Charity Maintained.

37 But though the reply be good, Protestants cannot make use of it, with any good coherence to this distinction, and some other Doctrine of theirs: because they pretend to be able to tell, what points are Fundamentall and what not; and therefore though they should believe Scripture erroneous in others, yet they might be sure it err'd not in these. To this I answer. That if without dependance on Scripture, they did know what were Fundamentall, and what not, they might possibly believe the Scripture true in Fundamentalls, and erroneous in other things. But seeing they ground their beliefe, that such and such things only are Fundamentalls, only upon Scripture, and goe about to prove their assertion true, only by Scripture, then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutely and in all things, or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them, to believe this thing, that these only points are Fundamentall. For who would not laugh at them if they should argue thus, The Scripture is true in something; the Scripture saies that these points only are Fundamentall, therefore this is true, that these only are so! For every Fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meer particulars nothing can be certainly concluded. But on the other side, this reason is firme, and demonstrative, The Scripture is true in all things; But the Scripture saies, that these only points are the Fundamentalls of Christian Religion, therefore it is true, that these only are so. So that the knowledge of Fundamentalls being it selfe drawen from Scripture, is so farre from warranting us to believe the Scripture is, or may be in part True, and in part False; that it selfe can have no foundation, but the Vniversall truth of Scripture. For to be a Fundamentall truth, presupposes to be a truth; now I cannot know any Doctrine to be a divine and supernaturall Truth, on a true part of Christianity, but only because the Scripture saies so, which is all true: Therefore, much more can I not know it, to be a Fundamentall truth.

33 Ad §. 16. To this Parag. I answer. Though the Church being not Infallible, I cannot believe her in every thing she saies, yet I can and must believe her in every thing she proves, either by Scripture, Reason, or universall Tradition, be it Fundamentall, or be it not Fundamentall. This you say, we cannot, in points not Fundamentall, because in such we believe she may erre. But this I know, we can: because though she may erre in some things, yet she does not erre in what she proves, though it be not Fundamentall. Again you say, we cannot doe it in Fundamentalls, because we must know what points be Fundamentall, before we goe to learn of her. Not so, but I must learn of the Church, or of some part of the Church, or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall. For how can I come to know, that there was such a man as Christ, that he taught such Doctrine, that he and his Apostles did such miracles in confirmation of it, that [Page] the Scripture is Gods word, unlesse I be taught it. So then the Church is, though not a certain Foundation and proof of my Faith, yet a necessary introduction to it.

39 But the Churches infallible direction, extending only to Fundamentalls, unlesse I know them before I goe to learn of her, I may be rather deluded then instructed by her. The reason and connexion of this consequence, I fear neither I nor you doe well understand. And besides I must tell you, you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you, that the Church is an infallible direction in Fundamentalls. For if she were so, then must we not only learn Fundamentalls of her, but also learn of her what is fundamentall, and take all for fundamentall which she delivers to be such. In the performance whereof, if I knew any one Church to be infallible, I would quickly be of that Church. But good Sir, you must needs doe us this favour, to be so acute, as to distinguish between, being infallible in fundamentalls, and being an infallible guide in fundamentalls. That she shall be alwaies a Church infallible in fundamentalls, we easily grant; for it comes to no more but this, that there shall be alwaies a Church. But that there shall be alwaies such a Church, which is an infallible Guide in fundamentalls, this we deny. For this cannot be without setling a known infallibility in some one known society of Christians, (as the Greek or the Roman, or some other Church) by adhering to which Guide, men might be guided to believe aright in all Fundamentalls. A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to others, might yet in himselfe, and to himselfe be infallible, but he could not be a Guide to others. A man or a Church that were invisible, so that none could know how to repaire to it for direction, could not be an infallible guide, and yet he might be in himselfe infallible. You see then there is a wide difference between these two, and therefore I must beseech you not to confound them, nor to take the one for the other.

40 But they that know what points are Fundamentall, otherwise then by the Churches authority, learn not of the Church: Yes, they may learn of the Church, that the Scripture is the word of God, and from the Scripture, that such points are fundamentall, others are not so; and consequently learn, even of the Church, even of your Church, that all is not fundamentall, nay all is not true, which the Church teacheth to be so. Neither doe I see what hinders, but a man may learn of a Church, how to confure the errors of that Church which taught him: as well as of my Master in Physick, or the Mathematicks, I may learn those rules and principles, by which I may confute my Masters erroneous conclusions.

41 But you aske, If the Church be not an infallible teacher, why are we commanded to hear, to seek, to obey the Church? I Answer. For commands to seek the Church, I have not yet met with any, and I believe you, if you were to shew them, would be your selfe to seek. But yet if you could produce some such, we might seek the Church to many good purposes, without supposing her a Guide infallible. And then for hearing and obeying the Church, I would fain know, whether none may [Page] be heard and obeyed, but those that are infallible? Whether particular Churches, Governors, Pastors, Parents, be not to be heard and obeyed? Or whether all these be Infallible? I wonder you will thrust upon us so often, these worne out-objections, without taking notice of their Answers.

42 Your Argument from S. Austine's first place, is a fallacy, Adicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. If the whole Church practise any of these things (matters of order and decency, for such only there he speaks of,) to dispute whether that ought to be done, is insolent madnesse. And from hence you inferre, If the whole Church practise any thing, to dispute whether it ought to be done, is insolent madnesse. As if there were no difference between any thing, and any of these things? Or as if I might not esteem it pride and folly, to contradict and disturbe the Church for matter of order, pertaining to the time and place, and other circumstances of Gods worship; and yet account it neither pride nor folly, to goe about to reforme some errors, which the Church hath suffered to come in, and to vitiate the very substance of Gods worship. It was a practise of the whole Church in S. Austines time, and esteem'd an Apostolique Tradition, even by Saint Austine himself, That the Eucharist should be administred to infants: Tell me Sir, I beseech you; Had it been insolent madnesse to dispute against this practise, or had it not? If it had, how insolent and mad are yo [...], that have not only disputed against it, but utterly abolished it? If it had not, then as I say, you must understand S. Austines words, not simply of all things, but (as indeed he himselfe restrained them) of these things, of matter of Order, Decency, and Vniformity.

43 In the next place, you tell us out of him, That that which has been alwaies kept, is most rightly esteem'd to come from the Apostles: Very right, and what then? Therefore the Church cannot erre in defining of Controversies. Sir I beseech you, when you write again, doe us the favour to write nothing but syllogismes, for I find it still an extream trouble, to find out the concealed propositions, which are to connect the parts of your enthymemes. As now for example, I professe unto you, I am at my wits end, and have done my best endeavour, to find some glue, or sodder, or cement, or chaine, or thred, or anything to tye this antecedent and this consequent together, and at length am inforced to give it over, and cannot doe it.

44 But the Doctrines, that Infants are to be baptized, and those that are baptized by Heretiques, are not to be re-baptized, are neither of them to be proved by Scripture: And yet according to S. Austine they are true Doctrines, and we may be certain of them upon the Authority of the Church, which we could not be, unless the Church were Infallible; therefore the Church is infallible. I answer, that there is no repugnance but we may be certain enough, of the Vniversall Traditions of the ancient Church, such as in S. Austin's account, these were which here are spoken of, and yet not be certain enough, of the definitions of the present Church. Vnlesse you can shew (which I am sure you can never doe) that the Infallibility of the present Church, was alwaies a Tradition [Page] of the ancient Church. Now your main businesse is to prove the present Church infallible, not so much in consigning ancient Traditions, as in defining emergent controversies. Again, it followes not, because the Churches Authority, is warrant enough for us to believe some doctrine, touching which the Scripture is silent, therefore it is Warrant enough to believe these, to which the Scripture seemes repugnant. Now the Doctrines which S. Austine received upon the Churches Authority, were of the first sort; the Doctrines for which we deny your Churches infallibility are of the second. And therefore though the Churches authority, might be strong enough, to bear the weight which S. Austine laid upon it, yet happily if may not be strong enough, to bear that which you lay upon it. Though it may support some Doctrines without Scripture, yet surely not against it. And last of all, to deal ingeniously with you and the World, I am not such an Idolater of S. Austine, as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he saies it, nor that all his sentences are oracles; and particularly in this thing, that whatsoever was practised or held by the Vniversall Church of his time, must needs have come from the Apostles. Though considering the neerenesse of his time to the Apostles, I think it a good probable way, and therefore am apt enough to follow it, when I see no reason to the contrary. Yet I professe I must have better satisfaction, before I can induce my selfe to hold it certain and infallible. And this, not because Popery would come in at this dore, as some have vainly feared, but because by the Church Vniversall of some time, and the Church Vniversall of other times, I see plain contradictions held and practised. Both which could not come from the Apostles, for then the Apostles had been teachers of falshood. And therefore the belief or practise of the present Vniversall Church, can be no infallible proof, that the Doctrine so beleived, or the custome so practised came from the Apostles. I instance in the doctrine of the Millenaries, and the Eucharists necessity for infants: both which Doctrines have been taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some ages, without any opposition from any of their Contemporaries: and were delivered by them, not as Doctors, but as Witnesses, not as their own opinions, but as Apostolike Traditions. And therefore measuring the doctrine of the Church by all the Rules which Cardinall Perron gives us for that purpose, both these Doctrines must be acknowledged to have been the doctrines of the Ancient Church of some age, or ages; And that the contrary▪ Doctrines were Catholique at some other time, I believe you will not think it needfull for me to prove. So that either I must say, the Apostles were fountaines of contradictious doctrines, or that being the Vniversall Doctrine of the present Church, is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles. Besides, who can warrant us, that the Vniversall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolicall? seeing in that famous place for Traditions, in Tertullian, De Corona Militis c. 3. & 4. Where having recounted sundry unwritten Traditions then observed by Christ [...]ans, many whereof, by the way, (notwithstanding the Councell of Trents profession, to receive them and the written word with like affection of Piety) are now rejected and neglected by the Church of Rome: For example Immersion in Baptism; Tasting a mixture of milke and honey presently after; Abstaining from Bathes for a weeke after; Accounting it an impiety to [...]ray kneeling on the Lords day, or between Easter and Pentecost: I say, having reckoned up these and other Traditions in the 3. chapt. He addes another in the fourth, of the Veiling of Women; And then addes, Since I find no law for this, it followes that Tradition must have given this observation to custome, which shall gaine in time, Apostolique authority by the interpretation of the reason it. By these examples therefore it is declared, that the observing of unwritten Tradition, being confirmed by custome, may bee defended. The perseverance of the observation being a good testimo [...]y of the goodnesse of the Tradition. Now custome even in civill affaires where a Law is wanting, passes for a law. Neither is it materiall whether it be grounded on Scripture, or reason; seeing reason is commend [...]tion enough for a law. Moreover if law be grounded on reason, all that must be law, which is so grounded—A quocanq productum—Whosoever is the producer of it. Doe ye thinke it is not lawfull, Omni fideli, for every faithfull man to conceive and constitute? Provided he constitute only what is not repugnant to Gods will, what is conducible for discipline and available to salvation? seeing the Lord sayes, why even of our selves, judge yee nor what is right? And a little after, This reason now demand▪ saving the respect of the Tradition,—A quocun (que) Traditore ce [...]se [...]ur, nec auctorem respiciens sed Auctoritatem: From whatsoever Tradition it comes; neither regard the Author but the Authority. Quicun (que) traditor, any author whatsoever [Page] is founder good enough for them. And who can secure us, that Humane inventions, and such as came à quocun (que) Traditore, might not in a short time, gain the reputation of Apostolique! Seeing the direction then was,Hier. Precepta ma [...]orum Apostolicas Traditiones quis (que) existimat.

45 No lesse you say is S. Chrysost. for the infallible Traditions of the Church. But you were to prove the Church infallible, not in her Traditions (which we willingly grant, if they be as universall as the Tradition of the undoubted books of Scripture is, to be as infallible as the Scripture is; for neither does being written make the word of God the more infallible, nor being unwritten make it the lesse infallible:) Not therefore in her universall Traditions, were you to prove the Church infallible, but in all her Decrees and definitions of Controversies. To this point when you speak you shall have an answer, but hitherto you doe but wander.

46 But let us see what S. Chrysostome saies, They (the Apostles) delivered not all things in writing (who denies it?) but many things also without writing, (who doubts of it?) and these also are worthy of belief. Yes, if we knew what they were. But many things are worthy of belief, which are not necessary to be believed: As that Iulius Caesar was Emperour of Rome is a thing worthy of belief, being so well testified as it is, but yet it is not necessary to be believed; a man may be saved without it. Those many workes which our Saviour did (which S. Iohn supposes, would not have been contained in a world of bookes) if they had been written, or if God by some other meanes had preserv'd the knowledge of them, had been as worthy to be believed, and as necessary as those that are written. But to shew you how much a more faith full keeper Records are then report, those few that were written are preserved & believed, those infinitly more that were not written, are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men. And seeing God in his providence, hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them, he hath freed us from the obligation of believing them: for every obligation ceases, when it becomes impossible. Who can doubt but the Primitive Christians, to whom the Epistles of the Apostles were written, either of themselves understood, or were instructed by the Apostles, touching the sense of the obscure places of them? These Traditive interpretations, had they been written and dispersed, as the Scriptures were, had without question been preserved, as the Scriptures are. But to shew how excellent a keeper of the Tradition, the Church of Rome hath been, or even the Catholique Church▪ for [Page] want of writing they are all lost, nay were all lost, within a few ages after Christ. So that if we consult the ancient Interpreters, we shall hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them. Cardinall Perron, in his discourse of Traditions, having alleaged this place for them, Hold the Traditions &c. tells us we must not answer that S. Paul speaks here, only of such Traditions, which (though not in this Epist. to the Thess.) yet were afterwards written, and in other bookes of Scripture: because it is upon occasion of Tradition (touching the cause of the hinderance of the comming of Antichrist,) which was never written, that he laies this iniunction upon them, to hold the Traditions. Well, let us grant this Argument good, and concluding; and that the Church of the Thessalonians, or the Catholique Church (for what S. Paul writ to one Church he writ to all,) were to hold some unwritten Traditions, and among the rest, what was the cause of the hinderance of the comming of Antichrist. But what if they did not performe their duty in this point, but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church? Shall we not conclude, that seeing God would not suffer any thing necessary to salvation to be lost, and he has suffered this Tradition to be lost, therefore the knowledge or belief of it, though it were a profitable thing, yet it was not necessary? I hope you will not challenge such authority over us, as to oblige us to impossibilities, to doe that which you cannot doe your selves. It is therefore requisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed, before you require obedience unto it. Are you able then to instruct us so well; as to be fit to say unto us, Now ye know what withholdeth? Or doe you your selves know that ye may instruct us? Can yee, or dare you say, this or this was this hindrance which S. Paul here meant, and all men under pain of damnatiō are to believe it? Or if you cannot, (as I am certain you cannot) goe then, & vaunt your Church, for the only Watchfull, Faithfull, Infallible keeper of the Apostles Traditions; when here this very Tradition, which here in particular was deposited with the Thessalonians and the Primitive Church, you have utterly lost it, so that there is no footstep or print of it remaining, which with Divine faith we may rely upon. Blessed therefore be the goodnesse of God, who seeing that what was not written, was in such danger to be lost, took order, that what was necessary should be written! Saint Chrysostomes counsell therefore, of accounting the Churches Traditions worthy of belief, we are willing to obey: And if you can of any thing make it appear, that it is Tradition, we will seek no farther. But this we say withall, that we are perswaded you cannot make this appear in any thing, but only the Canon of Scripture, and that there is nothing now extant, and to be known by us, which can put in so good plea, to be the unwritten word of God, as the unquestioned Books of Canonicall Scripture, to be the written word of God.

47 You conclude this Parag. with a sentence of S. Austin's who saies, The Church doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor doe these things which are against Faith or good life: and from hence you conclude, that it never hath done so, nor ever can doe so. But though the argum [...] [Page] hold in Logick à non posse, ad non esse, yet I never heard, that it would hold back again, à no nesse, ad non posse. The Church cannot doe this, therefore it does it not, followes with good consequence: but the Church does not this, therefore it shall never doe it, nor can never doe it, this I believe will hardly follow. In the Epistle next before to the same Ianuarius, writing of the same matter, he hath these words, It remaines that the things you enquire of, must be of that third kind of things, which are different in divers places. Let every one therefore doe, that which he findes done in the Church to which he comes, for none of them is against Faith or good manners. And why doe you not inferre from hence, that no particular Church can bring up any Custome that is against faith or good manners? Certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former. If a man say of the Church of England, (what S. Austine of the Church) that she neither approves, nor dissembles, nor does any thing against faith or good manners, would you collect presently, that this man did either make or think the Church of England infallible? Furthermore, it is observable out of this, and the former Epistle, that this Church which did not (as S. Austine according to you, thought) approve or dissemble, or doe any thing against faith or good life, did yet tolerate and dissemble vain superstitions, and humane presumptions, and suffer all places to be full of them, and to be exacted, as, nay more severely then the commandements of God himselfe. This S. Austine himselfe professeth in this very Epistle. This (saith he) I doe infinitely grieve at, that many most wholsome precepts of the divine Scripture, are little regarded; and in the mean time, all is so full of so many presumptions, that he is more grievously found fault with, who during his octaves, toucheth the earth with his naked foot, then he that shall bury his soul in drunkennesse. Of these he saies, that they were neither contained in Scripture, decreed by Councells, nor corroborated by the Custome of the Vniversall Church. And though not against faith, yet unprofitable burdens of Christian liberty; which made the condition of the Iewes more tolerable then that of Christians. And therefore he professes of them, Approbare non possum, I cannot approve them. And ubi facult as tribuitur, resecanda existimo, I think they are to be cut off, wheresoever we have power. Yet so deeply were they rooted, and spread so farre, through the indiscreet devotion of the people, alwaies more prone to superstition then true piety, and through the connivence of the Governors, who should have strangled them at their birth, that himselfe, though he grieved at them, and could not allow them, yet for fear of offence he durst not speak against them, multa hujusmodi propter nonnu [...]arū vel sanctarū vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare no [...] audeo. Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons, or provoking those that are turbulent, I dare not freely d [...]sallow. Nay, the Catholique Church it selfe, did see and dissemble, and tolerate them; for these are the things of which he presently saies after, the Church of God (and you will have him speak of the true Catholique Church) placed between Chaffe & Tares, tolerates many things. Which [Page] was directly against the command of the holy spirit, given the Church by S. Paul; To stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made her free, and not to suffer her selfe to be brought in bondage to these servile burdens. Our Saviour tels the Scribes and Pharises, that in vain they worshipped God, teaching for Doctrines mens Commandements: For that laying aside the Commandments of God, they held the Traditions of men, as the washing of pots, and cups, and many other such like things. Certainly that which S. Austine complaines of, as the generall fault of Christians of his time, was paralell to this: Multa (saith he) quae in divinis libris saluberrima praecepta sunt, minus curantur; This I suppose I may very well render in our Saviours words, The commandements of God are laid aside; and then; tam multis presumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia, all things, or all places, are so full of so many presumptions, and those exacted with such severity, nay with Tyranny, that he was more severely censur'd, who in the time of his Octaves touched the earth with his naked feet, then hee which dr [...]wned and buried his soul in drink. Certainly, if this be not to teach for Doctrines mens Commandements, I know not what is. And therefore these superstitious Christians might be said, to worship God in vain, as well as Scribes and Phraises. And yet great variety of superstitions of this kind, were then already spread over the Church, being different in divers places. This is plain from these words of S. Austin of them, diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur; and apparent, because the stream of them was grown so violent, that he durst not opopose it, liberiùs improbare non aude [...], I dare not freely speak against them. So that to say, the Catholique Church tolerated all this, and for fear of offence, durst not abrogate or condemne it, is to say (if we judge rightly of it) that the Church with silence and connivence generally tolerated Christians to worship God in vain. Now how this tolerating of Vniversall superstition in the Church, can consist with the assistance and direction of Gods omnipotent spirit to guard it from superstition, & with the accomplishment of that pretended prophecy of the Church, I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Ierusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night; besides how these superstitions being thus noutished, cherished, and strengthened by the practise of the most, and urged with great violence upon others as the commandements of God, and but fearfully opposed or contradicted by any, might in time take such deepe roote, and spread their branches so farre, as to passe for universall Customes of the Church, he that does not see, sees nothing. Especially, considering the catching and contagious nature of this sinne, and how fast ill weeds spread, and how true and experimented that rule is of the Historian, Exempla non consistunt ubi incipiunt, sed quamlib [...]t in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem. Nay that some such superstition had not already even in S. Austins time, prevailed so farre, as to be Cons [...]etudine universae Ecclesiae roboratum, who can doubt that considers, that the practise of Communicating Infants, had even then got the credit, and authority, not only of an uniuersall [Page] Custome, but also of an Apostolique Tradition.

48 But (you will say) notwithstanding all this, S. Austin here warrants us, that the Church can never either approue or dissemble or practise any thing against faith or goodlife, and so long you may rest securely upon it. Yea, but the same S. Austine tels us in the same place, that the Church may tolerate humane presumptions, and vain superstitions, and those urg'd more severely then the Commandements of God: And whether superstition be a sinne or no, I appeal to our Saviours words before cited, and to the consent of your Schoolmen. Besides if we consider it rightly, we shall finde, that the Church is not truly said only to tolerate these things, but rather, that a part and farre the lesser, tolerated and dissembled them in silence, and a part, & a farre greater publiquely vowed and practis'd them, and urg'd them upon others with great violence, and that continued still a part of the Church. Now why the whole Church might not continue the Church, and yet doe so, as well as a part of the Church might continue a part of it, and yet doe so, I desire you to inform me.

49 But now after all this adoe, what if S. Austine saies not this which is pretended of the Church, viz. That she neither approues, nor dissembles, nor practises any thing against Faith or good life, but onely of good men in the Church? Certainly, though some Copies read as you would haue it, yet you should not haue dissembled, that others read the place otherwise. viz. Ecclesia multa tolerat, & tamen quae sunt contra Fidem & bonam vitam, nec bonus approbat, &c. The Church tolerates many things; and yet what is against faith or good life, a good man will neither approue, nor dissemble, nor practise.

50 Ad § 17. That Abraham begat Isaac, is a point very far from being Fundamentall; and yet I hope you will grant, that Protestants believing Scripture to be the word of God, may bee certain enough of the truth and certainty of it. For what if they say that the Catholique Church, and much more themselues may possibly erre in some unfundamentall points, is it therefore consequent, they can be certaine of none such? What if a wiser man then I may mistake the sense of some obscure place of Aristotle, may I not therefore without any arrogance or inconsequence, conceiue my selfe certain that I understand him in some plain places, which carry their sense before them? And then for points Fundamentall, to what purpose doe you say, That we must first know what they be, before we can be assured that wee cannot erre in understanding the Scripture; when we pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot erre, but only to a sufficient certainty, that we doe not erre, but rightly understand those things that are plain, whether Fundamentall or not Fundamentall? That God is, and is a rewarder of them that seek him: That there is no salvation but by faith in Christ: That by repentance and faith in Christ Remission of sinnes may be obtained: That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body: These wee conceive both true, because the Scripture saies so, and Truths Fundamentall, because they are necessary parts of the Gospell, whereof our Saviour saies, Qui non [Page]crediderit, damnabitur. All which we either learne from Scripture immediately, or learne of those that learne it of Scripture, so that neither Learned nor Vnlearned pretend to know these things independently of Scripture. And therefore in imputing this to us, you cannot excuse your selfe from having done us a palpable injury.

51 Ad § 18. And I urge you as mainly as you urge D. Potter & other Protestants, that you tell us that all the Traditions, and all the Definitions of the Church are Fundamētal points, & we cannot wrest from you a list in particular of all such Traditions and Definitions; without which, no man can tell whether or no he erre in points fundamentall, and be capable of salvation; (For I hope erring in our fundamentals is no more exclusiue of salvation thē erring in yours.) And which is most lamentable, insteed of giving us such a Catalogue, you also fall to wrangle among your selues about the making of it; Some of you, as I haue said aboue, holding somethings to be matters of Faith, which others deny to be so.

52 Ad § 19. I answ. That these differences between Protestants, concerning Errours damnable and not damnable, Truths fundamentall and not fundamentall, may be easily reconcil'd. For either the Errour they speak of may be purely and simply involuntary, or it may be in respect of the cause of it voluntary. If the cause of it be some voluntary and avoidable fault, the Errour is it selfe sinfull, and consequently in its own nature damnable; As if by negligence in seeking the Truth, by unwillingnesse to finde it, by pride, by obstinacy, by desiring that Religion should be true which sutes best with my ends, by feare of mens ill opinion, or any other worldly feare, or any other worldly hope, I betray my selfe to any error contrary to any divine revealed Truth, that Errour may be justly stiled a sinne, and consequently of it selfe to such a one damnable. But if I be guilty of none of these faults, but be desirous to know the Truth, and diligent in seeking it, and advise not at all with flesh & bloud about the choice of my opinions, but only with God, & that Reason that he hath given me, if I be thus qualifi'd, and yet through humane infirmity fall into errour, that errour cannot be damnable. Again, the party erring may be conceived either to dye with contrition for all his sins known and unknown, or without it; If he dye without it, this errour in it selfe damnable, will bee likewise so unto him: If he dye with contrition (as his errour can bee no impediment but he may) his errour though in it selfe damnable, to him according to your doctrine, will not proue so. And therefore some of those Authors whom you quote, speaking of Errours whereunto men were betrayed, or wherein they were kept by their Fault, or Vice, or Passion (as for the most part men are:) Others speaking of them, as errours simply and purely involuntary, and the effects of humane infirmity; some as they were retracted by Contrition (to use your own phrase) others, as they were not, no marvell though they haue past upon them, some a heavier, & some a milder, some an absolving, & some a condemning sentence. The best of all these errours, which here you mention, having malice enough too frequently mixed with it, to sink a [Page] man deep enough into hell: and the greatest of them all, being according to your Principles, either no fault at all, or very Veniall, where there is no malice of the will conjoyn'd with it. And if it be, yet as the most malignant poyson, will not poison him that receives with it a more powerfull Antidote: so I am confident your own Doctrine will force you to confesse, that whosoever dies with Faith in Christ, and Contrition for all sinnes known and unknown (in which heap all his sinfull errours must be compriz'd,) can no more be hurt by any the most malignant and pestilent errour, then S. Paul by the viper which he shook of into the fire. Now touching the necessity of Repentance from dead works, and Faith in Christ Iesus the Sonne of God, and Saviour of the World, they all agree; and therefore you cannot deny, but they agree about all that is simply necessary. Moreover, though, if they should goe about to choose out of Scripture all these Propositions & Doctrines which integrate and make up the body of Christian Religion, peradventure there would not be so exact agreement amongst them, as some say there was between the 70. Interpreters, in translating the Old Testament; yet thus far without controversie they doe all agree, that in the Bible all these things are contained, and therefore, that whosoever does truly and sincerely believe the Scripture, must of necessity either in hypothesi, or at least in thesi, either formally, or at least virtually, either explicitely, or at least implicitely, either in Act or at least in preparation of minde, belieue all things Fundamentall: It being not Fundamentall, nor required of Almighty God, to belieue the true sense of Scripture in all places, but only that we should endeavour to doe so, & be prepar'd in minde to doe so, whensoever it shall be sufficiently propounded to us. Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consisting of twenty ingredients, and he advising with Physitians should finde them differing in opinion about it, some of them telling him, that all the ingredients were absolutely necessary; some, that only some of them were necessary, the rest only profitable, and requisite ad melius esse, lastly some, that some only were necessary, some profitable, and the rest superfluous, yet not hurtfull; Yet all with one accord agreeing in this, That the whole receipt had in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health, and that if hee made use of it, hee should infallibly finde it successefull: what wise man would not think they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health? lust so, these Protestant Doctors, with whose discords you make such Tragedies, agreeing in Thesi thus far, that the Scripture evidently containes all things necessary to Salvation, both for matter of Faith and of practise, and that whosoever believes it, and endeavours to finde the true sense of it, and to conform his life unto it, shall certainly performe all things necessary to salvation, and undoubtedly be saved; agreeing I say thus farre, what matters it for the direction of men to salvation, though they differ in opinion, touching what points are absolutely necessary, and what not? What Errours absolutely repugnant to Salvation, and what not? Especially considering that although they differ about the Question of the necessity of these Truths, yet for the most [Page] part they agree in this that Truths they are, and profitable at least, though not simply necessary. And though they differ in the Question, whether the contrary Errours be destructive of salvation, or no, yet in this they consent, that Errours they are, & hurtful to Religion, though not destructive of Salvation. Now that which God requires of us is this; That we should belieue the Doctrines of the Gospell to bee Truths, not all, necessary Truths, for all are not so, and consequently, the repugnant Errours to be falshoods; yet not all such falshoods, as unavoidably draw with them damnation upon all that hold them, for all doe not so.

53 Yea but you say, it is very requisite we should agree upon a particular Catalogue of Fundamentall points, for without such a Catalogue, no man can be assured whether or no, he hath faith sufficient to salvation. This I utterly deny as a thing evidently false, and I wonder you should content your selfe magisterially to say so, without offering any proof of it. I might much more justly, think it enough barely to deny it, without refutation, but I will not. Thus therefore I argue against it.

Without being able to make a Catalogue of Fundamentals, I may be assured of the Truth of this Assertion, if it be true, That the Scripture containes all necessary points of faith, and know that I belieue explicitely all that is exprest in Scripture, and implicitely all that is contained in them: Now he that belieues all this, must of necessity believe all things necessary; Therefore without being able to make a Catalogue of Fundamentals, I may be assured that I belieue all things necessary, and consequently that my faith is sufficient.

I said, of the truth of this Assertion, if it be true: Because I will not here enter into the Question of the truth of it, it being sufficient for my present purpose, that it may be true, and may be believed without any dependance upon a Catalogue of Fundamentalls. And therefore if this be all your reason, to demand a particular Catalogue of Fundamentalls, we cannot but think your demand unreasonable. Especially having your selfe expressed the cause of the difficulty of it, and that is, Because Scripture doth deliver Divine Truths, but seldom qualifies them, or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation. Yet not so seldome, but that out of it I could giue you an abstract of the Essentiall part of Christianity, if it were necessary, but I haue shewed it not so, by confuting your reason, pretended for the necessity of it, & at this time I haue no leasure to doe you curtesies that are so troublesome to my selfe. Yet thus much I will promise, that when you deliver a particular Catalogue of your Church Proposals with one hand, you shall receiue a particular Catalogue of what I conceiue Fundamentall, with the other. For as yet, I see no such faire proceeding as you talke of, nor any performance on your own part of that which so clamorously you require on ours. For as for the Catalogue which he [...]e you haue given us, in saying. You are obliged under pain of damnation to belieue whatsoever the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God, it is like a covey of one Patridg, or a flock of [Page] one sheep, or a Fleet compos'd of one ship, or an Army of one man. The Author of Charity mistaken, demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamentall points; And We (say you) again and again demand such a Catalogue. And surely, if this one Proposition, which here you think to stop our mouthes with, be a Catalogue, yet at least such a Catalogue it is not, and therefore as yet you haue not perform'd what you require. For if to set down such a Propositiō, wherein are compriz'd all points taught by us to be necessary to salvation, will serue you insteed of a Catalogue, you shall haue Catalogues enough. As, we are oblig'd to belieue all under pain of damnation which God commands us to belieue. There's one Catalogue. We are oblig'd under pain of damnation, to belieue all, whereof we may be sufficiently assured, that Christ taught it his Apostles, his Apostles the Church. There's another. We are oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue Gods word, & all contained in it to be true. There's a third. If these generalities will not satisfie you, but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular, what they are which Christ taught his Apostles, and his Apostles the Church, what points are contained in Gods word; Then I beseech you doe us reason, and giue us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church Proposalls, without leaving out, or adding any, such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to, & if you receiue not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals, I for my part will giue you leaue to proclaim us Banckrupts.

54 Besides this deceitfull generality of your Catalogue (as you call it,) another main fault we finde with it, that it is extreamly ambiguous; and therefore to draw you out of the clouds, giue me leaue to propose some Questions to you concerning it. I would know therefore, whether by believing, you mean explicitely or implicitely? If you mean implicitely, I would know whether your Churches infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely, or no? Whether any other point or points besides this, be under the same penalty, to be believed explicitely, or no? And if any, what they bee? I would know what you esteem the Proposalls of the Catholike visible Church? In particular, whether the Decree of a Pope ex Cathedra, that is, with an intent to oblige all Christians by it, be a sufficient and an obliging proposall? Whether men without danger of damnation may examine such a Decree, and if they think they have just cause, refuse to obey it? Whether the Decree of a Councell, without the Popes confirmation, be such an obliging proposall, or no? Whether it be so in case there be no Pope, or in case it be doubtfull who is Pope? Whether the Decree of a generall Councell confirm'd by the Pope, be such a Proposall, and whether he be an Heretique that thinks otherwise? Whether the Decree of a particular Councell confirm'd by the Pope, be such a proposall? Whether the Generall uncondemn'd practise of the Church for some ages be such a sufficient Proposition? Whether the consent of the most eminent Fathers of any age, agreeing in the affirmation of any doctrine, not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries, be a sufficient Proposition? Whether the Fathers testifying [Page] such or such a doctrine or practise to be Tradition, or to bee the Doctrine or practise of the Church, be a sufficient assurance that it is so? Whether we be bound under pain of damnation, to belieue every Text of the vulgar Bible, now authoriz'd by the Roman Church, to bee the true translation of the Originalls of the Prophets, and Evangelists, and Apostles, without any the least alteration? Whether they that lived whē the Bible of Sixtus was set forth, were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that? And if not of that, of what Bible they were bound to believe it? Whether the Catholique visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome? Whether every Christian, that hath ability and oportunity, be not bound to endeavour to know explicitely the Proposalls of the Church? Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity, will not saue him that Actually and Explicitely disbelieves some doctrine of the Church, not knowing it to be so; and Actually belieues some damnable Heresie, as that God has the shape of a man? Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church, when his Priest or Ghostly Father assures him it is so? Whether his Ghostly Father may not erre in telling him so, and whether any man can be oblig'd under pain of damnation, to belieue an Errour? Whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined, when a number of Priests, perhaps ten or twenty tell him it is so? And what assurance he can haue, that they neither erre, nor deceive him in this matter? Why Implicite Faith in Christ, or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans salvation, as well as implicit faith in the Church? Whether when you say, Whatsoever the Church proposeth, you meane all that ever she propos'd, or that only which she now proposeth; and whether shee now proposeth all that ever she did propose? Whether all the Books of Canonicall Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so, and propos'd as such by the Apostles? And if not, from whom the Church had this declaration afterwards? If so, whether all men ever since the Apostles time, were bound under paine of damnation to believe the Epistle of S. Iames, and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonicall; at least, not to disbelieve it, & believe the contrary? Lastly, why it is not sufficient for any mans salvation to use the best meanes he can to inform his conscience, and to follow the direction of it? To all these demands when you haue given faire and ingenuous answers, you shall heare further from me.

55 Ad § 20. At the first entrance into this Parag. from our own Doctrine, That the Church cannot erre in Points necessary, it is concluded if we are wise, we must for sake it is nothing, least we should for sake it in something necessary. To which I answer, First, that the supposition as you understand it, is falsely impos'd upon us, and as we understand it will doe you no service. For when we say, that there shall be a Church alwaies, some where or other, unerring in Fundamentalls, our meaning is but this, that there shall be alwaies a Church, to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should erre in fundamentals; for if it should doe so, it would want the very essence of a Church, and therefore cease [Page] to be a Church. But we never annexed this privilege to any one Church of any one Denomination, as the Greek or the Roman Church: which if we had done, and set up some setled certain Society of Christians, distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our Guide in fundamentals, then indeed, and then only might you with some colour, though with no certainty, haue concluded that we could not in wisdome, forsake this Church in any point, for feare of forsaking it in a necessary point. But now that we say not this of any one determinate Church, which alone can perform the office of Guide or Director, but indefinitely of the Church, meaning no more but this, That there shall be alwaies in some place or other, some Church that erres not in Fundamentalls; will you conclude from hence, that we cannot in wisdome forsake this or that, the Roman or the Greek Church, for feare of erring in Fundamentalls?

56 Yea, but you may say (for I will make the best I can of all your Arguments,) That this Church thus unerring in Fundamentalls, when Luther arose, was by our confession the Roman; and therefore wee ought not in wisdome to haue departed from it in any thing. I answer: First, that we confesse no such thing, that the Church of Rome was then this Church, but only a Part of it, and that the most corrupted and most incorrigible. Secondly, that if by adhering to the church, we could haue been thus far secured, this Argument had some shew of reason. But seeing wee are not warranted thus much by any privilege of that Church, that She cannot erre fundamentally, but only from Scripture, which assures us that she doth erre very haynously▪ collect our hope, that the Truths she retaines & the practise of them, may proue an Antidote to her, against the Errors which she maintaines in such Persons, as in simplicity of heart follow this Absalom; wee should then doe against the light of our conscience, and so sinne damnably if we should not abandon the profession of her Errours though not Fundamentall. Neither can we thus conclude, we may safely hold with the church of Rome in all her points, for she cannot erre damnably; For this is false, she may, though perhaps she does not: But rather thus, These points of Christianity, which have in thē the nature of Antidotes against the poyson of all sinnes and errours, the Church of Rome, though otherwise much corrupted, still retaines; therefore wee hope shee erres not fundamentally, but still remaines a Part of the Church. But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things: seeing the very same Scripture, which puts us in hope she erres not fundamentally, assures us that in many things, and those of great moment she erres very grievously. And these Errours though to them that believe them, wee hope they will not be pernicious, yet the professing of them against conscience, could not but bring to us certain damnation. As for the feare of departing from some fundamentall truths withall, while we depart from her errours, Happily it might work upon us, if adhering to her might secure us from it, and if nothing else could: But both these are false. For first, adhering to her in all things cannot secure us from erring in Fundamentals: Because though de facto we hope shee does not [Page] erre, yet we know no privileges she has but she may erre in them herselfe: and therefore we had need haue better security hereof then her bare Authority. Then secondly, without dependance on her at all, we may be secured that we doe not erre fundamentally; I meane by believing al those things plainly set down in Scripture, wherein all things necessary, and most things profitable are plainly delivered. Suppose I were travelling to London, and knew two waies thither, the one very safe and convenient, the other very inconvenient, and dangerous, but yet a way to London: and that I overtook a Passenger on the way, who himselfe believed, and would fain perswade me, there was no other way but the worse, and would perswade me to accompany him in it, because I confessed his way, though very inconvenient, yet a way; so that going that way we could not faile of our journies end, by the consent of both parties: but he believed, my way to be none at all; & therefore I might justly feare, least out of a desire of leaving the worst way, I left the true, and the only way: If now I should not bee more secure upon my own knowledge, then frighted by this fallacy, would you not beg me for a fool? Iust so might you think of us, if we would bee frighted out of our own knowledge by this bugbeare. For the only & the main reason why we believe you not to erre in Fundamentalls, is your holding the Doctrines of faith in Christ and Repentance: which knowing we hold as well as you, notwithstanding our departure from you, we must needs know that we doe not erre in Fundamentalls, as well as we know that you doe not erre in some Fundamentals, & therefore cannot possibly feare the contrary. Yet let us be more liberall to you, and grant that which can never be proved, that God had said in plain tearmes, The Church of Rome shall never destroy the Foundation, but with all had said, that it might and would lay much hay and stubble upon it; That you should never hold any Errour destructive of salvation, but yet many that were prejudiciall to Edification: I demand, might we haue dispensed with our selves in the believing and professing these Errours in regard of the smalnesse of them? Or had it not been a damnable sinne to doe so, though the Errours in themselves were not damnable? Had we not had as plain direction to depart frō you in some things profitable, as to adhere to you in things necessary? In the beginning of your Book, when it was for your purpose to haue it so, the greatnesse or smalnesse of the matter was not considerable, the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all. But here wee must erre with you in small things, for feare of loosing your direction in greater: and for feare of departing too far from you, not goe from you at all, even where we see plainly that you haue departed from the Truth.

57 Beyond all this, I say, that this which you say in wisdome we are to doe, is not only unlawfull, but, if we will proceed according to reason, impossible. I meane to adhere to you in all things, having no other ground for it, but because you are (as we will now suppose) Infallible in some things, that is, in Fundamentalls. For, whether by skill in Architecture a large structure may be supported by a narrow [Page] foundation, I know not▪ but sure I am, in reason, no conclusion can be larger then the Principles on which it is founded. And therefore if I consider what I doe, and be perswaded, that your infallibility, is but limited, and particular, and partiall, my adherence upon this ground, cannot possibly be Absolute and Vniversall and Totall. I am confident, that should I meet with such a man amongst you (as I am well assur'd there be many) that would grant your Church infallible only in fundamentalls, which what they are he knowes not, and therefore upon this only reason adheres to you in all things: I say that I am confident, that it may be demonstrated, that such a man adheres to you, with a fiduciall and certain assent in nothing. To make this cleare (because at the first hearing it may seem strange) give me leave, good Sir, to suppose you the man, and to propose to you a few questions, and to give for you such answers to them, as upon this ground you must of necessity give, were you present with mee. First, supposing you hold your Church infallible in fundamentalls, obnoxious to errour in other things, and that you know not what points are fundamentall, I demand, C. Why doe you believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation? K. because the Church hath taught it, which is infallible. C. What? Infallible in all things, or only in Fundamentalls? K. in Fundamentals only. C. Then in other points She may erre? K. she may. C. and doe you know what Points are Fundamentall, what not? K. No, and therefore I believe her in all things, least I should disbelieve her in fundamentalls. C. How know you then, whether this be a fundamentall Point or no? K. I know not. C. It may be then (for ought you know) an unfundamentall point? K. yes, it may be so. C. And in these you said the Church may erre? K. yes I did so. C. Then possibly it may erre in this? K. It may doe so. C. Then what certainty have you, that it does not erre in it? K. None at all, but upon this supposition, that this is a fundamentall. C. And this supposition you are uncertain of? K. Yes, I told you so before. C. And therefore, you can have no certainty of that, which depends upon this uncertainty, saving only a suppositive certainty, if it be a fundamentall truth, which is in plain English to say, you are certain it is true, if it be both true and neccessary. Verily Sir, if you have no better faith then this, you are no Catholique. K. Good words I pray! I am so, and God willing will be so. C. You mean, in outward profession and practise, but in belief you are not, no more then a Protestant is a Catholique. For every Protestant yeelds such a kind of assent to all the proposalls of the Church, for surely they believe them true, if they be fundamentall truths. And therefore you must either believe the Church Infallible in all her proposalls, be they foundations, or be they superstructions, or else you must believe all Fundamentall which shee proposes, or else you are no Catholique. K. But I have been taught, that seeing I believed the Church infallible in points necessary, in wisdome I was to believe her in every thing. C. That was a pretty plausible inducement, to bring you hither, but now you are here, you must goe farther, and believe her infallible in all things, or else you were as good goe back again, [Page] which will be a great disparagement to you, and draw upon you both the bitter and implacable hatred of our Part, and even with your own, the imputation of rashnesse and levitie. You see, I hope, by this time, that though a man did believe your Church infallible in Fundamentalls, yet he has no reason to doe you the curtesy, of believing all her proposalls; nay if he be ignorant what these Fundamentalls are, he has no certain ground to believe her, upon her Authority in any thing. And whereas you say, it can be no imprudence to erre with the Church; I say, it may be very great imprudence, if the question be, Whether we should erre with the present Church, or hold true with God Almighty.

58 But we are under pain of Damnation to believe and obey her in greater things, and therefore cannot in wisdome suspect her credit in matters of lesse moment, Ans. I have told you already, that this is falsely to suppose, that wee grant that in some certain points, some certain Church is infallibly assisted, and under pain of damnation to be obeyed: whereas all that we say is this, that in some place or other, some Church there shall be, which shall retain all necessary Truths. Yet if your supposition were true, I would not grant your conclusion, but with this exception, unlesse the matter were past suspicion, and apparently certain, that in these things, I cannot believe God, and believe the Church. For then I hope you will grant, that be the thing of never so little moment, were if, for instance, but that S. Paul left his cloak at Troas, yet I were not to gratify the Church so farre, as for her sake to disbelieve what God himselfe has revealed.

59 Whereas you say, Since we are undoubtedly obliged to believe her in Fundamentalls, and cannot know precisely, what those fundamentalls be, we cannot without hazard of our soules leave her in any point; I ans. First, that this argument proceeds upon the same false ground with the former. And then, that I have told you formerly, that you fear where no fear is; And though we know not precisely, just how much is Fundamentall, yet we know, that the Scripture containes all Fundamentalls and more too; and therefore that in believing that, we believe all Fundamentalls and more too. And consequently in departing from you, can be in no danger of departing from that which may prove a Fundamentall truth: For we are well assured that certain Errors can never prove Fundamentall Truths.

60 Whereas you adde, That that visible Church which cannot erre in Fundamentall, propounds all her definitions without distinction to be believed under Anathema's: Ans. Again you begge the question, supposing untruly, that there is, any that Visible Church, I mean any Visible Church of one Denomination, which cannot erre in points Fundamentall. Secondly, proposing definitions to be believed under Anathema's, is no good argument, that the Propounders conceive themselves infallible; but only, that they conceive the Doctrine they condemne is evidently damnable. A plain proof hereof is this, that particular Councells, nay Particular men, have been very liberall of their Anathema's, which yet were never conceived infallible, either [Page] by others or themselves. If any man should now deny Christ to be the Saviour of the world, or deny the Resurrection, I should make no great scruple of Anathematizing his doctrine, and yet am very farre from dreaming of Infallibility.

61 And for the Visible Churches holding it a point necessary to Salvation, that we believe she cannot erre, I know no such tenet; unlesse by the Church, you mean the Roman Church, which you have as much reason to doe, as that petty King in Africk hath, to think himhimself King of all the world. And therefore your telling us, if she speak true, what danger is it not to believe her? and if false, that it is not dangerous to believe her, Is somewhat like your Popes setting your Lawyers to dispute whether Constantines Donation were valid or no; whereas the matter of fact was the farre greater question, whether there were any such Donation, or rather when without question there was none such. That you may not seem to delude us in like manner, make it appear, that the visible Church doth hold so as you pretend: and then whether it be true or false, we will consider afterwards. But for the present, with this invisible tenet of the Visible Church, wee will trouble our selves no farther.

62 The effect of the next Argument is this, I cannot without grievous sinne disobey the Church, unlesse I know she commands those things which are not in her power to command: and how farre this power extends, none can better informe me then the Church. Therefore I am to obey, so farre as the Church requires my obedience. I answer, First, that neither hath the Catholique Church, but only a corrupt part of it declared her selfe, nor required our obedience, in the points contested among us. This therefore is falsely, and vainly supposed here by you, being one of the greatest questions amongst us. Then secondly, that God can better informe us, what are the limits of the Churches power, then the Church her selfe, that is, then the Roman Clergy, who being men subject to the same passions with other men, why they should be thought the best Iudges in their own cause, I doe not well understand! But yet we oppose against them, no humane decisive Iudges, not any Sect or Person, but only God and his Word. And therefore it is in vain to say, That in following her, you shall be sooner excused, then in following any Sect or Man applying Scriptures against her Doctrine: In as much as we never went about to arrogate to our selves that infallibility or absolute Authority, which we take away from you. But if you would haue spoken to the purpose, you should haue said, that in following her you should sooner haue been excusd, then in cleaving to the Scripture, and to God himselfe.

63 Whereas you say, The fearfull examples of innumerable persons, who for saking the Church, upon pretence of her errours, have failed even in fundamentall points, ought to deterre all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practise; This is, just as if you should say, divers men have fallen into Scylla, with going too farre from Charybdis, be sure therefore ye keep close to Charybdis: divers leaving Prodigality, have fallen into covetousnesse, therefore be you constant to prodigality; [Page] Many have fallen from worshipping God perversely and foolishly, not to worship him at all, from worshipping many Gods, to worshipping none; this therefore ought to deterre men, from leaving superstition or Idolatry, for fear of falling into Atheisme and Impiety. This is your counsell and Sophistry: but God saies clean contrary; Take heed you swerve not, either to the right hand or to the left: you must not doe evill that good may come thereon; therefore neither that you may avoid a greater evill, you must not be obstinate in a certain error, for fear of an uncertain. What if some, forsaking the Church of Rome, have forsaken Fundamentall truths? Was this because they forsook the Church of Rome? No sure, this is causa pro non causa: for else all that have forsaken that Church should have done so, which we say they have not. But because they went too farre from her, the golden mean, the narrow way is hard to be found, and hard to be kept; hard, but not impossible: hard, but yet you must not please your selfe out of it, though you erre on the right hand, though you offend on the milder part, for this is the only way that leads to life, and few there be that find it. It is true if we said, there were no danger in being of the Roman Church, and there were danger in leaving it, it were madnesse to perswade any man to leave it. But we protest and proclaime the contrary, and that we have very little hope of their Salvation, who either out of negligence in seeking the truth, or unwillingnesse to find it, live and dye in the errors and impieties of that Church: and therefore cannot but conceive those feares to be most foolish, and ridiculous, which perswade men to be constant in one way to hell, least happily if they leave it, they should fall into another.

64 But, Not only others, but even Protestants themselves, whose example ought most to move us, pretending to reforme the Church are come to affirme that she perished for many ages: which D. Potter cannot deny to be a fundamentall errour, against the Article of the Creed, I believe the Catholique Church, seeing he affirmes, the Donatists erred Fundamentally in confining it to Africa. To this I Answer, First, that the errour of the Donatists was not, that they held it possible that some, or many, or most parts of Christendome, might fall away from Christianity, and that the Church may loose much of her amplitude, and be contracted to a narrow compasse in comparison of her former extent: which is prov'd not only possible but certain, by irrefragable experience. For who knowes not, that Gentilisme, and Mahumetisme, mans wickednesse deserving it, and Gods providence permitting it, have prevail'd, to the utter extirpation of Christianity, upon farre the greater part of the world? And S. Austin when he was out of the heat of Disputation, confesses the Militant Church to be like the Moon, sometimes increasing, and sometimes decreasing. This therefore was no errour in the Donatists, that they held it possible, that the Church, from a larger extent, might be contracted to a lesser: nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa; (For why not to Africk then, as well as within these few ages, you pretend it was to Europe? But their error was, that they held de facto, this was done [Page] when they had no just ground or reason to doe so: and so upon a vain pretence which they could not justify, seperated themselves from the communion of all other parts of the Church: and that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church, that he should be of their communion, and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided: which was a condition both unnecessary and unlawfull to be required, and therefore the exacting of it was directly opposite to the Churches Catholicisme▪ in the very same nature with their Errours who required Circumcision, and the keeping of the Law of Moses as necessary to salvation. For whosoever requires harder or heavier conditions of men, then God requires of them, he it is that is properly an Enemie of the Churches Vniversality, by hindering either Men or Countries from adjoyning themselves to it; which, were it not for these unnecessary and therefore unlawful conditions, in probability would haue made thē members of it. And seeing the present Church of Rome perswades men they were as good (for any hope of Salvation they haue) not to be Christians as not to be Roman Catholiques, believe nothing at all, as not believe all which they impose upon them: Be absolutely out of the Churches Communion, as be out of their Communion, or be in any other, whether they be not guilty of the same crime, with the Donatists & those Zelots of the Mosaicall Law, I leave it to the judgement of those that understand reason! This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argument. But I adde moreover, that you neither haue named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many ages; who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the church; not that the true Church, but that the pure Church perished: or rather that the Church perished not from its life and existence, but from its purity and integrity, or perhaps from its splendour and visibility. Neither have you proved by any one reason, but only affirmed it, to be a fundamentall Errour, to hold, that the Church militant may possibly bee driven out of the world, and abolished for a time from the face of the earth.

65 But to accuse the Church of any Errour in faith, is to say, she lost all faith: For this is the Doctrine of Catholique Divines, that one Errour in faith destroyes faith. To which I answer, that to accuse the Church of some Errour in faith, is not to say she lost all faith: For this is not the doctrine of Catholique Divines; But that he which is an Heretique in one Article, may haue true faith of other Articles. And the contrary is only said and not shewed in Charity Mistaken.

66 Ad § 21. D. Potter saies, We may not depart from the Church absolutely, and in all things: and from hence you conclude: Therefore we may not depart from it in any thing. And this Argument you call a Demonstration. But a Fallacy, à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, was not used heretofore to be called a Demonstration. D. Potter sayes not, that you may not depart from any opinion or any practise of the Church: for you tell us in this very place, that he saies, even the Catholique may erre: and every man may lawfully depart from Errour. [Page] He only sayes, you may not cease to be of the Church, nor depart from those things which make it so to be; and from hence you inferre a necessity of forsaking it in nothing. Iust as if you should argue thus: You may not leaue your friend or brother, therefore you may not leave the Vice of your friend, or the Errour of your brother. What he saies of the Catholique Church, p. 75. the same hee extends presently after, to every true, though never so corrupted part of it. And why doe you not conclude from hence, that no particular Church (according to his judgement) can fall into any Errour, and call this a Demonstration too? For as he saies, p. 75. That there can be no just cause to depart from the whole Church of Christ, no more then from Christ himselfe; So p. 76. He tells you, that whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body, for sakes the whole. So that what he saies of the one, hee saies of the other; and tells you, that neither Vniversall nor Particular Church, so long as they continue so, may bee forsaken, hee meanes, Absolutely, no more then Christ himselfe may be forsaken absolutely: For the Church is the body of Christ, and whosoever forsakes either the Body, or his coherence to any one part of it, must forsake his subordination, and relation to the Head. Therefore whosoever forsakes the Church, or any Christian, must forsake Christ himselfe.

67 But then he tells you plainly in the same place, That it may be lawfull and necessary to depart from a Particular Church in some Doctrines and Practises: And this he would haue said even of the Catholike Church, if there had been occasion, but there was none. For there he was to declare and justifie our departure, not from the Catholique Church, but the Roman, which we maintain to be a particular Church. But in other places, you confesse his doctrine to be, that even the Catholique church may erre in points not Fundamentall; which you doe not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himselfe. And therefore you cannot with any candor interpret his words, as if he had said, We may not forsake the Church in any thing, no more then Christ himselfe: but only thus, We may not cease to be of the Church, nor forsake it absolutely and totally, no more then Christ himselfe. And thus we see sometimes a mountain may travail, and the production may be a mouse.

68 Ad § 22. But D. Potter, either contradicts himselfe, or else must grant the Church infallible; Because he saies, if we did not differ from the Roman, we could not agree with the Catholique: which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre. Answer, This Argument, to giue it the right name, is an obscure and intricate nothing. And to make it appeare so, let us suppose, in contradiction to your supposition, either that the Catholique Church may erre, but doth not, but that the Roman actually doth: or that the Catholique Church doth erre in some few things, but that the Roman erres in many more. And is it not apparent in both these cases (which yet both suppose the Churches Fallibility) a man may truly say, unlesse I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church, I cannot agree with the Catholique? Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid upon D. Potter, or [Page] doe that which you condemne in him, and be driven to say, that the same man may hold some errours with the Church of Rome, and at the same time with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them. For otherwise in neither of these cases is it possible for the same man at the same time, to agree both with the Roman and the Catholique.

69 In all these Texts of Scripture, which are here alleaged in this last Section of this Chapter, or in any one of them, or in any other, doth God say cleerly and plainly, The Bishop of Rome and that Society of Christians which adheres to him shall bee ever the infallible guide of Faith? You will confesse, I presume, he doth not, and will pretend, it was not necessary. Yet if the King should tell us the Lord Keeper should judge such and such causes, but should either not tell us at all, or tell us but doubtfully who should be Lord Keeper, should we be any thing the neerer for him to an end of contentions? Nay rather would not the dissentions about the Person who it is, increase contentions, rather then end them? Iust so it would have been, if God had appointed a Church tobe judge of Controversies, and had not told us which was that Church. Seeing therefore God does nothing in vain and seeing it had been in vain, to appoint a judge of Controversies, and not to tell us plainly who it is, and seeing lastly, he hath not told us plainly, no not at all who it is, is it not evident he hath appointed none? Ob. But (you will say perhaps) if it be granted once, that some Church of one denomination, is the infallible guide of faith, it will be no difficult thing to prove, that yours is the Church, seeing no other Church pretends to be so. Ans. Yes, the Primitive and the Apostolique Church pretends to be so. That assures us, that the spirit was promised, and given to them, to lead them into all saving truth, that they might lead others. Ob. But that Church is not now in the world, and how then, can it pretend to be the guide of Faith? Ans. It is now in the world sufficiently, to be our guide: not by the Persons of those men that were members of it, but by their Writings which doe plainly teach us, what truth they were led into, and so lead us into the same truth. Ob. But these writings, were the writings of some particular men, and not of the Church of those times: how then doth that Church guide us by these writings? Now these places shew that a Church is to be our guide, therefore they cannot be so avoided. Ans. If you regard the conception and production of these writings, they were the writings of particular men: But if you regard the Reception, and approbation of them, they may be well called the writings of the Church, as having the attestation of the Church, to have been written by those that were inspired, and directed by God. As a statute, though pen'd by some one man, yet being ratified by the Parliament, is called the Act, not of that man, but of the Parliament. Ob. But the words seem cleerly enough to prove, that the Church, the Present Church of every Age, is Vniversally infallible. Ans. For my part, I know I am as willing and desirous, that the Bishop or Church of Rome should be infallible, (provided I might know it) as they are to be so esteemed. But he that would not be deceived must [Page] take heed, that he take not his desire that a thing should be so, for a reason that it is so. For if you look upon Scripture, through such spectacles as these, they will appeare to you, of what colour pleases your fancies best: and will seem to say, not what they doe say, but what you would have them. As some say the Manna, wherewith the Israelites were fed in the Wildernesse, had in every mans mouth, that very tast which was most agreeable to his palate. For my part I professe, I have considered them a thousand times, and have looked upon them (as they say,) on both sides, and yet to me they seeme to say no such matter.

70 Not the First. For the Church may erre, and yet the gates of Hell not prevail against her. It may erre, and yet continue still a true Church, and bring forth Children unto God, and send soules to Heaven. And therefore this can doe you no service, without the plain begging of the point of Question. viz. That every errour is one of the gates of Hell. Which we absolutely deny, and therefore, you are not to suppose, but to prove it. Neither is our denyall without reason. For seeing you doe, and must grant, that a particular Church, may hold some errour, and yet be still a true member of the Church: why may not the Vniversall Church, hold the same errour, and yet remain the true Vniversall?

71 Not the Second or Third. For the spirit of Truth, may be with a Man, or a Church for ever, and teach him all Truth: And yet he may fall into some errour, if this, all, be not simply all, but all of some kind: which you confesse to be so unquestioned and certain, that you are offended with D. Potter, for offering to prove it. Secondly, he may fall into some errour, even contrary to the truth which is taught him, if it be taught him only sufficiently, and not irresistibly, so that he may learne it if he will, not so that he must and shall, whether he will or no. Now who can ascertain me, that the spirits teaching is not of this nature? Or how can you possibly reconcile it, with your doctrine of freewill in believing, if it be not of this nature? Besides, the word in the Originall is [...], which signifies, to be a guide and director only, not to compell or necessitate. Who knowes not, that a guide may set you in the right way, and you may either negligently mistake, or willingly leave it? And to what purpose doth God complain so often, and so earnestly of some, that had eyes to see and would not see, that stopped their eares, and closed their eyes, least they should hear and see? Of others that would not understand, least they should doe good: that the light shined, and the darknesse comprehended it not: That he came unto his own, and his own received him not: That light came into the world, and men loved darknesse more then light? To what purpose should he wonder, so few believed his report, and that to so few his arme was revealed: And that when he comes, he should find no faith upon earth; If his outward teaching were not of this nature, that it might be followed, and might be resisted? And if it be, then God may teach, and the Church not learn: God may lead, and the Church be refractory and not follow. And indeed, who can doubt, that hath not his eyes vailed with prejudice [Page] that God hath taught the Church of Rome plain enough in the Ep. to the Corinthians, that all things in the Church are to be done for edification, and that, in any publique Prayers, or Thanks-givings, or Hymnes, or Lessons of instruction, to use a language, which the assistants generally understand not, is not for edification? Though the Church of Rome will not learne this, for feare of confessing an errour, and so overthrowing her Authority, yet the time will come, when it shall appeare, that not only by Scripture, they were taught this sufficiently, and commanded to believe, but by reason and common sense. And so for the Communion▪ in both kindes, who can deny but they are taught it by our Saviour Iohn 6. in these words, according to most of your own expositions, Vnlesse you eat the Flesh of the sonne of Man, and drink his Blood, you have no life in you. (If our Saviour speake there of the Sacrament, as to them he does, because they conceive he does so.) Though they may pretend, that receiving in one kind, they receive the blood together with the body, yet they can with no face pretend that they drink it: And so obey not our Saviours injunction according to the letter, which yet they professe is litterally, alwaies to be obeyed, unlesse some impiety, or some absurdity force us to the contrary: and they are not yet arrived to that impudence to pretend, that either there is impiety or absurdity in receiving the Communion in both kinds. This therefore they if not others, are plainly taught by our Saviour in this place. But by S. Paul all without exception, when he saies, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drinke of this Chalice. This (a Man) that is to examine himselfe, is every man, that can doe it: as is confessed on all hands. And therefore it is all one, as if he had said, let every man examine himselfe, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. They which acknowledge Saint Pauls Epistles, and S. Iohns Gospell to be the Word of God, one would thinke should not deny, but that they are taught these two Doctrines plain enough. Yet we see they neither doe, nor will learn them. I conclude therefore, that the spirit may very well teach the Church, and yet the Church fall into and continue in Error, by not regarding what she is taught by the Spirit.

72 But all this I have spoken upon a supposition only, and shewed unto you, that though these promises, had been made unto the present Church of every age (I might have said though they had been to the Church of Rome by name,) yet no certainty of her Vniversall infallibility could be built upon them. But the plain truth is, that these Promises are vainly arrogated by you, and were never made to you, but to the Apostles only. I pray deale ingenuously and tell me, who were they of whom our Saviour saies, These things have I spoken unto you, being present with you. c. 14. 25. But the comforter, shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have told you v. 26? Who are they to whom he saies, I goe away and come again unto you; and I have told you before it come to passe: v. 28. 29. You have been with me from the beginning: c. 15. v. 27? And again, these things I have told you, that when the time shall come, you may remember [Page]that I told you of them: and these things I said not to you at the begining, because I was with you. c. 16. 4. And because I said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your hearts. v. 6? Lastly, who are they of whom he saith v. 12. I have yet many things to say unto you, but yee cannot beare them now? Doe not all these circumstances appropriate this whole discourse of our Saviour to his Disciples, that were then with him, and consequently, restrain the Promises of the spirit of truth, which was to lead them into all truth, to their Persons only? And seeing it is so, is it not an impertinent arrogance and presumption, for you to lay claim unto them, in the behalfe of your Church? Had Christ been present with your Church? Did the Comforter bring these things to the Remembrance of your Church, which Christ had before taught and she had forgotten? Was Christ then departing from your Church? And did he tell of his departure before it came to passe? Was your Church with him from the begining? Was your Church filled with sorrow, upon the mentioning of Christs departure? Or lastly, did he, or could he have said to your Church, which then was not extant, I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot beare them now? as he speaks in the 13. v. immediatly before the words by you quoted. And then goes on, Howbeit when the spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth. Is it not the same You he speaks to, in the 13. v. and that he speaks to in the 14? And is it not apparent to any one that has but halfe an eye, that in the 13. he speaks only to them that then were with him? Besides in the very text by you alleaged, there are things promised, which your Church cannot with any modesty pretend to. For there it is said, the spirit of Truth, not only will guide you into all Truth, but also will shew you things to come. Now your Church (for ought I could ever understand) does not so much as pretend to the spirit of Prophecie, and knowledge of future events: And therefore hath as little cause to pretend to the former promise, of being led by the spirit into all truth. And this is the Reason, why both You in this place, and generally, your Writers of Controversies, when they entreat of this Argument, cite this Text perpetually by halfes, there being in the latter part of it, a cleere, and convincing Demonstration, that you have nothing to doe with the former. Vnlesse you will say, which is most ridiculous, that when our Saviour said, He will teach you &c. and he will shew you &c. He meant one You in the former clause, and another You in the latter.

73 Ob. But this is to confine Gods spirit to the Apostles only, or to the Disciples, that then were present with him: which is directly contrary to many places of Scripture. Ans. I confesse, that to confine the Spirit of God to those that were then present with Christ is against Scripture. But I hope it is easy to conceive a difference, between confining the Spirit of God to them: and confining the promises made in this place to them. God may doe many things which he does not promise at all: much more, which he does not promise in such or such a place.

74 Ob. But it is promised in the 14. Chap. that this spirit shall abide with them for ever: Now they in their persons were not to abide for ever, [Page]and therefore the Spirit could not abide with them, in their Persons for ever, seeing the coexistence of two things, supposes of necessity; the existence of either. Therefore the promise was not made to them only in their Persons, but by them to the Church, which was to abide for ever. Ans. Your Conclusion is, not to them only, but your Reason concludes, either nothing at all, or that this Promise of abiding with them for ever, was not made to their Persons at all; or if it were, that it was not performed. Or if you will not say (as I hope you will not) that it was not performed, nor that it was not made to their Persons at all; then must you grant, that the word for ever, is here used in a sense restrained, and accommodated to the subject here entreated of; and that it signifies, not eternally, without end of time, but perpetually without interruption, for the time of their liues. So that the force, and sense of the Words is, that they should never want the Spirits asstance, in the performance of their function: And that the Spirit would not (as Christ was to doe,) stay with them for a time, and afterwards leave them, but would abide with them, if they kept their station, unto the very end of their lives, which is mans for ever. Neither is this use of the word, for ever, any thing strange, either in our ordinary speech, wherein we use to say, this is mine for ever, this shall be yours for ever, without ever dreaming of the Eternity, either of the thing or Persons. And then in Scripture, it not only will bear, but requires this sense very frequently, as Exod. 21. 6. Deut. 15. 17. his master shall boar his eare through with an awle, and he shall serve him for ever. Ps. 52. 9. I will praise thee for ever. Ps. 61. 4. I will abide in thy Tabernacle for ever. Ps. 119. 111. Thy Testimonies have I taken as mine heritage for ever: and lastly in the Epist. to Philemon, He therefore departed from thee for a time, that thou shouldest receive him for ever.

75 And thus, I presume, I have shewed sufficiently, that this for ever, hinders not, but that the promise may be appropriated to the Apostles, as by many other circumstances I have evinc'd it must be. But what now, if the place produced by you, as a main pillar of your Churches infallibility, prove upon tryall, an engine to batter and overthrow it, at least, (which is all one to my purpose) to take away all possibility of our assurāce of it? This will seem strange newes to you at first hearing, & not farre from a prodigy. And I confesse, as you here in this place, and generally all your Writers of controversy, by whom this text is urged, order the matter, it is very much disabled, to doe any service against you in this question. For with a bold sacriledge, and horrible impiety, somewhat like Procrustes his cruelty, you perpetually cut off the head and foot, the begining and end of it; and presenting to your confidents, who usually read no more of the Bible, then is alleadged by you, only these words, I will ask my Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the spirit of Truth, conceale in the mean time, the words before, and the words after; that so, the promise of Gods Spirit, may seem to be absolute, whereas it is indeed most cleerely and expresly conditionall: being both in the words before, restrained to those only, that love God [Page]and keep his Commandements: and in the words after, flatly denyed to all, whom the Scriptures stile by the name of the World, that is, as the very Atheists give us plainly to understand, to all wicked and worldly men. Behold the place entire, as it is set down in your own Bible. If ye love mee keep my Commandements, and I will aske my Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the spirit of the Truth, whom the world cannot receive. Now from the place there restored and vindicated from your mutilation, thus I argue against your pretence. We can have no certainty of the infallibility of your Church, but upon this supposition, that your Popes are infallible in confirming with the Decrees of Generall Councells: we can have no certainty hereof, but upon this supposition, that the Spirit of truth is promised to him, for his direction in this work. And of this again we can have no certainty, but upon supposall, that he performes the condition, whereunto the promise of the spirit of truth is expresly limited, viz. That he love God and keep his Commandements; and of this finally, not knowing the Popes heart, we can have no certainty at all; therefore from the first to the last, we can have no certainty at all of your Churches infallibility. This is my first argument: Frō this place another followes, which will charge you as home as the former. If many of the Roman See, were such men as could not receive the spirit of Truth, even men of the World, that is Worldly, Wicked, Carnall, Diabolicall men, then the Spirit of Truth, is not here promised, but flatly denied them: and consequently we can have no certainty, neither of the Decrees of Councells, which these Popes confirme, nor of the Churches infallibility, which is guided by these decrees: But many of the Roman See, even by the confession of the most zealous defenders of it, were such men: therefore the spirit of truth is not here promised but denyed them, and consequently we can have no certainty, neither of the Decrees which they confirme, nor of the Churches infallibility, which guides herselfe by these Decrees.

76 You may take as much time as you think fit, to answer these Arguments. In the mean while I proceed to the consideration of the next text alleaged for this purpose by you: out of S. Paul 1. Ep. to Timothy: where he saith, as you say the Church is the Pillar and ground of truth. But the truth is you are somewhat to bold with S. Paul. For he saies not in formall termes, what you make him say, the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, neither is it certain that he meanes so: for it is neither impossible nor improbable, that these words the pillar and ground of truth, may have reference not to the Church, but to Timothy, the sense of the place that thou maist know how to behave thy selfe, as a pillar and ground of truth, in the Church of God, which is the house of the living God, which exposition offers no violence at all to the words, but only supposes an Ellipsis of the Particle [...], in the greek very ordinary. Neither wants it some likelihood, that S. Paul comparing the Church to a house, should here exhort Timothy, to carry himself, as a Pillar in that house should doe, according as he had given other Principall men in the Church, the name of Pillars; rather then, having [Page] called the Church a House, to call it presently a Pillar; which may seem somewhat heterogeneous. Yet if you will needs have S. Paul referre this not to Timothy but the Church, I will not contend about it any farther, then to say, possibly it may be otherwise. But then secondly, I am to put you in mind, that the Church which S. Paul here speaks of, was that in which Timothy conversed, and that was a Particular Church, and not the Roman; and such you will not have to be Vniversally Infallible.

77 Thirdly, if we grant you out of curtesy (for nothing can enforce us to it) that he both speaks of the Vniversall Church, and saies this of it, then I am to remember you, that many Attributes in Scripture, are not notes of performance, but of duty, and teach us not what the thing or Person is of necessity, but what it should be. Ye are the salt of the Earth, said our Saviour to his disciples: not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons, but because it was their office to be so. For if they must have been so of necessity, and could not have been otherwise, in vain had he put them in fear of that which followes, If the salt hath lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast forth, and to be trodden under foot. So the Church may bee by duty, the pillar and ground, that is, the Teacher of Truth, of all truth, not only necessary but profitable to salvation; and yet she may neglect and violate this duty, and be in fact the teacher of some Errour.

78 Fourthly and lastly, if we deal most liberally with you, and grant that the Apostle here speaks of the Catholique Church, calls it the Pillar and ground of Truth, and that not only because it should, but because it alwaies shall and will be so, yet after all this, you have done nothing; your bridge is too short, to bring you to the bank where you would be, unlesse you can shew that by truth here, is certainly meant, not only all necessary to salvation, but all that is profitable, absolutely and simply All. For that the true Church alwaies shall bee the maintainer and teacher of all necessary truth, you know we grant and must grant, for it is of the essence of the Church to be so, and any company of men were no more a Church without it, then any thing can be a man, and not be reasonable. But as a man may be still a man, though he want a hand or an eye, which yet are profitable parts, so the Church may be still a Church, though it be defective in some profitable truth. And as a man may be a man, that has some biles and botches on his body, so the Church may be the Church, though it have many corruptions both in doctrine and practice.

79 And thus you see we are at liberty from the former places; having shewed that the sense of them, either must or may be such as will doe your Cause no service. But the last you suppose, will be a Gordian knot, and ties us fast enough: The words are, He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets &c. to the consummation of Saints, to the work of the Ministry &c. Vntill we all meet into the Vnity of faith &c. That we be not hereafter Children, wavering and carried up and downe with every wind of Doctrine. Out of which words, this is the only argument [Page] which you collect, or I can collect for you.

There is no meanes to conserve unity of Faith, against every wind of Doctrine, unlesse it be a Church universally infallible.

But it is impious to say there is no meanes to conserue unity of faith against every wind of Doctrine:

Therefore there must be a Church Vniversally Infallible.

Whereunto I answere, that your major is so farre from being confirned, that it is plainly confuted, by the place alleadged. For that tels us of another meanes for this purpose, to wit, the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and Pastors, and Doctors, which Christ gave upon his Ascention, and that their consummating the Saints, doing the work of the Ministry, and Edifying the body of Christ, was the meanes to bring those (which are there spoken of, be they who they will,) to the unity of Faith, and to perfection in Christ, that they might not be wavering, and carried about, with every wind of false Doctrine. Now the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and Pastors, and Doctors, are not the present Church; therefore the Church is not the only means for this end, nor that which is here spoken of.

80 Peradventure by, he gave, you conceive, is to be understood, he promised that he would give unto the worlds end. But what reason have you for this conceipt? Can you shew that the word, [...], hath this signification in other places, and that it must have it in this place? Or will not this interpretation drive you presently to this blasphemous absurdity, that God hath not performed his promise? Vnlesse you will say, which for shame I think you will not, that you have now, and in all ages since Christ have had Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists: for as for Pastors, and Doctors alone, they will not serve the turne. For if God promised to give all these, then you must say he hath given all, or else that he hath broke his promise. Neither may you pretend, that the Pastors and Doctors were the same with the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and therefore having Pastors and Doctors, you have all. For it is apparent, that by these names, are denoted severall Orders of men, cleerely distinguished and diversified by the Originall Text; but much more plainly by your own Translations, for so you read it, some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors: and yet more plainly in the paralell place, 1. Cor. 12. to which we are referr'd by your Vulgar Translation, God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, therefore this subterfuge is stopped against you. Ob. But how can they, which died in the first Age, keep us in Vnity, and guard us from Errour, that live now, perhaps in the last? This seemes to be all one; as if a man should say, that Alexander, or Iulius Caesar should quiet a mutiny in the King of Spaines Army. Ans. I hope you will grant, that Hippocrates, and Galen, and Euclid, and Aristotle, and Salust, and Caesar, and Livie, were dead many ages since; and yet that we are now preserved from error by them, in a great part of Physick, of Geometry, of Logick, of the Roman story. But what if these men [Page] had writ by divine Inspiration, and writ compleat bodies of the Sciences they professed, and writ them plainly and perspicuously? You would then have granted, I believe, that their works had been sufficient to keep us from errour, and from dissention in these matters. And why then should it be incongruous to say, that the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and Pastors, and Doctors, which Christ gave upon his ascention, by their writings, which some of them writ but all approved, are even now sufficient meanes, to conserve us in Vnity of faith, and guarde us from errour? Especially seeing these writings are, by the confession of all parts, true and divine, and as we pretend and are ready to prove, contain a plain and perfect Rule of Faith; and as thePer [...]on. Chiefest of you acknowledge, contain immediatly, all the Principall, and Fundamentall points of Christianity, referring us to the Church and Tradition only for some minute particularities. But tell me I pray, the Bishops that composed the Decrees of the Councell of Trent, and the Pope that confirmed them, are they meanes to conserve you in Unity, and keepe you from Error, or are they not? Peradventure you will say, their Decree [...] are, but not their Persons: but you will not deny I hope, that you owe your Vnity, and freedome from Error, to the Persons that made these Decrees: neither will you deny, that the writings which they have left behind them, are sufficient for this purpose. And why may not then the Apostles writings be as fit for such a purpose, as the Decrees of your Doctors? Surely their intent in writing was to conserve us in Vnity of Faith, and to keep us from errour, and we are sure God spake in them; but your Doctors from whence they are, we are not so certain. Was the Holy-Ghost then unwilling, or unable to direct them so, that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attain that end they aimed at in writing? For if he were both able and willing to doe so, then certainly he did doe so. And then their writings may be very sufficient meanes, if we would use them as we should doe, to preserve us in Vnity, in all necessary points of Faith, and to guard us from all pernitious Error.

81 If yet you be not satisfied, but will still pretend that, all these words by you cited, seem clearly enough to prove, that the Church is Vniversally infallible, without which Vnity of Faith could not be conserved against every wind of Doctrine: I Ans. That to you, which will not understand, that there can be any meanes to conserve the Vnity of Faith, but only that which conserves your authority over the Faithfull, it is no marvell that these words seem to prove, that the Church, nay that your Church is universally infallible. But we that have no such end, no such desires, but are willing to leave all men to their liberty, provided they will not improve it to a Tyranny over others, we find it no difficulty to discern between dedit and promisit, he gave at his Ascention, and he Promised to the worlds end. Besides, though you whom it concernes, may happily flatter your selves, that you have not only Pastors, and Doctors, but Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists, and those distinct from the former still in your Church; yet we that are disinteressed persons, cannot but smile at these strange imaginations. [Page] Lastly, though you are apt to think your selves such necessary instruments for all good purposes, and that nothing can be well done unlesse you doe it; that no unity or constancy in Religion can be maintained, but inevitably Christendome must fall to ruine, and confusion, unlesse you support it: yet we that are indifferent and impartiall, and well content, that God should give us his owne favours, by means of his own appointment, not of our choosing, can easily collect out of these very words, that not the infallibility of your, or of any Church, but the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists &c. which Christ gave upon his Ascention, were designed by him, for the compasing all these excellent purposes, by their preaching while they lived, and by their writings for ever. And if they faile hereof, the Reason is not any insufficiency or invalidity in the meanes, but the voluntary perversenesse of the subjects they have to deal with: who, if they would be themselves, and be content that others should be, in the choice of their Religion the servants of God and not of men; if they would allow, that the way to heaven is no narrower now, then Christ left it, his yoak no heavier then he made it; that the belief of no more difficulties, is required now to Salvation, then was in the Primitive Church; that no errour is in it selfe destructive, and exclusive from Salvation now, which was not then; if instead of being zealous Papists, earnest Calvinists, rigid Lutherans, they would become themselves, and be content that others should be plain and honest Christians; if all men would believe the Scripture, and freeing themselves from prejudice and passion, would syncerely endeavour to finde the true sense of it, and live according to it, and require no more of others, but to doe so; nor denying their▪ Communion to any that doe so, would so order their publique seruice of God, that all which doe so may without scruple, or hypocrisy, or protestation against any part of it, joyne with them in it: who does not see that (seeing as we suppose here, and shall prove hereafter,) all necessary truths, are plainly and evidently set down in Scripture, there would of necessity be among all men, in all things necessary, Vnity of Opinion? And notwithstāding any other differences that are or could be, Vnity of Communion and Charity and mutuall toleration? By which meanes, all Schisme and Heresy, would be banished the world, and those wretched contentions which now rend and teare in pieces, not the coat, but the members and bowels of Christ, which mutuall pride and Tyranny, and cursing, and killing, and damning, would fain make immortall, should speedily receive a most blessed catastrophe. But of this hereafter, when we shall come to the question of Schisme, wherein I perswade my selfe, that I shall plainly shew, that the most vehement accusers, are the greatest offenders, and that they are indeed at this time, the greatest Schismatiques, who make the way to heaven narrower, the yoak of Christ heavier, the differences of Faith greater, the conditions of Ecclesiasticall government harder, and stricter, then they were made at the begining by Christ and his Apostles: they who talk of Unity, but aime at Tyranny, and will have peace with none, but with their slaves and vassals. [Page] In the mean while, though I have shewed how Vnity of Faith, & Vnity of Charity too, may be preserved without your Churches infallibility, yet seeing you modestly conclude from hence, not that your Church is, but only seemes to be universally infallible, meaning to your selfe, of which you are a better judge then I: Therefore I willingly grant your conclusion, and proceed.

82 Whereas you say, That D. Potter limits those promises and privileges to fundamentall points: The truth is, with some of them hee meddles not at all, neither doth his Adversary giue him occasion: Not with those out of the Epistle to Timothy, and to the Ephesians. To the rest he giues other answer besides this.

83 But the words of Scripture by you alleaged are Vniversall, and mention no such restraint to Fundamentals, as D. Potter applies to them: I answer, That of the fiue Texts which you alleage, four are indefinite, and only one universall, and that you confesse is to be restrained, and are offended with D. Potter for going about to proue it. And Whereas you say, they mention no restraint, intimating that therefore they are not to be restrained, I tell you, this is no good consequence; for it may appeare out of the matter and circumstances, that they are to be understood in a restrained sense, notwithstanding no restraint be mentioned. That place quoted by S. Paul, and applied by him to our Saviour, He hath put all things under his feet, mentions no exception; yet S. Paul tels us, not only that it is true or certain, but it is manifest, that He is excepted which did put all things under him.

84 But your interpretation is better then D. Potters, because it is literall. I answer, His is Literall as well as yours: and you are mistaken if you think a restrained sense may not be a literall sense; for to Restrained, Literall is not opposed but unlimited or absolute, and to Literall, is not oppos'd Restrained, but Figuratiue.

85 Whereas you say D. Potters Brethren reiecting his limitation, restrain the mentioned Texts to the Apostles, implying hereby a contrariety between them and him: I answer, So does D. Potter restrain all of them which he speaks of, in the pages by you quoted, to the Apostles, in the direct and primary sense of the words. Though he tels you there, the words in a more restrained sense are true, being understood of the Church Vniversall.

86 As for your pretence, That to finde the meaning of those places, you conferre divers Texts, you consult Originals, you examin Translations, and use all the meanes by Protestants appointed, I haue told you before, that all this is vain and hypocriticall, if (as your manner & your doctrine is) you giue not your selfe liberty of judgement in the use of these meanes; if you make not your selves Iudges of▪ but only Advocats for the doctrine of your Church, refusing to see what these meanes shew you, if it any way make against the doctrine of your Church, though it be as cleare as the light at noone. Remoue prejudice, Even the ballance, and hold it even, make it indifferent to you which way you goe to heaven, so you goe the true, which Religion be true so you be of it, then use the meanes and pray for Gods assistance, and as sure [Page] as God is true, you shall be lead into all necessary Truth.

87 Whereas you say, you neither doe, nor haue any possible meanes to agree, as long as you are left to your selues: The first is very true, That while you differ, you doe not agree. But for the second, That you haue no possible means of agreement, as long as you are left to your selues, i. e. to your own reasons and judgement, this sure is very false, neither doe you offer any proofe of it, unlesse you intended this, that you doe not agree, for a proof that you cannot; which sure is no good consequence, not halfe so good as this which I oppose against it: D. Potter and I by the use of these meanes by you mentioned doe agree concerning the sense of these places, therefore there is a possible meanes of agreement, and therefore you also if you would use the same meanes, with the same minds, might agree so farre as it is necessary, and it is not necessary that you should agree further. Or if there bee no possible meanes to agree about the sense of these Texts, whilst wee are left to our selves, then sure it is impossible that we should agree in your sense of them which was: That the Church is universally infallible. For if it were possible for us to agree in this sense of them, then it were possible for us to agree. And why then said you of the selfe same Texts but in the page next before, These words seem cleerly enough to proue that the Church is Vniversally infallible, A strange forgetfulnesse, that the same man, almost in the same breath should say of the same words, They seem cleerly enough to proue such a conclusion true, & yet that three indifferent men, all presum'd to be lovers of Truth, and industrious searchers of it should haue no possible meanes, while they follow their own reason to agree in the Truth of this Conclusion!

88 Whereas you say, that it were great impiety to imagine that God, the lover of Soules, hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture, or upon any other occasion: I desire you to take heed, you commit not an impiety in making more impieties then Gods Commandements make. Certainly God is no way oblig'd either by his promise or his Loue to giue us all things, that we may imagine would be convenient for us, as formerly I haue proved at large. It is sufficient that he denies us nothing necessary to Salvation. Deus non deficit in necessariis, nec redundat in superfluis: So D. Stapleton. But that the ending of all Controversies, or having a certain meanes of ending them, is necessary to Salvation, that you haue often said and suppos'd, but never proved, though it be the main pillar of your whole discourse. So little care you take how slight your Foundations are, so your building make a faire shew. And as little care, how you commit those faults your selfe, which you condemne in others. For you here charge them with great impiety, who imagine that God the lover of Soules hath left no infallible meanes to determine all differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture, or upon any other occasion: And yet afterwards being demanded by D. Potter, why the Questions between the Iesuits & Dominicans remain undetermined? You returne him this crosse interrogatory, Who hath assured you that the point wherein these learned men differ, is a revealed[Page]Truth, or capable of definition, or is not rather by plain Scripture indeterminable, or by any Rule of faith? So then when you say, it were great impiety to imagine that God hath not left infallible meanes to decide all differences; I may answer, It seemes you doe not believe your selfe. For in this controversie which is of as high consequence as any can be, you seem to be doubtfull whether there be any meanes to determin it. On the other side, when you aske D. Potter, who assured him that there it any meanes to determine this Controversie? I answer for him, that you have, in calling it a great impiety to imagine that there is not some infallible meanes to decide this and all other differences arising about the Interpretation of Scripture, or upon any other occasion. For what trick you can devise to shew that this difference, between the Dominicans and Iesuits, which includes a difference about the sense of many Texts of Scripture, & many other matters of moment, was not included under this and all other differences, I cannot imagine. Yet if you can finde out any, thus much at least we shall gain by it, that generall speeches are not alwaies to be understood generally, but sometimes with exceptions and limitations.

89 But if there be any infallible meanes to decide all differences, I beseech you name them. You say it is to consult and heare Gods Visible Church with submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility. But suppose the difference be (as here it is) whether your Church be infalli [...]le, what shall decide that? If you would say (as you should dot) Scripture and Reason, then you foresee that you should be forced to grant that these are fit meanes to decide this Controversie, and therefore may be as fit to decide others. Therefore to avoid this, you runne into a most ridiculous absurdity, and tell us that this difference also, whether the Church be infallible, as well as others, must be agreed by a submissiue acknowledgment of the Churches infallibility. As if you should haue said, My Brethren I perceiue this is a great contention amongst you, whether the Roman Church be infallible? If you will follow my advice, I will shew you a ready meanes to end it; you must first agree that the Roman Church is infallible, and then your contention whether the Roman Church be infallible, will quickly be at an end. Verily a most excellent advice, and most compendious way of ending all Controversies, even without troubling the Church to determine them▪ For why may not you say in all other differences, as you haue done in this? Agree that the Pope is supream head of the Church: That the substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is turned into the body, & bloud of Christ: That the Communion is to be given to Lay-men but in one kind: That Pictures may be worshipped: That Saints are to bee invocated; and so in the rest, and then your differences about the Popes Supremacy, Transubstantiation, and all the rest will speedily be ended. If you say, the advice is good in this, but not in other cases, I must request you not to expect alwaies, to be believed upon your word, but to shew us some reason, why any one thing, namely the Churches infallibility, is fit to prove it selfe; and any other thing, by name the Popes Supremacy, or Transubstantiation is not as fit? Or if for [Page] shame you will at length confesse, that the Churches infallibility is not fit to decide this difference, whether the Church be infallible, then you must confesse it is not fit to decide all: Vnlesse you will say, it may be fit to decide all, and yet not fit to decide this, or pretend that this is not comprehended under all. Besides if you grant that your Churches infallibilitie cannot possibly be well grounded upon, or decided by it selfe, then having professed before, that there is no possible meanes besides this, for us to agree hereupon, I hope you will giue mee leaue to conclude, that it is impossible upon good ground for us to agree that the Roman Church is infallible. For certainly light it selfe, is not more cleere then the evidence of this syllogisme;

If there be no other meanes to make men agree upon your Churches infallibility, but only this, and this be no meanes, then it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is infallible:

But there is (as you haue granted) no other possible meanes to make men agree hereupon, but only a submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility, And this is apparently no meanes;

Therefore it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is infallible.

90 Lastly to the place of S. Austine, wherein we are advis'd to follow the way of Catholique discipline, which from Christ himselfe by the Apostles hath come down even to us, and from us shall descend to all posterity: I answer, That the way which S. Austine spake of, & the way which you commend, being divers waies, & in many things cleane contrary, we cannot possibly follow them both; and therefore for you to apply the same words to them is a vaine equivocation. Shew us any way, & doe not say, but proue it to haue come from Christ & his Apostles down to us; and we are ready to follow it. Neither doe wee expect demonstration hereof, but such reasons as may make this more probable then the contrary. But if you bring in things into your now Catholique Discipline, which Chistians in S. Austins time held abominable, (as the picturing of God,) & which you must confesse to haue come into the Church seven hundred yeares after Christ: if you will bring in things, as you haue done the halfe Communion, with a non obstante, notwithstanding Christs Institution, and the practise of the Primitive Church were to the contrary: If you will doe such things as these, and yet would haue us believe, that your whole Religion came from Christ and his Apostles, this we conceive a request too unreasonable for modest men to make, or for wise men to grant.

[Page]

CHAP. IIII.
To say, that the Creed containes all points necessarily to be believed, is neither pertinent to the Question in hand, nor in it selfe true.

I SAY, neither pertinent, nor true. Not pertinent: Because our Question is not, what points are necessary to be explicitely believed; but what points may be lawfully disbelieved, or rejected after sufficient Proposition that they are divine Truths. You say, the Creed containes all points necessary to be believed. Be it so. But doth it likewise containe all points not to be disbelieved? Certainly it doth not. For how many truths are there in holy Scripture not contained in the Creed, which we are not obliged distinctly, and particularly to know and believe, but are bound under paine of damnation not to reject, as soone as we come to know that they are found in holy Scripture? And we having already shewed, that whatsoever is proposed by Gods Church as a point of faith, is infallibly a truth revealed by God; it followeth that whosoever denieth any such point, opposeth Gods sacred testimony whether that point be contained in the Creed, or no. In vaine then was your care imployed to prove that all points of faith necessary to be explicitely believed, are contained in the Creed. Neither was that the Catalogue which Charity Mistaken demanded. His demand was (and it was most reasonable) that you would once give us a list of all fundamentals, the deniall whereof destroyes Salvation; whereas the deniall of other points not fundamentall, may stand with salvation, although both these kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by God. For if they be not equally proposed, the difference will arise from diversity of the Proposall, and not of the Matter fundamentall, or not fundamentall. This Catalogue only, can shew how farre Protestants may disagree without breach of Vnity in faith; and upon this many other matters depend, according to the ground of Protestants. But you will never adventure to publish such a Catalogue. I say more: You cannot assigne any one point so great, or fundamentall, that the deniall thereof will make a man an Heretique, if it be not sufficiently propounded, as a divine Truth: Nor can you assigne any one point so small, that it can without heresie be rejected, if once it be sufficiently represented as revealed by God.

2. Nay, this your instance in the Creed, is not only impertinent but directly against you. For all points in the Creed are not of their own nature fundamentall, as I shewedCap. 3. n. 3. before: And yet it is damnable to deny any one point contained in the Creed. So that it is cleere, that to make an errour damnable, it is not necessary that the matter be of it selfe fundamentall.

3 Moreover you cannot ground any certainty upon the Creed it selfe, unlesse first you presuppose that the authority of the Church is universally infallible, and consequently that it is damnable to oppose her declarations, whether they concerne matters great, or small, contayned, or not contained in the Creed. This is cleere. Because we must receiue the Creed it self upon the credit of the Church, without which we could not know that there was any such thing as that which we call the Apostles Creed: and yet the arguments whereby you endeavour to prove, that the Creed containes all fundamentall points, are grounded upon supposition, that the Creed was made either by the Apostles themselves, or by the Pag. 216. Church of their times from them: which thing we could not certainly know, if the succeeding and still continued Church, may erre in her Traditions: neither can we be assured, whether all fundamentall Articles which you say were out of the Scriptures, summed, and contracted into the Apostles Creed, were faithfully summed, and contracted, and not one pretermitted, altered, or mistaken, unlesse we undoubtedly know that the Apostles composed the Creed; and that they intended to contract all fundamentall points of faith into it; or at least that the Church of their times (for it seemeth you doubt whether indeed it were composed by the Apostles themselves) did understand the Apostles aright; and that the Church of their times, did intend that the Creed should containe all fundamentall points. For if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall, may she not also erre in the particulers which I have specified? Can you shew it to be a fundamentall point of faith, that the Apostles intended to comprize all points of faith necessary to Salvation in the Creed? Your self say no more then that it is very Pag▪ 24 [...]. probable; which is farre from reaching to a fundamentall point of faith. Your prohability is grounded upon the Iudgment of Antiquity, and even of the Roman Doctours, as you say in the same place. But if the Catholique Church may erre, what certainty can you expect from Antiquity, or Doctours? Scripture is your totall Rule of faith. Cite therefore some Text of Scripture, to prove that the Apostles, or the Church of their times composed the Creed, and composed it with a purpose that it should containe all fundamentall points of faith. Which being impossible to be done, you must for the Creed it self rely upon the infallibility of the Church.

4. Moreover, the Creed consisteth not so much in the words, as in their sense and meaning. [Page] All such as pretend to the name of Christians, recite the Creed, and yet many have erred fundamentally, as well against the Articles of the Creed, as other points of faith. It is then very frivolous to say, the Creed containes all fundamentall points, without specifying, both in what sense the Articles of the Creed be true, and also in what true sense, they be fundamentall. For, both these taskes, you are to performe, who teach that all truth is not fundamentall: and you doe but delude the ignorant, when you say, that the Creed, taken in a Catholique Pag. 216. sense, comprehendeth all points fundamentall; because with you, all Catholique sense is not fundamentall: for so it were necessary to salvation that all Christians should know the whole Scripture, wherein every least point hath a Catholique sense. Or if by Catholique sense, you understand that sense which is so universally to be knowne, and believed by all, that whosoever failes therein cannot be saved, you trifle and say no more then this: All points of the Creed in a sense necessary to salvation, are necessary to salvation. Or: All points fundamentall, are fundamentall. After this manner it were an easie thing to make many trve Prognostications, by saying it will certainly raine, when it raineth. You say the CreedPag. 216. was opened and explained, in some parts in the Creeds of Nice, &c. but how shall we understand the other parts, not explained in those Creeds?

5. For what Article in the Creed is more fundamentall, or may seem more cleere, then that, wherein we believe IESVS CHRIST to be the Mediatour, Redeemer, and Saviour of mankind, and the founder, and foundation of a Catholique Church expressed in the Creed? And yet about this Article, how many different doctrines are there, not only of old Heretiques, as Arius, Nestorius, Eutiches, &c. but also of Protestants, partly against Catholiques, and partly against one another? For the said maine Article of Christ's being the only Saviour of the world &c. according to different senses of disagreeing Sects, doth involve these, and many other such questions; That Faith in IESVS CHRIST doth justifie alone; That Sacraments have no efficency in Iustification; That Baptisme doth not availe Infants for salvation, unlesse they have an Act of faith; That there is no Sacerdotall Absolution from sinnes; That good works proceeding from Gods grace are not meritorious; That there can be no Satisfaction for the temporall punishment due to sinne after the guilt, or offence is pardoned; No Purgatory; No prayers for the dead; No Sacrifice of the Masse; No Invocation; No Mediation, or intercession of Saints; No inherent Iustice: No supreme Pastor, yea no Bishop by divine Ordinance; No Reall presence; no Transubstantiation, with diverse others. And why? Because (forsooth) these Doctrines derogate from the Titles of Mediator, Redeemer, Advocate, Foundation, &c. Yea, and are against the truth of our Saviours humane nature, if we believe diverse Protestants, writing against Transubstantiation. Let then any judicious man consider, whether Doctour Potter, or others doe really satisfie, when they send men to the Creed for a perfect Catalogue, to distinguish points fundamentall, from those which they say are not fundamentall. If he will speak indeed to some purpose, let him say: This Article is understood in this sense; and in this sense it is fundamentall. That other is to be understood in such a meaning; yet according to that meaning, it is not so fundamentall, but that men may disagree, and denie it without damnation, But it were no policie for any Protestant to deale so plainly.

6. But to what end should we use many arguments? Even your selfe are forced to limit your owne Doctrine, and come to say, that the Creed is a perfect Catalogue of fundamentall points, taken as it was further opened and explained in some parts (by occasion of emergent Heresies) in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice, Constantinople, Pag. 216. Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Athanasius. But this explication, or restriction overthroweth you assertion: For as the Apostles Creed was not to us a sufficient Catalogue, till it was explained by the first Councell, nor then till it was declared by another, &c. so now also, as new Heresies may arise, it will need particular explanation against such emergent errors; and so it is not yet, nor ever will be of it self alone, a particular Catalogue, sufficient to distinguish betwixt fundamentall, and not fundamentall points.

7. I come to the second part: That the Creed doth not containe all maine and principall points of faith. And to the end we may not strive about things either granted by us both, or no thing concerning the point in question, I must premise these observations.

8. First: That it cannot be denied, but that the Creed is most full and complete, to that purpose for which the holy Apostles, inspir'd by God, meant that it should serve, and in that manner as they did intend it, which was, not to comprehend all particular points of faith, but such generall heads, as were most befitting, and requisite for preaching the faith of Christ to Iewes, and Gentiles, and might be briefly, and compendiously set down, and easily learned, and remembred. And therefore, in respect of Gentiles, the Creed doth mention God, as Creator of all things; and and for both Iewes and Gentiles, the Trinity, the Messias, and Saviour, his birth, life, death, resurrection, and glory, from whom they were to hope remission of sinnes, and life everlasting, and by whose sacred Name they were to be distinguished from all other professions, by being called Christians. According to which purpose S. Thomas of Aquine 2. 2, q. 1. Art. 8. doth distinguish all the Articles of the Creed into these generall heads: That some belong to the Majesty of the God head; others to the Mystery of our Saviour Christs Humane nature: Which two generall objects of faith, the holy Ghost doth expresse, and conjoyne, Ioan. 17. Haec est vita aeterna &c. This is life everlasting, that they know thee true GOD, and whom thou hast sent IESVS CHRIST. But it was not their meaning to give us as it were a course of Divinity, or a Catechisme, or a particular expression of all points of Faith, leaving those things to be performed, as occasion should require, [Page] by their own word or writing, for their time, and afterwards for their Successours in the Catholique Church. Our question then is not, whether the Creed be perfect, as farre as the end for which it was composed, did require; For we beleive and are ready to give our lives for this: but only we denie, that the Apostles did intend to comprise therein all particular [...]oints of beliefe, necessary to salvation, as even by D. Potters ownePag. 235, 215. confession, it doth not comprehend agenda, or things belonging to practise, as Sacraments, Commandements, the acts of Hope, and duties of Charity, which we are obliged not only to practise, but also to believe by divine infallible faith. Will he therefore inferre that the Creed is not perfect, because it containes not all those necessary, and fundamentall Objects of faith? He will answer, No: because the Apostles intended only to expresse credenda, things to be believed, not practised. Let him therefore give us leave to say, that the Creed is perfect, because it wanteth none of those Objects of beliefe which were intended to be set downe, as we explicated before.

9. The second observation is, that to satisfie our question what points in particular be fundamentall, it will not be sufficient to alleage the Creed, unlesse it containes all such points either expressely and immediatly; or else in such manner, that by evident, and necessary consequence they may be deduced from Articles both cleerely, and particularly contained therein. For if the deduction be doubtfull, we shall not be sure, that such Conclusions be fundamentall: or if the Articles themselves which are said to be fundamentall, be not distinctly, and particularly expressed, they will not serve us to know, and distinguish all points fundamentall, from those which they call, not fundamētall. We doe not deny, but that all points of faith, both fundamentall & not fundamentall, may be said to be contained in the Creed, in some sense; as for example, implicitely, generally, or in such involved manner. For when we explicitely believe the Catholike Church, we doe implicitely believe whatsoever she proposeth as belonging to faith: Or else by way of reductiō, that is, when we are once instructed in the beliefe of particular points of faith, not expressed, nor by necessary consequence deducible from the Creed; we may afterward, by some analogy, or proportion, and resemblance, reduce it to one, or moe of those Articles which are explicitely contained in the Symbole. Thus S. Thomas the Cherubim among Divines teacheth2, 2. q. 1. art. 8. ad 6: that the miraculous existence of our Blessed Saviours body in the Eucharist, as likewise all his other miracles, are reduced to Gods Omnipotency, expressed in the Creed. And Doctor Potter saith: The Eucharist, Pag. 231. being a seale of that holy Vnion which we have with Christ our head, by his spirit and Faith, and with the Saints his members by Charity, is evidently included in the communion of Saints. But this reductive way, is farre from being sufficient to inferre out of the Articles of Gods Omnipotency, or of the Communion of Saints, that our Saviours body is in the Eucharist, and much lesse whether it be only in figure, or else in reality; by Transubstantiation, or Consubstantiation, &c. and least of all, whether or no these points be fundamentall. And you hyperbolize, in saying, the Eucharist is evidently included in the Communion of Saints, as if there could not have been, or was not a Communion of Saints, before the Blessed Sacrament was instituted. Yet it is true, that after we know, and believe, there is such a Sacrament, wee may referre it to some of those heads expressed in the Creed, and yet so, as S. Thomas referres it to one Article, and D. Potter to another; and in respect of different analogies or effects, it may be referred to severall Articles. The like I say of other points of faith, which may in some sort be reduced to the Creed, but nothing to D. Potters purpose: But contrarily it sheweth, that your affirming such and such points to be fundamentall or not fundamentall, is meerely arbitrary, to serve your turne, as necessity, and your occasions may require. Which was an old custome amongst Heretiques, as wee read inDe Pe [...]cat. Orig. lib. 2. c. 22▪ S. Augustine; Pelagius and Celessius, desiring fraudulently to avoide the the hatefull name of Heresies, affirmed that the question of Originall sinne may be disputed without danger of faith. But this holy Father affirmes that it belongs to the foundation of Faith. We may (saith he) endure a disputant who erres in other questions not yet diligently examined, not yet diligently established by the whole authority of the Church; their errour may be borne with: but it must not passe so farre as to attempt to shake the foundation of the church. We see S. Augustine places the being of a point fundamentall or not fundamentall, in that it hath beene examined, and established by the Church, although the point of which he speaketh, namely Originall Sinne, be not contained in the Creed.

10. Out of that which hath beene said, I inferre, that Dostor Potters paines in alleaging Catholique Doctors, the ancient Fathers, and the Councell of Trent, to prove that the Creed containes all points of faith, was needlesse; since we grant it in manner aforesaid. But Doctor Potter, cannot in his conscience believe, that Catholique Divines, or the Councell of Trent and the holy Fathers did intend, that all points in particular which we are obliged to believe, are contained explicitely in the Creed; he knowing well enough, that all Catholiques hold themselves obliged, to believe all those points which the said Councell defines to be believed under an Anathema, and that all Christians believe the commandements, Sacraments &c. which are not expressed in the Creed.

11. Neither must this seeme strange. For who is ignorant, that Summaries, Epitomes, and the like briefe Abstracts, are not intended to specifie all particulars of that Science, or Subject to which they belong. For as the Creed is said to containe all points of Faith; so the Decalogue comprehends all Articles, (as I may terme them) which concerne Charity, and good life: and yet this cannot be so understood, as if we were disobliged frō performance of any duty, or the eschewing. [Page] of any vice, unlesse it be expressed in the ten Commandements. For, (to omit the precepts of receaving Sacraments, which belong to practise, or manners, and yet are not contained in the Decalogue) there are many sinnes, even against the law of nature, and light of reason, which are not contained in the tenne Commandements, except only by similitude, analogy, reduction, or some such way. For example, we find not expressed in the Decalogue, either divers sinnes, as Gluttony, Drunkennesse, Pride, Sloth, Covetousnesse in desiring either things superfluous, or with too much greedinesse; or diuers of our chiefe obligations, as Obedience to Princes, and all Superiours, not only Ecclesiasticall but also Civill, whose lawes Luther, Melancthon, Calvin; and some other Protestants doe dangerously affirme not to oblige [...]n conscience, and yet these men thinke they know the ten Commandements: as likewise divers Protestants defend Vsury, to be lawfull; and the many Treatises of Civilians, Canonists, and Casuists, are witnesses, that divers sinnes against the light of reason, and Law of nature, are not distinctly expressed in the ten Commandements; although when by other diligences they are found to be unlawfull, they may be reduced to some of the Commandements, and yet not so evidently, and particularly, but that divers doe it in divers manners.

12. My third Observation is: That our present question being, whether or no the Creed containe so fully all fundamentall points of faith, that whosoever doe not agree in all, and every one of those fundamentall Articles, cannot have the same substance of faith, nor hope of Salvation; if I can produce one, or more points, not contained in the Creed, in vvhich if two doe not agree, both of them cannot expect to be saved, I shall have performed as much as I intend; and D. Potter must seeke our some other Catalogue for points fundamentall, then the Creed. Neither is it materiall to the said purpose, whether such fundamentall points rest only in knowledge, and speculation, or beliefe, or else be farther referred to work and practise. For the habit, or vertue of Faith, which inclineth, and enableth us to believe both speculative, and practicall verities, is of one and the selfe same nature, and essence. For example, by the same Faith, whereby I speculatively believe there is a God, I likewise believe, that he is to be adored, served, and loved; which belong to practise. The reason is, because the Formall Object, or motive, for which I yeild assent to those different sorts of materiall objects, is the sai [...] in both, to wit, the revelation, or word of God. Where, by the way I note, that if the Vnity, or Distinction, and nature of faith, were to be taken from the diversity of things revealed, by one faith I should believe speculative verities, and by another such as tend to practise, which I doubt whether D. Potter himselfe will admit.

13 Hence it followeth, that whosoever denieth any one main practicall revealed truth, is no lesse an Heretique, then if he should deny a Point resting in belief alone. So that when D. Potter, (to avoid our argument, that all fundamentall points are not contained in the Creed, because in it there is no mention of the Sacraments, which yet are points of so main importance, that Protestants make the due administration of them, to be necessary and essentiall to constitute a Church) answereth, that the Sacraments are to be Pap. 235. reckoned, rather among the Agenda of the Church, then the Credenda; they are rather divine rites and ceremonies, then Doctrines, he either grants what we affirme, or in effect saies, Of two kinds of revealed truths, which are necessary to be believed, the Creed containes one sort only, ergo, it containes all kind of revealed truths necessary to be believed. Our question is not, de nomine but re; not what be called points of faith, or of practise, but what points indeed be necessarily to be believed, whether they be termed Agenda, or Credenda: especially the chiefest part of Christian perfection consisting more in Action, then in barren Speculation; in good works, then bare belief; in doing, then knowing. And there are no lesse contentions concerning practicall; then speculative truths: as Sacraments, obtaining remission of sinne, Invocation of Saints, Prayers for dead, Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament, and many other: all which doe so much the more import, as on them, beside righ [...] belief, doth also depend our practise, and the ordering of our life. Though D. Potter could therefore give us (as he will never be able to doe) a minute, and exact Catalogue of all truths to be believed; that would not make me able enough to know, whether or no I have faith sufficient for salvation; till he also did bring in a particular List, of all believed truths, which tend to practise, declaring which of them be fundamentall, which not; that so every man might know, whether he be not in some Damnable Errour, for some Article of faith, which farther might give influence into Damnable works.

14 These Observations being premised, I come to prove, that the Creed doth not contain all points of Faith necessary to be known and believed. And, to omit that in generall it doth no [...] tell us, what points be fundamentall, or not fundamentall, which in the way of Protestants, is most necessary to be known; in particular, there is no mention of the greatest evills, from which mans calamity proceeded, I mean, the sinne of the Angels, of Adam, and of Originall sinne in us: nor of the greatest good from which we expect all good, to wit, the necessity of Grace for all works tending to piety. Nay, there is no mention of Angels, good, or bad. The meaning of that most generall head (Oporter accedentem &c. It behoves Heb. 11. 6. him that comes to God, to believe that he is, and is a remunerator,) is questioned, by the deniall of Merit, which makes God a Giver, but not a Rewarder. It is not expressed whether the Article of Remission of sinnes be understood by faith alone, or else may admit the efficiency of Sacraments. There is no mention of Ecclesiasticall, Apostolicall, Divine Traditions, one way or other; or of holy Scriptures in [Page] generall, and much lesse of every book in particular; nor of the Name, Nature, Number, Effects, Matter, Forme, Minister, Intention, Necessity of Sacraments, and yet the due Administration of Sacraments, is with Protestants an essentiall Note of the Church. There is nothing for Baptisme of Children, nor against Rebaptization. There is no mention in favour, or against the Sacrifice of the Masse, of Power in the Church to institute Rites, Holy daies, &c. and to inflict Excommunication, or other Censures: of Priesthood, Bishops, and the whole Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy, which are very fundamentall points; of S. Peters Primacy, which to Calvin seemeth a fundamentall errour; nor of the possibility, or impossibility to keep Gods commandements; of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne; of Purgatory, or Prayer for the dead, in any sense: And yet D. Potter doth not deny, but that Aerius was esteemed an Heretique, for denyingPag. 35 [...] all sort of Commemoration for the dead. Nothing of the Churches Visibility or Invisibility, Fallibility or Infallibility; nor of other points controverted betwixt Protestants themseves, and between Protestants and Catholiques, which to D. Potter seem so hainous corruptions, that they cannot without damnation joyne with us in profession thereof. There is no mention of the Cessation of the Old Law, which yet is a very main point of faith. And many other might be also added.

15. But what need we labour to specify particulars? There are as many important points of faith not expressed in the Creed, as since the worlds begining, now, and for all future times, there have been, are and may be innumerable, grosse, damnable Heresies, whose contrary truths are not contained in the Creed. For, every fundamentall Error must have a contrary fundamentall truth; because of two contradictory propositions in the same degree, the one is false, the other must be true. As for example, if it be a damnable error to deny the B [...]. Trinity, or the Godhead of our Saviour, the belief of them must be a truth necessary to Salvation; or rather, if we will speak properly, the Error is damnable, because the opposite Truth is necessary, as death is frightfull, because life is sweet; and according to Philosophy, the Privation is measured by the Forme to which it is repugnant. If therefore the Creed contain in particular all fundamentall points of faith, it must explicitely, or by cleer consequence, comprehend all truths opposite to innumerable Heresies of all ages past, present, and to come, which no man in his wits will affirme it to doe.

16 And here I cannot omit to signify how youPag. 255. applaud the saying of D. Vsher. That in those propositions which without all controversy are universally received in the whole Christian world, so much truth is contained, as being joyned with holy Obedience, may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting salvation, neither have we cause to doubt, but that as many as walk according to this Rule (neither overthrowing that which they have builded, by superinducing any damnable heresies thereupon, nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith, with a lewd and wicked conversation) peace shall be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. Now D Potter knowes, that the Mystery of the B. Trinity is not universally received in the whole Christian world, as appeares in very many Heretiques, in Polony, Hungary, and Transilvania, and therefore according to this Rule of D. Vsher, approved by D. Potter, the deniall of the B. Trinity, shall not exclude Salvation.

17 Let me note by the way, that you might easily have espied a foul contradiction in the said words of D. Vsher, by you recited, and so much applauded. For he supposeth, that a man agrees with other Churches in belief, which joyned with holy Obedience may bring him to everlasting salvation, and yet, that he may superinduce damnable heresies. For how can he superinduce damnable heresies, who is supposed to believe all Truths necessary to salvation? Can there be any damnable heresy, unlesse it contradict some necessary truth, which cannot happen in one who is supposed to believe all necessary Truths? Besides if one believing all fundamentall Articles in the Creed, may superinduce damnable heresies; it followeth that the fundamentall truths contrary to those damnable heresies, are not contained in the Creed.

18 According to this Modell of D. Potters foundation, consisting in the agreement of scarceone point of faith; what a strange Church would he make of men concurring in some one of few Articles of belief, who yet for the rest should be holding conceits plainly contradictory: so patching up a Religion of men, who agree only in the Article, that Christ is our Saviour, but for the rest, are like to the parts of a Chimaera; having the head of a man, the neck of a horse, the shoulders of an Oxe, the foot of a Lion &c. I wrong them not herein. For in good Philosophy there is greater repugnancy between assent and dissent, affirmation and negation, est est, non non, (especially when all these contradictories pretend to rely upon one and the selfe same Motive, the infallible Truth of Almighty God) then between the integrall parts, as head, neck, &c. of a man, horse, lion, &c. And thus Protestants are farre more bold to disagree even in matters of faith, then Catholique Divines in questions meerely Philosophicall, or not determined by the Church. And wh [...]e thus they stand only upon fundamentall Articles, they doe by their own confession destroy the Church, which is the house of God. For the foundation alone of a house, is not a house, nor can they in such an imaginary Church any more expect Salvation, then the foundation alone of a house is fit to afford a man habitation.

19 Moreover, it is most evident that Protestants by this Chaos rather then Church, doe giue unavoidable occasion of desperation to poore soules. Let some one who is desirous to save his soule repaire to D. Potter, who maintaines these grounds, to know upon whom he may rely, in a matter of so great consequence; I suppose the Doctors answer will be: Vpon the truely Catholique Church. She cannot erre damnably. What understand you by the Catholique Church? [Page] Cannot generall Councells, which are the Church representatiue, erre? Yes, they may weakly, or Pag. 167. wilfully misaply, or misunderstand, or neglect Scripture, and so erre damnably. To whom then shall I goe for my particular instruction? I cannot confer with the united body of the whole Church about my particular difficulties, as your selfe affirmes, that the Catholique Church cannot be told Pag. 27. of private iniuries. Must I then consult with every particular person of the Catholique Church? So it seemes, by what you write in these words: The whole Pag. 150. militant Church (that is all the members of it) cannot possibly erre, either in the whole faith, or any necessary Article of it. You say, M. Doctour, I cannot for my instruction acquaint the universall Church with my particular scruples: You say, the Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawfull generall Councel may erre damnably: It remaines then, that for my necessary instruction, I must repaire to every particular member of the universall Church spread over the face of the earth: and yet you teach that the promises Pag. 151. 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, with which (as I said) it is impossible for me to confer. Alas! O most uncomfortable Ghostly Father, you driue me to desperation! How shall I confer with every Christian soule, man and woman, by sea and by land, close prisoner, or at liberty? &c. Yet upon supposall of this miraculous Pilgrimage for Faith, before I haue the faith of Miracles, how shall I proceed at our meeting? Or how shall I know the man on whom I may securely rely? Procure (will you say) to knew whether he belieue all fundamentall points of faith. For if he doe, his faith, for point of beliefe, is sufficient for salvation, though he erre in a hundred things of lesse moment. But how shall I know whether hee hold all fundamentall points or no? For till you tell me this, I cannot know whether or no his beliefe be sound in all fundamentall points. Can you say the Creed? Yes. And so can many damnable Heretiques. But why doe you aske me this question? Because the Creed containes all fundamentall points of faith. Are you sure of that? not sure: I hold it very probable. Pag. 241. Shall I hazard my soule on probabilities, or even wagers? This yeelds a new cause of despaire. But what? doth the Creed contain all points necessary to be believed, whether they rest in the understanding, or else doe further extend to practise? No. It was composed to deliver Credenda, not Agenda to us; Faith, not Practise. How then shall I know what points of beliefe, which direct my practise, be necessary to salvation? S [...]ll you chalk our new paths for Desperation. Well, are all Articles of the Creed, for their nature and matter, fundamentall? I cannot say so. How then shall I know which in particular be, and which be not fundamentall? Read my Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken &c. there you shall finde, that fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique Verities, as principally and essentially pertain Pag. 211. 213▪ 214. to the Faith, such as properly constitute a Church, and are necessary (in ordinary course) to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved. They are those grand, and capitall doctrines which make up our Faith in Christ; that is, that common faith which is alike precious in all, being one and the same in the highest Apostle, and the meanest believer, which the Apostle else-where cals the first principles of the oracles of God, & the forme of sound words. But how shall I apply these generall definitions, or descriptions, or (to say the truth) these only varied words, and phrases (for I understand the word, fundamentall, as well as the words, principall, essentiall grand, and capitall doctrines, &c.) to the particular Articles of the Creed, in such sort, as that I may be able precisely, exactly, particularly, to distinguish fundamentall Articles from points of lesse moment? You labour to tell us what fundamentall points be, but not which they be: and yet unlesse you doe this, your Doctrine serues only, either to make men despaire, or else to haue recourse to those whom you call Papists, and which giue one certain Rule, that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of Faith, in such sense, as that to deny any one cannot stand with salvation. And seeing your selfe acknowledges that these men doe not erre in points fundamentall, I cannot but hold it most safe for me to joyn with them, for the securing of my soule, and the avoiding of desperation, into which this your doctrine must cast all them who understand, and belieue it. For the whole discourse, and inferences which here I haue made, are either your own direct Assertions, or evident consequences cleerly deduced from them.

20 But now let us answer some few Objections of D. Potters, against that which wee haue said before, to avoid our argument. That the Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed, he saith: The Creed is an abstract of such Pag. 234. necessary Doctrines as are delivered in Scripture, or collected out of it; and therefore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes.

21 This answer makes for us. For by giving a reason why it was needlesse that Scripture should be expressed in the Creed, you grant as much as we desire, namely that the Apostles judged it needlesse to expresse all necessary points of faith in their Creed. Neither doth the Creed suppose, or depend on Scripture, in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence, infer from the Articles of the Creed, that there is any Canonicall Scripture at all; and much lesse that such Books in particular be Canonicall. Yea the Creed might haue been the same although holy Scripture had never been written; and, which is more, the Creed even in priority of time, was before all the Scripture of the new Testament, except the Gospell of S. Mathew. And so according to this reason of his, the Scripture should not mention Articles contained in the Creed. And I note in a word, how little connexion D. Potters arguments haue, while he tells us, that the Creed Pag. 234. is an Abstra [...] of such necessary doctrines as are delivered in Scripture, or collected out of it, & therefore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes; it doth not follow: The Articles of [Page] the Creed are delivered in Scripture: therefore the Creed supposeth Scripture. For two distinct writings may well deliver the same truths, and yet one of them not suppose the other, unlesse D. Potter be of opinion that two Doctors cannot, at one time, speak the same truth.

22 And notwithstanding, that D. Potter hath now told us, it was needlesse that the Creed should expresse Scripture, whose Authority it supposes, he comes at length to say, that the Nicene Fathers in their Creed confessing that the holy Ghost spake by the Prophets, doth thereby sufficiently avow the divine Authority of all Canonicall Scripture. But I would ask him, whether the Nicene Creed be not also an Abstract of Doctrines delivered in Scripture, as he said of the Apostles Creed, and thence did infer, that it was needlesse to expresse Scripture, whose authority it supposes? Besides, we doe not only belieue in generall, that Canonicall Scripture is of divine authority but we are also bound under pain of damnation to belieue, that such and such particular Books [...] not mentioned in the Nicene Creed, are Canonicall. And lastly D. Potter in this Answer grants as much as we desire, which is, that all points of faith are not contained in the Apostles Creed, even as it is explained by other Creeds. For these words (who spake by the Prophets) are no waies contained in the Apostles Creed, and therefore contain an Addition, not an Explanation thereof.

23 But, how can it be necessary (saith D. Potter) for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the Pag. 221▪ Apostles had, and the Church of their times? I answer; You trifle, not distinguish between the Apostles beliefe, and that abridgment of some Articles of faith, which we call the Apostles Creed; and withall you beg the question, by supposing that the Apostles believed no more, then is contained in their Creed, which every unlearned person knowes and belieues: and I hope you will not deny but the Apostles were endued with greater knowledge then ordinarie persons.

24 Your pretended proof out of the Acts, that the Apostles revealed to the Church the whole counsell of God, keeping Acts 20. 2 [...] ▪ back nothing, with your glosse (needfull for our salvation) is no proofe, unlesse you still beg the question, and doe suppose, that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church, is contained in the Creed. And I wonder you doe not reflect that those words were by S, Paul particularly directed to Pastors, and Governours of the Church, as is cleere by the other words; He called the Ancients of the Church. And afterward: Take heed to your selues, and to the whole flock wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, to rule the Church. And your selfe say, that more knowledge is Pag. 244▪ necessary in Bishops, and Priests, to whom is committed the government of the Church, and the care of soules, then in vulgar Laicks. Doe you think that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed? Said they nothing of the Sacraments, Commandements, Duties of Hope, Charity, &c.

25 Vpon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other objection: To say the whole faith of those times Pag. 225▪ 223. is not contained in the Apostles Creed, is all one, as if a man should say, this is not the Apostles Creed▪ but a part of it: For the faith of the Apostles is not all one with that which we commonly call their Creed. Did not, I pray you, S. Mathew, and S. Iohn belieue their writings to be Canonicall Scripture? and yet their writings are not mentioned in the Creed. It is therefore more then cleere, that the Faith of the Apostles is of larger extent, then the Apostles Creed.

26 To your demand, why amongst many things of equall necessity to be believed, the Apostles should Pag. 223▪ so di [...]tinctly set down some, and be altogether silent of others? I answer: That you must answer your own demand. For in the Creed there be divers points in their nature, not fundamentall or necessary to be explicitely and distinctly believed, [...] aboue wee shew [...]d; why are these points which are not fundamentall expressed, rather then other [...] the same quality? Why our Saviours descent to Hell, and Buriall expressed, and not his Circumcision, his Manifestation to the three Kings, working of Miracles, &c. Why did they not expresse Scriptures, Sacraments, and all fundamentall points of Faith tending to practise, as well as those which rest in beliefe? Their intention was, particularly to deliver such Articles as were fittest for those times, concerning the Deity, Trinity, and Messias (as heretofore I haue declared) leaving many things to be taught by the Catholique Church, which in the Creed we all professe to belieue. Neither doth it follow, as you infer, That as well, nay better, they might have given no Article, but that (of the Church) & sent us to the Church for all the rest. For in setting down others besides that, and not all, they make us believe we haue all, when Pag. 223▪ we haue not all. For by this kind of arguing, what may not be deduced? One might, quite contrary to your inference, say: If the Apostles Creed contain all points necessary to salvation, what need we any Church to teach us? and consequently what need of the Article concerning the Church? What need we the Creeds of Nice, Constantinople, &c. Superfluous are your Catechismes, wherein besides the Articles of the Creed, you adde divers other particulars. These would be poore consequences, and so is yours. But shall I tell you newes? For so you are pleased to esteem it. We grant your inference, thus far: That our Saviour Christ referred us to his Church, by her to be taught, and by her alone. For, she was before the Creed, and Scriptures; And she to discharge this imposed office of instructing us, hath delivered us the Creed, but not it alone, as if nothing else were to be believed. We haue besides it, holy Scripture, we haue unwritten, Divine, Apostolicall, Ecclesiasticall Traditions. It were a childish argument: The Creed containes not all things which are necessary to be believed: Ergo, it is not profitable. Or; The Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient meanes: Ergo, she must teach us without all meanes, without Creeds, without Councels, without Scripture &c. If the Apostles had expressed [Page] no Article, but that of the Catholique Church, she must have taught us the other Articles in particular, by Creeds, or other meanes, as in fact we have even the Apostles Creed from the Tradition of the Church. If you will believe you have all in the Creed, when you have not all, it is not the Apostles, or the Church, that makes you so believe, but it is your owne errour, whereby you will needs believe, that the Creed must contain all. For neither the Apostles, nor the Church, nor the Creed it selfe tell you any such matter; and what necessity is there, that one meanes of instruction, must involve whatsoever is contained in all the rest? Wee are not to recite the Creed with anticipated perswasion, that it must contain what we imagin it ought, for better maintaining some opinions of our own; but we ought to say, and belieue that it containes what we finde in it; of which one Article is to belieue the Catholique Church, surely to be taught by her, which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the Creed: and in particular we may learn of her, what points be contained in the Creed, what otherwise; and so we shall not be deceaved, by believing we haue all in the Creed, when we have not all: and you may in the same manner say: As well, nay better, the Apostles might haue given us no Articles at all, as haue left out Articles tending to practise. For in setting down one sort of Articles, and not the others, they make us belieue we haue all, when we haue not all.

27 To our argument, that Baptisme is not contained in the Creed, D. Potter, besides his answer, that Sacraments belong rather to practise then faith, (which I haue already confuted, and which indeed maketh against himselfe, and serveth only to shew that the Apostles intended not to comprize all points in the Creed which we are bound to belieue) adds, that the Creed of Pag. 237. Nice expressed Baptisme by name, confesse one Baptisme for the remission of sinnes. Which answer is directly against himselfe, and manifestly proues that Baptisme is an Article of faith, and yet is not contained in the Apostles Creed, neither explicitely, nor by any necessary consequence from other Articles expressed therein. If to make it an Article of faith be sufficient that it is contained in the Nicene Councell; he will finde that Protestants maintain many errours against faith, as being repugnant to definitions of Generall Councels: as in particular, that the very Councell of Nice (which saith M. Whitgift, In his defence. page 330. is of all wise and learned men reverenced, esteemed and imbraced, next unto the Scriptures themselues) decreed that, to those who were chosen to the Ministry unmarried, it was not lawfull to take any wife afterward, is affirmed by Protestants. And your grand Reformer Luther (lib. de Conciliis part prima) saith, that he understand not the Holy Ghost in that Councell. For in one Canon it saith that those who haue gelded themselues are not fit to be made Priests, in another it forbids them to haue wiues. Hath (saith he) the Holy Ghost nothing to doe in Councells, but to binde, and load his Ministers with impossible, dangerous, and unnecessary lawes? I forbeare to shew that this very Article I confesse one Baptisme for the Remission of sinnes, will be understood by Protestants in a far different sense from Catholiques, yea Protestants among themselues doe not agree, how Baptisme forgiues sinnes, nor what grace it conferres. Only concerning the Vnity of Baptisme against rebaptization of such as were once baptized (which I noted as a point not contained in the Apostles Creed) I cannot omit an excellent place of S. Augustine, where speaking of the Donatists he hath these words. They are so bold as Lib. de Heres. in 69. to rebaptize Catholiques, wherein they shew themselues to be the greater Heretiques, since it hath pleased the universall Catholique Church not to make Baptisme void even in the very Heretiques themselues. In which few words this holy Father delivereth against the Donatists these points which doe also make against Protestants: That to make an Heresie, or an Heretique, known for such, it is sufficient, to oppose the definition of Gods Church: That a proposition may be Hereticall though it be not repugnant to any Texts of Scripture. For S. Augustine teacheth that the doctrine of rebaptization, is hereticall▪ and yet acknowledgeth it cannot be convinced for such out of Scripture. And that neither the Heresie of rebaptization of those who were baptized by Heretiques, nor the contrary Catholique truth being expressed in the Apostles Creed, it followeth that it doth not contain all points of faith necessary to salvation. And so we must conclude that to belieue the Creed is not sufficient for Vnitie of faith, and Spirit in the same Church, unlesse there be also a totall agreement both in beliefe of other points of faith, and in externall profession, and Communion also (whereof we are to speak in the next Chapter) according to the saying of S. Augustine: You are Aug. ep. [...]8. with us in Baptisme, and in the Creed, but in the Spirit of Vnity, and bond of peace, and lastly in the Catholique Church you are not with us.

[Page]

THE ANSVVER TO THE FOVRTH CHAPTER.
Wherein is shewed, that the Creed containes all necessary points of meere belief.

1 AD. §. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Concerning the Creeds containing the Fundamentalls of Christianity, this is D. Potters assertion, delivered in the 207. p. of his book. The Creed of the Apostles (as it is explained in the latter Creeds of the Catholique Church) is esteemed a sufficient summary or Catalogue of Fundamentalls, by the best learned Romanists and by Antiquity.

2 By Fundamentalls he understands not the Fundamentall rules of good life and action, (though every one of these is to be believed to come from God, & therefore vertually includes an Article of Faith;) but the Fundamentall doctrines of Faith; such, as though they have influence upon our lives, as every essentiall doctrine of Christianity hath, yet we are commanded to believe them, and not to doe them. The assent of our understandings is required to them, but no obedience from our wills.

3 But these speculative Doctrines again he distinguishes out of Aquinas, Occham, and Canus and others, into two kinds: of the first are those which are the obiects of Faith, in, and for themselves, which by their own nature and Gods prime intention, are essentiall parts of that Gospell: such as the teachers in the Church, cannot without Mortall sinne omit to teach the learners: such as are intrinsecall to the Covenant between God and man; and not only plainly revealed by God, and so certain truths, but also commanded to be preacht to all men, and to be believed distinctly by all, and so necessary truths. Of the second sort are Accidentall, Circumstantiall, Occasionall objects of faith; milliōs whereof there are in holy Scripture; such as are to be believed▪ not for themselves, but because they are joyned with others, that are necessary to be believed, and delivered by the same Authority which delivered these. Such as we are not bound to know to bee divine Revelations, (for without any fault we may be ignorant hereof, nay believe the contrary;) such as we are not bound to examine, whether or no they be divine Revelations: such as Pastors are not bound to teach their Flock, nor their Flock bound to know and remember: no nor the Pastors themselves to know them or believe them, or not to disbelieve them absolutely and alwaies; but then only when they doe see, and know them to be delivered in Scripture, as divine Revelations.

4 I say when they doe so, and not only when they may doe. For to lay an obligation upon us of believing, or not disbelieving any Verity, sufficient Revelation on Gods part, is not sufficient: For then seeing all the expresse Verities of Scripture are either to all men, or at least [Page] to all learned men sufficiently revealed by God, it should be a damnable sinne, in any learned man actually to disbelieve any one particular Historicall verity contained in Scripture, or to believe the contradiction of it, though he knew it not to be there contained. For though he did not, yet he might have known it; it being plainly revealed by God, and this revelation being extant in such a Book, wherein he might have found it recorded, if with diligence he had perused it. To make therefore any points necessary to be believed, it is requisite, that either we actually know them to be divine Revelations: and these though they be not Articles of faith, nor necessary to be believed, in and for themselves, yet indirectly, and by accident, and by consequence, they are so: The necessity of believing them, being inforced upon us, by a necessity of believing this Essentiall, and Fundamentall article of Faith, That all Divine Revelations are true, which to disbelieve, or not to believe, is for any Christian not only impious, but impossible. Or else it is requisite that they be, First actually revealed by God. Secondly, commanded under pain of damnation, to be particularly known (I mean known to be divine Revelations,) and distinctly to be believed. And of this latter sort of speculative divine Verities, D. Potter affirmed, that the Apostles Creed was a sufficient summary: yet he affirmed it, not as his own opinion, but as the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, and your own Doctors. And besides, he affirmed it not as absolutely certain, but very probable.

5 In brief, all that he saies is this: It is very probable, that according to the judgement of the Roman Doctors, and the Ancient Fathers, the Apostles Creed is to be esteemed a sufficient summary of all those doctrines which being meerely Credenda, and not Agenda, all men are ordinarily, under pain of Damnation, bound particularly to believe.

6 Now this assertion (you say) is neither pertinent to the question in hand, nor in it selfe true. Your Reasons to prove it impertinent, put into forme and divested of impertinencies are these. 1. Because the question was not, what points were necessary to be explicitly believed, but what points were necessary not to be disbelieved after sufficient proposall. And therefore to give a Catalogue of points, necessary to be explicitly believed is impertinent.

7 Secondly, because errours may be damnable, though the contrary truths be not of themselves fundamentall; as that Pontius Pilate was our Saviours Iudge, is not in it selfe a Fundamentall truth, [...]et to believe the contrary were a damnable errour. And therefore to give a Catalogue of Truths in themselves fundamentall, is no pertinent satisfaction to this demand, what errors are damnable?

8 Thirdly, because if the Church be not Vniversally infallible, wee cannot ground any certainty upon the Creed, which we must receive upon the Credit of the Church: and if the Church be Vniversally infallible, it is damnable to oppose her declaration in any thing, though not contained in the Creed.

9 Fourthly, Because not to believe the Articles of the Creed in the true sense is damnable, therefore it is frivolous to say the Creed containes [Page] all Fundamentalls, without specifying in what sense the Articles of it are Fundamentall.

10 Fiftly, because the Apostles Creed (as D. Potter himselfe confesses) was not a sufficient Catalogue, till it was explained by the first Councell; nor then untill it was declared in the second &c. by occasion of emergent Heresies: Therefore now also as new Heresies may arise, it will need particular explanation, and so is not yet, nor ever will be a compleat Catalogue of Fundamentalls.

11 Now to the first of these objections I say: Frist, that your distinction between points necessary to be believed, and necessary not to be disbelieved, is more subtill then sound, a distinction without a difference: There being no point necessary to be believed, which is not necessary not to be disbelieved: Nor no point to any man, at any time, in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved, but it is to the same man, at the same time, in the same circumstances, necessary to be believed. Yet that which (I believe) you would have said, I acknowledge true, that many points which are not necessary to be believed absolutely, are yet necessary to be believed upon a supposition, that they are known to be revealed by God: that is, become then necessary to be believed, when they are known to be Divine Revelations. But then I must needs say, you doe very strangely, in saying, that the question was, what points might lawfully be disbelieved, after sufficient Proposition that they are divine Revelations. You affirme, that none may, and so does D. Potter, and with him all Protestants, and all Christians. And how then is this the question? Who ever said or thought, that of Divine Revelations, known to be so, some might safely and lawfully be rejected, and disbelieved, under pretence that they are not Fundamentall? Which of us ever taught, that it was not damnable, either to deny, or so much as doubt of the Truth of any thing, whereof we either know, or believe that God hath revealed it? What Protestant ever taught that it was not damnable, either to give God the lye, or to call his Veracity into question? Yet you say, The demand of Charity mistaken was, & it was most reasonable, that a list of Fundamētalls, should be given, the denyall whereof destroies Salvation, whereas the deniall of other points may stand with Salvation, although both kinds be equally proposed, as revealed by God.

12 Let the Reader peruse Charity Mistaken, & he shall find that this qualification, although both kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by God, is your addition, and no part of the demand. And if it had, it had been most unreasonable, seeing he and you know well enough, that (though we doe not presently without examination, fall down and worship all your Churches proposals, as divine Revelations) yet, we make no such distinction of known divine Revelations, as if some only of them were necessary to be believed, and the rest might safely be rejected. So that to demand a particular minute Catalogue of all points that may not be disbelieved after sufficient Proposition, is indeed to demaund a Catalogue of all points that are or may be, in as much as none may be disbelieved, after sufficient Proposition, that it [Page] is a divine Revelation. At least it is to desire us, First, to transcribe into this catalogue, every Text of the whole Bible. Secondly, to set down distinctly, those innumerous millions of negative and positive consequences, which may be evidently deduced from it: For these we say, God hath revealed. And indeed you are not ashamed in plain tearmes to require this of us. For having first told us, that the demand was, what points were necessary not to be disbelieved, after sufficient proposition that they are Divine Truths: you come to say, Certainly the Creed containes not all these. And this you prove by asking, how many Truths are thero in holy Scripture, not contained in the Creed, which we are not bound to know and believe, but are bound under pain of damnation not to reject, as soon as we come to know that they are found in holy Scripture? So that in requiring a particular Catalogue of all points, not to be disbelieved, after sufficient Proposall, you require us to set you down all points contained in Scripture, or evidently deducible from it. And yet this you are pleas'd to call a reasonable, nay, a most reasonable Demand: whereas having ingaged your selfe to give a Catalogue of your Fundamentalls, you conceive your ingagement very well satisfyed by saying, all is Fundamentall which the Church proposes, without going about, to give us an endlesse Inventory of her Proposalls. And therefore from us, in stead of a perfect particular of Divine Revelations of all sorts, (of which with a lesse hyperbole then S. Iohn useth, we might say, If they were to be written, the world would not hold the books that must be written;) me thinkes you should accept of this generall, All Divine Revelations are true, and to be believed.

13 The very truth is, the main Question in this businesse is not, what divine Revelations are necessary to be believed, or not rejected when they are sufficiently proposed: for all without exception, all without question are so; But what Revelations are simply and absolutely necessary to be proposed to the beliefe of Christians, so that that Society, which does propose, and indeed believe them, hath for matter of Faith, the essence of a true Church; that which does not, has not. Now to this question, though not to yours, D. Potter's assertion (if it be true) is apparently very pertinent. And though not a full and totall satisfaction to it, yet very effectuall, and of great moment towards it. For the main question being, what points are necessary to Salvation: and points necessary to Salvation, being of two sorts, some of simple belief, some of Practise and obedience, he that gives you a sufficient summary, of the first sort of necessary points, hath brought you halfe way towards your journies end. And therefore that which he does, is no more to be slighted, as vain and impertinent, then an Architects work is to be thought impertinent towards the making of a house, because he does it not all himselfe. Sure I am, if his assertion be true, as I believe it is, a corollary may presently be deduced from it, which if it were imbraced, cannot in all reason, but doe infinite service, both to the truth of Christ, and the peace of Christendome. For seeing falsehood and errour could not long stand against the power of truth, were they not supported by tyranny and worldly advantages, he that could assert [Page] Christians to that liberty which Christ and his Apostles left them, must needs doe Truth a most Heroicall service. And seeing the overvaluing of the differences among Christians, is one of the greatest maintainers of the Schisme of Christendome, he that could demonstrate that only these points of Beliefe, are simply necessary to salvation, wherein Christians generally agree, should he not lay a very faire and firme foundation of the peace of Christendome? Now the Corollary which I conceive would produce these good effects, and which flowes naturally from D. Potters Assertion, is this, That what Man or Church soever beleeves the Creed, and all the evident consequences of it sincerely and heartily, cannot possibly (if also he beleeve the Scripture) be in any Errour of simple beleife which is offensiue to God; nor therefore deserve for any such Errour to be deprived of his life, or to be cut off from the Churches Communion, and the hope of Salvation. And the production of this againe would be this (which highly concernes the Church of Rome to think of,) That whatsoever Man or Church does for any errour of simple beleife, depriue any man so qualified as aboue, either of his temporall life, or liuelyhood or liberty, or of the Churches Communion, and hope of salvation, is for the first uniust, cruell, and tyrannous: Schismaticall, presumptuous, and uncharitable for the second.

13 Neither yet is this (as you pretend) to take away the necessity of beleeving those verities of Scripture, which are not contained in the Creed, when once we come to know that they are written in Scripture, but rather to lay a necessity upon men of beleeving all things written in Scripture, when once they know them to be there written. For he that beleeves not all knowne Divine Revelations to be true, how does he believe in God? Vnlesse you will say, that the same man, at the same time may not believe God, and yet believe in him. The greater difficulty is, how it will not take away the necessity of beleeving Scripture to be the word of God? But that it will not neither. For though the Creed be granted a sufficient summary of Articles of meere Faith, yet no man pretends that it containes the Rules of obedience, but for them, all men are referred to Scripture. Besides, he that pretends to believe in God, obligeth himselfe to beleeve it necessary to obey that which reason assures him to be the Will of God. Now reason will assure him that beleeves the Creed, that it is the Will of God he should beleeve the Scripture: even the very same Reason which moves him to beleeve the Creed: Vniversall, and never failing Tradition, having given this Testimony both to Creed and Scripture, that they both by the works of God were sealed, & testified to be the words of God. And thus much be spoken in Answere to your first Argument; the length whereof will be the more excusable, If I oblige my self to say but little to the Rest.

14 I come then to your second. And in Answer to it, denie flatly, as a thing destructive of it self, that any Errour can be damnable, unlesse it be repugnant immediatly or mediatly, directly or indirectly, of it self or by accident, to some Truth for the matter of it fundamentall. And to your example of Pontius Pilat's being Iudge of Christ, I say the [Page] deniall of it in him that knowes it to be revealed by God, is manifestly destructive of this fundamentall truth, that all Divine Revelations are true. Neither will you find any errour so much as by accident damnable, but the rejecting of it will be necessarily laid upon us, by a reall beleif of all Fundamentals, and simply necessary Truths. And I desire you would reconcile with this, that which you have said § 15. Every Fundamentall Errour must have a contrary Fundamentall Truth, because, of two Contradictory propositions, in the same degree, the one is false, the other must be true, &c.

15 To the Third I Answer; That the certainty I have of the Creed, That it was from the Apostles, and containes the principles of Faith, I ground it not upon Scripture, and yet not upon the Infallibility of any present, much lesse of your Church, but upon the Authority of the Ancient Church, and written Tradition, which (as D. Potter hath proved) gave this constant Testimony unto it. Besides I tell you, it is guilty of the same fault which D. Potter's Assertion is here accused of: having perhaps some colour toward the proving it false, but none at all to shew it impertinent.

16 To the Fourth, I Answer plainly thus, That you finde fault with D. Potter for his Vertues: you are offended with him for not usurping the Authority which he hath not; in a word for not playing the Pope. Certainly if Protestants be faulty in this matter, it is for doing it too much, and not too little. This presumptuous imposing of the senses of men upon the words of God, the speciall senses of men upon the generall words of God, and laying them upon mens consciences together, under the equall penaltie of death, and damnation; this Vaine conceit that we can speak of the things of God, better then in the word of God: This Deifying our owne Interpretations, and Tyrannous inforcing them upon others; This restraining of the word of God from that latitude and generality, and the understandings of men from that liberty, wherein Christ and Apostles left them,This perswasion is no singularity of mine, but the doctrine which I have learn't from Divines of great learning and judgement, Let the Reader be pleased to peruse the seaventh booke of Acontius de Stratag. Satanae. And Zanchius his last Oration delivered by him after the composing of the discord between him and Amerbachius, and he shall confesse as much. is, and hath been the only fountaine of all the Schismes of the Church, and that which makes them continue the common incendiary of Christendome, and that which (as I said before) teares into pieces, not the coat, but the bowels, and members of Christ: Ridente Turcâ nec dolente Iudae [...]. Take away these Wals of separation, and all will quickly be one. Take away this Persecuting, Burning, Cursing, Damning of men for not subscribing to the words of men, as the words of God; Require of Christians only to believe Christ, and to call no man master but him only; Let those leave claiming Infallibility that have no title to it, and let them that in their words disclaime it, disclaime it likewise in their actions; In a word, take away tyranny, which is the Divels instrument to support errours, and superstitions, and impieties, in the severall parts of the world, which could not otherwise long withstand the power of Truth, I say take away tyranny, and restore Christians to their just and full liberty of captivating their understanding to Scripture only, and as Rivers when they have a free passage, runne all to the Ocean, so it may well be hoped by Gods blessing, that Vniversall [Page] Liberty thus moderated, may quickly reduce Christendome to Truth and Vnitie. These thoughts of peace (I am perswaded) may come from the God of peace, and to his blessing I commend them, and proceed.

18 Your fift and last obiection stands upon a false and dangerous supposition: That new Heresies may arise. For an Heresie being in it selfe nothing else but a Doctrine Repugnant to some Article of the Christian Faith, to say that new Heresies may arise, is to say, that new Articles of Faith may arise: and so some great ones among you stick not to professe in plaine tearmes, who yet at the same time are not ashamed to pretend that your whole Doctrine is Catholique and Apostolique. So Salmeron: Non omnibus omnia dedit Deus, ut quaelibetaetas suis gaudeat veritatibus, quas prior aetas ignoravit. God hath not given all things to All▪ So that every age hath its proper verities, which the former age was ignorant of: Disp. 57. In Ep. ad Rom: And againe in the Margent: Habet Vnumquod (que) saeculum peculiares revelationes divinas, Every age hath its peculiar Divine Revelations. Where that he speaks of such Revelations as are, or may by the Church be made matters of Faith, no man can doubt that reads him; an example whereof, he gives us a little before in these words. Vnius Augustini doctrina Assumptionis B. Deiparae cultum in Ecclesiam introduxit. The Doctrine of Augustine only, hath brought in to the Church the Worship of the Assumption of the Mother of God. &c. Others againe mince and palliate the matter with this pretence, that your Church undertakes not to coyne new Articles of faith, but only to declare those that want sufficient declaration. But if sufficient declaration be necessary to make any doctrine an Article of Faith, then this doctrine which before wanted it, was not before an Article of faith; and your Church by giving it the Essentiall forme, and last complement of an Article of faith, makes it, though not a Truth, yet certainly an Article of faith. But I would faine know, whether Christ and his Apostles knew this Doctrine, which you pretend hath the matter, but wants the forme of an Article of faith, that is, sufficient declaration, whether they knew it to be a necessary Article of the faith, or no! If they knew it not to be so; then either they taught what they knew not, which were very strange; or else they taught it not: and if not, I would gladly be informed, seeing you pretend to no new Revelations, from whom you learn't it? If they knew it, then either they conceal'd or declar'd it. To say they conceal'd any necessary part of the Gospell, is to charge them with farre greater sacriledge, then what was punished in Ananias and Saphira. It is to charge these glorious Stewards, and dispensers of the Mysteries of Christ, with want of the great vertue requisite in a Steward, which is Fidelity. It is to charge them with presumption for denouncing Anathema's, even to Angels, in case they should teach any other doctrine, then what they had received from thē, which sure could not merit an Anathema, if they left any necessary part of the Gospell untaught. It is in a word, in plaine tearmes to give them the lye, seeing they professe plainly and frequently, that they taught Christians the whole doctrine of Christ. If they did know [Page] and declare it, then was it a full and formall Article of faith; and the contrary a full and formall Heresie, without any need of further declaration: and then their Successours either continued the declaration of it, or discontinued: If they did the latter, how are they such faithfull depositaries of Apostolique Doctrine as you pretend? Or what assurance can you give us, that they might not bring in new and false Articles, as well as suffer the old and true ones to be lost? If they did continue the declaration of it, and deliver it to their Successours, and they to theirs, and so on perpetually, then continued it still a full and formall Article of faith, and the repugnant doctrine a full and formall Heresie, without and before the definition or declaration of a Councell. So that Councells, as they cannot make that a truth or falshood, which before was not so: so neither can they make or declare that to be an Article of Faith, or an Heresie, which before was not so. The supposition therefore on which this argument stands, being false and runious, whatsoever is built upon it, must together with it fall to the ground. This explication therefore, and restriction of this doctrine, (whereof you make your advantage) was to my understanding unnecessary. The Fathers of the Church in after times might have just cause to declare their judgmēt, touching the sense of some generall Articles of the Creed: but to oblige others to receave their declarations under paine of damnation, what warrant they had I know not. He that can shew, either that the Church of all Ages was to have this Authority; or that it continued in the Church for some Ages, and then expired: He that can shew either of these things let him: for my part I cannot. Yet I willingly confesse the judgment of a Councell, though not infallible, is yet so farre directive, and obliging, that without apparent reason to the contrary, it may be sinne to reject it, at least not to afford it an outward submission for publique peace-sake.

19 Ad § 7. 8. 9. Were I not peradventure more fearefull then I need to be of the imputation of tergiversation, I might very easily rid my hands of the remainder of this Chapter: For in the Question there discussed, you grant (for ought I see) as much as D. Potter desires; and D. Potter grants as much as you desire, and therefore that I should disease my self, or my Reader with a punctuall examination of it, may seeme superfluous. First, that which you would have, and which your Arguments wholy drive at, is this, That the Creed doth not containe all maine and principall poynts of faith of all sorts, whether they be speculacive, or practicall, whether they containe matter of simple beleife, or whether they containe matter of practise and obedience. This D. Potter grants, page 215. 235. And you grant that he grants it, §. 8. Where your words are, as even by D. Potters owne confession, it (the Creed) doth not comprehend Agenda, or things belonging to practice, as Sacraments, Commandements, the Acts of hope, and duties Charity. And if you will inferre from hence, that therefore C. M. hath no reason to rest in the Apostles Creed, as a perfect Catalogue of Fundamentalls, and a full satisfaction to his demande, I haue without any offence of D. Potter, granted as much, if that would content you. But seeing you [Page] goe on, and because his assertion is not (as neither is it pretended to be,) a totall satisfaction to the demand, casheere it as impertinent, and nothing towards it, here I have been bold to stop your proceeding, as unjust and unreasonable. For as if you should request a Friend to lend you, or demand of a debtor to pay you a hundred pounds, and he could or should let you have but fifty, this were not fully to satisfy your demand, yet sure it were not to doe nothing towards it: Or as this rejoynder of mine, though it be not an answer to all your Bookes, but only to the First considerable Part of it, and so much of the Second as is materiall, and falls into the first, yet I hope you will not deal so unkindly with me, as for this reason, to condemne it of impertinence: So D. Potter, being demanded a Catalogue of Fundamentals of Faith, and finding them of two kinds, and those of one kind summ'd up to his hand in the Apostles Creed, and this Creed▪ consign'd unto him for such a summary by very great Authority, if upon these considerations he hath intreated his Demander to accept of thus much in part of paiment, of the Apostles Creed, as a sufficient summary of these Articles of faith, which are meerely Credenda, me thinkes he hath little reason to complain, that he hath not been fairely, and squarely dealt with. Especially, seeing for full satisfaction, by D. Potter and all Protestants he is referr'd to Scripture, which we affirme containes evidently all necessary points of Faith and rules of obedience: and seeing D. Potter, in the very place hath subjoyned, though not a Catalogue of Fundamentalls, which (because to some more is Fundamentall, to others lesse, to others nothing at all) had been impossible, yet such a comprehension of them, as may serve every one, that will make a conscionable use of it, in stead of a Catalogue. For thus he saies, It seemes to be fundamentall to the faith, and for the Salvation of every member of the Church, that he acknowledge and believe all such points of faith, whereof he may be sufficiently convinced that they belong to the Doctrine of Iesus Christ. This generall rule if I should call a Catalogue of Fundamentalls, I should have a President for it with you above exception, I mean your Self; for, ch. 3. §. 19. just such another proposition you have called by this name. Yet because it were a strange figure of speech, I forbear it; only I will be bold to say, that this Assertion is as good a Catalogue of Fundamentalls, as any you will bring of your Church proposalls, though you takes as much time to doe it, as he that undertook to make an Asse [...]speak.

20 I come now to shew that you also have requited D. Potter with a mutuall courteous acknowledgement of his assertion, That the Creed is a sufficient summary of all the necessary Articles of Faith, which are meerely Credenda.

21 First then, §. 8. you haue these words, That it cannot be denied that the Creed is most full and compleat to that purpose, for which the holy Apostles, inspired by God, meant that it should serve, and in that manner as they did intend it, which was, not to comprehend all particular points of faith, but such generall heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith of Christ, to Iewes and Gentiles, and might be [Page] briefly, and compendiously set down, and easily learnt and remembred. These words I say, being fairely examined, without putting them on the rack, will amount, to a full acknowledgement of D. Potters Assertion. But before I put them to the question, I must crave thus much right of you, to grant me this most reasonable postulate, that the doctrine of repentance from dead workes, which S. Paul saith, was one of the two only things which he preacht, and the doctrine of Charity, without which (the same S. Paul assures us that) the knowledge of all mysteries, and all faith is nothing, were doctrines more necessary and requisite, and therefore more fit to be preacht to Iewes and Gentiles, then these, under what judge our Saviour suffered, that he was buried, and what time he rose again: which you have taught us cap. 3. §. 2. for their matter and nature in themselves not to be Fundamentall.

22 And upon this grant, I will aske no leave to conclude, that, whereas you say, the Apostles Creed was intended for a comprehension, of such heads of faith, as were most befitting and requisite, for preaching the faith of Christ, &c. You are now, for fear, of too much debasing those high doctrines of Repentance and Charity, to restrain your assertion, as D. Potter does his, and (though you speak indefinitely) to say you meant it, only of those heads of faith, which are meerely Credenda. And then the meaning of it, (if it have any,) must be this, That the Creed is full for the Apostles intent, which was to comprehend all such generall heads of faith, which being points of simple belief, were most fit and requisite, to be preached to Iewes & Gentiles, and might be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembred. Neither I nor you, I believe, can make any other sense of your words then this. And upon this ground thus I subsume. But all the points of belief, which were necessary, under pain of damnation, for the Apostles to preach, and for those to whom the Gospell was preached, particularly to know and believe, were most fit and requisite, nay more then so, necessary to be preached to all both Iewes and Gentiles, and might be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learnt and remembred: Therefore the Apostles intent by your confession was in this Creed, to comprehend all such points. And you say, the Creed is most full and compleat, for the purpose which they intended. The Major of this Syllogisme is your own. The Minor I should think needs no proof, yet because all men may not be of my mind, I will prove it by its parts; and the first part thus,

There is the same necessity, for the doing of these things, which are commanded to be done, by the same Authority, under the same penalty:

But the same Authority viz. Divine, under the same penalty, to wit, of damnation, commanded the Apostles, to preachall these Doctrines which we speak of, and those to whom they were preached, particularly to know and believe them: For we speak of those only, which were so commanded, to be preached and believed:

Therefore all these points were alike necessary to be preaced to all both Iewes and Gentiles.

[Page]Now that all these doctrines we speak of, may be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembred, He that remembers, that we spake only of such Doctrines as are necessary to be taught and learned, will require hereof no farther demonstration. For, (not to put you in minde of what the Poet saies, Non sunt longa quibus nibilest quod demere possis,) who sees not, that seeing the greatest part of men are of very mean capacities, that it is necessary that that [...]ay be learnt easily, which is to be learn't of all? What then can hinder me from concluding thus,

All the Articles of simple belief, which are fit and requisite to be preached, and may easily be remembred, are by your confession comprized in the Creed:

But all the necessary Articles of faith are requisite to be preached, and easy to be remembred;

Therefore they are all comprized in the Creed?

Secondly, from grounds granted by you, I argue thus,

Points of belief in themselves fundamentall, are more requisite to be preached then those which are not so: (this is evident.)

But the Apostles have put into their Creed some points that are not in themselves Fundamentall: (so you confesse, ubisupra.)

Therefore if they have put in all, most requisite to be preached, they have put in all, that in themselves are fundamentall.

Thirdly and Lastly, from your own words §. 26. thus I conclude my purpose,

The Apostles intention was, particularly to deliver in the Creed such Articles as were fittest for those times, concerning the Deity, Trinity, and Messias; (Thus you, now I subsume,)

But all points simply necessary, by vertue of Gods command, to be preached and believed in particular, were as fit for those times as these here mentioned;

Therefore their intention was, to deliver in it particularly all the necessary points of belief.

23 And certainly, he that considers the matter advisedly, either must say that the Apostles were not the Authors of it, or that this was their designe in composing it, or that they had none at all. For whereas you say, their intent was, to comprehend in it, such generall heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith; and elsewhere, Particularly to deliver such Articles as were fittest for those times; Every wise man may easily see that your desire here was, to escape away in a cloud of inde finiteremes. For otherwise, in stead of such generall heads, and such Articles, why did not you say plainly, all such, or some such? This had been plain dealing, but I fear, crosse to your designe: which yet you have failed of. For that which you have spoken (though you are loath to speak out,) either signifies nothing at all; or that which I and D. Potter affirme: viz. That the Apostles Creed containes all those points of belief, which were by Gods command, of necessity to be preached to all, and believed by all. Neither when I say so, would I be so mistaken; as if I said, that all points in the Creed are [Page] thus necessary: For Punies in Logick, know that universall affirmatives, are not simply converted. And therefore it may be true, that all such necessary points, are in the Creed; though it be not true, that all points in the Creed are thus necessary: which I willingly grant, of the points by you mentioned. But this rather confirmes, then any way invalidates my assertion. For how could it stand with the Apostles wised [...]e, to put in any points circumstantiall and not necessary, and at the same time, to leave out any that were essentiall and necessary for that end, which you say, they proposed to themselves, in making the Creed, that is, The preaching of the faith, to Iewes and Gentiles?

24 Neither may you hope, to avoid the pressure of these acknowledgements, by pretending as you doe §. 10. that you doe indeed, acknowledge the Creed to contain, all the necessary articles of faith; but yet so, that they are not either there expressed in it, or de ducible from it, by evident consequence, but only by way of implication or Reduction. For first, not to tell you, that no proposition, is implied in any other, which is not deducible from it; nor secondly, that the article of the Catholique Church, wherein you will have all implyed, implies nothing to any purpose of yours, unlesse out of meer favour wee will grant the sense of it to be, that the Church is infallible, and that yours is the Church: to passe by all this, and require no answer to it, this one thing I may not omit; that the Apostles intent was (by your own confession) particularly to deliver in the Creed, such articles of belief as were fittest for those times (and all necessary articles I have proved were such:) now to deliver particularly, and to deliver only implicitly, to be delivered particularly in the Creed, and only to be reducible to it, I suppose are repugnances hardly reconcileable. And therefore though we desire you, not to grant, that the Creed containes all points of Faith of all sorts, any other way then by implication or reduction, no nor so neither; yet you have granted, and must grant, of the Fundamentall points of simple belief, those which the Apostles were commanded in particular to teach all men, and all men in particular to know and believe, that these are delivered in the Creed, after a more particular and punctuall manner, then implication or reduction comes to.

25 Ad §. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. It is vain for you to hope, that the testimonies of the Ancient & Modern Doctors, alleadged to this purpose by D. Potter in great abundance, will be turn'd off, with this generall deceitfull Answer, That the Allegation of them was needlesse to prove, that the Creed containes all points of faith, under pretence that you grant it in manner aforesaid. For what if you grant it in manner aforesaid, yet if you grant it not (as indeed you doe but inconstantly) in the sense which their testimonies require, then for all this their testimonies may be alleadged to very good purpose. Now let any man read them, with any tolerable indifference, and he shall find they say plainly, that all points of faith, necessary to be particularly believed, are explicitly contained in the Creed; and that your glosse of implication and reduction, had it been confronted with their sentences, would [Page] have been much out of countenance, as having no ground nor colour of ground in them. For example. If Azorius had thought thus of it, how could he have called it,A. or. part. 1 [...]. 5. A brief comprehension of the faith, and a summe of all things to be believed, and as it were, a signe, or cognizance whereby Christians are to be differenced and distinguished, from the impious and misbelievers, who professe either no faith, or not the right? If Huntly had been of this mind, how could he have said of it with any congruity,Cont. 2. [...]. 10. n. 10. That the rule of faith is expressely contained in it, and all the prime foundations of faith: And that the Apostles were not so forgetfull as to omit any prime principall foundation of faith in that Creed which they delivered to be believed by all Christians. The words of Filiucius are pregnant to the same purpose,Moral. quaest. Tr. 22. c. 2. n. 34. There cannot bee a fitter Rule, from whence Christians may learn what they are explicitly to belieue, then that which is contained in the Creed. Which words cannot be justified, if all points necessary to be believed explicitely, be not comprised in it. To this end (saith Putean)I [...] 2. 2. qu. 2. Art. 3. Dub. Vit. was the Creed compos'd by the Apostles, that Christians might haue a forme whereby they might professe themselues Catholiques. But certainly the Apostles did this in vain, If a man might professe this, and yet for matter of faith be not a Catholique.

26 The words of Cardinal RichelieuInstruction du Chrestien Lecon premiere. exact this sense, and refuse your glosse as much as any of the former: The Apostles Creed is the Summary and Abridgment of that faith which is necessary for a Christian; These holy persons being by the Commandement of Iesus Christ to disperse themselves over the world, and in all parts by preaching the Gospell to plant the faith, esteemed it very necessary to reduce into a short summe all that which Christians ought to know, to the end that being dispersed into divers parts of the world, they might preach the same thing in a short for me, that it might be the easier remembred. For this effect they called this Abridgment a Symbole, which signifies a mark or signe, which might serue to distinguish true Christians, which imbraced it from Infidels which rejected it. Now I would fain know how the composition of the Creed could serue for this end, and secure the Preachers of it, that they should preach the same thing, if there were other necessary Articles not compriz'd in it. Or how could it be a signe to distinguish true Christians from others, if a man might belieue it all, and for want of believing something else, not be a true Christian?

27 The words of the Ch. 3. Consid. [...] §. 5. p. 119. Author of the consideration of foure heads propounded King Iames, require the same sense and utterly renounce your qualification. The Symbole is a briefe yet entire Methodicall summe of Christian Doctrine, including all points of faith either to bee preached by the Apostles, or to be believed by their Disciples: Delivered both for a direction unto them, what they were to preach and others to belieue, as also to discern and put a difference betwixt all faithfull Christians and misbelieving Infidels:

28 Lastly, 2. 2. dis. 1. [...]. 2. p. 4. in sin. Gregory of Valence affirmes our Assertion even in termes: The Articles of faith contained in the Creed are as it were the first principles of the Christian faith, in which is contained the summe of Evangelicall doctrine, which all men are bound explicitely to belieue.

[Page]29 To these Testimonies of your own Doctors, I should haue added the concurrent suffrages of the ancient Fathers, but the full and free acknowledgment of the same Valentia in the place aboue quoted will make this labour unnecessary. So iudge (saith hee) the holy Fathers affirming that his Symbole of faith was composed by the Apostles, that all might haue a short summe of those things which are to be belieued, and are dispersedly contain'd in Scripture.

30 Neither is there any discord between this Assertion of your Doctors, and their holding themselues oblig'd to belieue all the points which the Councell of Trent defines. For Protestants & Papists may both hold, that all points of beliefe necessary to be known & belieued, are summ'd up in the Creed: and yet both the one & the other think themselues bound to belieue whatsoever other points, they either know or belieue to be revealed by God. For the Articles which are necessary to be known that they are revealed by God, may bee very few; and yet those which are necessary to be believed, when they are revealed and known to be so, may be very many.

31 But Summaries and Abstracts are not intended to specifie all the particulars of the science or subiect to which they belong. Yes if they bee intended for perfect Summaries, they must not omit any necessary doctrine of that Science whereof they are Summaries; though the Illustration and Reasons of it they may omit. If this were not so, a man might set down forty or fifty of the Principall definitions and divisions, and rules of Logick, and call it a Summary or Abstract of Logick. But sure, this were no more a Summary, then that were the picture of a man in little, that wanted any of the parts of a man; or that a totall summe wherein all the particulars were not cast up. Now the Apostles Creed you here intimate that it was intended for a Summary: otherwise why talk you here of Summaries, and tell us that they need not contain all the particulars of their science? And of what I pray may it be a Summary, but of the Fundamentals of Christian faith? Now you haue already told us, That it is most full and compleat to that purpose for which it was intended. Lay all this together, and I belieue the product will be; That the Apostles Creed is a perfect Summary of the Fundamentalls of the Christian faith: and what the duty of a perfect Summary is, I haue already told you.

32 Whereas therefore to disproue this Assertion, in divers particles of this Chapter, but especially the fourteenth, you muster up whole armies of doctrines, which you pretend are necessary, and not contain'd in the Creed; I answer very briefly thus: That the doctrines you mention, are either concerning matters of practise, and not simple beliefe; or else they are such doctrines wherein God has not so plainly revealed himselfe, but that honest and good men, true Lovers of God and of Truth, those that desire aboue all things to know his will and doe it, may erre, and yet commit no sinne at all, or only a sinne of infirmity, and not destructiue of salvation; or lastly, they are such Doctrines which God hath plainly revealed, and so are necessary to be belieued when they are known to be divine, but not necessary to be [Page] known & believed, not necessary to be known for divine, that they may be believed. Now all these sorts of doctrines are impertinent to the present Question. For D. Potter never affirmed either that the necessary duties of a Christian, or that all Truths piously credible, but not necessary to be believed, or that all Truths necessary to bee believed upon the supposall of divine Revelation, were specified in the Creed. For this he affirmes, only of such speculatiue divine veriries, which God hath commanded particularly to be preached to all, and believed by all. Now let the doctrines objected by you be well considered, and let all those that are reducible to the three former heads be discarded, and then of all these Instances against D. Potters Assertion, there will not remain so much as one.

33 First the Questions touching the conditions to bee performed by us to obtaine remission of sinnes; the Sacraments; the Commandements, and the possibility of keeping them, the necessity of imploring the Assistance of Gods Grace and Spirit for the keeping of them: how farre obedience is due to the Church: Prayer for the Dead: The cessation of the old Law: are all about Agenda, and so cut off upon the first consideration.

34 Secondly, the Question touching Fundamentalls, is profitable but not fundamentall. He that belieues all Fundamentals, cannot bee damned for any errour in faith, though he belieue more or lesse to bee fundamental then is so. That also of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne: of Purgatory: of the Churches Visibility: of the Books of the new Testament which were doubted of by a considerable part of the Primitiue Church: (untill I see better reason for the contrary then the bare authority of men,) I shall esteem of the same condition.

35 Thirdly, These Doctrines that Adam and the Angels sinned: that there are Angels good and bad: that those bookes of Scripture which were never doubted of by any considerable part of the Church, are the word of God: that S. Peter had no such primacy as you pretend: that the Scripture is a perfect rule of faith, & consequently that no necessary doctrine is unwritten: that there is no one Society or succession of Christians absolutely infallible: These to my understanding are truths plainly revealed by God, and necessary to be believed by them who know they are so. But not so necessary, that every man & woman is bound under pain of damnation particularly to know thē to be divine Revelations, and explicitely to believe them. And for this reason, these with innumerable other points, are to be referred to the third sort of doctrines aboue mentioned, which were never pretended to haue place in the Creed. There remaines one only point of all that Army you mustred together, reducible to none of these heads, & that is, that God is, and is a Remunerator, which you say is questioned by the deniall of merit. But if there were such a necessary indissoluble coherence between this point and the doctrine of merit, mee thinks with as much reason, and more charity you might conclude, That we hold merit, because we hold this point; Then that we deny this point, [Page] because we deny merit. Besides, when Protestants deny the doctrine of Merits, you know right well, for so they haue declared themselues a thousand times, that they mean nothing else, but with David, that their well doing extendeth not, is not truly beneficiall to God: with our Saviour, when they haue done all which they are commanded, they haue done their duty only, and no curtesie: And lastly, with S. Paul, that all which they can suffer for God (and yet suffering is more then doing) is not worthy to bee compared to the glory that shall be revealed. So that you must either misunderstand their meaning in denying Merit, or you must discharge their doctrine of this odious consequence, or you must charge it upon David and Paul and Christ himselfe. Nay you must either grant their deniall of true Merit just & reasonable, or you must say, that our good actions are really profitable to God: that they are not debts already due to him, but voluntary and undeserved Favours: and that they are equall unto and well worthy of eternall glory which is prepar'd for them. As for the inconvenience which you so much feare, That the deniall of Merit makes God a Giver only, & not a Rewarder, I tell you, good Sir, you feare where no feare is, and that it is both most true on the one side, that you in holding good Works meritorious of eternall glory make God a rewarder only & not a giver, contrary to plain Scripture, affirming that The gift of God is eternall life; And that it is most false on the other side, that the doctrine of Protestants makes God a giver only and not a rewarder: In as much as their doctrine is, That God giues not Heaven but to those which doe something for it, and so his gift is also a Reward; but withall that whatsoever they doe is due unto God before hand, and worth nothing to God, and worth nothing in respect of Heaven, and so mans work is no Merit, and Gods reward is still a Gift.

36 Put the case the Pope, for a reward of your service done him in writing this Book, had given you the honour and meanes of a Cardinall, would you not, not only in humility but in sincerity haue professed, that you had not merited such a Reward? And yet the Pope is neither your Creatour nor Redeemer, nor Preserver, nor perhaps your very great Benefactour, sure I am, not so great as God Almighty, and therefore hath no such right and title to your service as God hath in respect of precedent obligations. Besides, the work you haue done him hath been really advantagious to him: and lastly, not altogether unproportionable to the fore-mentioned Reward. And therefore if by the same work you will pretend that either you haue or hope to haue deserved immortall happinesse, I beseech you consider well whether this be not to set a higher value upon a Cardinal's cap, then a Crowne of immortall glory, and with that Cardinall to prefer a part in Paris before a part in Paradise.

37 In the next Paragraph you beat the ayre again, and fight manfully with your own shadow. The point you should haue spoken to, was this, That there are some points of simple beliefe necessary to bee explicitely believed, which yet are not contained in the Creed. Insteed hereof you trouble your selfe in vain to demonstrate, That many important[Page]points of faith, are not contained in it, which yet D. Potter had freely granted, and you your selfe take particular notice of his granting of it. All this paines therefore you have imployed to no purpose: saving that to some negligent Reader you may seem to have spoken to the very point, because that which you speak to, at the first hearing, sounds somewhat neere it. But such a one I must intreat to remember, there be many more points of faith then there be Articles of Simple belief, necessary to be explicitly believed: And that though all of the former sort are not contained in the Creed, yet all of the latter sort may be. As for your distinction, between Heresies that have been, and Heresies that are, and Heresies that may be, I have already proved it vaine; and that whatsoever may be an Heresie, that is so; and whatsoever is so, that alwaies hath been so, ever since the publication of the Gospell of Christ. The doctrine of your Church may like a snow-ball increase with rowling, and again if you please melt away and decrease: But as Christ Iesus, so his Gospell, is yesterday and to day, and the same for ever.

38 Our Saviour sending his Apostles to preach, gave them no other commission then this: Goe teach all nations, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy-Ghost, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you. These were the bounds of their commission. If your Church have any larger, or if she have a commission at large, to teach what she pleases, and call it the Gospell of Christ, let her produce her Letters-patents from heaven for it. But if this be all you have, then must you give me leave to esteeme it both great sacriledge in you to forbid any thing, be it never so small or ceremonious, which Christ hath commanded: as the receiving of the Communion in both kindes: and as high a degree of presumption, to enjoyne men to believe, that there are or can be any other fundamentall Articles of the Gospell of Christ, then what Christ himselfe commanded his Apostles to teach all men; or any damnable Heresies, but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verities.

39 Ad §. 16. 17. The saying of the most learned Prelate, and excellent man, the Arch-Bishop of Armach, is only related by D. Potter p. 155. and not applauded: though the truth is, both the Man deserves as much applause as any man, and his saying as much as any saying; it being as great, and as good a truth, and as necessary for these miserable times, as possibly can be uttered. For this is most certain, and I believe you will easily grant it, that to reduce Christians to unity of Communion, there are but two waies that may be conceived probable: The one, by taking away diversity of opinions touching matters of Religion: The other by shewing that the diversity of opinions, which is among the severall Sects of Christians, ought to be no hinderance to their Vnity in Communion.

40 Now the former of these is not to be hoped for without a miracle, unlesse that could be done, which is impossible to be performed, though it be often pretended; that is, unlesse it could be made evident [Page] to all men, that God hath appointed some visible Iudge of Controversies, to whose judgement all men are to submit themselves. What then remaines, but that the other way must be taken, and Christians must be taught to ser a higher value upon these high points of faith and obedience wherein they agree, then upon these matters of lesse moment wherein they differ, and understand that agreement in those, ought to be more effectuall to joyne them in one Communion, then their difference in other things of lesse moment to divide them? When I say, in one Communion, I mean, in a common Profession of those articles of faith, wherein all consent: A joynt worship of God, after such a way as all esteem lawfull; and a mutuall performance of all those works of charity, which Christians own one to another. And to such a Communion what better inducement could be thought of, then to demonstrate that what was universally believed of all Christians, if it were joyned with a love of truth, and with holy obedience, was sufficient to bring men to heaven? For why should men be more rigid then God? Why should any errour exclude any man from the Churches Communion, which will not deprive him of eternall salvation? Now that Christians doe generally agree in all those points of doctrine, which are necessary to Salvation, it is apparent, because they agree with one accord, in believing all those Bookes of the Old and New Testament, which in the Church were never doubted of to be the undoubted word of God. And it is so certain that in all these Bookes, all necessary doctrines are evidently contained, that of all the four Evangelists this is very probable, but of S. Luke most apparent, that in every one of their Bookes they have comprehended the whole substance of the Gospell of Christ. For what reason can be imagined, that any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary, and yet (as apparently all of them have done) put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary? What wise and honest man that were now to write the Gospell of Christ, would doe so great a work of God after such a negligent [...]ashon? Suppose Xaverius had been to write the Gospell of Christ for the Indians, think you he would have left out any Fundamentall doctrine of it? If not, I must beseech you to conceive as well of S. Mathew, and S. Marke, and S. Luke, and S. Iohn, as you doe of Xaverius. Besides, if every one of them have not in them all necessary doctrines, how have they complied with their own designe, which was, as the titles of their Bookes shew, to write the Gospell of Christ, and not a part of it? Or how have thy not deceived us, in giving them such titles? By the whole Gospell of Christ, I understand not the whole History of Christ, but all that makes up the Covenant between God and man. Now if this be wholly contained in the Gospell of S. Marke and S. Iohn, I believe every considering man will bee inclinable to believe that then without doubt, it is contained, with the advantage of many other very profitable things, in the larger Gospells of S. Matthew, and S. Luke. And that S. Markes Gospell wants no necessary Article of this Covenant, I presume you will not deny, if you believe Irenaeus [Page] when he saies, Mathew to the Hebrewes in their tongue published the Scripture of the Gospell: When Peter and Paul did preach the Gospell, and found the Church or a Church at Rome, or of Rome, and after their departure Mark the scholler of Peter, delivered to us in writing those things which had been preached by Peter; and Luke, the follwer of Paul, compiled in a book the Gospell which was preached by him: And afterwards Iohn, residing in Asia, in the Citty of Ephesus, did himselfe also set forth a Gospell.

41 In which words of Irenaeus, it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretiques, that pretended (as you know who doe now adaies) that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were unwritten, Lib. 3. c. [...]. and that out of the Scriptures, truth (he must mean sufficient truth,) cannot be found by those which know not Tradition. Against whom to say, that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Marke, and some other necessary parts of it omitted, had been to speak impertinently, and rather to confirme then confute their errour. It is plain therefore, that he must mean, as I pretend, that all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell, which was preached by S. Peter, was written by S. Marke. Now you will not deny, I presume, that S. Peter preached all, therefore you must not deny that S. Marke wrote all.

42 Our next inquiry let it be touching S. Iohns intent in writing his Gospell, whether it were to deliver so much truth, as being believed and obeyed would certainly bring men to eternall life, or only part of it, and to leave part unwritten? A great man there is, but much lesse then the Apostle, who saith, that writing last, he purposed to supply the defects of the other Evangelists, that had wrote before him: which (if it were true) would sufficiently justify what I have undertaken, that at least all the four Evangelists have in them, all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ. Neither will I deny, but S. Iohns secondary intent might be to supply the defects of the former three Gospels, in some things very profitable. But he that pretends, that any necessary doctrine is in S. Iohn which is in none of the other Evangelists, hath not so well considered them as he should doe, before he pronounce sentence of so weighty a matter. And for his prime intent in writing his Gospell, what that was, certainly no Father in the world understood it better then himselfe. Therefore let us hear him speak: Many other signes (saith he) also did Iesus in the sight of his Disciples, which are not written in this Book: But these are written, that you may believe that Iesus is Christ the sonne of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. By (these are written) may be understood, either these things are written, or these signes are written. Take it which way you will, this conclusion will certainly follow, That either all that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell, or lesse then all, and therefore all much more was sufficient to make them believe that which being believed with lively faith, would certainly bring them to eternall life.

43 This which hath been spoken (I hope) is enough to justify my undertaking to the full, that it is very probable that every one of the foure Evangelists has in his book the whole substance, all the necessary [Page] parts of the Gospell of Christ. But for S. Luke, that he hath written such a perfect Gospell, in my judgement it ought to be with them that believe him, no manner of question. Consider first the introduction to his Gospell, where he declares what he intends to write, in these words, For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things, which are most surely believed amongst us, even as they delivered unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of things from the first, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty, of those things wherein thou hast been instructed. Adde to this place, the entrāce to his History of the Acts of the Apostles: The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Iesus began both to doe and teach, untill the day in which he was taken up. Weigh well these two places, and then answer me freely and ingenuously to these demands. 1. Whether S. Luke does not undertake the very same thing which he saies, many had taken in hand? 2. Whether this were not to set forth in order, a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst Christians? 3. Whether the whole Gospell of Christ, and every necessary doctrine of it, were not surely believed among Christians? 4. Whether they which were Eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the begining, delivered not the whole Gospell of Christ? 5. Whether he does not undertake to write in order these things whereof he had perfect understanding from the first? 6. Whether he had not perfect understanding of the whole Gospell of Christ? 7. Whether he doth not undertake to write to Theophilus of all those things wherein he had been instructed? 8. And whether he had not been instructed in all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ? 9. Whether in the other Text, All things which Iesus began to doe and teach, must not at least imply, all the Principall and necessary things? 10. Whether this be not the very interpretation of your Rhemish Doctors, in their Annotation upon this place? 11. Whether all these Articles of the Christian faith, without the belief whereof, no man can be saved, be not the Principall and most necessary things which Iesus taught. 12. And lastly, whether many things which S. Luke has wrote in his Gospell, be not lesse principall, and lesse necessary then all and every one of these? When you have well considered these proposalls, I believe you will be very apt to think (if S. Luke be of credit with you) That all things necessary to salvation, are certainly contained in his writings alone. And from hence you will not choose but conclude, that seeing all the Christians in the world, agree in the belief of what S. Luke hath written, and not only so, but in all other Books of Canonicall Scripture, which were never doubted of in and by the Church, the Learned Arch-Bishop had very just, and certain ground to say, That in these Propositiōs, which without Controversy are universally received in the whole Christian world, so much truth is contained, as being joyned with holy obedience, may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting Salvation; and that we have no cause to doubt, but that as many[Page]as walk according to this rule, neither overthrowing that which they have builded, by superinducing any damnable Heresy thereupon, nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith, with a lewd and wicked conversation, peace shall be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

44 Against this, you object two things. The one, that by this Rule, seeing the Doctrine of the Trinity is not received universally among Christians, the deniall of it shall not exclude Salvation. The other; that the Bishop contradicts himselfe, in supposing a man may belieue all necessary Truths, and yet superinduce some damnable Heresies.

45 To the first I answere, what I conceive he would, whose words I here justify, that he hath declared plainly in this very place, that he meant, not an absolute, but a limited Vniversality, and speaks not of propositions universally believed by all Professions of Christianity that are, but only, by all those severall Professions of Christiany, that have any large spread in any part of the world. By which words he excludes from the universality here spoken of, the denyers of the Doctrine of the Trinity, as being but a handfull of men, in respect of all, nay in respect of any of these professions which maintain it. And therefore it was a great fault in you, either willingly to conceal these words, which evacuate your objection, or else negligently to oversee them. Especially seeing your friend, to whom you are so much beholding, Paulus Veridicus, in his scurrilous and sophisticall Pamphlet, against B. Vshers Sermon, hath so kindly offered to lead you by the hand to the observation of them, in these words: To consider of your Coinopista, or communitèr Credenda, Articles, as you call them, universally believed of all these severall Professions of Cristianity, which have any large spread in the World: These Articles for example, may be the Vnity of the Godhead, the Trinity of persons, the immortality of the Soule, &c. Where you see that your friend, whom you so much magnify, hath plainly confessed that, notwithstanding the Bishops words, the denyall of the doctrine of the Trinity, may exclude Salvation; and therefore in approving and applauding his Answer to the Bishops Sermon, you have unawares allowed this Answer of mine to your own greatest objection.

46 Now for the foule contradiction, which you say the Doctor might easily haue espied in the Bishops saying, he desires your pardon for his oversight, for Paulus Veridicus his sake; who though he set him selfe to finde faults with the Bishops Sermon, yet it seemes this hee could not finde, or else questionlesse wee should haue heard of it from him. And therefore if D. Potter, being the Bishops friend, haue not been more sharp-sighted then his enemies, this he hopes to indifferent judges, will seem no unpardonable offence. Yet this I say, not as if there were any contradiction at all, much lesse any foul contradiction in the Bishops words; but as Antipherons picture, which he thought he saw in the ayre before him, was not in the ayre but in his disturb'd phansie [...] so all the contradiction which here you descant upon, is not indeed in the Bishops saying, but in your imagination. For wherein, I pray, lies this foule contradiction? In supposing (say you) a man may believe [Page]all Truths necessary to salvation, and yet superinduce a damnable Heresie. I answer, It is not certain that his words doe suppose this: neither if they doe, does he contradict himselfe. I say it is not certain that his words import any such matter. For ordinarily men use to speake and write so, as here he does, when they intend not to limit or restrain, but only to repeat and presse & illustrate what they haue said before. And I wonder, why with your Eagles eyes you did not espy another foule contradiction in his words as well as this; and say, that he supposes a man may walk according to the rule of holy obedience, and yet vitiate his holy faith with a lewd and wicked conversation? Certainly a lewd conversation is altogether as contradictious to holy obedience, as a damnable heresie to necessary truth. What then was the reason that you espied not this foule contradiction in his words, as well as that? Was it because, according to the spirit and Genius of your Church, your zeal is greater to that which you conceive true doctrine, then holy obedience; and think simple errour a more capitall crime, then sins committed against knowledge and conscience? Or was it because your Reason told you, that herein he meant onely to repeat and not to limit what he said before? And why then had you not so much candour to conceave, that he might haue the same meaning in the former part of the disiunction; and intend no more but this, Whosoever walks according to this rule of believing all necessary Truths and holy obedience, (neither poisoning his faith of those Truths which he holds, with the mixture of any damnable Heresie, nor vitiating it with a wicked life) Peace shall be upon him! In which words what man of any ingenuity will not presently perceive that the words within the parenthesis, are only a repetition of, and no exception from those that are without? S. Athanasius in his Creed tells us, The Catholique Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Vnity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance; and why now doe you not tell him that he contradicts himselfe, and supposes that we may worship a Trinity of Persons, and one God in substance, and yet confound the Persons, or divide the substance; which yet is impossible, because Three remaining Three, cannot be confounded, and One remaining One cannot be divided? If a man should say unto you, he that keeps all the Commandements of God, committing no sinne either against the loue of God, or the loue of his neighbour, is a perfect man: Or thus, he that will liue in constant health had need be exact in his diet, neither eating too much, nor too little: Or thus, hee that will come to London must goe on straight forward in such a way, and neither turn to the right hand or to the left; I verily belieue you would not finde any contradiction in his words, but confesse them as coherent and consonant as any in your Book. And certainly if you would look upon this saying of the Bishop with any indifference, you would easily perceive it to be of the very same kinde, & capable of the very same construction. And therefore one of the grounds of your accusation is uncertain. Neither can you assure us, that the Bishop supposes any such matter as you pretend. Neither if he did suppose this (as perhaps he did) were this to contradict [Page] himselfe. For though there can be no damnable Heresie, unlesse it contradict some necessary Truth, yet there is no contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresie and this Truth; because there is no contradiction that the same man, at the same time, should believe contradictions. For, first, whatsoever a man believes true, that he may and must believe; But there haue been some who have believed and taught that contradictions might be true, against whom Aristotle disputes in the third of his Metaphysicks; Therefore it is not impossible that a man may belieue Contradictions. Secondly, they which believe there is no certainty in Reason, must belieue that contradictions may be true: For otherwise there will be certainty in this Reason; This contradicts Truth therefore it is false. But there be now divers in the world who believe there is no certainty in reason, (and whether you be of their minde or no, I desire to be inform'd;) Therefore there be divers in the world who believe contradictions may be true. Thirdly, They which doe captivate their understandings to the beliefe of those things which to their understanding seem irreconcileable contradictions, may as well belieue reall contradictions: (For the difficulty of believing arises not from their being repugnant, but from their seeming to be so:) But you doe captivate your understandings to the beliefe of those things which seem to your understandings irreconcileable contradictions; Therefore it is as possible and easie for you to believe those that indeed are so. Fourthly, some men may be confuted in their errours, and perswaded out of them; but no mans errour can be confuted, who together with his errour doth not believe and grant some true principle that contradicts his Errour: for nothing can bee proved to him who grants nothing, neither can there be (as all men know) any rationall discourse but out of grounds agreed upon by both parts. Therfore it is not impossible but absolutely certain, that the same man at the same time may believe contradictions. Fiftly, It is evident, neither can you without extream madnesse and uncharitablenesse, deny, that we belieue the Bible, those Books I mean which we believe Canonicall: Otherwise why dispute you with us out of them, as out of a common Principle? Either therefore you must retract your opinion, and acknowledge that the same man at the same time may believe cō tradictions, or else you will run into a greater inconvenience, and be forc'd to confesse, that no part of our Doctrine contradicts the Bible. Sixtly, I desire you to vindicate from contradiction these following Assertions: That there should be Length and nothing long: Breadth, & nothing broad: Thicknesse, and nothing thick: Whitenesse, & nothing white: Roundnesse, and nothing round: Weight, and nothing heavy: Sweetnesse, and nothing sweet: Moisture, and nothing moist: Fluidnesse, and nothing flowing: many Actions, and no Agent: Many Passions, and no Patient: That is, that there should be a Long, broad, thick, white, round, heavy, sweet, moist, flowing, active, passive, nothing! That Bread should be turned into the substance of Christ, and yet not any thing of the Bread become any thing of Christ; neither the matter, not the form, not the Accidents of Bread, be made either the matter or [Page] the Forme, or the Accidents of Christ. That Bread should be turned into nothing, and at the same time with the same action turn'd into Christ, and yet Christ should not be nothing. That the same thing at the same time should haue its just dimensions, and just distance of its parts, one from another, and at the same time not haue it, but all its parts together in one & the selfe same point. That the body of Christ, which is much greater, should be contained wholly and in its full dimensions without any alteration, in that which is lesser, and that not once only, but as many times over as there are severall points in the Bread and Wine. That the same thing at the same time should bee wholly aboue it selfe, and wholly below it selfe, within it selfe, and without it selfe, on the right hand, and on the left hand, and round about it selfe. That the same thing at the same time should moue to and from it selfe, and lye still: Or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space, and yet not move. That it should be brought from heaven to earth, and yet not come out of Heaven, nor be at all in any of the middle space between Heaven and Earth. That to be one, should be to be undivided from it selfe, and yet that one and the same thing should be divided from it selfe. That a thing may be, & yet be no where. That a Finite thing may be in all places at once. That a Body may be in a place, and haue there its dimensions, & colour, & all other qualities, and yet that it is not in the power of God to make it visible, and tangible there, nor capable of doing or suffering any thing. That there should be no certainty in our senses, and yet that we should know something certainly, & yet know nothing but by our sēses. That that which is, and was long agoe, should now begin to be. That that is now to be made of nothing, which is not nothing but something. That the same thing should be before and after it selfe. That it should bee truly and really in a place, and yet without Locality. Nay, that hee which is Omnipotēt should not be able to give it Locality in this place, where it is, as some of you hold: or if he can, as others say he can, that it should be possible, that the same man, for example You or I, may at the sametime, be awake at London, and not awake but asleep at Rome: There run or walk, here not run or walk, but stand still, sit, or lye along: There study or write, here doe neither, but dine or sup: There speak, here be silent. That he may in one place freez for cold, in another burn with heat. That he may be drunk in one place, and sober in another: Valiant in one place, and a Coward in another: A theef in one place, honest in another. That he may be a Papist and goe to Masse in Rome; A Protestant and goe to Church in England. That he may dye in Rome, and liue in England: or 'dying in both places may goe to Hell from Rome, and to Heaven from England. That the Body and Soule of Christ should cease to be where it was, & yet not goe to another place, nor be destroyed. All these, and many other of the like nature are the unavoidable, & most of them the acknowledged consequences of your doctrine of Transubstantiation, as is explained one where or other by your School-men. Now I beseech you, Sir, to try your skill, & if you can compose their repugnance, and make peace between them; Certainly, [Page] none but you shall be Catholique Moderator. But if you cannot doe it, and that after an intelligible manner, then you must give me leave to believe, that either you doe not believe Transubstantiation, or else that it is no contradiction, that men should subjugate their understandings to the belief of contradictions.

47 Lastly, I pray tell me whether you have not so much Charity in store for the Bishop of Armach, and D. Potter, as to think that they themselves believe this saying, which the one preacht and printed, the other reprinted, and as you say applauded? If you think they doe, then certainly you have done unadvisedly, either in charging it with a foul contradiction, or in saying, it is impossible, that any man should at once believe contradictions. Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions, and that it is unreasonable to doe so, I willingly grant: But to say it is impossible to be done, is against every mans experience, and almost as unreasonable, as to doe the thing which is said to be impossible. For though perhaps it may be very difficult, for a man in his [...]ight wits, to believe a contradiction expressed in termes, especially if he believe it to be a contradiction, yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition, to perswade themselves upon slight and triviall grounds, that these or these, though they seem contradictions, yet indeed are not so, and so to believe them: or if the plain repugnance of them, be veil'd and disguis'd a little, with some empty unintelligible non-sense distinction; or if it be not exprest but implyed, not direct but by consequence, so that the parties, to whose faith the propositions are offerd, are either innocently, or perhaps affectedly ignorant of the contrariety of them: for men in such cases, easily to swallow and digest contradictions, he that denies it possible, must be a meer stranger in the world.

48 Ad §. 18. This Paragraph consists of two immodest untruths, obtruded upon us without shew, or shadow of Reason: and an evident sophisme, grounded upon an affected mistake of the sense of the word Fundamentall.

49 The first untruth is, that D. Potter makes a Church, of men agreeing scarcely in one point of faith: of men concurring in some one or few Articles of belief, and in the rest holding conceits plainly contradictory: Agreeing only in this one Article, that Christ is our Saviour; but for the rest, like to the parts of a Chimaera &c. Which I say is a shamelesse calumny, not only because D. Potter in this point delivers not his own judgement, but relates the opinion of others, M. Hooker, and M. Morton; but especially, because even these men (as they are related by D. Potter) to the constituting of the very essence of a Church, in the lowest degree, require not only Faith in Christ Iesus the sonne of God and Saviour of the World, but also submission to his Doctrine in mind and will. Now I beseech you Sir, tell me ingenuously, whether the doctrine of Christ may be called without blasphemy, scarcely one point of Faith? or whether it consists only, of some one or few Articles of belief? Or whether there be nothing in it, but only this Article, That Christ is our Saviour? Is it not manifest to all the world, that Christians [Page] of all Professions doe agree with one consent, in the belief of all those Bookes of Scripture, which were not doubted of in the ancient Church, without danger of damnation? Nay is it not apparent, that no man at this time, can without hypocrisy, pretend to believe in Christ, but of necessity he must doe so? Seeing he can have no reason to believe in Christ, but he must have the same to believe the Scripture. I pray then read over the Scripture once more, or if that be too much labour, the New Testament only: and then say whether there be nothing there, but scarcely one point of Faith? But some one or two Articles of beleif? Nothing but this Article onely, that Christ is our Saviour? Say whether there be not there an infinite number of Divine Verities, Divine precepts, Divine promises, and those so plainly and undoubtedly delivered, that if any sees them not, it cannot be because he cannot, but because he will not! So plainly, that whosoever submits syncerely to the doctrine of Christ, in mind and will, cannot possibly but submit to these in act and performance. And in the rest, which it hath pleased God, for reasons best known to himselfe, to deliver obscurely or ambiguously, yet thus farre at least they agree, that the sense of them intended by God, is certainly true, and that they are without passion or prejudice to endeavour to find it out: The difference only is, which is that true sense which God intended. Neither would this long continue, if the walls of separation, whereby the Divell hopes to make their Divisions eternall, were pulled down; and errour were not supported against Truth, by humane advantages. But for the present, God forbid the matter should be so ill as you make it! For whereas you looking upon their points of difference and agreement, through I know not what strange glasses, have made the first innumerable, and the other scarce a number: the truth is clean contrary; That those divine Verities, Speculative and Practicall, wherein they universally agree (which you will have to be but a few, or but one, or scarcely one) amount to many millions, (i [...] an exact account were taken of them:) And on the other side, the Ponts in variance, are in comparison but few, and those not of such a quality, but the Error in them may well consist with the belief & obedience of the entire Covenant, ratified by Christ between God and man. Yet I would not be so mistaken, as if I thought the errours even of some Protestants unconsiderable things, and matters of no moment. For the truth is, I am very fearfull, that some of their opinions, either as they are, or as they are apt to be mistaken, (though not of themselves so damnable, but that good and holy men may be saved with thē, yet) are too frequent occasions of our remisnes, and slacknesse, in running the race of Christian Profession, of our deferring Repentance, and conversion to God, of our frequent relapses into sinne, & not seldome of security in sinning; & consequently, though not certain causes, yet too frequent occasions of many mens damnation: and such I conceive all these doctrines, which either directly or obliquely, put men in hope of eternall happinesse, by any other means saving only the narrow way of sincere and universall obedience, grounded upon a true and lively faith. These Errours therefore, I doe not [Page] elevate or extenuate: and on condition the ruptures made by them might be composed, doe heartily wish, that the cement were made of my deerest blood, and only not to be an Anathema from Christ! Only this I say, that neither are their points of agreement so few, nor their differences so many, as you make them; nor so great as to exclude the opposite Parties from being members of one Church Militant, & joynt heires of the glory of the Church Triumphant.

50 Your other palpable untruth is, that Protestants are farre more bold to disagree even in matters of faith, then Catholique Divines (you mean your own,) in Questions meerely Philosophicall, or not determined by the Church. For neither doe they differ at all, in matters of faith, if you take the word in the highest sense, and mean by matters of faith, such doctrines as are absolutely necessary to Salvation, to be believed or not to be disbelieved. And then in those wherein they doe differ, with what colour or shadow of Argument, can you make good, that they are more bold to disagree, then you are in Questions meerely Philosophicall, or not determined by the Church? For is there not as great repugnancy between your assent and dissent, your affirmation and negation, your Est Est, Non Non, as there is between theirs? You follow your Reason, in those things wich are not determined by your Church; and they theirs, in things not plainly determined in Scripture. And wherein then consists their greater, their farre greater boldnesse? And what if they in their contradictory opinions, pretend both to rely upon the truth of God, doth this make their contradictions ever a whit the more repugnant? I had alwaies thought, that all contradictions had been equally contradictions, and equally repugnant; because the least of them are as farre asunder, as Est and Non Est can make them, and the greatest are no farther. But then you in your differences, (by name, about Predetermination, the Immaculate Conception, the Popes Infallibility,) upon what other motive doe you rely? Doe not you cite Scripture, or Tradition, or both, on both sides? And doe you not pretend, that both these are the infallible Truths of Almighty God?

51 You close up this Section with a fallacy, proving forsooth, that we destroy, by our confession, the Church which is the house of God, because we stand only upon Fundamentall Articles, which cannot make up the whole fabrick of the faith, no more then the foundation of a house alone can be a house.

52 But I hope, Sir, you will not be difficult in granting, that that is a house which hath all the necessary parts belonging to a house: Now by Fundamentall Articles, we mean all those which are necesry. And you your selfe, in the very leafe after this, take notice that D. Potter does so. Where to this Question: How shall I know in particular which points be, and which be not Fundamentall? You scurrilously bring him in making this ridiculous answer, Read my Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken &c. There you shall find that Fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique Verities, as principally, and essentially pertain to the faith, such as properly constitute a[Page]Church, and are necessary (in ordinary course) to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved. All which wordes he us'd, not to tell you what points be fundamentall, as you dishonestly impose upon him, but to explain what he meant by the word Fundamentall. May it please you therefore now at last, to take notice, that by Fundamentall we mean all and only that which is necessary; and then I hope you will grant, that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things fundamentall to Salvation! Vnlesse you will say, that more is necessary, then that which is necessary.

53 This long discourse, so full of un-ingenious dealing with your adversary, perhaps would have done reasonably in a Faire or a Comedy, & I doubt not but you have made your selfe & your courteous Readers good sport with it. But if D. Potter or I, had been by when you wrote it, we should have stopt your carere at the first starting, & have put you in mind of these old Schoole Proverbs, Exfalso supposito sequitur quodlibet, and Vno absurdo dato, seq [...]untur mille. For whereas you suppose, first, that to a man desirous to save his soul, and requiring, whose direction he might rely upon? the Doctors answer would be, Vpon the truly Catholique Church: I suppose upon better reason, because I know his mind, that he would advise him to call no man Master on Earth, but according to Christs command, to rely upon the direction of God himselfe. If he should enquire where he should find this direction? He would answer him; In his word contained in Scripture. If he should enquire what assurance he might have, that the Scripture is the word of God? He would answer him, that the doctrine it selfe is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God, nec vox hominem sonat, and that they which wrote and delivered it, confirmed it to be the word of God, by doing such works as could not be done, but by power from God himselfe. For assurance of the Truth hereof, he would advise him to rely upon that, which all wise men, in all matters of belief rely upon; and that is, the Consent of Ancient Records, and Vniversall Tradition. And that he might not instruct him as partiall in this advise, he might farther tell him, that a gentleman that would be namelesse, that has written a book against him, called Charity maintained by Catholiques, though in many things he differ from him, yet agrees with him in this, that Tradition is such a principle as may be rested in, and which requires no other proof. As indeed no wise man doubts but there was such a man as Iulius Caesar, or Cicero, that there are such Citties as Rome or Constantinople, though he have no other assurance for the one or the other, but only the speech of people. This tradition therefore he would counsell him to rely upon, and to believe that the book which we call Scripture, was confirmed abundantly by the workes of God, to be the word of God. Believing it the word of God, he must of necessity believe it true: and if he believe it true, he must believe it containes all necessary directions unto eternall happinesse, because it affirmes it selfe to doe so. Nay he might tell him, that so farre is the whole book, from wanting any necessary direction to his eternall Salvation, that one only Author, that hath writ but two little [Page] bookes of it, S. Luke by name in the begining of his Gospell, and in the begining of his Story, shewes plainly that he alone hath written at least so much as is necessary. And what they wrote, they wrote by Gods direction, for the direction of the world, not only for the Learned, but for all that would doe their true endeavour to know the will of God, and to doe it; therefore you cannot but conceive, that writing to all and for all, they wrote so as that in things necessary they might be understood by all. Besides that, here he should finde, that God himselfe has engaged himselfe by promise, that if he would loue him, and keep his Commandements, and pray earnestly for his spirit, and bee willing to be directed by it, he should undoubtedly receiue it, even the Spirit of Truth which shall lead him into all truth; that is certainly, into all necessary Truths, and suffer him to fall into no pernicious errour. The summe of his whole direction to him briefly would be this, Believe the Scripture to be the word of God, use your true endeavour to finde the true sense of it, and to liue according to it, and then you may rest securely that you are in the true way to eternall happinesse. This is the substance of that Answer which the Doctor would make to any man in this case; and this is a way so plain, that fooles, unlesse they will, cannot erre from it. Because not knowing absolutely all truth, nay not all profitable truth, and not being free from errour; but endeavoring to know the truth and obey it, and endeavouring to be free from errour, is by this way made the onely condition of salvation. As for your supposition, That he would advise such a man to rely upon the Catholique Church for the finding out the doctrine of Christ, hee utterly disclaimes it, and truly very justly: There being no certaine way to know that any company is a true Church, but only by their professing the true doctrine of Christ. And therefore as it is impossible I should know such a company of Philosophers are Peripateticks, or Stoicks, unlesse I first know what was the doctrine of the Peripateticks, and Stoicks; so is it impossible that I should certainly know any company to be the Church of Christ, before I know what is the doctrine of Christ, the Profession whereof constitutes the visible Church, the Beliefe and Obedience the invisible. And therefore whereas you would have him be directed by the Catholique Church to the doctrine of Christ; the contrary rather is most certaine and necessary, that by the foreknowledge of the doctrine of Christ, he must be directed to a certaine assurance, which is, if he meane not to choose at a venture, but desire to have certaine direction to it. This supposition therefore, being the hinge whereon your whole discourse turnes, is the Minerva of your owne Brayne; and therefore were it but for this, have we not great reason to accuse you of strange immodesty, in saying as you doe, That The whole discourse & inferences which here you have made, are either D. Potters own direct assertions, or evident consequences cleerely deduced frō them? Especially seeing your proceeding in it is so consonant to this ill beginning, that it is in a manner wholly made up, not of D. Potters assertions, but your owne fictions obtruded on him.

54 Ad § 19. To the next Question, Cannot Generall Councels erre? [Page] You pretend he answers § 19. They may erre damnably. Let the Reader see the place, and he shall finde, damnably is your addition. To the third demand, Must I consult (about my difficulties) with every particular person of the Catholique Church? You answer for him, (that which is most false) that it seemes so by his words; The whole militant Church, that is, all the members of it cannot possibly erre either in the whole faith, or any necessary Article of it. Which is very certaine, for should it doe so, it should be the Church no longer. But what sense is there that you should collect out of these words, that every member of the militant Church must be consulted with? By like reason, if he had said that all men in the world cannot erre; If he had said that God in his own person, or his Angels, could not erre in these matters, you might haue gathered from hence, that he laid a necessity upon men in doubt, to consult with Angels, or with God in his own person, or with all men in the world. Is it not evident to all sober men, that to make any man or men fit to be consulted with, besides the understanding of the matter, it is absolutely requisite that they may bee spoken with? And is it not apparently impossible, that any man should speak with all the members of the Militant Church?. Or if hee had spoken with them all, know that he had done so? Nay does not D. Potter say as much in plain termes? Nay more, doe not you take notice that hee does so in the very next words before these, where you say, he affirmes that the Catholique Church cannot be told of private injuries: unlesse you will perswade us there is a difference between the Catholique Church, and the whole Militant Church. For whereas you make him deny this of the Catholique Church united, and affirm it of the Militant Church dispersed into particulars; The truth is, he speaks neither of united nor dispersed, but affirmes simply (as appeares to your shame by your own quotations) that the Catholique Church cannot bee told of private iniuries: and then, that the whole Militant Church cannot erre. But then besides, that the united Church cannot be consulted, and the dispersed may, what a wild imagination is it? and what a strange injustice was it in you to father it upon him? I beseech you Sir, to consider seriously how far blinde zeal to your superstition hath transported you beyond all bounds of honesty and discretion, & made you carelesse of speaking either truth or sense, so you speak against D. Potter!

55 Again, you make him say, The Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawfull Councell may erre damnably: and from this collect, It remaines then for your necessary instruction you must repaire to every particular member of the Vniversall Church, spread over the face of the earth. And this is also Pergulapictoris, veri nihil, omnia ficta. The Antecedent false, (not for the matter of it, but) that D. Potter saies it; And the consequence as far from it, as Gades from Gange; and as coherent as a rope of sand. A generall Councell may erre; therefore you must travell all the world over, and consult with every particular Christian▪ As if there were nothing else to be consulted with: nay, as if according to the doctrine of Protestants, (for so you must say,) there were nothing [Page] to be consulted with, but only a Generall Councell, or all the world! Haue you never heard that Protestants say, That men for their direction must consult with Scripture? Nay, doth not D. Potter say it often in this very Book which you are confuting? Nay more, in this very page out of which you take this peece of your Cento, A Generall Councell may erre damnably? are there not these plain words, In searches of Truth, the Scripture? With what conscience then or modesty can you impose upon him this unreasonable consequence, & yet pretend that your whole discourse, is either his own direct assertion, or evident consequences, cleerely deduc'd from them? You adde, that yet he teaches (as if he contradicted himselfe) that the promises of God made to the Church for his assistance, are not intended to particular persons, but only to the Catholique Church: which sure agrees very well with any thing said by D. Potter. If it be repugnant to what you said for him falsely, what is that to him?

56 Neither yet is this to drive any man to desperation: unlesse it be such a one, as hath such a strong affection to this word, Church, that he will not goe to heaven, unlesse he hath a Church to lead him thither. For what though a Councell may erre, and the whole Church cannot be consulted with, yet this is not to send you on the Fooles Pilgrimage for faith, and bid you goe and conferre with every Christian soul, man and woman, by Sea and by Land, close prisoner, or at liberty, as you dilate the matter: But to tell you very briefly, that Vniversall Tradition directs you to the word of God, and the word of God directs you to Heaven. And therefore here is no cause of desperatiō, no cause for you to be so vain, and tragicall, as here you would seeeme. Yet upon supposall (you say) of this miraculous pilgrimage for faith, before I have the faith of Miracles, how shall I proceed at our meeting? Or how shall I know the man on whom I may securely rely? And hereunto, you frame this answere for the Doctor; Procure to know whether he believe all Fundamentall points of faith: Whereas in all the Doctors book, there is no such answer to any such question, or any like it. Neither doe you as your custome is, note any page where it may be found; which makes mee suspect, that sure you have some priuate licence to use Heretiques (as you call them) at your pleasure, and make them answer any thing to anything.

57 Wherein I am yet more confirmed by the answer you put in his mouth to your next demand, How shall I know whether he hold all Fundamentall points or no? For whereas hereunto D. Potter hauing given one Answer fully satisfactory to it, which is, If he truly believe the undoubted bookes of Canonicall Script [...]re, he cannot but believe all Fundamentalls; and another which is but somethings towards a full satisfaction of it, That the Creed containes all the fundamentalls of simple Belief: you take no notice of the former, and pervert the latter, and make him say, The Creed containes all fundamentalls of faith. Whereas you know, and within sixe or seven lines after this confesse, that he never pretended it to contain all simply, but all of one sort, all necessary [Page]points of simple belief. Which assertion because he modestly delivers as very probable (being willing to conclude rather lesse then more then his reasons require,) hereupon you take occasion to aske: Shall I hazard my soul on probabilities, or even wagers! As if whatsoever is but probable, though in the highest degree of probability, were as likely to be false as true! Or because it is but Morally, not Mathematically certain that there was such a Woman as Q. Elizabeth, such a man as H. the 8. that is in the highest degree probable, therefore it were an even wager there were none such! By this reason, seeing the truth of your whole Religion depends finally upon Prudentiall motives, which you doe but pretend to be very credible, it will be an even wager that your Religion is false. And by the same reason, or rather infinitely greater, seeing it is impossible for any man (according to the grounds of your Religion) to know himselfe, much lesse another to be a true Pope, or a true Priest; nay to have a Morall certainty of it, because these things are obnoxious to innumerable secret and undiscernable nullities, it will be an even wager, nay (if we proportion things indifferently,) a hundred to one, that every Consecration and Absolution of yours is void, & that whensoever you adore the Host, you and your Assistants commit Idolatry: That there is a nullity in any Decree that a Pope shall make, or any Decree of a Councell which he shall confirme: Particularly it will be at least an even wager, that all the Decrees of the Councell of Trent are void, because it is at most but very probable that the Pope which confirmed them was true Pope. If you mistake these inferences, then confesse you have injur'd D. Potter in this also, that you have confounded and made all one, Probabilities, and even wagers. Whereas every ordinary Gamester can informe you, that though it be a thousand to one that such a thing will happen, yet it is not sure, but very probable.

58 To make the measure of your injustice yet fuller, you demand, If the Creed containes only points of simple belief, how shall you know what points of belief are necessary which direct our practise? D. Potter would have answered you in our Saviours words, search the Scriptures. But you have a great minde it seemes to be a despairing, and therefore having propos'd your Question, will not suffer him to give you Answer, but shut your eares and tell him, still he chalkes out new paths for desperation.

59 In the rest of your interlude, I cannot but commend one thing in you, that you keep a decorum, and observe very well the Rule given you by the great Master of your Art,

—Servetur adimum

Qualis ab incepto processerat & sibi constet:

One vein of scurrility and dishonesty runs clean through it, from the begining to the end. Your next demand then is, Are all the Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter Fundamentall? and the Answer, I cannot say so. Which Answer (though it be true) D. Potter no where gives it, neither hath he occasion, but you make it for him, to bring in another question; and that is, How then shall I know, which in particular be, and [Page]which be not Fundamentall? D. Potter would have answered, It is a vain question: believe all, and you shall be sure to believe all that is Fundamentall.

60 But what saies now his prevaricating Proxy? What does he make him say? This which followes: Read my answer to a late Popish Pamphlet, intituled Charity Mistaken: There you shall finde, that Fundamentall doctrines, are such Catholique verities, as principally and essentially pertain to the faith, such as properly constitute a Church, and are necessary in ordinary course, to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved. They are those Grand and Capitall Doctrines which make up our Faith, that is, the common faith, which is alike pretious in all; being one and the same, in the highest Apostle, and the meanest believer, which the Apostle elsewhere calls the first Principles of the Oracles of God, and the forme of sound words.

61 But in earnest, Good Sir, doth the Doctor in these places by you quoted, make to this question this same sottish answer? Or doe you think that against an Heretique nothing is unlawfull? Certainly if he doth answer thus, I will make bold to say he is a very foole. But if he does not, (as indeed he does not) then:—But I forbeare you, and beseech the Reader to consult the places of D. Potters book; and there he shall find, that in the former halfe of these (as you call them) varied words and phrases, he declared only what he meant by the word Fundamentall, which was needfull to prevent mistakes, and cavilling about the meaning of the word, which is metaphoricall, and therefore ambiguous; and that the latter halfe of them, are severall places of Scripture imployed by D. Potter, to shew that his distinction of Fundamentall and not Fundamentall hath expresse ground in it. Nay of these two places, very pertinent unto two very good purposes, you have exceeding fairely patcht together a most ridiculous answer, to a question that D. Potter never dream't of. But the words, you will say, are in D. Potters Book, though in divers places, and to other purposes. Very true: And so the words of Ausonius his obscene Fescennine, are taken out of Virgil, yet Virgil surely was not the Author of this Poem. Besides, in D. Potters book, there are these words, Dread Soveraigne, amongst the many excellent vertues which have made your Majesties person so deare unto God, &c. And why now may you not say as well, that in these he made Answer to your former question, what points of the Creed were, and what were not Fundamentalls?

62 But unlesse this question may be answered, his doctrine you say serves only, either to make men despaire, or else to have recourse to these whom we call Papists. It seemes a little thing will make you despaire, if you be so sullen as to doe so, because men will not trouble themselves to satisfy your curious questions. And I pray be not offended with me for so esteeming it, because as before I told you, if you will believe all the points of the Creed, you cannot choose but believe all the points of it that are fundamentall, though you be ignorant which are so, and which are not so. Now I believe your desire to know which are Fundamentalls, proceeds only from a desire to be assur'd that you [Page] doe believe them; which seeing you may be assured of, without knowing which they be, what can it be but curiosity to desire to know it? Neither may you think to mend your selfe herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call Papists; for they are as farre to seek as wee in this point, which of the Articles of the Creed are, for their nature and matter, fundamentall, and which are not. Particularly, you will scarce meet with any amongst their Doctors, so adventurous, as to tell you for a certain, whether or no the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost, his being born of a Virgin, his Buriall, his descent into Hell, and the Communion of Saints, be points of their own nature and matter fundamentall. Such I mean, as without the distinct and explicite knowledge of them no man can be saved.

63 But you will say, at least they give this certain rule, that all points defined by Christs visible Church, belong to the foundation of faith, in such sense, as to deny any such, cannot stand with Salvation. So also Protestants give you this more certain rule, That whosoever believes heartily those books of Scripture, which all the Christian Churches in the world acknowledge to be Canonicall, and submits himselfe indeed to this, as to the rule of his belief, must of necessity believe all things fundamentall, and if he live according to his faith, cannot fail of Salvation. But besides, what certainty have you, that that rule of Papists is so certain? By the visible Church it is plain, they mean only their own: and why their own only should be the Visible Church, I doe not understand: and as little, why all points defined by this Church should belong to the foundation of faith. These things you had need see well and substantially proved, before you rely upon them, otherwise you expose your selfe to danger of imbracing damnable errors instead of Fundamentall truth's. But you will say D. Potter himselfe acknowledges, that we doe not erre in Fundamentalls. If he did so, yet me thinkes you have no reason to rest upon his acknowledgement with any security, whom you condemne of errour in many other matters. Perhaps excesse of Charity to your persons, may make him censure your errors more favourably then he should doe. But the truth is, and so I have often told you, though the Doctor hope that your errors are not so unpardonably destructive, but that some men, who ignorantly hold them may be saved, yet in themselves, he professes and proclaimes them damnable, and such as he feares, will be certainly destructive to such as you are, that is, to all those, who have eyes to see and will not see them.

64 Ad §. 20. 21. 22. 23. In the Remainder of this Chapter, you promise to answer D. Potters Arguments, against that which you said before. But presently forgetting your selfe, in stead of answering his Arguments, you fall a confuting his Answers to your own. The arguments objected by you which here you vindicate, were two. 1. The Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed, therefore the Creed containes not all things necessary to be believed. 2. Baptisme is not contained in the Creed, therefore not all things necessary. To both which Arguments my Answer shortly is this, that they prove something, but [Page] it is that which no man here denies. For D. Potter (as you have also confessed) never said, not undertook to shew, that the Apostles intended to comprize in the Creed, all points absolutely, which we are bound to believe, or after sufficient proposall, not to disbelieve; which yet here and every where you are obtruding upon him: But only that they purposed to comprize in it, all such doctrines purely speculative, all such matters of simple belief, as are in ordinary course, necessary to be distinctly and explicitly believed by all men. Neither of these objections doe any way infringe or impeach the truth of this Assertion. Not the first, because according to your own doctrine, all men are not bound to know explicitely what books of Scripture are Canonicall. Nor the second, because Baptisme is not a matter of Faith, but practise: not so much to be believed, as to be given, and received. And against these Answers, whether you have brought any considerable new matter, let the indifferent Reader judge. As for the other things, which D. Potter rather glanceth at, then buil [...]s upon, in answering these objections, as the Creed's being collected out of Scripture, and supposing the Authority of it, which Gregory of Valentia in the place above cited, seemes to me to confesse, to have been the Iudgement of the Ancient Fathers: and the Nicene Creed's intimating the authority of Canonicall Scripture, and making mention of Baptisme: These things were said ex abundanti; and therefore I conceive it superfluous to examine your exceptions against them. Prove that D. Potter did affirme that the Creed containes all things necessary to be believed of all sorts, and then these objections will be pertinent, and deserve an answer. Or produce some point of simple belief, necessary to be explicitly believed, which is not contained either in termes, or by consequence in the Creed, and then I will either answer your Reasons, or confesse I cannot. But all this while you doe but trifle, and are so farre from hitting the marke, that you rove quite beside the But.

65 Ad §. 23. 24. 25. D. Potter [...]emands, How it can be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed then the Apostles had, and the Church of their times? You Answer That he trifles, not distinguishing between the Apostles belief, and that abridgement of some Articles of faith, which we call the Apostles Creed. I reply, that it is you which trifle, affectedly confounding (what D. Potter hath plainly distinguished) the Apostles belief of the whole Religion of Christ, as it comprehends both what we are to doe, and what we are to believe, with their belief of that part of it, which containes not duties of obedience, but only the necessary Articles of si [...]ple [...]aith. Now though the Apostles Beleife be, in the former sense, a larger thing then that which we call the Apostles Creed: yet in the latter sense of the word, the Creed (I say) is a full comprehension of their belief, which you your selfe have formerly confessed, though somewhat fearfully, and inconstantly: and here again unwillingnesse to speak the truth, makes you speak that which is hardly sense, and call it an abridgement of some Articles of Faith. For I demand, these some Articles which you speak of, which are they? Those that are out of the Creed, or those that are [Page] in it? Those that are in it, it comprehends at large, and therefore it is not an abridgement of them: Those that are out of it, it comprehends not at all, and therefore it is not an abridgement of them. If you would call it now an abridgement of the Faith, this would be sense, and signify thus much, That all the necessary Articles of the Christian faith are compriz'd in it. For this is the proper duty of abridgements, to leave out nothing necessary, and to take in nothing unnecessary.

66 Moreover, in answer to this demand you tell us, that the Doctor beggs the Question, supposing that the Apostles believed no more then is contained in their Creed. I Answer, He supposes no such matter; but only that they knew no more necessary Articles of simple belief, then what are contained in their Creed. So that here you abuse D. Potter and your Reader, by taking sophistically without limitation, that which is delivered with limitation.

67 But this demand of D. Potters, was equivalent to a Negation, and intended for one: How can it be necessary for any Christian, to have more in his Creed, then the Apostles had? All one with this, It cannot be necessary &c. And this negation of his, he inforces with many arguments, which he proposes by way of interrogation, thus. May the Church of after Ages make the narrow way to heaven, narrower then our Saviour left it? Shall it bee a fault to straiten and encumber the Kings high way with publique nuisances; and is it lawfull by adding new Articles to the faith, to retrench any thing from the Latitude of the King of Heavens high way to eternall happinesse? The yoake of Christ, which he said was easy, may it be justly made heavier by the Governors of the Church in after Ages? The Apostles professe they revealed to the Church the whole Counsell of God, keeping back nothing needfull for our Salvation. What tyranny then to impose any new unnecessary matters on the faith of Christians, especially (as the late Popes have done) under the high commanding forme, Qui non crediderit, damnabitur? If this may be done, why then did our Savlour reprehend the Pharises so sharpely, for binding heavy burdens, and laying them on mens shoulders? And why did he teach them, that in vain they worshipped God, teaching for doctrines mens Traditions? And why did the Apostles call it tempting of God, to lay those things upon the necks of Christians, that were not necessary?

68 All which interrogations seeme to me to containe so many plain and convincing Arguments of the premised Assertion; to all which (one excepted,) according to the advise of the best Masters of Rhetorique in such Cases, you have answered very discreetly; by saying O. But when you write againe, I pray take notice of them: and if you can devise no faire, and satisfying answer to them, then be so ingenuous as to grant the Conclusion, That no more can be necessary for Christians to beleeve now, then was in the Apostles time. A conclusion of great importance, for the decision of many Controversies, & the disburdening of the faith of Christ from many incumbrances.

69 As for that one, which you thought you could fasten upon, grounded on the 20. Act. 27. let me tell you plainly, that by your Answering [Page] this, you have shewed plainly that it was wisely done of you to decline the rest. You tell D. Potter, That needfull for salvation is his glosse, which perhaps you intended for a peice of an Answer. But good Sir, consult the place, and you shall find, that there S. Paul himself saies that he kept back [...], not any thing that was profitable: and I hope you will make no difficulty to grant, that whatsoever is needfull for salvation, is very profitable.

70 But then you say, This is no proofe unlesse he beg the Question, and suppose, that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church is contained in the Creed. I Answer, it is not D. Potter that beggs the Question, but you that mistake it: which is not here in this particular place, Whether all points of simple Beleife necessary for the salvation of the Primitive Christians, were contained in the Apostles Symbole? (for that and the proofes, of it follow after, in the next, §. p. 223. of D. Potters Booke:) but, whether any thing can be necessary for Christians to beleeve now, which was not so from the beginning? D. Potter maintaines the negative; and to make good his opinion, thus he argues, S. Paul declared to the Ephesians the whole Counsell of God touching their Salvation; Therefore that which S. Paul did not declare, can be no part of the Counsell of God, and therefore not necessary. And againe: S. Paul kept back nothing from the Ephesians that was profitable; Therefore he taught them all things necessary to salvation. Consider this I pray a little better, and then I hope you will acknowledge, that here was no Petitio principij, in D. Potter, but rather Ignoratio Elenchi, in you.

71 Neither is it materiall, that these words were particularly directed by S. Paul, to the Pastours of the Church: For (to say nothing that the point here issuable, is not, Whom he taught, whether Priests or Laymen? But how much he taught, and whether all things necessary?) it appeares plainly out of the Text, and I wonder you should read it so negligently as not to observe it, that though he speaks now to the Pastors, yet he speaks of what he taught not only them, but also the Laity as well as them. I have kept back nothing (saies S. Paul) that was profitable, but have shewed, and have taught you publikely, and from house to house; Testifying (I pray observe) both to the Iewes, and also to the Greeks, Repentance towards God, & Faith towards our Lord Iesus Christ. And a little after, I know that yee all, among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdome of God, shall see my face no more. Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am innocent from the blood of all men; for I have kept nothing back, but have shewed you all the Counsell of God. And againe, Remember that by the space of three yeares I ceased not to warne every one night and day with teares. Certainly though he did all these things to the Pastours among the rest, nay above the rest, yet without controversie, they whom he taught publikely, and from house to house: The Iewes and Greeks to whom he testified, (1.) preach'd Faith and Repentance▪ Those all, amongst whom he went preaching the kingdome of Cod: Those, Every one, whom for three yeares together he warned, were not Bishops and Pastors only.

[Page]72 Neither is this to say, that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed, nothing of the Sacraments, Comandements, &c. for that is not here the point to be proved: but only, that they taught them all things necessary, so that nothing can be necessary which they did not teach them. But how much of this they put into their Creed, whether all the necessary points of simple beleife, as we pretend, or only as you say, I know not what, is another Question, and which comes now to be farther examined. D. Potter, in confirmation of it, besides the authorities which you formerly shifted of, with so egregious tergiversation, urges fiue severall Arguments.

73 The sense of the first is this, If all the necessary points of simple beliefe be not compriz'd in the Creed, it can no way deserue the name of the Apostles Creed, as not being their Creed in any sense, but onely a part of it. To this you answer § 2 5. Vpon the same affected ambignity, &c. Answ. It is very true that their whole faith was of a larger extent, but that was not the Question: But whether all the points of simple beliefe which they taught as necessary to be explicitely believed, be not contained in it? And if thus much at least of Christian Religion bee not comprized in it, I again desire you to inform me how it could be call'd the Apostles Creed!

74 Foure other Reasons D. Potter urges to the same purpose, grounded upon the practise of the Ancient Church; The last whereof you answer in the second part of your Book. But to the rest, drawne from the ancient Churches appointing her Infants to be instructed (for matters of simple beliefe,) only in the Creed: From her admitting Catechumens unto Baptisme: and of Strangers to her Communion upon their only profession of the Creed, you haue not, for ought I can perceaue, thought fit to make any kind of answer.

75 The difficulties of the 27. and last § of this Chapter, haue been satisfied. So that there remaines unexamined onely the 26. Section, wherein you exceed your selfe in sophistry: Especially in that trick of Cavillers, which is to answer objections by other objections; an excellent way to make controversies endlesse! D. Potter desires to be resolved, Why amongst many things of equall necessity to be believed, the Apostles should distinctly set down some in the Creed, and bee altogether silent of others? In stead of resolving him in this difficulty, you put another to him, and that is, Why are some points not Fundamentall expressed in it, rather then other of the same quality? Which demand is so far from satisfying the former doubt, that it makes it more intricate. For upon this ground it may be demanded, How was it possible that the Apostles should leave out any Articles simply necessary, and put in others not necessary, especially if their intention were (as you say it was) to deliver in it such Articles as were fittest for those times? Vnlesse (which were wondrous strange) unnecessary Articles were fitter for those times, then necessary. But now to your Question, the Answer is obvious: These unnecessary things might be put in, because they were circumstances of the necessary, Pontius Pilate of Christs Passion, The third day of the Resurrectiō; neither doth the adding of thē make [Page] the Creed ever a whit the lesse portable, the lesse fit to be understood, and remembred. And for the contrary reasons, other unnecessary things might bee left out. Besides, who sees not that the addition of some unnecessary circumstances is a thing that can hardly be avoided without affectation! And therefore not so great a fault, nor deserving such a censure, as the omission of any thing essentiall to the work undertaken, and necessary to the end proposed in it.

76 You demand again (as it is no hard matter to multiply demands,) why our Saviours descent to Hell, and Buriall was expressed, and not his circumcision, his manifestation to the three Kings, and working of Miracles? I answer: His Resurrection, Ascension, and sitting at the right hand of God, are very great Miracles, and they are expressed. Besides, S. Iohn. assures us, That the Miracles which Christ did, were done and written not for themselves that they might be believed, but for a farther end, that we might believe that Iesus was the Christ, and believing haue eternall life. He therefore that belieues this may be saved, though he haue no explicite and distinct faith of any Miracle that our Saviour did. His Circumcision & Manifestation to the Wise men (for I know not upon what grounds you call them Kings) are neither things simply necessary to be known, nor haue any neer relation to those that are so. As for his Descent into Hell, it may (for ought you know) be put in as a thing necessary of it selfe to be known. If you ask why more then his Circumcision, I refer you to the Apostles for an answer, who put that in, and left this out of their Creed: and yet sure, were not so forgetfull after the receiving of the holy Ghost, as to leaue out any prime & principall foundation of the faith, which are the very words of your own Gordonius Huntlaeus, Cont. 2. c. 10. num. 10. Likewise his Buriall was put in perhaps as necessary of it selfe to be known. But though it were not, yet hath it manifestly so neer relation to these that are necessary, (his Passion & Resurrection, being the Consequent of the one, and the Antecedent of the other,) that it is no marvell if for their sakes it was put in. For though I verily belieue that there is no necessary point of this nature, but what is in the Creed, yet I doe not affirme, because I cannot prove it, that there is nothing in the Creed but what is necessary. You demand thirdly, Why did they not expresse Scriptures, Sacraments, and all Fundamentall points of faith tending to practise, as well as those which rest in Beliefe? I answer; Because their purpose was to comprize in it only those necessary points which rest in beliefe: which appeares, because of practicall points there is not in it so much as one.

77 D. Potter subjoynes to what is said aboue, That as well, nay better they might have given no Article but that of the Church, and sent us to the Church for all the rest: For in setting down others besides that, and not all, they make us beleeve we have all, when we have not all. This consequence you deny: and neither give reason against it, nor satisfie his reason for it, which yet in my judgment is good and concluding. The Proposition to be proved is this, That if your Doctrine were trve, this short Creed, I beleeve the Roman Church to be infallible, would have been better, that is, more effectuall to keep the beleevers of it [Page] from Heresie, and in the true faith, then this Creed which now we have. A proposition so evident, that I cannot see how either you, or any of your Religion, or indeed any sensible man can from his heart deny it. Yet because you make shew of doing so, or else, which I rather hope, doe not rightly apprehend the force of the Reason, I will endeavour briefly to adde some light and strength to it, by comparing the effects of these severall supposed Creeds.

78 The former Creed therefore would certainly produce these effects in the beleevers of it: An impossibility of being in any formall Heresie: A necessity of being prepared in mind to come out of all Errourin faith, or materiall Heresie; which certainly you will not denie, or if you doe, you pull downe the only pillar of your Church and Religion, and denie that which is in effect the only thing you labour to prove through your whole Book.

79 The latter Creed which now we have, is so un-effectuall for these good purposes, that you your self tell us of innumerable, grosse, damnable Heresies, that have been, are, and may be, whose contrary Truths are neither explicitly, nor by consequence comprehended in this Creed: So that no man by the beleife of this Creed without the former, can be possibly guarded from falling into them, and continuing obstinate in them. Nay, so far is this Creed from guarding them from these mischiefes, that it is more likely to ensnare thē into them, by seeming and yet not being a full comprehension of all necessary points of faith: which is apt (as experience shewes,) to mis-guide men into this pernitious errour, That believing the Creed, they believe all necessary points of faith, whereas indeed they doe not so. Now upon these grounds I thus conclude: That Creed which hath great commodities and no danger, would certainly be better then that which hath great danger, and wants many of these great commodities; But the former short Creed propos'd by me, I believe the Roman Church to be infallible, (if your doctrine be true,) is of the former condition, and the latter, that is, the Apostles Creed, is of the latter, Therefore the former (if your doctrine be true) would without controversie be better then the latter.

80 But (say you) by this kind of arguing, one might inferre quite contrary. If the Apostles Creed contain all points necessary to Salvation, what need have wee of any Church to teach us? And consequently what need of the Article of the Church? To which I answer: that having compared your inference and D. Potter together, I cannot discover any shadow of resemblance between them, nor any shew of Reason, why the perfection of the Apostles Creed, should exclude a necessity of some body to deliver it. Much lesse why the whole Creed's containing all things necessary should make the beliefe of a part of it unnecessary. As well (for ought I understand) you might avouch this inference to be as good as D. Potters: The Apostles Creed contains all things necessary, therefore there is no need to believe in God. Neither does it follow so well as D. Potters argument followes, That if the Apostles Creed containes all things necessary, that all other Creeds [Page] and Catechismes, wherein are added divers other Particulars, are superfluous. For these other Particulars may be the duties of obedience, they may be profitable points of Doctrine, they may be good expositions of the Apostles Creed, and so not superfluous, and yet for all this the Creed may still contain all points of belief that are simply necessary. These therefore are poor consequences, but no more like D. Potters then an apple is like an oister.

81 But this consequence after you have sufficiently slighted and disgraced it, at length you promise us newes, and pretend to grant it. But what is that which you mean to grant? That the Apostles did put no Article in their Creed but only that of the Church? Or that, if they had done so, they had done better then now they have done? This is D. Potters inference out of your Doctrine; and truly if you should grant this, this were newes indeed? Yes, say you I will grant it, but only thus farre, that Christ hath referred us only to his Church. Yea, but this is clean another thing, and no newes at all, that you should grant that, which you would fain have granted to you. So that your dealing with us is just as if a man should profer me a curtesy, and pretend that he would oblige himselfe by a note under his hand, to give me twenty pound, and in stead of it write, that I owe him forty, and desire me to subscribe to it and be thankfull. Of such favours as these it is very safe to be liberall.

82 You tell us afterward (but how it comes in I know not) that it were a childish argument, The Creed containes not all things necessary; Ergo, It is not Profitable! Or, the Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient meanes: Ergo, She must teach us without meanes. These indeed are childish arguments, but for ought I see, you alone are the father of them: for in D. Potters book, I can neither meet with them, nor any like them. He indeed tels you, that if (by an impossible supposition) your Doctrine were true, another and a farre shorter Creed would have been more expedient: even this alone, I believe the Roman Church to be infallible. But why you should conclude, he makes this Creed unprofitable, because he saies another that might be conceived upon this false supposition, would be more profitable: or, that he laies a necessity upon the Church, of teaching without meanes: or, of not teaching this very Creed which now is taught; these things are so subtill that I cannot apprehend them. To my understanding, by those words, And sent us to the Church for all the rest, he does rather manifestly imply, that the rest might be very well, not only profitable but necessary, and that the Church was to teach this by Creeds, or Catechismes, or Councells, or any other meanes which she should make choice of, for being Infallible she could not choose amisse.

83 Whereas therefore you say, If the Apostles had exprest no Article but that of the Catholique Church, she must haue taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds, or other meanes: This is very true, but no way repugnant to the truth of this which followes, that the Apostles (if your doctrine be true) had done better service to the Church; [Page] though they had never made this Creed of theirs which now we haue, if insteed thereof, they had commanded in plain termes that for mens perpetuall direction in the faith, this short Creed should be taught all men, I believe the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible. Yet you must not so mistake me, as if I meant, that they had done better not to haue taught the Church the substance of Christian Religion; For then the Church not having learnt it of them, could not haue taught it us. This therefore I doe not say: but supposing they had written these Scriptures as they haue written, wherein all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered, and preached that Doctrine which they did preach, and done all otherthings as they have done, besides the composing their Symbole [...] I say, if your doctrine were true, they had done a work infinitely more beneficiall to the Church of Christ, if they had never compos'd their Symbole, which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple beliefe, and no distinctiue mark (as a Symbole should be) between those that are good Christians, and those that are not so; But insteed thereof, had delivered this one Proposition, which would haue been certainly effectuall for all the aforesaid good intents and purposes, The Roman Church shall be forever infallible in all things, which she proposes as matters of faith.

84 Whereas you say, If we will belieue we haue all in the Creed whē we haue not all, it is not the Apostles fault but our own: I tell 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 [...]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 [Page] 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 cont [...]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 Orat. 32. 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 me [...]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 āgreeth S. Leo saying: It behoveth us in such causes to be Epist. 8▪ 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, 1. Point. 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,The nature of Schisme. as his last End and Felicity; and by having the said spirituall faculties, his Vnderstanding and Will linked to him. His Vnderstanding is united [Page] 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 hath a single relation to another, or as all concur to make one Company or Congregation, which we call the Church; and this is the most principall reference and Vnion of one man with another: because the chiefest Vnity is that of the Whole, to which the particular Vnity of Parts is subordinate. This Vnity, or Onenesse (if so I may call it) is effected by Charity, uniting all the members of the Church in one Mysticall Body; contrary to which, is Schisme, from the Greeke word signifying Scissure, or Division. Wherefore vpon the whole matter, wee find that Schisme, as the Angellicall Doctor S. Thomas defines it, is; A voluntary separation 2. 2. q. 39. art▪ in corp. & ad 3. from the Vnity of that Charity, whereby all the members of the Church are united. From hence he deduceth, that Schisme is a speciall and particular vice, distinct from Heresy, because they are opposite to two different Vertues: Heresy, to Faith: Schisme, to Charity. To which purpose hee fitly alleageth S. Hierome upon these words, (Tit. 3.) A man that is an Heretique after the first and second admonition avoide, saying: I conceive that there is this difference betwixt Schisme and Heresy, that Heresy involves some perverse assertion: Schisme for Episcopall dissention doth seperate men from the Church. The same doctrine is delivered by S. Austine in these words: Heretiques Lib. 1. de [...]id. & Symb. cap. 10. and Schismatiques call their Congregations, Churches: but Heretiques corrupt the Faith by believing of God false things: but Schismatiques by wicked divisions breake from fraternall Charity, although they believe what we believe. Therefore the Heretique belongs not to the Church, because she loves God: nor the Schismatique, because she loves her Neighbour. And in another place he saith. It is wont to be demanded Quest. Evangel. ex Mat. q. 11. How Schismatiques be distinguished from Heretiques: and this difference is found, that not a divers faith, but the divided Society of Communion doth make Schismatiques. It is then evident that Schisme is different from Heresie. Neverthelesse (saith S. Thomas Vbi supra. as he who is deprived of faith must needs want Charity: so every Heretique is a Schismatique, but not conversively every Schismatique is an Heretique; though because want of Charity disposes and makes way to the destruction of faith (according to those words of the Apostle, Which (a good conscience) some casting off, have suffered shipwrack in their faith) Schisme speedily degenerates to Heresy, as S. Hierome after the rebearsed words teacheth, saying: Though Schisme in the beginning may in some sort be understood different from Heresy; yet there is no Schisme which doth not faigne some heresy to it selfe, that so it may seeme to have departed from the Church upon good reason. Neverthelesse when Schisme proceeds originally from Heresy, Heresy as being in that case the predominant quality in these two peccant humours, giveth the denomination of an Heretique; as on the other side we are wont, especially in the beginning, or for a while, to call Schismatiques, those men who first began with only Schisme, though in processe of time they fell into some Heresy, and by that meanes are indeed both Schismatiques and Heretiques.

4. The reason why both Heresy and Schisme are repugnant to the being of a good Catholique, is Because the Catholique, or Vniversall Church signifies One Congregation, or Company of faithfull people, and therefore implies not only Faith, to make them Faithfull believers, but also Communion, or Common Vnion, to make them One in Charity, which excludes Seperation, and Division: and therefore in the Apostles Creed, Communion of Saints is immediatly joyned to the Catholique Church.

5. From this definition of Schisme may be inferred, that the guilt thereof is contracted, not only by division from the Vniversall Church; but also, by a Separation from a particular Church or Diocesse which agrees with the Vniversall. In this manner Meletius was a Schismatique, but not an Heretique, because as we read in S. Epiphanius, Heres. 68. he was of the right Faith: for his faith was not altered at any time from the holy Catholique Church &c. He made a Sect, but departed not from Faith. Yet because he made to himselfe a particular Congregation against S. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria his lawfull superiour, and by that meanes brought in a division in that particular Church, he was a Schismatique. And it is well worth the noting, that the Meletians building new Churches put this title upon them, The Church of Martyrs: and upon the antient Churches of those vvho succeeded Peter, was inscribed, The Catholique Church. For so it is. A new Sect must have a new name, which though it be never so gay and specious, as the Church of Martyrs: the Reformed Church &c. yet the Novelty sheweth that it is not the Catholique, nor a true Church. And that Schisme may be committed by division from a particular Church, wee read in Optatus Milevitanus Lib. 1. cont. Parmen. these remarkeable words, (which doe well declare who bee schismatiques) brought by him to prove that not c [...]cilianus but parmenianas was a Schismatique: For Caecilianus went not out from Majorinus thy Grand-Father (he meanes his next predeces [...]our but one, in the Bishop [...]icke,) but Majorinus from Caecilianus: neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chaire of Peter, or of Cyprian (who was but a particular Bishop,) but Majorinus, in whose Chaire thou sittest which had no beginning before Majorinus himselfe. Seeing it is manifestly knowne that these things were so done, it evidently appeareth, that you are heires both of Traditors (that is, of those who delivered up the holy Bible to be burned) and of Schismatiques. And it seemeth that this kinde of Schisme must principally be admitted by Protestants, who acknowledge no one visible [Page] Head of the whole Church, but hold that every particular Diocesse, Church, or Countrey is governed by it selfe independently of any one Person, or Generall Councell, to which all Christians have obligation to submit their judgements, and wills.

6. As for the grievousnesse or quantity of Schisme (which was the second point proposed) S. Thomas teacheth, that amongst sinnes against our Neighbour,2. Point. The grievousnesse of Schisme. Schisme Supra. art. 2. ad 3. is the most grievous; because it is against the spirituall good of the multitude, or Community. And therefore as in a Kingdome or Common-wealth, there is as great difference betweene the crime of rebellion or sedition, and debates among priuate men, as there is inequality betwixt one man, and a whole kingdome; so in the Church, Schisme is as much more grievous then sedition in a Kingdome, as the spirituall good of soules surpasseth the civill and politicall weale. And S. Thomas addes further, and they loose the spirituall Power of Iurisdiction; and if they goe about to absolve from sinnes, or to excommunicate, their actions are invalid; which he proves out of the Canon Novatianus. Causa 7. quest. 1. which saith: He that keepeth neither the Vnity of spirit, nor the peace of agreement, and separates himselfe from the bond of the Church, and the Colleage of Priests, can neither have the Power, nor dignity of a Bishop. The Power also of Order (for example to consecrate the Eucharist, to ordaine Priests &c.) they cannot lawfully excercise.

7. In the judgement of the holy Fathers, Schisme is a most grievous offence. S. Chrisostome Hom. 11. in ep. ad Epk. compares these Schismaticall dividers of Christs mysticall body, to those who sacrilegiously pietced his naturall body, saying: Nothing doth so much incense God, as that the Church should be divided. Although we should do innumerable good works, if we divide the full Ecclesiastical. Congregation, we shall be punished no lesse then they who tore his (naturall) body. For that was done to the gaine of the whole world, although not with that intention: but this hath no profit at all, but there ariseth from it most great harme. These things are spoken, not only to those who beare office, but also to those who are governed by them. Behold how neither a morall good life (which conceit deceiveth many) nor authority of Magistrates, nor any necessity of Obeying Superiours can excuse Schisme from being a most haynous offence. Optatus Milevitanus Lib. cent. Parmen. cals Schisme, Inge [...]s stagitium: a huge crime. And speaking to the Donatists, saith; that Schisme is evill in the highest degree, even you are not able to deny. No lesse patheticall is S. Augustine upon this subject. He reckons Schismatiques amongst Pagans, Heretiques, and Iewes, saying: Religion is to be sought, neither in the con [...]usion of Pagans, nor Lib. de vera Relig. cap. 6. in the filth of Heretiques, nor in the languishing of Schismatiques, nor in the Age of the Iewes; but amongst those alone who are called Christian Catholiques, or Orthodox, that is, lovers of Vnity in the whole body, and followers of truth. Nay he esteemes them worse then Infidels and Idolaters, saying: Those whom the Donatists Cont. Donatist. l. 1. cap. 8. heale from the wound of Infidelity and Idolatry, they hurt more grievously with the wound of Schisme. Let there those men who are pleased untruely to call us Idolaters, reflect upon themselves, and consider, that this holy Father judgeth Schismatiques (as they are) to be worse then Idolaters, which they absurdly call us. And this he proveth by the example of Core, and Dathan, Abiron and other rebellious Schismatiques of the old Testament, who were convayed alive downe into Hell, and punished more openly then Idolaters. No doubt (saith this holy Father) but Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 6. that was committed most wickedly, which was punished most severaly. In another place he yoaketh Schisme with Heresy, saying upon the Eight Beatitude: Many De serm. Dom. in monte c. 5. Heretiques, under the name of Christians, deceiving mens soules, doe suffer many such things; but therefore they are excluded from this reward, because it is not only said, Happy are they who suffer persecution, but there is added, for Iustice. But where there is not sound faith, there cannot be justice. Neither can Schismatiques promise to themselves any part of this reward, because likewise where there is no Charity, there cannot be justice. And in another place, yet more effectually he saith: Being out of Epist. 204. the Church, and divided from the heape of Vnity, and the bond of Charity, thou shouldest be punished with eternall death, though thou shouldest he burned alive for the name of Christ. And in another place, he hath these words: If he heare not the Church let him be to Cont. advers. Leg. & Prophet. l, 2. cap. 17. thee, as an Heathen or Publican; which is more grievous then if he were smitten with the sword, consumed with flames, or cast to wild beasts. And else where: Out of the Catholique Church (saith he) one De gest. cum Emerit. may have Faith, Sacraments, Orders, and in summe, all things except Salvation. With S. Augustine, his Countreyman and second selfe in sympathy of spirit, S. Fulgentius agreeth, saying: Believe this De side ad Pet. stedfastly without doubting, that every Heretique, or Schismatique, baptized in the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy Ghost, if before the end of his life, he be not reconciled to the Catholique Church, what Almes soever he give, yea though he should shed his bloud for the name of Christ, he cannot obtaine Salvation. Marke againe how no morall honesty of life, no good deeds, no Martyrdome, can without repentance availe any schismatique for salvation. Let us also adde that D. Potter saith: Schisme is no lessePag. 42. damnable, then Heresy.

8. But ô you Holy, Learned, Zealous Fathers, and Doctours of Gods Church; out of these premises, of the grievousnesse of schisme, and of the certain damnation which it bringeth (if unrepented) what conclusion draw you for the instruction of Christians? S. Augustine maketh this wholesome inference. There is Cont. Parm. lib. 2. cap. 62.▪ no iust necessity to divide Vnity. S. Irenaeus concludeth: They cannot Cont. haeres. lib. 4. cap. 62. make any so important reformation, as the evill of the Schisme is pernicious. S. Denis of Alexandria saith: Certainly Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 6. all things should rather be indured, then to consent to the division of the Church of God: those Martyrs being no lesse glorious, that expose themselves to hinder the dismembring of the Church; then those that suffer rather then they will offer sacrifice to [Page]Idols. Would to God all those who divided themselves from that visible Church of Christ, which was upon earth when Luther appeared, would rightly consider of these things! and th [...]s much of the second Point.

9 We have just and necessary occasion, eternally to blesse almighty God, who hath vouchsafed to make us members of the Catholique Roma [...] Church,3. Point. Perpetuall visibility of the Church. from which while men fall, they precipitate themselves into so vast absurdities, or rather sacrilegious blasphemies, as is implyed in the doctrine of the totall deficiency of the visible Church, which yet is maintained by divers chief Protestants, as may at large be seen in Brerely, and others; out of whom I will here name Iewell saying: The truth was unknown Apolog. part, 4. cap. 4. divis. 2, And in his defence printed Ann. 1571. Pag. 426. at that time, and unheard of, when Martin Luther, and Vlderick Zuinglius first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospell. Perkins saith: We say, that In his exposition upon the Creed. Pag. 400. before the daies of Luther for the space of many hundred yeares, an universall Apostacy overspread the whole face of the earth, and that our (Protestant) Church was not then visible to the world. Napper upon the Revelations teacheth, that from the yeare of Pro [...]os. 37. Pag. 68. Christ three hundred and sixteen, the Antichristian and Papisticall raigne hath begun, raigning universally, and without any debatable contradiction, one thousand two hundred sixty yeares (that is, till Luthers time:) And that, from the yeare of Ibid. in cap. 1 [...]. Pag. 161. col. 3. Christ three hundred and sixteen, God hath withdrawn his visible Church from open Assemblies, to the hearts of particular godly men &c. during the space of one thousand two hundred three score yeares: And that, the Ibid. in. cap. 11. Pag. 145. Pope and Clergy have possessed the outward visible Church of Christians, even one thousand two hundred three score yeares. And that, the Ibid. Pag. 191. true Church abode latent, and invisible. And Brocard Fol. 110. & 123. upon the Revelations, professeth to joyne in opinion with Napper. Fulke affirmeth, that in the Answere to a counterfeit Catholique. Pag. 16. time of Boniface the third, which was the year 607. the Church was invisible, and fled into the wildernesse, there to remain a long season. Luther saith: Pri [...] solus eram: At the first In praefat. operū suorum. I was alone. Iacob Hail [...]ronerus one of the Disputants for the Protestant Party, in the conference at Ratisbone, affirmeth In suo Acacatholico. volum. a. 15. cap. 9. p. 479 [...] that the true Church was interrupted by Apostasy from the true Faith. Calvin saith: It is absurd in the very Ep. 141. beginning to breake one from another, after we have been forced to make a separation from the whole world. It were over-long to alleage the words of Ioannes Regius, Daniel Chamierus, Beza, Ochimus, Castalio, and others to the same purpose. The reason which cast them upon this wicked doctrine, was a desperate voluntary necessity: because they being resolved not to acknowl [...]dge the Roman Church to be Christs true Church, and yet being convinced by all manner of evidence, that for divers Ages before Luther there was no other Congregation of Christians, which could be the Church of Christ; there was no remedy but to affirme, that upon earth Christ had no visible Church: which they would never have avouched, if they had known how to avoid the foresaid inconvenience (as they apprehended it) of submitting themselves to the Roman Church.

10 Against these exterminating spirits, D. Potter, and other more moderate Protestants, professe, that Christ alwaies had, and alwaies will have upon earth a visible Church: otherwise (saith he) our Lords Pag. 154. promise of her stable Mat. 16. 18. edification should be of no value. And in another place, having affirmed that Protestants have not left the Church of Rome, but her corruptions, and acknowledging her still to be a member of Christs body, he seeketh to cleere himselfe and others from Schisme, because (saith he) the property Pag. [...]6. of Schisme is (witnesse the Donatists and Luci [...]erian [...]) to cut off from the Body of Christ, and the hope of salvation, the Church from which it separates. And if any Zelots amongst us have proceeded to heavier ce [...]sures, their zeale may be excused, but their Charity and wisdome cannot be iustified. And elsewhere he acknowledgeth, that the Roman Church hath those main, and Pag 83. essentiall truths, which give her the name and essence of a Church.

11 It being therefore granted by D. Potter, and the chiefest and best learned English Protestants, that Christs visible Church cannot perish, it will be needlesse for me in this occasion to prove it. S. Augustine doubted not to say: The Prophets In Psal. 30. Co [...]. 2. spoke more obscurely of Christ, then of the Church: because, as I thinke, they did foresee in spirit, that men were to make parties against the Church, and that they were not to have so great strife concerning Christ: therefore that was more plainly foretold, and more openly prophecyed about which greater contentions were to rise, that it might turne to the condemnation of them▪ who have see [...]e it, and yet gone forth. And in another place he saith: How doe we confide Epist. 48. to have received manifestly Christ himselfe from holy Scriptures, if we have not also manifestly received the Church from them? And indeed to what congregation shall a man have recourse for the affaires of his soule, if upon earth there be no visible Church of Christ? Besides, to imagine a company of men believing one thing in their heart, and with their mouth professing the contrary, (as they must be supposed to doe; for if they had professed what they believed, they would have become visible) is to dream of a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants, but not to conceive a right notion of the Church of Christ our Lord. And therefore S. Augustine saith: We cannot be saved, unlesse labouring also for the S. Aug. de fide & Symbolo, c. 1. salvation of others, we professe with our mouthes, the same faith which we bear in our hearts. And if any man hold it lawfull to dissemble, and deny matters of faith, we cannor be assured, but that they actually dissemble, and hide Anabaptisme, Arianisme, yea Turcisme, and even Atheisme, or any other false beliefe, under the outward profession of Calvinisme. Doe not Protestants teach that preaching of the word, and administration of Sacraments (which cannot but make a Church visible) are inseparable notes of the true Church? And therefore they must either grant a visible [Page] Church, or none at all. No wonder then if S. A [...]stine account this Heresy so grosse, that he saith against those who in his time defended the like errour: But this Church which In Psal. 101. hath been of all Nations is no [...]ore, she [...] perished, so say they that are not in her. O impudent speech! And afterward [...], so detestable, so full of presumption and falshood, which is sust [...]ined with no truth, enlightned with no wisdome, seasoned with no falt, vaine, rash, beady, [...] &c. And Peradventure some De ovib. cap. 1. one may say, there are other sheep I know not where, with which I am not dequ [...]inted, yet God hath care of them. But he is too absurd in [...] sense, that [...] imagine such things. And these men doe not consider, that while they deny the perpe [...]uity of a visible Church, they destroy their own present Church, according to the argument which S. Augustine urged against the Donatists in these words:De Bapt. cont. Donat. If the Church were lost in Cyprians (we may say in Gregories) time, from whence did Donatus (Luther) appeare? From what earth did he spring? from what sea is he come? From what heaven did he drop? And in another place; How can they [...]unt Lib. 3. cont. Parm. to have any Church, if he have ceased ever since those times? And all Divines by defining Schisme to be a division from the true Church, suppose, that there must be a known Church, from which it is possible for men to depart. But enough of this in these few words.

12 Let us now come to the fourth,4. Point. Luthe [...] and all that follow him are Schismatiques. and chiefest point, which was, to examine whether Luther, [...]lvin, and the rest did not depar [...] from the externall Communion of Christs visible Church, and by that sepa [...]ation became g [...]lty of Schisme. And that they are properly Schismatiques cleerely followeth from the grounds which we have laid; concerning the nature of Schisme, which [...] in leaving the externall Communion of the visible Church of Christ our Lord: and it is cleere by evidence of fact, that Luther and his followers forsooke the Communion of that Anci [...]nt Church▪ For they did not so much as pretend to joyne with any Congregation, which had a being before their time▪ for they would needs conceive that no visible company was free from errours in doctrine, and corruption in practise: And therefore they opposed the doctrine; they withdrew their obedience from th [...] Prel [...]tes; they left participation in Sacraments; they ch [...]nged the Liturgy of publique service of whatsoever Church then extant. And these things they pre [...]nded to doe out of a perswasion, that they were bound (forsooth) in conscience so to doe, unlesse they would particip [...]te with [...]rrors, corruptions, and superstitions. We dare not (saith D. Potter) communicate Pag. 68. with Rome either in her publique Lit [...]rgy, which is manifestly polluted with grosse superstition &c. or in those corrupt and ungrounded opinions, which she hath added to the Faith of Catholiques. But now [...] D. Potter tell me with what visible Church extant before Luther, he would have adventured to communicate in her publique Liturgy and Doctrine, since he durst not communicate with Rome▪ He will not be able to assigne any, even with any little colour of common sense. If then they departed from all visible Communities professing Christ, it followeth that they also left the Communion of the true visible Church, whichsoever it was, whether that of Rome, or any other; of which Point I doe not for the present dispute. Yea this the Lutherans doe not only acknowledge, but prove, and brag of. If (faith a learned Lutheran) there had [...] right Georgi [...] Milius in Augustan. Confess. art. 7. de Eccles. Pag. 137. [...]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 Benedict. M [...]rgenstern. tract. de Eccles. Pag. 145. 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 Conrad. Schlusselb. in Theolog. Calvinist. lib. [...], fol. 130▪ 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 Ep. 141. to make a separation from the whole world. And, Luther of himselfe in particular: In the beginning In praefat. operum suorum. 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 Lib. 2. cont. Epist. Gaudent. c. 7. 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 D [...]natus? (we may say Luther.) But if she could not perish; because so many were incorporated into her (without [Page]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 Don [...]tus to separate themsel [...]es from her upon pretence to avoid the Communion of [...]ad men. I beseech the Reader to ponder every one of S. Augustines words; and to consider whether any thing could ha [...]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 cur [...]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 ofPag. 76. 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, tha [...] 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 Corr [...]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 confessePag. 126. 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 Heresie. This I demonstrate out of D. Potter himselfe; who in expresse words teacheth, that the promises which our Lord hath made Pag. 151. 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 s [...]th: It's comfort Pag. 155. 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 [Page] 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 Epist. 76▪ ad Mag. One, which being One cannot be both within and without. If she [...]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 sh [...]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 conceived that she needed Reformation. But whether this pretence of Reformation will acquit them of Schisme, I referre to the unpartiall judges, heretoforeNumb. 8▪ alleaged; as to S. Irenaeus who plainly saith: They cannot make any so important REFORMATION, as the Evill of the Schisme is pernicious. To S. Denis of Alexandria, saying: Certainly all things should be endured rather then to consent to the division of the Church of God: those Martyrs being no lesse glorious that expose themselues to hinder the dismembring of the Church, then those that suffer rather then they will offer sacrifice to Idols. To S. Augustine, who tells us: That not to heare the Church, is a more grievous thing then if he were striken with the sword, consumed with flames, exposed to wild beasts. And to conclude all in few words, he giveth this generall prescription: There is no just necessity to divide unity, And D. Potter may remember his own words: There neither was Pag. 7 [...] ▪ nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ; no more then from Christ himselfe. But I haue shewed that Luther, and the rest departed from the Church of Christ (if Christ had any Church upon earth:) Therefore there could be no just cause (of Reformation, or what else soever) to doe as they did; and therefore they must be contented to be held for Schismatiques.

18 Moreover; I demand whether those corruptions which moved them to forsake the Communion of the visible Church, were in manners, or doctrine? Corruption in manners yeelds no sufficient cause to leave the Church, otherwise men must goe not only out of the Church, but out of the world, as the Apostle1. Cor. 5. 10. saith. Our blessed Saviour foretold that there would bee in the [Page] Church cares with choice corne, and [...]inners with just men. If then Protestants wax zealous, with the Servants to pluck up the weeds, let them first harken to the wisdome of the Master: Let both grow up. And they ought to imitate them, who as S. Augustine saith, tolerate for the good of Ep. 162. Vnity, that which they detest for the good of equity. And to whom the more frequent, & foule such scandals are; by so much the more is the merit of their perseverance in the Communion of the Church, and the Martyrdome of their patience, as the same Saint calls it. If they were offended with the life of some Ecclesiasticall persons, must they therefore deny obedience to their Pastors, and finally break with Gods Church? The Pastour of Pastours teacheth us another lesson: Vpon the Chaire of Moyses Mat. 33. haue sitten the Scribes and Pharisees. All things threfore whatsoever they shall say to you, obserue yee, and doe yee: but according to their works doe yee not. Must people except against lawes, and revolt from Magistrats, because some are negligent, or corrupt in the execution of the same lawes, and performance of their office? If they intended Reformation of manners, they used a strange means for the achieving of such an end, by denying the necessity of Confession, laughing at aufferity of pennance, condemning the vowes of Chastity, poverty, obedience, breaking fasts, &c. And no lesse unfit were the Men, then the Meanes. I loue not recrimination. But it is well known to how great crimes, Luther, Calvin, Zwinglius, Beza, and other of the prime Reformers were notoriously obnoxious; as might bee easily demonstrated by the onely transcribing of what others haue delivered upon that subject; whereby it would appeare, that they were very farre from being any such Apostolicall men as God is wont to use in so great a work. And whereas they were wont, especially in the beginning of their revolt, malitiously to exaggerate the faults of some Clergy men, Erasmus said well (Epist ad fratres inferior is Germaniae,) Let the riot, lust, ambition, avarice of Priests and what soever other crimes be gathered together, Heresie a [...]one doth exceed all this filthy lake of vices. Besides, nothing at all was omitted by the sacred Councell of Trent which might tend to reformation of manners. And finally the vices of others are not hurtfull to any but such as imitate, and consent to them; according to the saying of S. Augustine: We conserve innocency, not by knowing the ill deeds of men, but by not yeelding consent to such as we know, and by not judging rashly of such faults as we know not. If you answer; that, not corruption in manners, but the approbation of them, doth yeeld sufficient cause to leaue the Church; I reply with S. Augustine, that the Church doth (as the pretended Reformers ought to haue done) tolerate or beare with scandals and corruptions, but neither doth, nor can approue them. The Church (saith he) being placed Ep. 116. betwixt much chaffe and cockle, doth beare with many things; but doth not approue, nor dissemble, nor act those things which are against faith, and good life. But because to approue corruption in manners as lawfull, were an errour against Faith, it belongs to corruption in doctrine, which was the second part of my demand.

19 Now then, that corruptions in doctrine (I still speak upon the untrue supposition of our Adversaries) could not afford any sufficient cause, or colourable necessity to depart from that visible Church, which was extant when Luther rose, I demonstrate out of D. Potters own confession; that the Catholique Church neither hath, nor can erre in points fundamentall, as wee shewed out of his own expresse words, which he also of set purpose delivereth in divers other places; and all they are obliged to maintain the same, who teach that Christ had alwaies a visible Church upon earth: because any one fundamentall error overthrowes the being of a true Church. Now (as Schoolmen speak) it is, implicatio in terminis (a contradiction so plain, that one word destroyeth the other, as if one should say, a living dead man) to affirm, that the Church doth not erre in points necessary to salvation, or damnably; & yet that it is damnable to remain in her Communion because she teacheth errors which are confessed not to be damnable. For if the error be not damnable, nor against any fundamentall Article of Faith, the beliefe thereof cannot bee damnable. But D. Potter teacheth, that the Catholique Church cannot, and that the Roman Church hath not erred against any fundamentall Article of Faith: Therefore, it cannot bee damnable to remaine in her Communion; and so the pretended corruptions in her doctrine could not induce any obligation to depart from her Communion, nor could excuse them from Schisme, who upon pretence of necessity in point of conscience, forsook her. And D. Potter will never bee able to salve a manifest contradiction in these his words: To depart from the Church Pag. 75. of Rome in some Doctrine, and practises, there might be necessary cause, though she wanted nothing necessary to salvation. For if, notwithstanding these Doctrines and practises, shee wanted nothing necessary to salvation; how could it be necessary to salvation to forsake her? And therefore wee must still conclude that to forsake her, was properly an act of Schisme.

20 From the selfe same ground of the infallibility of the Church in all fundamentall points, I argue after this manner. The visible Church cannot be forsaken, without damnation, upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her Communion, by reason of corruption in doctrine; as long as, for the truth of her Faith and beliefe, she performeth the duty which she dweth to God, and her Neighbour: As long as she performeth what our Saviour exacts at her hands: as long as she doth, as much as lies in her power to doe. But (even according to D. Potters Assertions) the Church performeth all these things, as long as she erreth not in points fundamentall, although she were supposed to erre in other points not fundamentall: Therefore, the Communion of the visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnation, upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her Communion, by reason of corruption in doctrine. The Major, or first Proposition of it selfe is evident. The Minor, or second Proposition do [...]h necessarily follow out of D. Potters own [Page] doctrine above-rehearsed, that, the promises of our Lord made to his Church for his assistance, are to be Pag▪ 151. extended only to points of faith, or fundamentall: (Let me note here by the way that by his (Or,) he seemes to exclude from Faith all points which are not fundamentall, and so we may deny innumerable Texts of Scripture:) That It is Pag. 155▪ comfort enough for the Church, that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers &c. but she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour, till she be in heaven. For it is evident, that the Church (for as much as concernes the truth of her doctrines and beliefe) owes no more duty to God and her Neighbour; neither doth our Saviour exact more at her hands, nor is it in her power to doe more then God doth assist her to doe; which assistance is promised only for points fundamentall; and con [...]equently as long as she teacheth no fundamentall error, her communion cannot without damnation be forsaken. And we may fitly apply against D. Potter a Concionatory declamation which he makes against us, where he saith:Pag. 221. May the Church of after Ages make the narrow way to heaven, narrower then our Saviour left it &c? since he himselfe obligeth men under pain of damnation to forsake the Church, by reason of errours against which our Saviour thought it needlesse to promise his assistance, and for which he neither demeth his grace in this life, or glory in the next. Will D. Potter oblige the Church to doe more then she may even hope for? or to performe on earth that which is proper to heaven alone?

21 And as from your own doctrine concerning the infallibility of the Church in fundamentall points, we have proved that it was a grievous sinne to forsake her: so doe we take a strong arg [...]ment from the fallibility of any who dare pretend to reforme the Church, which any man in his wits will believe to be indued with at least as much infallibility as private men can challeng; & D. Potter expresly affirmeth that Christs promises of his assistance are not intended Pag. 151. to any particular persons or Churches: & therefore to leave the Church by reason of errours, was at best hand b [...]t to flit from one erring company to another, without any new hope of triumphing over errours, and without necessity, or utility to forsake that Communion of which S. Augustine saith, There is Ep. cont. Parmen. lib, 2, 2 cap. 11. no just necessity to divide Vnity. Which will appear to be much more evident if we consider that though the Church had maintained some false doctrines, yet to leave her Communion to remedy the old, were but to adde a new increase of errors, arising from the innumerable disagreements of Sectaries, which must needs bring with it a mighty masse of falshoods, because the truth is but one, and indivisible. And this reason is yet stronger▪ if we still remember, that even according to D. Potter the visible Church hath a blessing not to erre in points fundamentall, in which any private Reformer may faile: and therefore they could not pretend any necessity to forsake that Church, out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more, and even into damnable errors. Remember I pray you, what your selfe affirmes (pag. 69.) where speaking of our Church and yours, you say: All the difference is from the weeds, which remain there, and here are taken away; Yet neither here perfectly, nor every where alike. Behold a fair confession of corruptions, still remaining in your Church, which you can only excuse by saying they are not fundamentall, as likewise those in the Roman Church are confessed to be not fundamentall. What man of judgement will be a Protestant, since that Church is confessedly a corrupt one?

22 I still proceed to impugne you expresly upon your own grounds. You say, that 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 errour till she be in heaven. Now if it be comfort enough to be secured from all capitall dangers, which can arise only from error in fundamentall points: why were not your first reformers content with enough, but would needs dismember the Church, out of a pernitious greedinesse of more then enough? For, this enough, which according to you is attained by not erring in points fundamentall, was enjoyed before Luthers reformation, unlesse you will now against your selfe affirme, that long before Luther there was no Church free from error in fundamentall points. Moreover if (as you say) no Church may hope to triumph over all errour till she be in heaven; You must either grant, that errors not fundamentall cannot yeeld sufficient cause to forsake the Church, or else you must affirme that all community may, and ought to be forsaken, & so there will be no end of Schismes: or rather indeed there can be no such thing as Schis [...]e because according to you, all communities are subject to errors not fundamentall, for which if they may be lawfully forsaken, it followeth cleerely that it is not Schisme to forsake them. Lastly, since it is not lawfull to leave the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners, because such miseries cannot be avoided in this world of temptation: and since according to your Assertion no Church may hope to triumph over all sinne and error; You must grant that as she ought not to be left by reason of sinne; so neither by reason of errors not fundamentall; because both sinne, and errour are (according to you) impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven.

23 Furthermore, I aske whether it be the Q [...]antity or Number; or Quality, and Greatnesse of doctrinall errors that may yeild sufficient cause to relinquish the Churches Communion? I prove that neither. Not the Quality, which is supposed to be beneath the degree of points fundamentall, or necessary to salvation. Not the Quantity or Number: for the foundation is strong enough to support all such unnec [...]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 Pag. 15 [...] ▪ unprofitable st [...]ff, laid on the roofe, destroies not the house, whilest the main pillars are standing on the foundatio [...]. And tell us, I pray you, the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated? I know you cannot [Page] 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 Pag. 75. 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 fromPag. 76. 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 Pag. [...]0. damnable! That to depart from the [Page]Church of Rome, there might be iust and necessary Pag. 75. canse? That, they that have the understanding and meanes to discover their error, and neglect to use them Pag. 79. we dare not flatter them (say you) with so easy a censure, of hope of salvation? If then it be (as you say) a property of Schisme, to cut off from the hope of Salvation, the Church from which it separates: how will you cleere your selfe from Schisme, who dare not flatter us with so easy a censure? and who affirme that a reconciliation with us is damnable? But the truth is, there is no constancy in your Assertions, by reason of difficulties which presse you on all sides. For, you are loath to affirme cleerely, that we may be saved, least such a grant might be occasion (as in all reason it ought to be) of the conversion of Protestants to the Roman Church: And on the other side, if your affirme, that our Church erred in points fundamentall, or necessary to salvation, you knew not how, not where, not among what company of men, to find a perpetuall visible Church of Christ, before Luther: And therefore your best shift is to say, and unsay, as your occasion command. I doe not examine your Assertion, that it is the property of Schisme, to cut off from the Body of Christ, and the hope of Salvation, the Church from which it separates: wherein you are mightily mistaken, as appears by your own example of the Donatists, who were most formall and proper Heretiques, and not Schismatiques, as Schisme is a vice distinct from Heresy. Besides, although the Donatists, and Luciferians (whom you also alledge) had been meere Schismatiques, yet it were against all good Logick, from a particular to inferre a generall Rule, to determine what is the property of Schisme.

28 A third device I find in D. Potter to cleere his brethren from Schisme. There is (saith he) great difference between Pag. 75. a Schisme from them, and a Reformation of our selves.

29 This I confesse is a quaint subtilty, by which all Schisme, & Sinne may be as well excused. For what divell incarnate could meerely pretend a separtion, and not rather some other motive of vertue, truth, profit, or pleasure? But now since their pretended Reformation consisted, as they ga [...]e out, in forsaking the corruptions of the Church: the Reformation of themselves, and their division from us, falls out to be one, and the selfe same thing. Nay we see, that although they infinitely disagree in the particulars of their reformation, yet they symbolize, and consent in the generall point of forsaking our pretended corruptions: An evident signe, that the thing, upon which their thoughts first pitched, was not any particular Modell, or Idea of Religion, but a setled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome. Wherefore this Metaphysicall speculation, that they intended only to reforme themselves, cannot possible excuse them from Schisme, unlesse first they be able to prove, that they were obliged to depart from us. Yet for as much as concernes the fact it selfe; it is cleere, that Luthers revolt did not proceed from any zeale of reformation. The motives which put him upon so wretched, and unfortunate a work, were Covetousnesse, Ambition, Lust, Pride, Envy, and grudging that the promulgation of Indulgences, was not committed to himself, or such as he desired. He himself taketh God to witnesse, that he fell into these troubles casually, and Casu non voluntate in has turbas incidi Deum ipsum testor. against his will (not upon any intention of Reformation) not so much as dreaming or suspecting any change which might Act. &. mon. pag. 404. happen. And he began to preach (against Indulgences) when he knew not what Sleidan. lib. 16. sol. 232. the matter meant. For (saith he) I scarcely understood Sleid. lib. 13. fol. 177. then what the name of Indulgences meant. In so much as afterwards Luther did much mistake of his owne undertaken course, oftentimes (saith he) wishing Luth. in colloq. mensal. that I had never begunne that businesse. And Fox saith: It is apparent that Act. mon. pag. 404. Luther promised Cardinall Caietan to keep silence, provided also his adversaries would doe the like. M. Cowper reporteth further, that Luther by his letter submitted Cowp. in his Chronicle. himself to the Pope, so that he might not be compelled to recant. With much more, which may be seen inTract 2. cap. 2, Sect. 11. subd. 2. Brereley. But this is sufficient to shew, that Luther was farre enough, from intending any Reformation. And if he judged a Reformation to be necessary, what a huge wickednesse was it in him, to promise silence if his adversaries would doe the like? Or to submit himself to the Pope, so that he might not be compelled to recant? Or if the Reformation were not indeed intended by him, nor judged to be necessary, how can he be excused frō damnable Schisme? And this is the true manner of Luthers revolt, taken from his owne acknowledgments, and the words of the more ancient Protestants themselves, whereby D. Potters faltring, and mincing the matter, is cleerely discovered, and confuted. Vpon what motives our Country was divided from the Roman Church by king Henry the Eight, and how the Schisme was continued by Queene Elizabeth, I have no heare to rip up. The world knoweth, it was not upon any zeale of Reformation.

30 But you will prove your former evasion by a couple of similitudes: If a MonasteryPag. 81. 82▪ should reforme it selfe, and should reduce into practise, ancient good discipline, when others would not; in this case could it is reason bee charged with Schisme from others, or with Apostacy from its rule and order? Or as in a society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselves from the common disease, could not be therefore said to separate from the society: so neither can the reformed Churches be truely accused for making a Schisme from the Church, seeing all they did, was to reforme themselves.

31 I was very glad to find you in a Monastery, but sorry when I perceived that you were inventing wayes how to forsake your Vocation, and to maintaine the lawfulnesse of Schisme from the Church, and Apostasie from a Religious Order. Yet before you make your finall resolution, heare a word of advise. Put case; That a Monastery did confessedly observe their substantiall vowes, and all principall Statutes, or Constitutions of the Order, though with some neglect of lesser Monasticall Observances: And that a Reformation were undertaken, not by authority of [Page] lawfull Superiours, but by some One, or very few in comparison of the rest: And those few knowne to be led, not with any spirit of Reformation, but by some other sinister intention: And that the Statutes of the house were even by those busie fellowes confessed, to have been time out of mind understood, and practised as now they were: And further that the pretended Reformers acknowledged that themselves as soone as they were gone out of their Monastery, must not hope to be free from those or the like errors and corruptions, for which they left their Brethren: And (which is more) that they might fall into more enormous crimes then they did, or could doe in their Monastery, which we suppose to be secured from all substantiall corruptions, for the avoyding of which they have an infallible assistance. Put (I say) together all these my And's, and then come with your If's, If a Monastery should reforme it self, &c. and tell me, if you could excuse such Reformers from Schisme, Sedition, Rebellion, Apostasie, &c? what would you say of such Reformers in your Colledge? or tumultuous persons in a kingdome? Remember now your owne Tenets, and then reflect how fit a similitude you have picked out, to prove your self a Schismatique. You teach that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall, but that for all fundamentall points she is secured from error: You teach that no particular person, or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamentall. You, and the whole world can witnesse that when Luther began, he being but only One, opposed himself to All, as well subjects, as superiours; and that even then, when he himself confessed that he had no intention of Reformation: You cannot be ignorant but that many chief learned Protestants are forced to confesse the Antiquity of our doctrine and practice, and doe in severall, and many Controversies, acknowledge that the Ancient Fathers stood on our Side: Consider I say these points, and see whether your similitude doe not condemne your Progenitors of Schisme from God's visible Church, yea and of Apostasie also from their Religious Orders, if they were vowed Regulars, as Luther, and divers of them were.

32 From the Monastery you are f [...]ed into an Hospitall of persons vniversally infected with some disease, where you find to be true what I supposed, that after your departure from your Brethren you might fall into greater inconveniences, and more infectious diseases, then those for which you left them. But you are also upon the point to abandon these miserable needy persons, in whose behalf for Charities sake, let me set before you these considerations. If the disease neither were, nor could be mortall, because in that Company of men God had placed a Tree of life: If going thence, the sick man might by curious tasting the Tree of Knowledge eate poyson under pretence of bettering his health: If he could not hope thereby to avoid other diseases like those for which he had quitted the company of the first infected men: If by his departure innumerable mischiefs were to ensue; could such a man without sencelesnesse be excused by saying, that he sought to free himself from the common disease, but not forsooth to separate from the society? Now your self compare the Church to a man deformed withPag. 154. superfluous fingers and toes, but yet who hath not lost any vitall part: you acknowledge that out of her society no man is secured from damnable errour, and the world can beare witnesse what unspeakable mischiefs and calamities ensued Luthers revolt from the Church▪ Pronounce then concerning them, the same sentence which even now I have shewed them to deserve, who in the manner aforesaid should separate from persons universally infected with some disease.

33 But alas, to what passe hath Heresy brought men, who terme themselves Christians, and yet blush not to compare the beloved Spouse of our Lord, the one Dove, the pur [...]hase of our Saviours most precious blood, the holy Catholique Church, I mean that visible Church of Christ which Luther found spread over the whole world; to a Monastery so disordered that it must be forsaken; to the Gyant in Gath much deformed with superfluous fingers and toes; to a society of men universally infected with some disease! And yet all these comparisons, and much worse, are neither injurious, nor undeserved, if once it be granted, or can be proved, that the visible Church of Christ may erre in any one point of Faith, although not fundamentall.

34 Before I part from these similitudes, one thing I must observe against the evasion of D. Potter, that they left not the Church, but her Corruptions. For as those Reformers of the Monastery, or those other who left the company of men universally infected with some disease, would deny themselves to be Schismatiques, or any way blame-worthy, but could not deny, but that they left the said Communities: So Luther and the rest cannot so much as pretend, not to have left the visible Church, which according to them was infected with many diseases, but can only pretend that they did not sinne in leaving her. And you speak very strangly when you say: In a society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselves from the Common disease, could not be therefore said to separate from the Society. For if they doe not separate themselves from the Society of the infected persons; how doe they free themselves and depart from the common disease? Doe they at the same time remain in the company, and yet depart from those infected creatures? We must then say, that they separate themselves from the persons, though it be by occasion of the disease: Or if you say, they free their owne persons from the common disease, yet so, that they remain still in the Company infected, subject to the Superiours and Governours thereof, eating and drinking and keeping publique Assemblies with them; you cannot but know, that Luther and your Reformers the first pretended free persons from the supposed common infection of the Roman Church, did not so: for they endeavoured to force the Society whereof they were parts, to be healed and reformed as they were: and if it refused, they did, when they had forces, drive thē away, even their Superiours both spirituall and temporall, as is notorious. Or if they [Page] had no: power to expell that supposed infected Community, or Church of that place, they departed from them corporally, whom mentally they had forsaken before. So that you cannot deny, but Luther forsook the externall Communion, and company of the Catholique Church, for which as your selfPag. 75. confesse, There neither was nor can be any just cause, no more then to depart from Christ himself. We doe therefore infer, that Luther and the rest who for [...]ook that visible Church which they found upon earth, were truely, and properly Schismatiques.

35 Moreover, it is evident that there was a division between Luther and that Church which was Visible when he arose: but that Church cannot be said to have divided her self from him, befo [...]e whose time she was, and in comparison of whom she was a Whole, and he but a part: therefore we must say, that he divided himself and went out of her; which is to be a Schismatique, or Heretique, or both. By this argument, Optatus Milevitanus proveth, that not Caecilianus, but Par menianus was a Schismatique, saying: For, Caecilianus went Lib. 1. Cont▪ Parm. not out of Maiorinu [...] thy Grana [...]ather, but Maiorinus, from Caecilianus: neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chayre of Peter, or Cyprian, but Maiorinus, in whose Chayre thou sittest, which had no beginning be [...]ore Maiorinus. Since it manifestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manner, it is cleare that you are beyres both of the deliverers up (of the holy Bible to be burned) and also of Schismatiques. The whole argument of this holy Father makes directly both against Luther, and all those who continue the division which he begun; and proves, That, going out, convinceth those who goe out to be Schismatiques; but not those from whom they depart: That to forsake the Chaire of Peter is Schisme; yea, that it is Schisme to erect a Chaire which had no origen, or as it were predecessou [...], before it self: That to continue in a division begun by others, is to be Heires of Schismatiques; and lastly; that to depart from the Communion of a particular Church (as that of S. [...]yprian was) is sufficient to make a man incur the guilt of Schisme, and consequently, that although Protestants, who deny the Pope to be supreme Head of the Church, doe think by that Heresy to cleere Luther from Schisme, in disobeying the Pope: Yet that w [...]ll not serve to free him from Schisme, as it importeth a division from the obedience, or Communion of the particular Bishop, Diocesse, Church, and Country, where he lived.

36 But it is not the Heresy of Protestants, or any other Sectaries, that can deprive S. Peter, and his Successours, of the authority which Christ our Lord conferred upon them over his whole militant Church: which is a point confessed by learned Protestants to be of great Antiquity, and for which the judgement of divers most ancient holy Fathers is reproved by them, as may be seen at large in Brerely Tract. 1. Sect. 3. subd. 10. exactly citing the places of such chiefe Protestants. And we must say with S. Cyprian: Heresies Ep. 55. have sprung, and Schismes been bred from no other cause then for that the Priest of God is not obeyed, nor one Priest and Iudge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God. Which words doe plainely condemne Luther, whether he will understand them as spoken of the Vniversall, or of every particular Church. For he withdrew himselfe both from the obedience of the Pope, and of all particular Bishops, and Churches. And no lesse cleere is the said Optatus Milevitanus, saying: Thou caust not deny Lib. 2, Cont▪ Parm. but that thou knowest, that in the City of Rome, there was first an Episcopall Chaire placed for Peter, wherein Peter the head of all the Apostles sate, whereof also he was called Cephas; in which one Chaire, Vn was to be kept by all, least the other Apostles might attribute to themselves, each one his particular chaire; and that he should be a Schismatique and sinner, who against that one single Chaire should erect another. Many other Authorities of Fathers might be alleaged to this purpose, which I omit; my intention being not to handle particular controversies.

37 Now, the arguments which hitherto I have brought, prove that Luther, and his followers were Schismatiques, without examining (for as much as belongs to this point) whether or no the Church can erre in any one thing great or small, because it is universally true, that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the Visible Church of Christ, according to S. Augustine, saying: It is not possible Ep. 48. that any may have just cause to separate their Communion, from the Communion of the whole world, and call themselves the Church of Christ, as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations upon just cause. But since indeed the Church cannot erre in any one point of doctrine, nor can approve any corruption in manners; they cannot with any colour avoid the just imputation of eminent Schisme, according to the verdict of the same holy Father in these words: The most manifest De Bapt. lib. 5. c▪ 1. sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there was no cause of separation.

38 Lastly, I prove that Protestants cannot avoid the note of Schisme, at least by reason of their mutuall separation from one another. For most certain it is that there is very great difference, for the outward face of a Church, and profession of a different faith, between the Lutherans, the rigid Calvinists, and the Protestants of England. So that if Luther were in the right, those other Protestants who invented Doctrines far different from his, and divided themselues from him, must be reputed Schismatiques: and the like argument may proportionably be applyed to their further divisions, & subdivisions. Which reason I yet urge more strongly out of D. Potter, Pag. 20. who affirmes, that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the errors of the Roman Church, a reconciliation is impossible, and damnable: And yet he teacheth, that their difference from the Roman Church, is not in fundamentall points. Now, since among Protestants there is such diversity of beliefe, that one denieth what the other affirmeth, they must be convicted in conscience that one part is in errour (at least not fundamentall,) and, if D. Potter will speak consequently, [Page] that a reconciliation between them is impossible & dānable: & what greater division, or Schisme can there be, then when one part must judge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible, & dānable?

39 Out of all which premisses, this Conclusion followes: That, Luther & his followers were Schismatiques; from the universall visible Church; from the Pope Christs Vicar on earth, & Successour to S. Peter; from the particular Diocesse in which they received Baptisme; from the Countrey or Nation to which they belonged; from the Bishop under whom they lived; many of them from the Religious Order in which they were professed; from one another; And lastly from a mans selfe (as much as is possible) because the selfe same Protestant to day is convicted in conscience, that his yesterday's Opinion was an error (as D. Potter knows a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant) with whom therefore a reconciliation, according to D. Potters grounds, is both impossible, and damnable.

40 It seemes D. Potters last refuge to excuse himselfe and his Brethren from Schisme, is because they proceeded according to their conscience, dictating an obligation under damnation to forsake the errours maintained by the Church of Rome. His words are: Although we confesse the Pag. 81. Church of Rome to be (in some sense) a true Church, and her errors to some men not damnable [...] yet for us who are convinced in conscience, that she erres in many things, a necessity lies upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors.

41 I answer: It is very strange, that you judge us extreamly Vncharitable, in saying, Protestants cannot be saved; while your selfe avouch the same of all learned Catholiques, whom ignorance cannot excuse. If this your pretence of conscience may serue, what Schismatique in the Church, what popular seditious brain in a kingdome, may not alledge the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from Schisme, or Sedition? No man wishes them to doe any thing against their conscience, but we say, that they may, and ought to rectifie, and depose such a conscience, which is easie for them to doe, even according to your own affirmation▪ that wee Catholiques want no meanes necessary to salvation. Easie to doe? Nay not to doe so, to any man in his right wits must seem impossible. For how can these two apprehensions stand together: In the Roman Church I enjoy all meanes necessary to salvation, and yet I cannot hope to be saved in that Church? or, who can conjoyn in one brain (not crack't) these assertions▪ After due examination I judge the Roman errors not to be in themselues fundamentall, or damnable; and yet I judge that according to true reason, it is damnable to hold them? I say according to true reason. For if you grant your conscience to be erroneous, in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church, by reason of her errours; there is no other remedy, but that you must rectifie your erring conscience, by your other judgement, that her errours are not fundamentall, nor damnable. And this is no more Charity, then you daily afford to such other Protestants as you term Brethren, whom you cannot deny to be in some errors, (unlesse you will hold, That of contradictory propositions both may be true) and yet you doe not judge it damnable to liue in their Communion, because you hold their errors not to be fundamentall. You ought to know, that according to the Doctrine of all Divines, there is great difference between a speculatiue perswasion, and a practicall dictamen of conscience; and therefore although they had in speculation conceived the visible Church to erre in some doctrines, of themselves not damnable; yet with that speculatiue judgement they might, and ought to haue entertained this practicall dictamen, that for points not substantiall to faith, they neither were bound, nor lawfully could break the bond of Charity, by breaking unity in Gods Church. You say that▪ hay and stubble Pag. 155. and such unprofitable stuffe (as are corruptions in points not fundamentall) laid on the roofe, destroyes not the house, whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation. And you would think him a mad man who to be rid of such stuffe, would set his house on fire, that so he might walk in the light, as you teach that Luther was obliged to forsake the house of God, for an unnecessary light, not without a combustion formidable to the whole Christiā world; rather then beare with some errours, which did not destroy the foundation of faith. And as fo [...] others who entred in at the breach first made by Luther, they might, and ought to haue guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis, delivered in these words; Indeed it is a matter of great Advers. haeres. c. 27. moment, and both most profitable to be learned, and necessary to be remembred, and which we ought again and again to illustrate, and inculcate with weighty heapes of examples, that almost all Catholiques may know, that they ought to receiue the Doctors with the Church, and not forsake the faith of the Church with the Doctors: And much lesse should they forsake the faith of the Church to follow Luther, Calvin, and such other Novelists. Moreover though your first Reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true; yet they might, and ought to haue doubted, whether they were certain: because your selfe affirm, that infallibility was not promised to any particular Persons, or Churches. And since in cases of uncertainties, we are not to leave our Superiour, nor cast off his obedience, or publiquely oppose his decrees; your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfie their zealous conscience, without a publique breach: especially if with this their uncertainty, we call to mind the peaceable possession, & and prescription which by the confession of your own Brethren, the Church, and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy. I wish you would examine the works of your Brethren, by the words your selfe sets down to free S. Cyprian from Schisme: every syllable of which words convinceth Luther, and his Copartners to be guilty of that crime, and sheweth in what manner they might with great ease, and quietnesse haue rectified their consciences about the pretended errours of the Church. S. Cyprian (say you) was a peaceable Pag. 124. and modest man, dissented from others in his iudgement, but without any breach of Charity; condemned no man (much lesse any Church) for the contrary[Page]opinion. He believed his own opinion to be true, but believed not, that it was necessary, and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others, but left them to their liberty. Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding? Did they censure no man, much lesse any Church? S. Cyprian believed his own Opinion to be true, but believed not that it was necessary, and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly, and peremptorily to censure others. You belieue the points wherein Luther differs from us, not to be fundamentall, or necessary; and why doe you not thence infer the like THEREFORE, he should not haue proceeded to censure others? In a word, since their disagreement from us concerned only points which were not fundamentall, they should haue believed that they might haue been deceived, as well as the whole visible Church, which you say may erre in such points; and therefore their doctrines being not certainly true, and certainly not necessary, they could not giue sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church.

42 In other places you write so much, as may serve us to proue, that Luther, and his followers ought to haue deposed, and rectified their consciences: As for example, when you say: When the Church Pag. 105. hath declared her selfe in any matter of opinion▪ or of Rites, her declaration obliges all her children to peace, and externall obedience. Nor is it fit, or lawfull for any private man to oppose his judgement to the publique; (as Luther and his fellows did) He may offer his opinion to be considered of, so he doe it with evidence, or great probability of Scripture, or reason, and very modestly, still containing himself within the dutifull respect which he oweth: but if he will factiously advance his own conceits (his own conceits? & yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture) & despise the Church so far as to cut of her Cōmunion; he may be justly branded & condemned for a Schismatique, yea & an Heretique also in some degree, & in foro exteriori, though his opinion were true, & much more if it be false. Could any man, even for a Fee, haue spoken more home to condemn your Predecessors of Schisme, or Heresy? Could they haue stronger Motives to oppose the doctrine of the Church, and leave her Communion, then evidence of Scripture? And yet, according to your own words, they should haue answered, & rectified their conscience, by your doctrine, that though their opinion were true, and grounded upon evidence of Scripture, or reason; yet it was not lawfull for any private man to oppose his iudgement to the publique, which obligeth all Christians to peace & externall obedience: and if they cast off the Communion of the Church for maintaining their own Conceits, they may be branded for Schismatiques, and Heretiques in some degree, & in foro exteriori, that is, all other Christians ought so to esteem of them, (and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you?) and they also are obliged to behaue themselves in the face of all Christian Churches, as if indeed they were not Reformers, but Schismatiques, and Heretiques, or as Pagans, & Publicans. I thank you for your ingenuous confession, in recompence whereof, I will doe a deed of Charity, by putting you in mind, into what labyrinths you are brought, by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of faith, & yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement, or leave her Communion, though he haue evidence of Scripture against her. Will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience, or externally deny a truth, known to be cō tained in holy Scripture? How much more coherently doe Catholiques proceed, who believe the universall infallibility of the Church, and from thence are assured, that there can be no evidence of Scripture; or reason, against her definitions, nor any just cause to forsake her Communion? M. Hooker, esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man, yeelds as much as we haue alleaged out of you. The will of God is (saith he) to haue In his preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiasticall policy. Sect. 6. p. 28. them doe whatsoever the sentence of judiciall and finall decision shall determine, yea though it seeme in their private opinion, to swarve utterly from that which is right. Doth not this man tell Luther, what the will of God was, which he transgressing, must of necessity bee guilty of Schisme? And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the universall infallibility of the Church, or else driue men into the perplexities and labyrinths of dissembling against their conscience, whereof now I speake? Not unlike to this, is your doctrine delivered elsewhere. Before the Nicene Councell (say you) many Pag. 131▪ good Cotholique Bishops, were of the same opinion with the Donatists, that the Baptisme of Heretiques was ineffectuall; and with the Novatians, that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners. These errours therefore (if they had gone no further) were not in themselves Hereticall, especially in the proper, and most heavy, or bitter sense of that word; neither was it in the Churches intention (or in her power) to make them such by her declaration. Her intention was, to silence all disputes, and to settle peace and unitie in her government: to which all wise and peaceable men submitted, whatsoever their opinion was. And those factious people, for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition, were very justly branded for Schismatiques. For us, the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church &c. and therefore hee doth uniustlie charge us either with Schisme, or Heresie. These wordes manifestly condemne your Reformers; who opposed the visible Church in many of her declarations, Doctrines, and Commands imposed upon them, for silencing all disputes, and setling peace and Vnity in the government, and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient, are justly charged with Schisme, and Heresie. And it is to be observed, that you grant the Donatists to haue been very justly branded for Schismatiques, although their opposition against the Church, did concern (as you hold) a point not fundamentall to the Faith, and which according to S. Augustine, cannot be proved [Page] out of Scripture alone; and therefore either doth evidently convince that the Church is universally infallible, even in points not fundamentall; or else that it is Schisme, to oppose her declarations, in those very things wherein she may erre; and consequently that Luther, and his fellowes were Schismatiques, by opposing the visible Church, for points not fundamentall, though it were (untruely) supposed that she erred in such points. But by the way, how come you on the suddaine to hold the determination of a Generall Councell (of Nice) to be the declaration of the Catholique Church, seeing you teach, That Generall Councels may erre even fundamentally? And doe you now say, with us, that to oppose the declaration of the Church, is sufficient that one may be branded with Heresie, which is a point so often impugned by you?

43 It is therefore most evident, that no pretended scruple of conscience could excuse Luther; which he might, and ought to have rectified by meanes enough; if Pride, Ambition, Obstinacy &c. had given him leave. I grant he was touched with scruple of conscience, but it was because he had forsaken the visible Church of Christ; and I beseech all Protestants for the loue they beare to that sacred ransome of their soules, the Blood of our blessed Saviour, attentiuely to ponder, and unpartially to apply to their owne Conscience, what this Man spoke concerning the feelings, and remorse of his. How often (saith he) did my trembling heart Tom. 2. Germ. Ien. fol. 9. & tom. 2. Witt. of anno 1562. de abrog. Miss. privat. fol. 244. beat within me, and reprehending me, obiect against me that most strong argument; Art thou only wise? Doe so many worlds erre? Were so many ages ignorant? What if thou errest, and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee? And in another place he saith: Dost thou who art but One, and of no Tom. 5. An [...]ot. brevis. account, take upon thee so great matters? What, if thou, being but one, offendest? If God permit such, so many, & all to erre; why may he not permit thee to erre? To this belong those arguments, the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers, the Councels, the Customes, the multitudes, and greatnes of wise men: Whom doe not these Mountaines of arguments, these clouds, yea these seas of Examples overthrow? And these thoughts wrought so deep in his soule, that he often wished and desired that he had Colloq. mensal. fol. 158. never begun this businesse: wishing yet further that his Writings were burned and buried Praefat. in tom. German. Ien. in eternall oblivion. Behold what remorse Luther felt, and how he wanted no strength of malice to crosse his own conscience: and therefore it was no scruple, or conceived obligation of conscience, but some other motives which induced him to oppose the Church. And if yet you doubt of his courage to encounter, and strength to master all reluctations of conscience, heare an example or two for that purpose. Of Communion under both kinds, thus he saith: If the Councell De formula [...]issae. should in any case decree this, least of all would we then use both kinds, yea rather in despight of the Councell, and the Decree, we would use either but one kind only, or neither, or in no case both. Was not Luther perswaded in Conscience, that to use, neither kind was against our Saviours command? Is this only to offer his opinion to be considered of, as you said all men ought to doe? And that you may be sure that he spoke from his heart, and if occasion had been offered, would have been as good as his word; mark what he saith of the Elevation of the Sacrament: I did know In parva Con [...]ess. the Elevation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall; yet neverthelesse I did retain it in t [...]e Church at Wittemberg, to the end I might vexe the divell Carolostadius. Was not this a conscience large and capacious enough, that could swallow Idolatry? Why would he not tolerate Idolatry in the Church of Rome (as these men are wont to blaspheame) if he could retain it in his own Church at Wittemberge? If Carolostadius, Luthers of spring, was the Divell, who but himself must be his damme? Is Almighty God wont to send such furies to preach the Gospell? And yet further (which makes most directly to the point in hand) Luther in his Book of abrogating the Private Masse, exhorts the Augustine Friers of Wittemberg, who first abrogated the Masse, that, even against their conscience accusing them, they should persist in what they had begun, acknowledging that in some things he himself had done the like. And Ioannes Mathesius a Lutheran Preacher saith: Antonius Musa the Parish Priest In orat. Germ. 12. de Luth. of Rocklitz, Vid. Tan. tom. 2. disput. 1. q. 2 dub. 4. n. 108. recounted to me that on a time he heartily moaned himself to the Doctor (he meanes Luther) that he himself could not believe what he preached to others: And that D. Luther answered; praise and thanks be to God, that this happens also to others, for I had thought it had happened only to me. Are not these conscionable, and fit Reformers? And can they be excused from Schisme, under pretence that they held themselves obliged to forsake the Roman Church? If then it be damnable to proceed against ones conscience, what will become of Luther who against his conscience, persisted in his division from the Roman Church?

44 Some are said to flatter themselves with another pernicious conceit, that they (forsooth) are not guilty of sinne; Because they were not the first Authors, but only are the continuers of the Schisme, which was already begunne.

45 But it is hard to believe, that any man of judgment, can think this excuse will subsist, when he shall come to give up his finall accompt. For according to this reason, no Schisme will be damnable, but only to the Beginners: Whereas contrarily, the longer it continues the worse it growes to be, and at length degenerates to Heresy; as wine by long keeping growes to be Vineger, but not by continuance, returnes again to his former nature of wine. Thus S. Augustine saith, that Heresy is Lib. 2. cont. Cresc. c. 7. Schisme in veterate. And in another place: We obiect to you only the Ep. 164. crime of Schisme, which you have also made to become Heresy, by evill persevering therein. And S. Hierom saith: Though Schisme Vpon these words ad Tit. 3. H [...]ereticum hominem &c. in the beginning may be in some sort understood to be defferent from heresy; yet there is no Schisme, which doth not feig [...]e to it self some Heresy, that it may seem to haue departed from the Church upon iust cause, And so indeed it falleth out. For men may begin [...]pō passiō, but afterward [Page] by instinct of corrupt nature seeking to maintain their Schisme as lawfull, they fall into some Heresy, without which their Separation could not be justified with any colour: as in our present case the very affirming that it is lawfull to continue a Schisme unlawfully begun, is an error against the main principle of Christianity, that it is not lawfull for any Christian, to live out of Gods Church, within which alone Salvation can be had; Or, that it is not damnable to disobey her decrees, according to the words of our Saviour: If he shall not hear Mat. 18. the Church, let him be to thee as a Pagan or Publican. And, He Luk. 10. 16. that despiseth you, despiseth mee. We heard above Optatus Milevitanus saying to Parmenianus, that both he, and all those other who continued in the Schisme begun by Majorinus, did inherit their Forefathers Schisme; and yet Parmenianus was the third Bishop after Majorinus in his Sea, and did not begin, but only continue the Schisme. For (saith this holy Father) Caecilianus Lib. 1. cont. Parm. went not out of Majorinus thy Grand-Father, but Majorious from Caecilianus: neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chaire of Peter, or Cyprian, but Majorinus, in whose Chaire thou fittest, which before Majorinus (Luther) had no beginning. Seing it is evident that these things passed in this manner (that, for example, Luther departed from the Church, and not the Church from Luther) it is cleere that you be HEIRES both of the givers up of the Bible to be burned, and of SCHISMATIQVES. And the Regall Power, or example of He [...]ry the Eight could not excuse his subjects from Schisme, according to what we have heard out of S. Crysostome saying: Nothing doth so much provoke Hom. 11. in epist. ad Eph. the wrath of Almighty God, as that the Church should be divided. Although we should doe innumerable good deeds, if we divide the full Ecclesiasticall Congregation, we shall be punished no lesse, then they who did rend his (naturall) Body; for that was done to the gaine of the whole world, though not with that intention: but this hath [...]o good in it at all, but that the greatest hurt riseth from it. These things are spoken not only to those who bear office, but to such also as are governed by them. Behold therefore, how liable both Subjects, and Superiours are to the sinne of Schisme, if they breake the unity of Gods Church. The words of S. Paul can in no occasion be verified more then in this of which we speak. They who doe such things Rom. 1. 3 [...] are worthy of death: and not only they that doe them, but they also that consent with the doers. In things which are indifferent of their own nature, Custome may be occasion, that some act not well begun, may in time come to be lawfully continued. But no length of Time, no Quality of Persons, no Circumstance of Necessity can legitimate actions which are of their own nature unlawfull: and therefore division from Christs mysticall body, being of the number of those Actions, which Divines teach to be intrinsecè malas, evill of their own nature and essence, no difference of Persons or Time can ever make it lawfull. D. Potter saith: There neither was, nor can be any cause to depart from the Church of Christ, no more then from Christ himselfe. And who dares say, that it is not damnable to continue a Separation from Christ? Prescription cannot in conscience runne, when the first beginner, and his Successors are conscious that the thing to be prescribed, for example goods or lands, were unjustly possessed at the first▪ Christians are not like straies, that after a certain time of wandring from their right home, fall from their owner to the Lord of the Soile; but as long as they retaine the indelible Character of Baptisme, and live upon earth, they are obliged to acknowledge subjection to Gods Church. Humane▪ Lawes may come to nothing by discontinuance of time, but the Law of God, commanding us to conserve Vnity in his Church, doth still remain. The continued disobedience of Children cannot deprive Parents of their paternall right, nor can the Grand-child be undut [...]full to his Grand-Father, because his Father was unnaturall to his own parent. The longer Gods Church is disobeyed; the profession of her Doctrine denied; her Sacraments neglected; her Liturgy condemned; her Vnity violated; the more grievous the fault growes to be: as the longer a man with-holds a due debt, or retaines his neighbours goods, the greater injustice he commits. Constancy in evill doth not extenuate, but aggravate the same, which by extension of time, receiveth increase of strength, and addition of greater malice. If these mens conceits were true, the Church might come to be wholly divided by wicked Schismes, and yet after some space of time, none could be accused of Schisme, nor be obliged to returne to the visible Church of Christ: and so there should remaine no One true visible Church. Let therefore these men who pretend to honour, reverence, and believe the Doctrine, and practise of the visible Church, and to condemne their forefathers who forsooke her, and say they would not have done so, if they had lived in the daies of their Fathers, and yet follow their example in remaining divided from her Communion; consider, how truly these words of our Saviour fall upon them. Woe be to you, because you build Mat 23. v. 29. &c. the Prophets sepulchers, and garnish the monuments of just men, and say: If we had been in our Fathers daies, we had not been their fellowes in the blood of the Prophets. Therefore you are a testimony to your own selves, that you are the sonnes of them that killed the Prophets; and fill up the measure of your Fathers.

46 And thus having demonstrated that Luther, his Associates, and all that continue in the Schisme by them begun, are guilty of Schisme, by departing from the visible true Church of Christ; it remaineth that we examine what in particular was that Visible true Church, from which they departed,5. Point. Luther and the rest departed from the Roman Church. that so they may know to what Church in particular they ought to returne: and then we shall have performed what was proposed to be handled in the fift Point.

47 That the Roman Church (I speak not for the present, of the particular Diocesse of Rome, but of all visible Churches dispersed throughout the whole world, agreeing in Faith with the Chaire of Peter, whether that Sea were supposed to be in the City of Rome or in any other place:) That (I say) the Church of Rome, in this sense, was the visible Catholique Church [Page] out of which Luther departed, is proved by your own confession, who assigne for notes of the Church, the true Preaching of Gods word, and due administration of Sacraments, both which for the substance you cannot deny to the Roman Church, since you confesse that she wanted nothing fundamentall, or necessary to salvation; and for that very cause you think to cleare your selfe from Schisme, whose property, as you say, is to cut off from the Pag. 76. Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation, the Church from which it separates. Now that Luther and his fellowes were born and baptized in the Roman Church, and that she was the Church out of which they departed, is notoriously known: and therefore you cannot cut her off from the Body of Christ, and hope of Salvation, unlesse you will acknowledge your selfe to deserve the just imputation of Schisme. Neither can you deny her to be truly Catholique by reason of (pretended) corruptions, not fundamentall. For your selfe avouch, and endeavour to prove, that the true Catholique Church may erre in such points. Moreover, I hope you will not so much as goe about to prove, that when Luther rose, there was any other true visible Church, disagreeing from the Roman, and agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrines: and you cannot deny but that England in those daies agreed with Rome, and other Nations with England: And therefore either Christ had no visible Church upon Earth, or else you must grant that it was the Church of Rome. A truth so manifest, that those Protestants who affirme the Roman Church to have lost the nature and being of a true Church, doe by inevitable consequence grant, that for divers ages Christ had no visible Church on earth: from which error, because D. Potter disclaimeth, he must of necessity maintaine, that the Roman Church is free from fundamentall, and damnable error, and that she is not cut off from the Body of Christ, and the Hope of Salvation: And if (saith he) any Zelots amongst us haue proceeded Ibid. to heavier censures, their zeale may be excused, but their Charity and wisdome cannot be justified.

48 And to touch particulars which perhaps some may object. No man is ignorant that the Grecians, even the Schismaticall Grecians, doe in most points agree with Roman Catholiques, and disagree from the Protestant Reformation. They teach Transubstantiation (which point D. Potter alsoPag. 225. confesseth;) Invocation of Saints and Angels; veneration of Reliques, and Images; Auricular Confession; enjoyned Satisfaction; Confirmation with Chrisme; Extream unction; All the seaven Sacraments; Prayer, Sacrifice, Almes for the dead; Monachisme; That Priests may not marry after their Ordination. In which points that the Grecians agree with the Roman Church appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines of Wittemberg, intituled, Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium, & I [...]remiae Patriarchae Constantinop. de Augustana confessione &c. Wittembergae anno 1584. by the ProtestantDe statu Eccles. Pag. 253. Crispinus, and by Sir Edwin Sands in the Relation of the State of Religion of the West. And I wonder with what colour of truth (to say no worse) D. Potter could affirme that the Doctrines debated between the Protestants Pag. 225. and Rome, are only the partiall and particular fancies of the Roman Church; unlesse happily the opinion of Transubstantiation may be excepted, wherein the latter Grecians seem to agree with the Romanists. Beside the Protestant Authors already cited, Petrus Arcudi [...]s a Grecian, and a learned Catholique Writer, hath published a large Volume, the Argument and Title whereof is: Of the agreement of the Roman, and Greek Church in the seven Sacraments. As for the Heresy of the Grecians, that the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Some, I suppose that Protestants dissvow them in that error, as we doe.

49 D. Potter will not (I think) so much wrong his reputation, as to tell us, that the Waldenses, Wiccliffe, Husse, or the like were Protestants, because in some things they disagreed from Catholiques. For he well knowes that the example of such men is subject to these manifest exceptions, They were not of all Ages, not in all Countries, But confined to certain places, and were interrupted in Time, against the notion and nature of the word Catholique. They had no Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy, nor Succession of Bishops, Priests, and Pastors. They differed among themselues, and from Protestants also. They agreed in divers things with us against Protestants. They held doctrines manifestly absurd and damnable heresies.

50 The Waldenses began not before the year 1218, so farre were they from Vniversality of all Ages. For their doctrine: first, they denied all Iudgements which extended to the drawing of bloud, and the Sabbath, for which cause they were called In-sabbatists. Secondly, they taught that Lay men, and women might consecrate the Sacrament, and preach (no doubt but by this meanes to make their Master, Waldo, a meere lay man, capable of such functions.) Thirdly, that Clergy men ought to have no possessions, or proprieties. Fourthly, that there should be no division of Parishes, nor Churches, for a walled Church they reputed as a barne. Fiftly, that men ought not to take an oath in any case. Sixtly, that those persons sinned mortally, who accompanied without hope of issue. Seaventhly, they held all things done above the girdle, by kissing, touching, words, compression of the breasts, &c. to be done in Charity, and not against Continency. Eightly, that neither Priest, nor civill Magistrate, being guilty of mortall sinne did enjoy their dignity, or were to be obeyed. Ninthly, they condemned Princes, and Iudges. Tenthly, they affirmed singing in the Church to be an hellish clamor. Eleaventhly, they taught that men might dissemble their Religion, & so accordingly they went to Catholique Churches, dissembling their faith, and made Offertories, confessions, and communions after a dissembling manner. Waldo was so unlearned, that (saithAct. Mon. Pag. 628. Fox) he gave rewards to certain learned men to translate the holy Scripture for him, and being thus holpen did (as the same Fox there reporteth) confer [Page]the forme of religion in his time, to the infallible word of God. A goodly example, for such as must needs have the Scripture in English, to be read by every simple body, with such fruit of Godly doctrine, as we have seen in the foresaid grosse heresies of Waldo. The followers of Waldo, were like their Master, so unlearned, that some of them ( [...]aithIbid. Fox) expounded the words, Ioan. 1. Sui eum non receperunt: Swine did not receive him. And to conclude, they agreed in divers things with Catholiques against Protestants, as may be seen inTract. [...]. cap 2. sect. subd. 3. Brerely.

51 Neither can it be pretended, that these are slanders, forged by Catholiques. For, for besides that the same things are testified by Protestant writers, as I [...]yricus, Co [...]per, and others, our Authors cannot be suspected of partiality in disfavour of Protestants, unlesse you will say perhaps, that they were Prophets, and some hundred yeares agoe, did both foresee that there were to bee Protestants in the world, and that such Protestants were to be like the Waldenses. Besides, from whence, but from our Histories are Protestants come to know; that there were any such men as the Waldenses? and that in some points they agreed with the Protestants, & disagreed from them in others? And upon what ground can they belieue our Authors for that part wherein the Waldenses were like to Protestants, and imagine they lyed in the rest?

52 Neither could Wiccliffe continue a Church never interrupted from the time of the Waldenses, after whom he lived more then one hundred and fifty yeares; to wit, the yeare 1371. Hee agreed with Catholiques about the worshipping of Reliques and Images: and about the Intercession of our blessed Lady, the ever Immaculate Mother of God, he went so far as to say, It seemes to me In serm. d [...] Assump. Mari [...]. impossible, that we should be rewarded without the intercession of the Virgin Mary. He held seaven Sacraments, Purgatory, and other points. And against both Catholiques and Protestants he maintained sundry damnable doctrines, as divers Protestant Writers relate. As first: If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne, he doth not indeed either giue Orders, Consecrate, or Baptize. Secondly, That Ecclesiasticall Ministers ought not to haue any temporall possessions, nor propriety in any thing, but should beg; and yet he himselfe brake into heresie because he had been deprived by the Archbishop of Canterbury of a certain Benefice; as all Schismes, and heresies beginne upon passion, which they seek to cover with the cloak of Reformation. Thirdly he condemned lawfull Oathes, like the Anabaptists. Fourthly, he taught that all things came to passe by absolute necessity. Fiftly, he defended human merits as the wicked Pelagians did, namely, as proceeding from naturall forces, without the necessary help of God's grace. Sixtly, that no man is a Civill Magistrate, while he is in mortall sinne; and that the people may at their pleasure correct Princes, when they offend: by which doctrine he proues himselfe both an Heretique, and a Traytour.

53 As for Husse, his chiefest Doctrines were: That Lay people must receive in both kinders and, That Civill Lords, Prelates and Bishops loose all right, and authority, while they are in mortall sinne, For other things he wholy agreed with Catholiques against Protestants; and the Bohemians his followers being demanded, in what points they disagreed from the Church of Rome, propounded only these: The necessity of Communion under both kinds; That all Civill Dominion was forbidden to the Clergy; That Preaching of the word, was free for all men, and in all places; That open Crimes were in no wise to be permitted for avoiding of greater evill. By these particulars, it is apparant, that Husse agreed with Protestants against us, in one only point of both kindes, [...]hich according to Luther is a thing indifferent; because he teacheth that Christ in this matter In epist. ad Bohemos. commanded nothing as necessary. And he saith further: If thou come to a place De utre (que) specie Sacram, where one only kinde is administred, use one kinde only, as others doe. Melancthon likewise holds it a thingIn Cent. epist. Theol. Pag. 225. indifferent: and the same is the opinion of some other Protestants. All which considered, it is cleer that Protestants cannot challenge the Waldenses, Wickliffe, and Husse for members of their Church: and although they could, yet that would advantage them little towards the finding out a perpetuall visible Church of theirs; for the reasons aboueNumb. 49. specified.

54 If D Potter would goe so farre off, as to fetch the Muscovites, Armenians▪ Georgians. Aethiopians, or Abissines into his Church, they would proue over deare bought: For they either hold the damnable heresy of Eu [...]iches, or use Circumcision, or agree with the Greek, or Roman Church. And it is most certaine that they have nothing to doe with the doctrine of the Protestants.

55 It being therefore granted that Christ had a visible Church in all ages, and that there can be none assigned but the Church of Rome; it followes that she is the true Cath. Church; and that those pretended Corruptions for which they forsook her, are indeed divine truths, delivered by the visible Catholique Church of Christ: And, that Luther and his followers departed from her, and consequently are guilty of Schisme, by dividing themselves from the Communion of the Roman Church. Which is cleerly convinced out of D. Potter himself, although the Roman Church were but a particular Church. For he saith: Whosoever professes Pag 7 [...]. himself to forsake the Communion of any one member of the body of Christ, must confesse himself consequently to forsake the whole. Since therefore in the same place he expressely acknowledges the Church of Rome to be a member of the body of Christ, and that it is cleere they have forsaken her; it evidently followes, that they haue forsaken the whole, and therefore are most properly Schismatiques.

56 And lastly, since the crime of Schisme is so grievous, that according to the doctrine of holy Fathers rehearsed aboue, no multitude of good works, no morall honesty of life, no cruel death endured even for the profession of some Article of faith can excuse any one who is guilty of that sinne from damnation, I leaue it to be considered, whether it be not true Charity to speak as wee believe, and to believe as all Antiquity hath taught us, That whosoever either beginnes, or continues [Page] 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 Co [...]t. Parm. liv. 2. c. 3. 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.

[Page]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 [Page] 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. And presently after, these two things retained, will keep such men pure and uncorrupted; that is, neither doing ill, nor approving it. And therefore seeing you impose upon all men of your Communion, a necessity of doing or at least approving many things unlawfull, certainly there lies upon us an unavoidable necessity of dividing unity, either with you, or with God; and whether of these is rather to be done, be ye judges.

11 Irenaeus also saies not simply (which only would doe you service,) there cannot possibly be any so important Reformation, as to justify a separation from them who will not reforme: But only, they cannot make any corruption so great, as is the pernitiousnesse of a Schisme: Now, They, here, is a relative, and hath an antecedent expressed in Irenaeus, which if you had been pleased to take notice of, you would easily have seene, that what Irenaeus saies, falls heavy upon the Church of Rome, but toucheth Protestants nothing at all. For the men he speaks of, are such as Propter modicas & quaslibet causas, for trifling or small causes, divide the body of Christ; such as speak of peace and make warre; such as straine at gnatts, & swallow Camels. And these faith he, can make no reformation of any such importance, as to countervaile the danger of a division. Now seeing the causes of our separation from the Church of Rome, are (as we pretend, and are ready to justify,) because we will not be partakers with her in Superstition, Idolatry, Impiety, and most cruell Tyranny, both upon the bodies and soules of men. Who can say, that the causes of our separation, may be justly esteemed Modicae & quaelibet causae? On the other side, seeing the Bishop of Rome, who was contemporary to Irenaeus, did as much (as in him lay) cut off from the Churches unity, many great Churches, for not conforming to him in an indifferent matter, upon a difference, Non de Catholico dogm [...]te, sed de Ritu, vel Ritus potiùs tempore, not about any Catholique doctrine, but only a Ceremony, or rather about the time of observing it; so Petavius values it: which was just all one, as if the Church of France should excommunicate those of their own Religion in England, for not keeping Christmas upon the same day with them:Eusch. hist. l. 5 c. 24. And seeing he was reprehended sharpely and bitterly for it, by most of the Bishops of the world, as Eusebius testifies, and (as Cardinall Perron though mincing the matter,Perron. Replic. 3. l. 2. c. yet confesseth) by this very Ierenaeus himselfe in particular admonished, that for so small a cause (propter tam modicam causam,) he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church: and lastly, seeing the Ecclesiasticall story of those times, mentions no other notable example [Page] of any such Schismaticall presumption, but this of Victor: certainly we have great inducement to imagine, that Irenaeus in this place by you quoted, had a speciall aime at the Bishop and Church of Rome. Once, this I am sure of, that the place fits him, and many of his successors, as well as if it had been made purposely for them. And this also, that he which finds fault with them who separate upon small causes, implies cleerely, that he conceived, there might be such causes as were great and sufficient: And that then a Reformation was to be made, notwithstanding any danger of division that might insue upon it.

12 Lastly, S. Denis of Alexandria, saies indeed and very well, that all things should be rather indured, then we should consent to the division of the Church: I would adde, Rather then consent to the continuation of the division, if it might be remedied. But then, I am to tell you, that he saies not All things should rather be done, but only, All things should rather be indured or suffered: wherein he speaks not of the evill of sinne, but of Pain and Misery: Not of tolerating either Error or Sinne in others (though that may be lawfull,) much lesse of joyning with others for quietnesse sake, (which only were to your purpose) in the profession of Errour and practise of sinne: but of suffering any affliction, nay even martyrdome in our own persons, rather then consent to the division of the Church. Omnia incommoda, so your own Christophorson, enforced by the circumstances of the place, translates Dionysius his words, All miseries should rather be endured, then we should consent to the Churches division.

13 Ad §. 9. In the next Paragraph you affirme two things, but prove neither, unlesse a vehement Asseveration, may passe for a weake proofe. You tell us first, that the Doctrine of the totall deficiency of the visible Church, which is maintained by divers chiefe Protestants, implies in it vast absurdity, or rather sacrilegious Blasphemy. But neither doe the Protestants alleaged by you, maintain the deficiency of the Visible Church, but only of the Churches visibility, or of the Church as it is Visible, which so acute a man as you, now that you are minded of it, I hope will easily distinguish: Neither doe they hold, that the visible Church hath failed totally and from its essence, but only from its purity: and that it fell into many corruptions, but yet not to nothing. And yet if they had held, that there was not only no pure visible Church, but none at all: surely they had said more then they could justify, but yet you doe not shew, neither can I discover any such Vast absurdity or Sacrilegious Blasphemy in this Assertion. You say secondly, that the Reason which cast them upon this wicked Doctrine, was a desperate voluntary necessity, because they were resolved not to acknowledge the Roman to be the true Church, and were convinced by all manner of evidence, that for diverse ages before Luther there was no other. But this is not to dispute but to divine, and take upon you the property of God which is to know the hearts of men. For why I pray, might not the Reason hereof rather be, because they were convinced by all manner of evidence, as Scripture, Reason, Antiquity, that all the visible Churches in the world, but aboue all the Roman, had degenerated [Page] from the purity of the Gospell of Christ, and thereupon did conclude there was no visible Church, meaning by no Church, none free from corruption, and conformable in all things to the doctrine of Christ.

14 Ad §. 10. Neither is there any repugnance (but in words only) between these (as you are pleased to stile them) exterminating Spirits, and those other, whom out of Curtesy you intitle, in your 10. §. more moderate Protestants. For these affirming the Perpetuall Visibility of the Church, yet neither deny, nor doubt of her being subject to manifold and grievous corruptions, and those of such a nature, as were they not mitigated by invincible, or at least a very probable ignorance, none subject to them could be saved. And they on the other side, denying the Churches Visibility, yet plainly affirme, that they conceive very good hope of the Salvation of many, of their ignorant and honest Fore-fathers. Thus declaring plainly, though in words they denyed the Visibility of the true Church, yet their meaning was not to deny the perpetuity, but the perpetuall purity and incorruption of the Visible Church.

15 Ad §. 11. Let us proceed therefore to your 11. Sect. where though D. Potter and other Protestants granting the Churches perpetuall Visibility, make it needlesse for you to prove it, yet you will needs be doing that which is needlesse. But you doe it so coldly and negligently, that it is very happy for you, that D. Potter did grant it.

16 For what if the Prophets spake more obscurely of Christ, then of the Church? What if they had foreseen, that greater contentions would arise about the Church then Christ? Which yet, he that is not a meere stranger in the story of the Church, must needs know to be untrue, and therefore not to be fore-seene by the Prophets. What if we have manifestly received the Church from the Scriptures? Does it follow from any, or all these things, that the Church of Christ must be alwaies Visible?

17 Besides, what Protestant ever granted (that which you presume upon so confidently,) that every man for all the affaires of his soule must have recourse to some congregation? If some one Christian lived alone among Pagans in some country, remote from Christendome, shall we conceive it impossible for this man to be saved, because he cannot have recourse to any congregation, for the affaires of his soule? Will it not be sufficient, for such a ones Salvation, to know the doctrine of Christ, and live according to it? Such fancies as these, you doe very wisely to take for granted, because you know well, tis hard to prove them.

18 Let it be as unlawfull as you please, to deny and dissemble matters of faith. Let them that doe so, not be a Church, but a damned Crew of Sycophants: What is this to the Visibility of the Church? May not the Church be Invisible, and yet these that are of it professe their faith? No, say you: Their profession will make them visible. Very true, visible in the places where, and in the times when they live, and to those persons, unto whom they have necessary occasion, to make their profession: But not visible to all, or any great, or considerable part of the [Page] world while they live, much lesse conspicuous to all Ages after them. Now it is a Church thus illustriously and conspicuously visible that you require: by whose splendour, all men may be directed & drawn to repaire to her, for the affaires of their soules: Neither is it the Visibility of the Church absolutely, but this degree of it, which the most rigid Protestants deny: which is plaine enough out of the places of Napper, cited by you in your 9. Part. of this chapt. Where his words are, God hath withdrawne his visible Church from open Assemblies, to the hearts of particular godly men. And this Church which had not open Assemblies, he calls The latent and Invisible Church. Now I hope Papists in England will be very apt to grant, men may be so farre Latent and Invisible, as not to professe their faith in open Assemblies, nor to proclaime it to all the world, & yet not deny, nor dissemble it; nor deserve to be esteemed a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants.

19 But preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments, cannot but make a Church visible: and these are inseparable notes of the Church. I answer, they are so far inseparable, that wheresoever they are, there a Church is: But not so, but that in some cases there may bee a Church, where these notes are not. Againe, these notes will make the Church visible: But to whom? certainly not to all men, nor to most mē: But to them only to whom the word is preached, and the Sacraments are administred. They make the Church visible to whom themselves are visible, but not to others. As where your Sacraments are administred, and your doctrine preached, it is visible, that there is a Popish Church. But this may perhaps be visible to them only, who are present at these performances, and to others as secret, as if they had never beene performed.

20 But S. Austine saith, it is an impudent, abominable, detestable speech, and so forth, to say the Church hath perished. I answer; 1. All that S. Austine sayes, is not true. 2. Though this were true, it were nothing to your purpose, unlesse you will conceive it all one not to be, & not to be conspicuously visible. 3. This very speech that the Church perished, might be false and impudent in the Donatists, and yet not so in the Protestants. For there is no incongruity, that what hath lived 500. yeares, may perish in 1600. But S. Austin denyed not only the Actuall perishing, but the possibility of it: and not only of it's falling to nothing, but of it's falling into corruption. I answer: though no such thing appeares out of those places, yet I believe heare of disputation against the Donatists, and a desire to over-confute them, transported him so farre, as to urge against them more then was necessary, and perhaps more then was true. But were he now revived, & did but confront the doctrine of after-ages, with that, his owne experience would enforce him to change his opinion. As concerning the last speech of S. Austine, I cannot but wonder very much, why he should thinke it absurd for any man to say, There are sheepe which he knowes not, but God knowes: and no lesse at you, for obtruding this sentence upon us as pertinent proofe of the Churches visibility.

21 Neither doe I see, how the Truth of any present Church depends [Page]the Perpetuall Visibility, nay nor upon the perpetuity of that which is past or future. For what sense is there, that it should not be in the power of God Almighty, to restore to a flourishing estate, a Church which oppression hath made Invisible? to repaire that which is ruined; to reforme that which was corrupted, or to reviue that which was dead? Nay what Reason is there, but that by ordinary meanes this may be done, so long as the Scriptures by Divine Providence are preserved in their integrity and Authority? As a Common-wealth though never so farre collapsed and overrunne with disorders, is yet in possibility of being reduc'd unto its Originall state, so long as the Ancient Lawes, and Fundamentall Constitutions are extant, and remain inviolate, from whence men may be directed how to make such a Reformation. But S. Austine urges this uery Argument against the Donatists, and therefore it is good. I answer, that I doubt much of the Consequence, and my Reason is, because you your selves acknowledge, that even generall Councels (and therefore much more particular Doctors) though infallible in their determinations▪ are yet in their Reasons and Arguments, where upon they ground them, subject to like Passions and Errours with other men.

22 Lastly, whereas you say, That all Divines define Schisme a Division from the true Church, and from thence collect, That there must be a known Church from which it is possible for men to depart: I might very justly question your Antecedent, and desire you to consider, whether Schisme be not rather, or at least be not as well a division of the Church, as from it? A separation not of a part from the whole, but of some parts from the other. And if you liked not this definition, I might desire you to inform me in those many Schismes, which haue hapned in the Church of Rome, which of the parts was the Church, & which was divided from it. But to let this passe, certainly your consequence is most unreasonable. For though whensoever there is a Schisme, it must necessarily suppose a Church existent there, yet sure wee may define a Schisme, that is, declare what the word signifies (for Defining is no more) though at this presēt there were neither Schisme nor Church in the world. Vnlesse you will say, that we cannot tell what a Rose is, or what the word Rose signifies, but only in the Summer when wee haue Roses: or that in the world to come, when men shall not marry, it is impossible to know, what it is to marry: or that the Plague is not a disease, but only when some body is infected: or that Adultery is not a sin, unlesse there be Adulterers: or that before Adam had a Child, hee knew not, & God could not haue told him, what it was to be a Father. Certainly Sr, you haue forgot your Metaphysicks, which you so much glory in, if you know not, that the connexions of essentiall predicates with their subjects, are eternall, & depend not at all upō the actuall existence of the thing defined. This Definition therefore of Schisme, concludes not the existence of a Church, even when it is defined▪ much lesse the perpetuall continuance of it, and least of all the continuance of it in perpetuall visibility and purity, which is the only thing that we deny, & you are to proue. By this time, you perceive I hope, that I had reason [Page] to say, that it was well for you, that D. Potter granted the Churches Perpetuall Visibility: for, for ought I can perceive, this Concession of his, is the best stake in your hedge, the best piller upon which this Conclusion stands; which yet is the only ground-work of your whole Accusation.

23 Ad § 12. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. The remainder of this Chapter, to convince Luther and all that follow him to be Schismatiques, affords us Arguments of two sorts: The first drawn from the nature of the thing: the second from D. Potters words & acknowledgments. So that the former if they be good, must bee good against all Protestants: the latter only against D. Potter. I will examine them all, & doubt not to make i [...] appeare even to your selfe, if you haue any indifference, that there is not any sound & concluding reason amongst them, but that they are all poore and miserable Sophismes.

24 First then to proue us Schismatiques, you urge from the nature of Schisme this only Argument.

Whosoever leaue the externall Communion of the visible Church, are Schismatiques: But Luther and his followers left the externall Communion of the visible Church of Christ: Therefore they are Schismatiques.

The Major of this Syllogisme you leaue naked without proofe; and conceiue it, as it should seem, able enough to shift for it selfe. The Minor or second Proposition of this Argument, you prove by two other. The first is this.

They which forsook the externall Communion of all visible Churches, must needs forsake the externall Communion of the true visible Church of Christ: But Luther and his followers forsook the externall Communion of all visible Churches: Therefore they forsook the externall Communion of the true visible Church.

The Major of this Syllogisme you take for granted (as you haue reason:) The Minor you prosecute with great pomp of words, & proue with plenty of Reasons, built upon the Confessions of D. Potter, Luther, Calvin, and other Protestants; and this you doe in the 12 § of this Chapter.

The second Argument to prove the Assumption of your first Syllogisme, stands thus.

The Roman Church, when Luther and his followers made the separation, was the true visible Church of Christ: But Luther and his followers forsook the externall Communion of the Roman Church: Therefore they forsook the externall Communion of the true visible Church of Christ.

The Assumption of this Syllogisme needs no proof: The Proposition which needs it very much, you endeavour to confirme by these Reasons.

1 The Roman Church had the notes of the Church assigned by Protestants, 1. The true preaching of the Word, and due administration of the Sacraments: Therefore she was the true Church.

The Antecedent is proved: Because D. Potter confesses shee wanted nothing [Page] Fundamentall or necessary to salvation: Therefore for the Substance of the matter she had these notes.

2 Either the Roman Church was the true visible Church, or Protestants can name and proue some other disagreeing from the Roman, and agreeing with Protestants, in their particular Doctrine: or else they must say, there was no visible Church: But they will not say there was no Church: They cannot name and proue any other disagreeing from the Roman, and agreeing with Protestants in their particular Doctrines; because this cannot be the Greek Church, nor that of the Waldenses, Wicklifites, Hussites, nor that of the Muscovites, Armenians, Georgians, Aethiopians, which you confirme by severall Arguments: Therefore they must grant, that the Roman Church was the true visible Church.

And this is the businesse of your 47. 48. 49. 50. 51, 52. 53. 54. and 55. Sections of this Chapter.

25 Now to all this, I answer very briefly thus: That you have played the unwise builder, and erected a stately structure upon a false foundation. For whereas you take for granted as an undoubted Truth, That whosoever leave the externall communion of the visible Church, are Schismaticall, I tell you Sir, you presume too much upon us, and would have us grant, that which is the main point in Question. For either you suppose the externall Communion of the Church corrupted, and that there was a necessity for them, that would communicate with this Church, to communicate in her corruptions: Or you suppose her Communion uncorrupted. If the former, and yet will take for granted, that all are Schismatiques, that leave her Communion though it bee corrupted, you beg the Question in your proposition. If the latter, you beg the Question in your supposition, for Protestants, you know, are Peremptory and Vnanimous in the Deniall of both these things: Both that the Communion of the Visible Church, was then uncorrupted; And that they are truly Schismatiques, who leave the Communion of the Visible Church, if corrupted; especially, if the case be so (and Luthers was so) that they must either leave her Communion, or of necessity Communicate with her in her corruptions. You will say perhaps, that you have already proved it impossible, that the 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 [Page] 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,See c. 1. §. 3. 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, [Page] 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 answerable, but already answered. The memorandums I would commend to him, are these.

30 That not every separation, but only a causelesse separation from the externall Communion of any Church, is the Sinne of Schisme.

[Page]31 That imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known errours, and practising known corruptions, is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation: and that this is the cause which Protestants alleage to justifie their separation from the Church of Rome.

32 That to leave the Church, and to leave the externall Communion of a Church, at least as D. Potter understands the words, is not the same thing: That being done by ceasing to be a member of it, by ceasing to haue those requisites which constitute a man a member of it, as faith and obedience: This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publike worship of God. This little Armour if it be rightly placed, I am perswaded, will repell all those Batteries which you threaten shall be so furious.

33 Ad § 13. 14. 15. The first is a sentence of S. Austine against Donatus, applied to Luther thus. If the Church perished, what Church brought forth Donatus, (you say Luther?) If she could not perish, what madnesse moved the sect of Donatus to separate, upon pretence to avoid the Communion of bad men? Whereunto, one faire answer (to let passe many others) is obvious out of the second observation: That this sentence though it were Gospell, as it is not, is impertinently applied to Luther and Lutherans. Whose pretence of separation (be it true or be it false,) was not (as that of the Donatists,) only to avoid the Communion of bad men: but to free themselves from a necessity (which but by separating was unavoidable,) of joyning with bad men in their impieties. And your not substituting Luther in stead of Donatus in the latter part of the Dilemma as well as in the former, would make a suspicious man conjecture that you your selfe took notice of this exception of disparitie between Donatus and Luther.

34 Ad § 16. Your second onset drives only at those Protestants, who hold the true Church was invisible for many ages. Which Doctrine (if by the true Church be understood, the pure Church, as you doe understand it) is a certain truth, and it is easier for you to declaime (as you doe) then to dispute against it. But these men you say must bee Heretiques because they separated from the Communion of the visible Church: and therefore also from the Communion of that which they say was invisible: In as much as the invisible Church communicated with the visible.

35 Ans. I might very justly desire some proofe of that which so confidently you take for granted: That, there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the Truth in the daies of our Fore-fathers, but only such as dissembled their opinions, & lived in your Communion. And truly if I should say there were many of this condition, I suppose I could make my Affirmative much more probable, then you can make your Negatiue. We read in Scripture, that Elias conceived There was none left besides himselfe in the whole kingdome of Israell, who had not revolted from God: and yet God himselfe assures us that he was deceived. And if such a man, a Prophet, and one of the greatest, erred in his judgement touching his own time, and his own countrey, [Page] why may not you, who are certainly but a man, and subject to the same passions as Elias was, mistake in thinking, that in former ages, in some countrey or other, there were not alwaies some good Christians, which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal? But this answer I am content you shall take no notice of, and thinke it sufficient to tell you, that if it bee true, that this supposed invisible Church did hypocritically communicate with the visible Church, in her corruptions, then Protestants had cause, nay necessity, to forsake their Communion also, for otherwise they must haue joyn'd with thē in the practise of impieties: and seeing they had such cause to separate, they presume their separation cannot be schismaticall.

36 Yes, you reply, to forsake the externall Communion of them with whom they agree in faith, is the most formall & proper sin of Schisme. Ans. Very true, but I would fain know wherein. I would gladly be informed, whether I bee bound for feare of Schisme, to communicate with those that believe as I doe, only in lawfull things, or absolutely in every thing: whether I am to joyn with them in superstition and Idolatry, and not only in a common profession of the faith wherein we agree, but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it. This is that which you would haue them do, or else, forsooth, they must be Schismatiques. But hereafter I pray remember, that there is no necessity of communicating even with true Beleevers in wicked actions. Nay, that there is a necessity herein to separate from them. And then I dare say, even you being their judge, the reasonablenesse of their cause to separate shall, according to my first observation, justifie their separation from being schismaticall.

37 Arg: But the property of Schisme according to D. Potter is to cut off from the hope of salvation, the Church from which it separates: And these Protestants haue this property, Therefore they are Schismatiques.

38 Ans. I deny the Syllogisme, it is no better then this:

One Symptome of the Plague is a Feaver,

But such a man hath a Feaver,

Therefore he hath the Plague.

The true conclusiō which issues out of these Premisses, should be this. Therefore he hath one Symptome of the plague. And so likewise in the former, therefore they haue one property or one quality of Schismatiques. And as in the former instance, The man that hath one signe of the plague, may by reason of the absence of other requisites, not haue the plague: So these Protestants may haue something of Schismatiques, and yet not be Schismatiques. A Tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure, and a just judge that condemnes a malefactor, doe both sentence a man to death, and so for the matter doe both the same thing: yet the one does wickedly, the other justly. What's the reason? because the one hath cause, the other hath not. In like manner Schismatiques, either alwaies or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate. The same doe these Protestants, & yet are not Schismatiques. The Reason: because Schismatiques doe it, and doe it without cause, and Protestants haue cause for what they [Page] doe. The impieties of your Church, being, generally speaking, damnable, unlesse where they are excus'd by ignorance, and expiated at least by a generall repentance. In fine, though perhaps it may be true, that all Schismatiques doe so: yet universall affirmatiues are not converted, and therefore it followes not by any good Logick, that all that doe so, when there is just cause for it, must be Schismatiques. The cause in this matter of separation is all in all, and that for ought I see, you never think of. But if these rigid Protestants haue iust cause to cut off your Church from the hope of salvation: How can the milder sort allow hope of salvation to the Members of this Church? Ans. Distinguish the quality of the Persons censur'd, and this seeming repugance of their censures will vanish into nothing. For your Church may be considered either in regard of those, in whom, either negligence, or pride, or worldly feare, or hopes, or some other voluntary sinne, is the cause of their ignorance, which I feare is the case of the generality of men amongst you: or in regard of those who owe their Errours from Truth, to want of capacity, or default of instruction; either in respect of those that might know the truth and will not, or of those who would know the truth but (all things considered) cannot: In respect of those that haue eyes to see, and will not see, or those that would gladly see, but want eyes, or light. Consider the former sort of men, (which your more rigid censurers seem especially to reflect upon,) and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy. Consider the latter, and the mildest will not be too milde. So that here is no difference but in words only, neither are you flattered by the one; nor uncharitably censur'd by the other.

39 Your next blow is directed against the milder sort of Protestants, who you say involve themselves in the sinne of Schisme by communicating with those (as you call them) exterminating Spirits, whom you conceiue your selfe to have proved Schismatiques: And now load them further with the crime of Heresie. For, say you, if you held your selves obliged under pain of damnation, to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errours, which yet you confesse were not fundamentall: shall it not be much more damnable, to liue in confraternity with these, who defend an Errour of the fayling of the Church, which in the Donatists you confesse to haue been properly Hereticall?

40 Answ: You mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you, onely or principally by reason of your Errours and Corruption. For the true reason according to my third observation, is not so much because you maintaine Errours and Corruptions, as because you impose them: and will allow your Communion to none but to those that will hold them with you; and haue so ordered your Communion, that either we must communicate with you in these things, or nothing. And for this very reason, though it were granted, that these Protestants held this doctrine which you impute to them; And though this Errour were as damnable and as much against the Creed as you pretend: Yet after all this, this disparity between you and them, might make it more lawfull for us to [Page] communicate with them then you: because what they hold, they hold to themselues, and refuse not (as you doe) to communicate with them that hold the contrary.

41 Thus we may answer your Argument, though both your former Suppositions were granted. But then for a second answer, I am to tell you that there is no necessity of granting either of them. For neither doe these Protestants hold the fayling of the Church from its being, but only from its visibility: which if you conceive all one, then must you conceive that the starres fayle every day, and the Sunne every night. Neither is it certain that the doctrine of the Churches fayling is repugnant to the Creed. For as the truth of the Article of the Remission of sinnes, depends not upon the actuall remission of any mans sinnes, but upon Gods readinesse and resolution to forgive the sins of all that believe and repent; so that, although unbeleef or impenitence should be universall, and the Faithfull should absolutely fayle from the children of men, and the sonne of man should finde no faith on the earth, yet should the Article still continue true, that God would forgive the sinnes of all that repent: In like manner, it is not certain that the truth of the Article of the Catholique Church depends upon the actuall existence of a Catholique Church, but rather upon the right, that the Church of Christ, or rather (to speak properly) the Gospell of Christ hath to be universally believed. And therefore the Article may bee true, though there were no Church in the world. In regard, this notwithstanding, it remaines still true that there ought to be a Church, & this Church ought to be Catholique. For as, of these two Propositions, There is a Church in America, and, There should bee a Church in America, The truth of the latter depends not upon the truth of the former, so neither does it in these two: There is a Church diffused all the world over, and, There should be a Church diffused all the world over.

42 Thirdly, if you understand by Errours not fundamentall, such as are not damnable, it is not true, as I haue often told you, that we confesse your errours not fundamentall.

43 Lastly, for your desire that I should here apply an authority of S. Cyprian alleaged in your next number, I would haue done so very willingly, but indeed I know not how to doe it: for in my apprehensiō it hath no more to doe with your present businesse of proving it unlawfull, to communicate with these men, who hold the Church was not alwaies visible, then In nova fert animus. Besides, I am here again to remember you, that S. Cyprians words, were they never so pertinent yet are by neither of the parts litigant esteemed any rule of faith. And therefore the urging of them and such like authorities, serves onely to make Books great, and Controversies endlesse.

44 Ad § 17. The next Section in three long leaues delivers us this short sense. That those Protestants which say they have not left the Churches externall Communion, but only her corruptions pretend to doe that which is impossible. Because these corruptions were inherent in the Churches externall Communion: and therefore he that forsakes them cannot but forsake this.

[Page] 45 Ans. But who are they that pretend, they forsooke the Churches corruptions, and not her externall communion? Some there be that say, they have not left the Church, that is, not ceased to be members of the Church, but only left her corruptions: some, that they have not left the communion, but the corruptions of it; meaning the internall communion of it, and conjunction with it by faith and obedience: which disagree from the former only in the manner of speaking: for he that is in the Church, is in this kinde of communion with it: and he that is not in this internall communion, is not in the Church. Some perhaps, that they left not your externall communion in all things; meaning, that they left it not voluntarily being not fugitivi but fugati, as being willing to joyne with you in any act of piety;Casaubon. i [...] Ep. ad Card. Perron. but were by you necessitated and constrained to doe so, because you 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 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 [Page]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 [Page] 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 make so bad Arguments, unlesse you will pretend you cannot make better. Nor thirdly, is it to contradict these words, The Church may not hope to triumph over all error, till she be in Heaven: For to triumph over error, is to be secure from it, to be out of danger of it, not to be obnoxious to it. Now a Church may be free from error, and yet not secure from it, and consequently in this sense, not triumph over it. Fourthly, whereas you say, it evacuateth the bragge of Protestants, that Luther reformed the whole Church; perhaps (though I know not who they be that say so;) by a frequent synecdoche, they may mean by the whole, the greatest, and most illustrious part of it, the lustre whereof did much obscure the other, though it were not wholly invisible. Besides, if their bragge be evacuated, (as you call it) let it be so, I see no harme will come of it. Lastly whereas you say, that supposing a visible pure Church, Luther must be a Schismatique, who separated from all visible Churches: I tell you, if you will suppose a visible Church extant before and when Luther arose, conformable to him in all points of Doctrine, necessary and profitable, then Luther separated not from this Church, but adjoyned himselfe to it: Not indeed in place, wich was not necessary, [Page] not in externall communion which was impossible, but by the Vnion of faith and charity. Vpon these grounds I say, that the ground of this Argument is no way made certaine, yet because it is not manifestly false, I am content to let it passe. And for ought I see, it is very safe for me to doe so: for you build nothing upon it, which I may not fairely grant. For what doe you conclude from hence, but that seeing there was no Visible Church but corrupted, Luther forsaking the externall communion of the corrupted Church, could not but forsake the externall communion of the Catholique Church? Well, let this also be granted, what will come of it? What, that Luther must be a Schismatique? By no meanes: For not every separation, but only a causeles separation from the communion of the Church we maintain to be Schismaticall. Hereunto may be added, that though the whole Church were corrupted, yet properly speaking, it is not true, that Luther & his Followers forsook the whole corrupted Church, or the externall communion of it: But only that he forsook that Part of it which was corrupted, and still would be so, and forsook not, but only reformed another Part, which Part they themselves were, and I suppose you will not goe about to perswade us, that they forsook themselves or their own communion. And if you urge that they joyned themselves to no other part, therefore they separated from the whole: I say it followes not, in as much as themselves were a part of it, and still continued so: and therefore could no more separate from the whole then from themselves. Thus though there were no part of the people of Rome, to whom the Plebeians joyned themselves, when they made their Secession into the Aventine Hill, yet they divided themselves from the Patricians only, and not from the whole people, because themselves were a part of this people, and they divided not from themselves.

57 Ad §. 18. In the 18. §. you prove that which no man denies, that corruption in manners yeelds no sufficient cause to leave the Church: yet sure it yeelds sufficient cause to cast them out of the Church, that are after the Churches publique admonition obstinate in notorious impieties. Neither doth the cutting off such men from the Church, lay any necessity upon us, either to goe out of the world, or out of the Church, but rather puts these men out of the Church into the world, where we may converse with them freely, without scandall to the Church. Our Blessed Saviour foretold, you say, that there should be in the Church tares with choice corne. Look again I pray, and you shall see, that the field he speaks of, is not the Church, but the world: and therefore neither doe You obey our Saviours command, Let both grow up till the harvest, who teach it to be lawfull to roote these tares (such are Heretiques) out of the world: neither doe Protestants disobey it, if they eject manifest Heresies and notorious sinners out of the Church.

58 Ad §. 19. in the 19. you are so curteous as to suppose corruptions in your doctrine, and yet undertake to prove that, neither could they afford us any sufficient cause, or colourable necessity to depart from [Page]them. Your reason is, because damnable errors there were none in your Church, by D. Potters confession, neither can it be damnable in respect of errour, to remain in any Churches communion, whose errors are not damnable. For if the error be not damnable, the belief thereof cannot. Ans. D. Potter confesseth no such matter: but only that he hopes that your errors, though in themselves sufficiently damnable, yet by accident did not damne all that held them: such he meanes and saies, as were excusably ignorant of the Truth, and amongst the number of their unknown sinnes, repented daily of their unknown errors. The truth is, he thinks as ill of your errors and their desert, as you doe of ours: only he is not so peremptory and presumptuous in judging your persons, as you are in judging ours, but leaves them to stand or fall to their own Master, who is infinitely mercifull, and therefore will not damne them for meere errors, who desire to find the truth and cannot: and withall infinitely just, and therefore (is it to be feared) will not pardon them, who might easily have come to the knowledge of the truth, and either through Pride, or obstinacy, or negligence would not.

59 To your minor also, I answer almost in your own words, §. 42. of this Chap. I thank you for your curteous supposall, that your Church may erre, and in recompence thereof, will doe you a charity, by putting you in mind, into what Labyrinths you cast your selfe, by supposing that the Church may erre in some of her Proposalls, and yet denying it lawfull for any man though he know this, which you suppose, to oppose her judgement, or leave her communion. Will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience, or externally deny that which he knowes true? No, that you will not, for them that doe so, you your selfe have pronounced A. damned Cr [...]w of dissembling Sycophants. Or would you have him continue in your Communion, and yet professe your Church to erre? This you your selves have made to him impossible. Or would you have him beleeve those things true, which together with him you have supposed to be Errors? This in such a one, as is assur'd or perswaded of that, which you here suppose, that your Church doth erre, (and such only we say, are obliged to forsake your communion,) is, as Schoolemen speak, Implicatio in terminis, a contradiction so plain, that one word destroieth another; as if one should say, a living dead man. For it is to require that they which believe some part of your Doctrine false, should withall believe it all true. Seeing therefore, for any man to believe your Church in error, and professe the contrary, is damnable Hypocrisie; to believe it and not believe it, a manifest repugnancy; and thirdly, to professe it and to continue in your Communion (as matters now stand) a plain impossibility; what remaines, but that whosoever is supposed to have just reason to disbelieve any doctrine of your Church, must of necessity forsake her Communion? Vnlesse you would remit so farre from your present rigour, as to allow them your Churches communion, who publiquely professe that they doe not believe every article of her established Doctrine. Indeed, if you would doe so, you might with some coherence suppose your Church in error, and yet finde fault [Page] with men for abandoning her communion, because they might continue in it, and suppose her in error. But to suppose your Church in error, and to excommunicate all those that believe your own supposition, and then to complain that they continue not in your communion, is the most ridiculous incongruity that can be imagined. And therefore though your corruptions in doctrine, in themselves (which yet is false) did not, yet your obliging us, to professe your doctrine uncorrupted against knowledge and conscience, may induce an obligation to depart from your communion. As if there were any society of Christians, that held there were no Antipodes; notwithstanding this error I might communicate with them. But if I could not doe so, without professing my selfe of their beleefe in this matter, then I suppose I should be excus'd from Schisme, if I should forsake their communion, rather then professe my selfe to believe that which I doe not believe. Neither is there any contradiction, or shadow of contradiction, that it may be necessary for my Salvation to depart from this Churches communion: And that this Church (though erring in this matter) wants nothing necessary to Salvation. And yet this is that manifest contradiction, which D. Potter (you say) will never be able to salve, viz. That there might be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and practices, though she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation.

60 And your Reason wherewith you prove, that there is in these words such a plain contradiction, is very notable. For (say you) if she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation, how could it be necessary to Salvation to forsake her? Truly Sir, if this be a good manner of proving, it is a very ready way to prove any thing; for what is there that may not be proved, if it be proofe enough to aske how it can be otherwise? Me thinkes if you would convince, D. Potter's words of manifest contradiction, you should shew, that he affirmes and denies the same of the same. From which fault me thinkes he should be very innocent, who saies only, that that may be damnable to one, which is not so to another: and that may be necessary for one, which is not necessary for another. And this is all that D. Potter saies here: viz. That the profession of a falsehood to him that believes it, may be not damnable: and yet damnable to him that believes the contrary. Or that, not to professe a falsehood in him that knowes it to be so, is necessary to Salvation: and yet not so, in him that by error conceives it to be a truth. The words by you cited, and charged with unsalvable contradiction are in the 75. pag. But in the progresse of the same particular discourse, in the next page but one, he gives such evident reason of them, (which can hardly be done to prove implicancy true) that whereas you say, he will never be able to salve them from contradiction, I believe any indifferent reader, having considered the place, will be very apt to think, that you (whatsoever you pretend) were very able to have done this curtesy for him, if your will had been answerable to your ability. I will set down the words, and leave the Reader to condemne or absolve them. To forsake the errors of that Church, and not to joyne with [Page]her in those practices which we account erroneous, wee are enforced by necessity. For though in the issue they are not damnable to them which belieue as they professe, yet for us to professe & avow by oath (as the Church of Rome enioynes) what we belieue not, were without question damnable. And they with their errours, by the grace of God might goe to Heaven, when we for our hypocrisie and dissimulation (he might haue added, and Perjury) should certainly be condemned to Hell.

61 Ad § 20. But a Church not erring in Fundamentalls, though erring in other matters, doth what our Saviour exacts at her hands, doth as much as lies in her power to doe: Therefore the Communion of such a Church is not upon pretence of Errour to be forsaken. The consequence is manifest. The Antecedent is proved, because God, by D. Potters confession, Pag. 151. 155. hath promised his assistance no further, nor is it in her power to doe more then God doth assist her to doe. Ans. The promise of Divine Assistance is two fold: Absolute, or Conditionall. That there shall be by Divine providence preseru'd in the world to the worlds end, such a company of Christians, who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation, and nothing inevitably destructive of it: This and no more the Doctor affirmes that God hath promised absolutely. Yet he neither doubts nor denies, but that a farther assistance is conditionally promised us, even such an assistance as shall lead us, if we be not wanting to it and our selves, into all not only necessary, but very profitable truth, and guard us from all not only destructive, but also hurtfull Errours. This, I say, he neither denies nor questions. And should he haue done so, hee might haue been confuted by evident and expresse Text of Scripture. When therefore you say, That a Church not erring in Fundamentalls, doth as much as by Gods assistance lies in her power to doe; This is manifestly untrue. For Gods assistance is alwaies ready to promote her farther. It is ready, I say, but on condition the Church does implore it: on condition, that when it is offered in the divine directions of Scripture and reason, the Church be not negligent to follow it. If therefore there be any Church, which retaining the foundation, builds hay and stubble upon it: which believing what is precisely necessary, erres shamefully and dangerously in other things very profitable: This by no meanes argues defect of divine assistance in God, but neglect of this assistance in the Church. Neither is there any reason, why such a Church should please her selfe too much, for retaining Fundamentall truths, while shee remaines so regardlesse of others. For though the simple defect of some truths profitable onely and not simply necessary, may consist with salvation; Yet who is there that can giue her sufficient assurance, that the neglect of such truths is not damnable? Besides, who is there that can put her in sufficient caution, that these Errours about profitable matters may not according to the usuall fecunditie of errour, bring forth others of a higher qualitie, such as are pernicious and pestilent, and undermine by secret consequences the very foundations of Religion and piety? Lastly, who can say that she hath sufficiently discharged her duty to God and man by avoiding only Fundamentall Heresies, if in the mean time shee bee [Page] negligent of others, which though they doe not plainly destroy salvation, yet obscure and hinder, and only not block up the way to it? Which though of themselves and immediatly they damne no man, yet are causes and occasions that many men run the race of Christian piety more remisly then they should, many defer their repentance, many goe on securely in their sinnes, & so at length are damn'd by means and occasion of these Errours, though not for them. Such Errours as these (though those of the Roman Church be much worse, even in themselves damnable, and by accident only pardonable) yet I say such Errours as these, if any Church should tolerate, dissemble and suffer them to raign, and neglect to reforme them, and not permit them to be freely, yet peaceably, opposed and impugned; will any wise man say, that she hath sufficiently discharged her duty to God and man? That shee hath with due fidelity dispensed the Gospell of Christ? That shee hath done what she could, and what she ought? What shall we say then, if these errours be taught by her, and commanded to be taught? What if she thunder out her curses against those that will not belieue them? What if she rave and rage against them, and persecute them with fire & sword, and all kinds of most exquisite torments? Truly I doe much feare, that frō such a Church (though it hold no errour absolutely unconsistent with salvation,) the candlestick of God, either is already removed, or will be very shortly, and because she is negligent of profitable truths, that she will lose those that are Necessary, and because she will not be led into all truths, that in short time shee shall bee led into none. And although this should not happen, yet what mortall man can secure us, that not only a probable unaffected ignorance, nor onely a meere neglect of profitable truths, but also a retchlesse supine negligence, manifest contempt, Dissimulation, Opposition, Oppression of them, may consist with salvation? I truly for my part, though I hope very well of all such as seeking all truth, finde that which is necessary; who endeavouring to free themselves from all Errours, any way contrary to the purity of Christianity, yet fayle of performance & remain in some: yet if I did not finde in my selfe a loue and desire of all profitable truth; If I did not put away idlenesse, and prejudice, and worldly affections, and so examine to the bottome all my opinions of divine matters, being prepar'd in minde to follow God, and God only which way soever he shall lead me; If I did not hope, that I either doe, or endeavour to doe these things, certainly I should haue little hope of obtaining salvation.

62 But to oblige any man under pain of damnation to forsake a Church by reason of such errours, against which Christ thought it superfluous to promise his assistance, and for which he neither denies his grace here, nor his glory hereafter, what is it but to make the narrow way to heaven, narrower then Christ left it? Ans. It is not: For Christ himselfe hath obliged us hereunto: He hath forbad us under pain of damnation to professe what we belieue not, & consequently under the same penalty, to leaue that Communion, in which we cannot remain without this hypocriticall profession of those things, which we are convinc'd to be erroneous. [Page] But then besides, it is here falsely supposed, (as hath been shewed already) that Christ hath not promised assistance to those that seeke it, but only in matters simply necessary. Neither is there any reason, why any Church, even in this world, should despair of victory over all errors pernitious or noxious; provided she humbly and earnestly implore divine assistance, depend wholy upon it, and be not wanting to it. Though a Triumph over all sinne and error, that is, security that she neither doth nor can erre, be rather to be desired then hoped for on earth, being a felicity reserved for heaven.

63 Ad §. 21. But at least the Roman Church is as infallible as Protestants, and Protestants as fallible as the Roman Church: therefore to forsake the Roman Church for errors, what is it but to flit from one erring Society to another? Ans. The inconsequence of this Argument is too apparent: Protestants may erre as well as the Church of Rome, therefore they did so! Boyes in the Schooles know, that a Posse ad Esse, the Argument followes not. He is equally fallible who believes twise two to be foure, as he that believes them to be twenty: yet in this, he is not equally deceived, and he may be certain that he is not so. One Architect is no more infallible then another, and yet he is more secure that his work is right and streight who hath made it by the levell, then he which hath made it by guesse and by chance. So he that forsakes the errors of the Church of Rome, and therefore renounceth her communion, that he may renounce the profession of her errors, though he knowes himselfe fallible, as well as those whom he hath forsaken, yet he may be certain (as certain as the nature of the thing will beare) that he is not herein deceived: because he may see the Doctrine forsaken by him repugnant to Scripture, and the doctrine embraced by him consonant to it. At least, this he may know, that the doctrine which he hath chosen to him seemes true, and the contrary which he hath forsaken, seemes false: And therefore without remorse of conscience, he may professe that, but this he cannot.

64 But we are to remember, that according to D. Potter the visible Church hath a blessing not to erre in Fundamentalls, in which any private Reformer may faile, therefore there [...] was no necessity of forsaking the Church, out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more, and even into damnable errors. Ans. The visible Church is free indeed from all errors absolutely destructive and unpardonable, but not from all errour which in it selfe is damnable: not from all which will actually bring damnation upon them, that keep themselves in them, by their own voluntary and avoidable fault. From such errors which are thus damnable D. Potter doth no where say, that the visible Church hath any priviledge or exemption. Nay you your selfe teach, that he plainly teacheth the contrary, and thereupon will allow him to be no more charitable to Papists, then Papists are to Protestants: and yet upon this affected mistake your discourse is founded in almost forty places of your 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, [Page] 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 [Page] 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 toS. Cyprian: Ep. 63. In these words, S [...] quis de antecessoribus nostris, vel [...]gnoranteivel simpliciter non hoc observavit, & tenuit quod nos Dominus facere exemplo & Magisterio suo docuit potest simplicitati ejus de indulgentia Domini, venia concedi: nobis verò non potest ignosci, qui nunc à Domino admoniti & instructi sumus. S. Cyprian upon another occasion, and also by theWilfridu [...], to Abbat Colman alleaging that he followed the example of his predecessors famous for holinesse; and famous for miracles, in these words, De Patre vestr [...] Columba & sequacibus eius, quorum sanctitatem vos [...]mitari & regulam ac praecepta caelestibus signis confirmata sequi perhibetis, possum respondere; Quia multis in judicio dicentibus Domino quòd in nomine eius prophetaverint & daemonia ejecerint, & virtutes multas fecerint, responsurus sit Dominus, quia nunquam eos noverit. Sed absit ut de patribas vestris hoc dicam, quia iustius multo est de incognitis bonum credere quam malum. Vnde & illos Dei famulos & Deo dilectos esse non nego, qui simplicitate rusticâ sed intentione piâ Deum dilexerunt: Ne (que) illis multum obesse Paschae talem reor observantiam, quandiù [...]ullus advenerat qui ei [...] instituti perfectioris deoreta quae sequerentur, ostenderet. Quos uti credo, fi qui tunc ad eos Cathòlicus calculator adveniret, sic eius mo [...]ita fuisse secuturos, quomodoea quae noverant ac didicerunt Dei mandata, probantu [...] fuisse secuti. Tu autem & socij [...]ui si audita decreta sedis Apostolicae, imo universalis Ecclesiae & haec literis sacris confirmata contemnitis, a [...]s (que) ulla dubietate peccatis. British Quartodecimans, to the maintainers of the Doctrine of your Church; andBeda: lib. 3. Eccl. Hist. c. 25. 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 [Page] 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 forgive a private offender seventy seven times, that is, without limitation of quantity of time, or quality of Trespasses; and thou how dare we alleage his command, that we must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not fundamentall? Ans. He that commands us to pardon our Brother sinning against us so often, will not allow us for his sake to sinne with him, so much as once. He will have us doe any thing but sinne, rather then offend any man. But his will is also, that we offend all the World, rather then sinne in the least matter. And therefore though his will were, and it were in our power (which yet is false) to pardon the errors of an erring Church; yet certainly it is not his will, that we should erre with the Church, or if we doe not, that we should against conscience professe the errors of it.

71 Ad §. 24. But Schismatiques from the Church of England or any other Church, with this very Answer, that they forsake not the Church but the errors of it, may cast off from themselves the imputation of Schisme. Ans. True, they may make the same Answer, and the same defence as we doe, as a murtherer can cry not guilty, as well as an innocent person, but not so truly nor so justly. The question is, not what may be pretended, but what can bee proved by Schismatiques. They may object errors to other Churches, as well as we doe to yours, but that they prove their accusation so strongly as we can, that appeares not. To the Priests and elders of the Iewes, imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, S. Peter and S. Iohn answered they must obey God rather then men. The three Children to the King of Babylon, gave in effect the same answer. Give me now any factious Hypocrite, who makes religion the pretence and cloke of his Rebellion, and who sees not that such a one may answer for himselfe, in those very formall words, which the holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of. And yet I presume no Christian will deny, but this answer was good, in the mouth of the Apostles and Martyrs, though it were obnoxious to be abused, by Traitors and Rebels. Certainly therefore, it is no good consequence to say, Schismatiques may make use of this Answer, therefore all that doe make use of it are Schismatiques. But moreover, it is to be observed, that the chiefe part of our [Page] defence, that you deny your communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine, cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants: who grant their Communion to all who hold with them, not all things, but things necessary, that is, such as are in Scripture plainly delivered.

72 But the forsaking the Roman Church opens a way to innumerable Sects and Schismes, and therefore it must not be forsaken. Ans. We must not doe evill to avoid evill: neither are all courses presently lawfull, by which inconveniences may be avoided. If all men would submit themselves to the chiefe Mufty of the Turkes, it is apparent, there would be no divisions; yet unity is not to be purchased at so deare a rate. It were a thing much to be desired, that there were no divisions: yet difference of opinions touching points controverted, is rather to be chosen, then unanimous concord in damned errors: As it is better for men to goe to heaven by diverse waies, or rather by divers paths of the same way, then in the same path to goe on peaceably to hell. Amica Pax, magis amica Veritas!

73 But there can be no iust cause to forsake the Church, so the Doctor grants: who notwithstanding teacheth that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall; therefore neither is the Roman Church to be forsaken for such errors. Ans. There can be no just cause to forsake the Church absolutely and simply in all things, that is, to cease being a member of the Church: This I grant, if it will doe you any service. But that there can be no just cause to forsake the Church in some things, or (to speak more properly) to forsake some opinions and practices, which some true Church retaines and defends; this I deny, and you mistake the Doctor if you think he affirmes it.

74 Ad § 26. 27. What prodigious doctrines (say you) are these? Those Protestants who belieue that your Church erred in points necessary to salvation, and for that cause left her, cannot be excused from damnable Schisme: But others, &c. Prodigious doctrines indeed! But who I pray are they that teach them? Where does D. Potter accuse those Protestants of damnable Schisme, who left your Church because they hold it erroneous in necessary points? What Protestant is there that holds not that you taught things contrary to the plaine precepts of Christ; both Ceremoniall, in mutilating the Communion; and Morall, in points of superstition & Idolatry, and most bloody tyranny? which is without question to erre in necessary matters. Neither does D. Potter accuse any man of Schisme for holding so: if he should, he should call himselfe a Schismatique. Only he saies, such (if there be any such) as affirm, that ignorant soules among you, who had no means to know the truth, cannot possibly be saved, that their wisdome and charity cannot be justified. Now you your selfe haue plainly affirmed, That ignorant Protestants dying with contrition may bee saved; and yet would be unwilling to be thought to say, that Protestants erre in no points necessary to salvation. For that may be in it selfe, and in ordinary course, where there are meanes of knowledge, necessary, which to a man invincibly ignorant, will proue not necessary. Again, where doth D. Potter [Page] suppose (as you make him) that there were other Protestants, who believed that your Church had no errours? Or, where does hee say they did well to forsake her, upon this ridiculous reason, because they judged that she retained all means necessary to salvation? Doe you think us so stupid, as that wee cannot distinguish between that which D. Potter sayes, and that which you make him say? He vindicates Protestants from Schisme two waies: The one is, because they had just and great and necessary cause to separate, which Schismatiques never haue; because they that haue it are no Schismatiques: For schisme is alwaies a causelesse separation. The other is, because they did not joyn with their separation, an uncharitable damning of all those from whom they did divide themselves, as the manner of Schismatiques is. Now that which he intends for a circumstance of our separation, you make him, make the cause of it, and the motiue to it. And whereas he saies, though we separate from you in some things, yet we acknowledge your Church a member of the body of Christ, and therefore are not Schismatiques: You make him say most absurdly, we did well to forsake you, because we iudged you a member of the body of Christ. Iust as if a brother should leaue his Brothers company in some ill courses, and should say to him, Herein I forsake you, yet I leave you not absolutely, for I acknowledge you still to be my brother, and shall use you as a brother: And you perverting his speech, should pretend that he had said, I leaue your company in these ill courses, and I doe well to doe so, because you are my Brother: so making that the cause of his leaving him, which indeed is the cause that he left him no farther.

75 But you say, The very reason for which hee acquitteth himselfe from Schisme, is because he holds that the Church which they forsook, is not cut off from the Body of Christ. Ans. This is true: But can you not perceive a difference between justifying his separation from Schisme by this reason, and making this the reason of his separation? If a man denying obedience in some unlawfull matter to his lawfull Soveraign, should say to him, herein I disobey you, but yet I am no Rebell, because I acknowledge you my Soveraign Lord, and am ready to obey you in all things lawfull, should not he be an egregious sycophant, that should accuse him as if he had said, I doe well to disobey you, because I acknowledge you my lawfull Soveraign? Certainly hee that joynes this acknowledgment with his necessitated disobedience, does well; but he that makes this consideration the reason of his disobedience, doth ill. Vrge therefore this (as you call it) most solemn foppery as far as you please: For every understanding Reader will easily perceiue that this is no foppery of D. Potters, but a calumny of yours; from which he is as far, as he is from holding yours to bee the true Church: whereas it is a sign of a great deal of Charity in him, that he allowes you to be a Part of it.

76 And whereas you pretend to finde such unspeakable comfort here▪ in, that we cannot cleare our selues from Schisme, otherwise then by acknowledging that they doe not, nor cannot cut off your Church from the hope of salvation: I beseech you to take care that this false comfort cost [Page] you not too deare. For why this good opinion of God Almighty, that he will not damne men for errour, who were without their owne fault ignorant of the truth, should be any consolation to them, who having the key of knowledge, will neither use it themselves, nor permit others to use it; who haue eyes to see and will not see, who haue cares to heare and will not heare! this I assure you passeth my capacity to apprehend. Neither is this to make our salvation depend on yours, but only ours and yours not desperatly inconsistent. Nor to say wee must be damn'd unlesse you may be saved; but that we assure our selues, if our lives be answerable, we shall be saved by our knowledge. And that wee hope (and I tell you again Spes est reiincertae nomen,) that some of you may possibly bee the rather saved by occasion of their unaffected Ignorance.

77 For our Brethren whom you say we condemn of heresie for denying the Churches perpetuity, we know none that doe so: unlesse you conceive a corrupted Church to be none at all; and if you doe, then for ought I know, in your account we must be all Heretiques; for all of us acknowledge that the Church might be corrupted even with errors in themselves damnable, and not only might, but hath been.

78 But Schisme consists in being divided from that true Church, with which a man agreeth in all points of faith: Now we must professe you agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamentall Articles; Therefore we are Schismatiques. Ans. Either in your Major, by all points of faith, you mean all fundamentall points only, or all simply and absolutely. If the former, I deny your Major: for I may without all schisme divide from that Church which erres in any point of faith Fundamentall or otherwise, if she require the profession of this Errour among the conditions of her Communion. Now this is our case. If the latter, I deny the syllogisme, as having manifestly foure termes, and being cosen German to this,

He that obeys God in all things, is innocent;

Titius obeys God in some things;

Therefore he is innocent.

79 But they who judge a reconciliation with the Church of Rome to be damnable, they that say there might be iust and necessary cause to depart from it, and that they of that Church which haue understanding & means to discover their Errour, and neglect to use them, are not to bee flattered with hope of salvation; they doe cut off that Church from the body of Christ and the hope of salvation, and so are Schismatiques: But D. Potter doth the former; therefore is a Schismatique. Ans. No, he doth not: not cut off that whole Church from the hope of salvation, not those members of it who were invincibly, or excusably ignorant of the truth; but those only who having understanding and meanes to discover their errour, neglect to use them. Now these are not the whole Church; & therefore he that, supposing their impenitence, cuts these off from hope of salvation, cannot be justly said to cut off that whole Church from the Body of Christ, and the hope of salvation.

80 Ad § 28. 29. Whereas D. Potter saies, There is a great difference between a Schisme from them, and a Reformation of our selves: this [Page] you [...]ay is a quaint subtilty by which all Schisme and sinne may be as well excused. It seems then in your judgement, that theeves and adulterers, and murtherers, and traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants, that they did no hurt to others, but only reforme themselves. But then me thinks it is very strange, that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schisme: and that to this day, never any Theefe or Murtherer should haue been heard of to make use of this Apologie! And then for Schismatiques I would know, whether Victor Bishop of Rome, who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not conforming to his Church in keeping Easter; whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius, upon pretence that himselfe was elected Bishop of Rome, when indeed he was not; whether Felicissimus and his Crew, that went out of the Church of Carthage, and set up altar against altar, because having fallen in persecutiō, they might not be restored to the peace of the Church presently, upon the intercession of the Confessours; whether the Donatists, who divided from, and damned all the world, because all the world would not excommunicate them who were accused onely and not convicted to haue been Traditors of the sacred Books; whether they which for the slips & infirmity of others, which they might and ought to tolerate, or upon some difference in matters of Order & Ceremony, or for some errour in doctrine, neither pernitious nor hurtfull to faith or piety, separate themselves from others, or others from themselves; or lastly, whether they that put themselves out of the Churches unity and obedience, because their opinions are not approved there, but reprehended and confuted, or because being of impious conversation, they are impatient of their Churches censure: I would know I say, whether all, or any of these, may with any face or without extreme impudency, put in this plea of Protestants, and pretend with as much likelihood as they, that they did not separate from others, but only reforme themselves? But suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own defence falsely, doth it follow by any good Logick, that therefore this Apology is not to be imployed by Protestants, who may say so truly? We make (say they) no Schisme from you, but only a reformation of our selves: This, you reply, is no good justification, because it may be pretended by any Schismatique. Very true, any Schismatique that can speak may say the same words, (as any Rebell that makes conscience the cloake of his impious disobedience, may say with S. Peter and S. Iohn, we must obey God rather then men;) But then the question is, whether any Schismatique may say so truly? And to this question you say just nothing: but conclude, because this defence may be abused by some, it must be used by none. As if you should haue said, S. Peter and S. Iohn did ill to make such an answer as they made, because impious Hypocrites might make use of the same to palliate their disobedience and Rebellion against the lawfull commands of lawfull Authority.

81 But seeing their pretended Reformation consisted in forsaking the Churches corruptions, their Reformation of themselves, and their dividivision[Page]from you, falls out to be one and the same thing.) Iust as if two men having been a long while companions in drunkenesse, one of them should turne sober; this Reformation of himselfe, and disertion of his companion, in this ill custome, would be one and the same thing, and yet there is no necessity that he should leave his love to him at all, or his society in other things. So Protestants forsaking their own former corruptions, which were common to them with you, could not choose but withall forsake you in the practice of these corruptions: yet this they might, and would have done without breach of Charity towards you; and without a renunciation of your company in any act of piety and devotion, confessedly lawfull. And therefore though both these were by accident joyned together, yet this hinders not but that the end they aimed at, was not a separation from you, but a reformation of themselves.

82 Neither doth their disagreement in the particulars of the Reformation, (which yet when you measure it without partiality, you will find to be farre short of infinite) nor their symbolizing in the generall of forsaking your corruptions, prove any thing to the contrary, or any way advantage your designe or make for your purpose. For it is not any signe at all, much lesse an evident signe, that they had no setled designe, but only to forsake the Church of Rome: for nothing but malice can deny, that their intent at least was, to reduce Religion to that originall purity from which it was fallen. The declination from which, some conceiving to have begunne (though secretly) in the Apostles times, (the mystery of iniquity being then in worke;) and after their departure to have shewed it selfe more openly: others again believing, that the Church continued pure for some Ages after the Apostles, & then declined: And consequently some aiming at an exact conformity with the Apostolique times: Others thinking they should doe God and men good service, could they reduce the Church to the condicion of the fourth & fifth ages: Some taking their direction in this work of Reformation, only from Scripture; others from the writings of Fathers, and the Decrees of Councells of the first five Ages: certainly it is no great marveile, that there was, as you say, disagreement between them, in the particulars of their Reformation; nay morally speaking, it was impossible it should be otherwise. Yet let me tell you, the difference between them (especially in comparison of your Church and Religion,) is not the difference between good and bad, but between good and better: And they did best that followed Scripture, interpreted by Catholique written Tradition: which rule the reformers of the Church of England, proposed to themselves to follow.

83 Ad § 30. 31. 32. To this effect D. Potter, p. 81. 82. of his book, speaks thus. If a Monastery should reforme it selfe, and should reduce into practice ancient good discipline, when others would not: In this case could it be charged with Schisme from others, or with Apostacy from its rule and order? So in a society of men universally infected with some disease; they that should free themselves from it, could they be [Page] therefore said to separate from the society? He presumes they could not, and from hence concludes, that neither can the Reformed Churches be truly accused for making a Schisme, (that is separating from the Church, and making themselves no members of it) if all they did was (as indeed it was) to reforme themselves. Which cases I believe any understanding man will plainly see to have in them an exact parity of Reason, and that therefore the Argument drawn from them is pressing and un-answerable. And it may well be suspected, that you were partly of this mind, otherwise you would not have so presum'd upon the simplicity of your Reader as, pretending to answer it, to put another of your own making in place of it, and then to answer that.

84 This you doe §. 31. 32. of this Chapter, in these words, I was very glad to find you in a Monastery, &c. Where I beseech the Reader to observe these things to detect the cunning of your tergiversation: First, That you have no Reason to say, That you found D. Potter in a Monastery: and as little, that you find him inventing waies how to forsake his vocation, and to maintaine the lawfulnesse of Schisme from the Church, and Apostacy from a Religious Order. Certainly the innocent case put by the Doctor, of a Monastery reforming it selfe, hath not deserved such grievous accusations. Vnlesse Reformation with you be all one with Apostacy: and to forsake sinne and disorder, be to forsake ones vocation. And surely if it be so, your vocations are not very lawfull, and your Religious orders not very religious. Secondly, that you quite pervert and change D. Potters cases, and in stead of the case, of a whole Monastery reforming it selfe, when other Monasteries of their Order would not; and of some men freeing themselves from the common disease of their society, when others would not: you substitute two others, which you thinke you can better deale with; of some particular Monkes, upon pretence of the neglect of lesser monasticall observances, going out of their Monastery, which Monastery yet did confessedly observe their substantiall Vowes, and all Principall Statutes: And of a diseased Person, quitting the company of those that were infected with the same disease: though in their company, there was no danger from his disease, it being impossible that should be mortall: and out of it, no hope of escaping others like that for which he forsook the first infected Company. I appeale now to any indifferent judge, whether these cases be the same or neere the same with D. Potters? Whether this be faire and ingenuous dealing, in stead of his two instances, which plainly shewed it possible in other societies, and consequently in that of the Church, to leave the faults of a society, and not leave being of it, to foist in two others, clean crosse to the Doctors purpose, of men under colour of faults, abandoning the society wherein they lived? I know not what others may think of this dealing, but to me, this declining D. Potters cases and conveying others into their place, is a great assurance, that as they were put by him, you could say nothing to them.

85 But that no suspicion of tergiversation may be fastned upon me, I am content to deale with you a little, at your own weapons. Put the case then, though not just as you would have it, yet with as much [Page] [...]avour to you, as in reason you can expect, That a Monastery did observe her substantiall vowes, and all Principall statutes, but yet did generally practise, and also enjoyne the violation of some lesser, yet obliging observances, and had done so time out of mind. And that some inferiour Monkes more conscientious then the rest, discovering this abuse, should first with all earnestnesse sollicite their Superiours for a generall and orderly reformation of these, though small and veniall corruptions, yet corruptions: But finding they hop'd and labour'd in vain to effect this, should reforme these faults in themselves, and refuse to joyne in the practice of them, with the rest of their Con [...]raternity, and persisting resolutely in such a refusall, should by their Superiours be cast out of their Monastery, and being not to be re-admitted without a promise of remitting from their stiffenesse in these things, and of condescending to others in the practice of their small faults, should choose rather to continue exiles, then to re-enter upon such conditions: I would know whether you would condemne such men of Apostacy from the Order? Without doubt if you should, you would finde the streame of your Casuists against you, and besides, involve S. Paul in the same condemnation, who plainly tels, that we may not doe the least evill, that we may doe the greatest good. Put case again, you should be part of a Society universally infected with some disease, and discovering a certain remedy for this disease, should perswade the whole company to make use of it, but finde the greatest part of them so farre in love with their disease, that they were resolved to keepe it and besides, should make a decree, that whosoever would leave it, should leave their company. Suppose now that your selfe and some few others, should notwithstanding their injunction to the contrary, free your selves from this disease, and thereupon they should absolutely forsake and reject you: I would know in this case who deserves to be condemned, whether you of uncharitable desertion of your company, or they of a tyrannicall peevishnesse? And if in these cases you will (as I verily believe you will,) acquit the inferiors and condemne the superiors, absolve the minor part and condemne the major, then can you with no reason condemne Prote [...]tants, for choosing rather to be ejected from the communion of the Roman Church, then with her to persist (as of necessity they were to doe, if they would continue in her communion) in the profession of Errors, though not destructive of salvation, yet hindering edification, and in the Practice, or at least approbation of many, (suppose not mortall) but veniall corruptions.

86 Thirdly, that you censure too partially the corrupt estate of your Church, in comparing it to a Monastery, which did confessedly observe their substantiall vowes, and all Principall Statutes of their order, and moreover was secured by an infallible assistance, for the avoiding of all substantiall corruptions: for of your Church we confesse no such matter, but say plainly, That she not only might fall into substantiall corruptions, but did so; that she did not only generally violate, but of all the members of her communion, either in act or approbation, require [Page] and exact the violation of many substantiall lawes of Christ, both Ceremoniall and Morall, which though we hope it was pardonable in them, who had not meanes to know their errour, yet of its own nature, and to them who did or might have known their errour, was certainly damnable. And that it was not the tything of Mint, and Annise, and Cummin, the neglect whereof we impute unto you, but the neglect of judgement, justice, and the weightier matters of the Law.

87 Fourthly, I am to represent unto you, that you use Protestants very strangely, in comparing them to a company, who all were known to be led to their pretended reformation, not with an intent of Reformation, but with some other sinister intention; which is impossible to be known of you, and therefore to judge so, is against Christian Charity, and common equity: and to such a Company as acknowledge that themselves, as soone as they were gone out from the Monastery that deferred to reforme, must not hope to be free from those or the like Errors, and Corruptions for which they left their Brethren: seeing this very hope and nothing else, moved them to leave your Communion: and this speech of yours, so farre as it concernes the same errors, plainly destroies itselfe. For how can they possibly fall into the same errors by forsaking your Communion, which that they may forsake they doe forsake your Communion? And then for other errors of the like nature and quality, or more enormous then yours, though they deny it not possible, but by their negligence and wickednesse they may fall into them, yet they are so farre from acknowledging that they have no hope to avoid this mischiefe, that they proclaime to all the world, that it is most prone and easy to doe so, to all those that feare God and love the truth; and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise, without supine negligence and extream impiety.

88 To fit the reddition of your perverted Simile, to the Proposition of it, you tell us that we teach that for all fundamentall points, the Church is secured from errour. I Answer, Fundamentall errors may signify, either such as are repugnant to Gods command, and so in their own nature damnable, though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them, not unpardonable: or such as are not only meritoriously, but remedilessely pernitious and destructive of Salvation. We hope that yours and the Greeke & other Churches before the Reformation, had not so farre apostated from Christ, as to be guilty of errors of the latter sort. We say that not only the Catholique Church, but every Particular true Church, so long as it continues a Church, is secur'd from Fundamentall errors of this kind, but secur'd not absolutely by any promise of divine assistance, which being not ordinarily irresistible, but temper'd to the nature of the Receivers, may be neglected, and therefore withdrawn: but by the Repugnance of any errour in this sense fundamentall to the essence and nature of a Church. So that to speak properly, not any set known company of men is secur'd, that, though they neglect the meanes of avoiding error, yet certainly they shall not erre, which were necessary for the constitution of an infallible guide of faith: But rather they [Page] which know what is meant by a Church, are secur'd or rather certain that a Church remaining a Church, cannot fall into fundamentall error, because when it does so, it is no longer a Church. As they are certain that men cannot become unreasonable creatures, because when they doe so, they are no longer men. But for fundamentall errors of the former sort, which yet I hope will warrant our departure from any Communion infected with them, and requiring the Profession of them, from such fundamentall errors, we doe not teach so much as that the Church Catholique, much lesse, (which only were for your purpose,) that your Church hath any protection or security, but know for a certain, that many errors of this nature, had prevailed against you; and that a vain presumption of an absolute divine assistance (which yet is promised but upon conditions,) made both your present errors incurable, and exposed you to the imminent danger of more & greater. This therefore is either to abuse what we say, or to impose falsely upon us what we say not. And to this you presently adde another manifest falsehood, viz. that we say, that no particular person or Church, hath any promise of assistance in points fundamentall. Whereas crosse to this in diameter, there is no Protestant but holds, and must hold, that there is no particular Church, no nor person, but hath promise of divine assistance to lead them into all necessary truth; if they seeke it as they should, by the meanes which God hath appointed. And should we say otherwise, we should contrary plain Scripture, which assures us plainly, that every one that seeketh findeth, and every one that asketh receiveth: and that if we being evill, can give good gifts to our children, much more shall our heavenly Father, give his spirit to them that aske it: and that if any man want wisdome (especially spirituall wisdome) he is to aske of God, who giveth to all men, and upbraideth not.

89 You obtrude upon us thirdly, That when Luther began, he being but one, opposed himselfe to all, as well Subjects as Superiors. Ans. If he did so in the cause of God, it was heroically done of him. This had been without hyperbolizing, Mundus contra Athanasium, and Athanasius contra Mundum: neither is it impossible, that the whole world should so farre lye in wickednesse (as S. Iohn speakes) that it may be lawfull and noble for one man to oppose the world. But yet were we put to our oathes, we should surely not testify any such thing for you; for how can we say properly and without streining, that he opposed himselfe to All, unlesse we could say also, that All opposed themselves to him? And how can we say so, seeing the world can witnesse, that so many thousands, nay millions followed his standard as soone as it was advanced?

90 But, none that lived immediatly before him thought or spake as he did. This is first nothing to the purpose. The Church was then corrupted, and sure it was no dishonour to him to beginne the Reformation. In the Christian warfare, every man ought to strive to be foremost. Secondly, it is more then you can justify. For though no man before him lifted up his voice like a trumpet, as Luther did, yet [Page] who can assure us, but that many before him, both thought and spake in lower voice of petitions and remonstrances, in many points, as he did?

91 Fourthly and lastly, whereas you say that many chiefe learned Protestants, are forced to confesse the Antiquity of your Doctrine and Practise: I Answer, of many Doctrines and Practises of yours, this is not true, not pretended to be true by those that have dealt in this Argument. Search your storehouse M. Brerely, who hath travailed as farre in this Northwest discovery, as it was possible for humane industry, and when you have done so, I pray informe me, what confessions of Protestants have you, for the Antiquity of the Doctrine of the Communion in one kinde: the lawfulnesse and expedience of the Latine service: For the present use of Indulgences: For the Popes power in Temporalties over Princes: For the picturing of the Trinity: For the lawfulnesse of the worship of Pictures: For your Beades and Rosary, and Ladies Psalter; and in a word, for your whole worship of the B. Virgin: For your oblations by way of consumption, & therefore in the quality of Sacrifices to the Virgin Mary & other Saints: For your saying of Pater-nosters, & Creeds to the honour of Saints, and of Ave-Maries to the honour of other Saints besides the Blessed Virgin: For infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome: For your prohibiting the Scripture to be read publikely in the Church, in such languages as all may understand: For your Doctrine of the Blessed Virgins immunity from actuall sinne; and for your doctrine and worship of her immaculate conception: For the necessity of Auricular Confession: For the necessity of the Priests Intention to obtain benefit by any of your Sacraments: And lastly (not to trouble my selfe with finding out more) for this very doctrine of Licentiousnesse, That though a man live and dye without the practise of Christian vertues, and with the habits of many damnable sinnes unmortified, yet if he in the last moment of life, have any sorrow for his sinnes, and joyne confession with it, certainly he shall be saved? Secondly, they that confesse some of your doctrines to have been the Doctrine of the Fathers, may be mistaken, being abused by may words and phrases of the Fathers, which have the Roman sound, when they are farre from the sense. Some of them I am sure are so, I will name Goulartius, who in his Commentaries on S. Cyprian's 35. Ep. grants that the sentence Heresies haue sprung, &c. quoted by you §. 36. of this Chapter▪ was meant of Cornelius: whereas it will be very plain to any attentive reader, that S. Cyprian speaks there of himselfe. Thirdly, though some Protestants confesse some of your doctrine to be Ancient, yet this is nothing, so long as it is evident, even by the confession of all sides, that many errors, I instance in that of the Millenaries, and the communicating of Infants, were more ancient. Not any antiquity therefore, unlesse it be absolute and primitive, is a certain signe of true Doctrine. For if the Church were obnoxious to corruption (as we pretend it was,) who can possibly warrant us that part of this corruption, might not get in and prevaile in the 5. or 4. or 3. or 2. age? Especially seeing the AApostles [Page] assure us that the mystery of iniquity was working, though more secretly evē in their times. If any man aske how could it become universall in so short a time? Let him tell me how the Error of the Millenaries, and the communicating of Infants, became so soone universall, and then he shall acknowledge, what was done in some, was possible in others. Lastly, to cry quittance with you: As there are Protestants who confesse the antiquity, but alwaies post-na [...]e to Apostolique, of some points of your Doctrine: so there want not Papists who acknowledge as freely, the novelty of many of them, and the Antiquity of ours. A collection of whose testimony, we have (without thankes to you) in your Indices expurgatorij: The divine Providence, blessedly abusing for the readier manifestation of the Truth this engine intended by you for the subversion and suppression of it. Here is no place to stand upon particulars: onely one generall ingenuous confession of that great Erasmus, may not be pass'd over in silence. Non de sunt magni Theologi, qui non verentur affirmare, nihil esse in Luthero, quin per probatos authores defendi possit. Erasm. Ep. lib. 15. Ep. ad Gode schalcum. Ros. There want not great Divines, which stick not to affirme, that there is nothing in Luther, which may not be defended by good and allowed authors. Whereas therefore you close up this Simile with, consider these points, and see whether your similitude doe not condemne your Progenitors of Schisme from Gods visible Church: I assure you, I have well considered them, and doe plainly see that this is not D. Potters similitude, but your owne; and besides, that it is wholly made up of mistakes and falsehoods, and is at no hand a sufficient proofe of this great Accusation.

92 Let us come now to the second similitude of your making, in the entrance whereunto you tell us, that from the Monastery D. Potter is fled to an Hospitall of persons Vniversally infected with some disease, where he findes to be true, what you supposed, that after his departure from his Brethren, he might fall into greater inconveniences, and more infectious diseases then those for which he left them. Thus you. But to deale truly with you, I finde nothing of all this, nor how it is consequent from any thing said by you, or done by D. Potter. But this I finde, that you haue composed this your similitude as you did the former, of a heap of vaine suppositions, pretended to be grounded on our confessions. As first, that your diseases which we for sook, neither were nor could be mortall: whereas we assure our selves, and are ready to justifie, that they are and were mortall in themselves, and would haue been so to us, if when light came to us we had loved darknesse more then light. And D. Potter though he hope your Church wanted no necessary vitall part, that is, that some in your Church by ignorance might bee saved; yet he nothing doubts but that it is full of ulcers without, and diseases within, and is so far from extenuating your errours as to make them only like the superfluous fingers of the gyant of Gath. Secondly, that we had no hope to avoid other diseases like those for which wee forsook your company, nor to be secure out of it from damnable errors: whereas the hope hereof was the only motive our departure; and we assure our selves that the meanes to be secured from damnable errour, is not [Page] to be secure as you are, but carefully to use those means of avoiding it, to which God hath promised, and will never fayle to giue a blessing. Thirdly, that those innumerable mischiefes which followed upon the departure of Protestants, were caused by it as by a proper cause: whereas their doctrine was no otherwise the occasion of them, then the Gospell of Christ of the division of the world. The only fountaine of all these mischiefes, being indeed no other then your powring out a flood of persecutions against Protestants, only because they would not sin & be damn'd with you for company. Vnlesse wee may adde the impatience of some Protestants, who not enduring to be torne in peeces like sheep by a company of wolves without resistance, chose rather to dye like souldiers then Martyrs.

93 But you proceed, and falling into a fit of admiration, cry out & say thus, To what passe hath Heresie brought men, who blush not to compare the beloved Spouse of the Lord, the only Doue, &c. to a Monastery that must be forsaken; to the gyant in Gath with superfluous fingers! but this Spouse of Christ, this onely Doue, this purchase of our Saviours blood, this Catholique Church, which you thus almost deifie, what is it but a Society of men, whereof every particular, and by consequence, the whole company is or may be guilty of many sinnes daily committed against knowledge & conscience? Now I would faine understand why one errour in faith, especially if not fundamentall, should not consist with the holinesse of this Spouse, this Dove, this Church, as well as many and great sinnes committed against knowledge and conscience? If this be not to strain at gnats and swallow camels, I would fain understand what it is! And hereby the way I desire you to consider whether as it were with one stroke of a sponge you doe not wipe out all that you haue said, to proue Protestants Schismatiques for separating from your Church, though supposed to bee in some errours not fundamentall! For if any such errour may make her deserue to be compared to a Monastery so disordered that it must be forsaken; then if you suppose (as here you doe) your Church in such errours, your Church is so disordered that it must, and therefore without question may be forsaken, I mean in those her disorders and corruptions, and no farther.

94 And yet you haue not done with those similitudes, But must observe (you say) one thing, and that is, that as these Reformers of the Monastery, and others who left the diseased company, could not deny but that they left the said communities: So Luther and the rest cannot pretend, not to haue left the visible Church. And that D. Potter speaks very strangely whē he saies, In a society of men vniversally infected with some disease, they that should free themselves from the common disease, could not be therefore said to separate from the society. For if they doe not separate themselues from the society of the infected persons, how doe they free themselues from the common disease? To which I answer: That indeed if you speak of the Reformers of a Monastery and of the Deserors of the diseased company, as you put the cases, that is, of those which left these communities, then is it as true as Gospell, that they cannot deny [Page] but that they left the said communities. But it appeares not to me how it will ensue hereupon: that Luther and the rest cannot pretend not to haue left the visible Church. For to my apprehension this Argument is very weak,

They which left some communities cannot truly deny but that they left them; Therefore Luther and his followers cannot deny but that they left the visible Church.

Where me thinks you prove little, but take for granted that which is one of the greatest Questions amongst us, that is, That the Company which Luther left, was the whole Visible Church: whereas you know we say, it was but a part of it, and that corrupted, and obstinate in her corruptions. Indeed that Luther and his followers left off the Practice of those Corruptions wherein the whole Visible Church did communicate formerly, (which I meant when I acknowledg'd aboue that they forsook the externall Communion of the Visible Church,) or that they left that part of the Visible church in her corruptions which would not be reformed: These things, if you desire, I shall be willing to grant; and that by a Synecdoche of the whole for the part, he might be said to forsake the Visible Church, that is, a part of it, and the greater part. But that properly speaking, he forsook the whole Visible Church, I hope you will excuse me if I grant not this, untill you bring better proofe of it, then your former similitude. And my Reason is his, because he and his Followers were a part of this Church, and ceased not to be so by their Reformation. Now he and his followers certainly forsook not themselves, Therefore not every part of the Church, therefore not the whole Church. But then if you speak of D. Potters cases, according as he put them, and answer not your owne Arguments, when you make shew of answering his: me thinks it should not be so unreasonable as you make it, for the Persons he speaks of to deny that they left the communities whereof they were Members. For example, That the Monkes of S. Benets Order make one Body, whereof their severall Monasteries are severall members, I presume it will be easily granted. Suppose now that all these Monasteries being quite out of Order, some 20. or 30. of them should reforme themselves, the rest persisting still in their irregular couses: were it such a mon. strous impudence as you make it, for these Monasteries, which we suppose reformed, to deny that they forsook their Order or Community whereof they were parts? In my Opinion it is no such matter. Let the world judge. Againe, whereas the Dr saies, that in a Society of men Vniversally infected with some disease, they that should free themselues from the common disease, could not therefore be said to separate from the Society: It is very strange to me that you should say, he speaks very strangely. Truly Sr I am extreamly deceaved if his words be not plain English, and plain sense, and containe such a manifest Truth as cannot be denyed with modesty, nor gone about to be proved without vanity. For whatsoever is proved must be proved by something more evident: Now what can be more evident then this; That if some whole Families were taken with Agues, if the Father of this Family should [Page] free himselfe from his, that he should not therefore deservedly be thought to abandon and desert his Family? But (say you) if they doe not separate themselves from the Society of the wicked persons, how doe they free themselves from the common disease? Doe they at the same time remaine in the company and yet depart from those infected creatures? Me thinks a Writer of Controversies should not be ignorant how this may be done without any such difficulty! But if you doe not know, I'le tell you. There is no necessity they should leaue the company of these infected persons at all: much lesse, that they should at once depart from it and remaine with it, which I confesse were very difficult. But if they will free themselues from their disease, let them stay where they are, and take physick. Or if you would be better informed how this strange thing may be done, learne from your selfe, They may free their own persons from the common disease, yet so that they remain still in the company infected, eating and drinking with them, &c. Which are your own words within foure or fiue lines after this: plainly shewing that your mistaking D. Potters meaning, & your wondring at his words as at some strange monsters, was all this while affected, and that you are conscious to your selfe of perverting his Argument that you may seem to say something, when indeed you say nothing. Whereas therefore you adde, we must then say that they separate themselues from the persons, though it be by occasion of the disease, I assure you good Sir, you must not doe so at any hand; for then you alter & spoile D. Potters case quite, and fight not with his reason but your own shadow. For the instance of a man freeing himselfe from the disease of his company, and not leaving his company, is very fit to proue, by the parity of reason, that it is very possible, a man may leaue the corruptions of a Church, and not leaue the Church, that is, not cease to be a member of it: But yours of a man leaving his company by occasion of their disease, hath no analogy at all with this businesse.

95 But Luther & his followers did not continue in the cōpany of those from whose diseases they pretend to free themselves. Very true, neither was it said they did so. There is no necessity that that which is compared to another thing should agree with it in all things: it is sufficient if it agree in that wherein it is compared. A man freeing himselfe from the common disease of a society, and yet continuing a part of it, is here compared to Luther and his followers, freeing themselues from the corruptions of the visible Church, & continuing a part of the Church. As for accompanying the other parts of it in all things, it was neither necessary, nor, without destroying our supposition of their forsaking the corruptions of the Church, possible. Not necessary; for they may be parts of the Church which doe not joyne with other parts of it in all observances. Nor possible, for had he accompanied them in all things, he had not freed himselfe from the common corruptions.

96 But they indeavoured to force the society whereof they were parts to be healed and reformed as they were; and if it refused, they did, when they had power driue them away, even their superiours both Spirituall and Temporall as is notorious. The proofes hereof are wanting and therefore [Page] I might deferre my answer untill they were produced; yet take this before hand: If they did so, then herein, in my opinion, they did amisse; for I haue learnt from the ancient Fathers of the Church, that nothing is more against Religion then to force Religion, & of S. Paul, the weapons of the Christian warfare are not carnall. And great reason: For humane violence may make men counterfeit, but cannot make them believe, & is therefore fit for nothing but to breed forme without, & Atheisme within. Besides, if this meanes of bringing men to embrace any Religion were 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 [Page] 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.

[Page] 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 out of Principles received by them, are all peremptory, that though novelty be a certain note of falshood, yet no antiquity lesse then Apostolicall is a certain note of truth? Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend, that Protestants did confesse the Fathers against them in this point. For the point here issuable is not, whether S. Peter were head of the Church? Nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church? Nor whether he had authority over it given him by the Church? But whether by Divine right, and by Christs appointment he were Head of the Catholique Church? Now having perused Brerely, I cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with you in this point. And the Reader hath reason to suspect, that you also out of all the Fathers could not finde any one authority pertinent to this purpose: for otherwise you were much to blame, citing so few, to make choice of such as are impertinent. For let the understanding Reader peruse the 55. Epist. of S. Cyprian, with any ordinary attention, out of which you take your first place, and I am confident hee shall finde that he meanes nothing else by the words quoted by you, But that in one particular Church at one time there ought to bee but one Bishop, and that he should be obeyed in all things lawfull: The nonperformance whereof was one of the most ordinary causes of heresies against the Faith, and Schisme from the Communion of the Church Vniversall. He shall finde secondly, and that by many convincing Arguments, that though he write to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, yet hee speaks not of him, but of himselfe then Bishop of Carthage, against whom a faction of Schismatiques had then set up another. And therefore here your ingenuitie is to bee commended aboue many of your side: For whereas they ordinarily abuse this place to prove, that in the whole Church there ought to be but one Priest and one Iudge; you seem somewhat diffident hereof, and thereupon say, that these words plainly condemne Luther, whether he will understand them as spoken of the Vniversall or of every particular Church. But whether they condemne Luther is another Question. The question here is, whether they plainly proue the Popes Supremacy over al other Bishops? which certainly they are as far from proving, as from proving the supremacy of any other Bishop: seeing it is evident they were intended not of one Bishop over the whole Catholique Church, but of one Bishop in one particular Church.

[Page] 99 And no lesse impertinent is your saying out of Optatus, if it be well lookt into, though at the first sight it may seem otherwise; because Optatus his scene happened to be Rome, whereas S. Cyprians was Carthage. The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their faction: not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular. Now Optatus going upon S. Cyprians aboue mentioned ground of one Bishop in one Church, proves them Schismatiques for so doing, and he proves it by this Argument: S. Peter was first Bishop of Rome, neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chaire, (understand in that Citty, for in other places others I hope had Chaires besides S. Peter) and therefore he is a Schismatique, who against that one single Chaire erects another (understand as before, in that place) making another Bishop of that Diocesse besides him who was lawfully elected to it.

100 But yet by the way he stiles S. Peter head of the Apostles, and saies that from thence he was called Cephas. Ans. Perhaps he was abused into this opinion, by thinking Cephas derived from the greeke word [...] a head: whereas it is a Syriack word and signifies a stone. Besides S. Peter might be head of the Apostles, that is, first in order and honour among them, and not have supreme Authority over them. And indeed that S. Peter should have authority overall the Apostles, and yet exercise no one act of Authority over any one of them, and that they should shew to him no signe of subjection, me thinkes is as strange, as that a King of England for twenty five yeares should doe no Act of Regality, nor receive any one acknowledgement of it. As strange me thinks it is, that you so many ages after, should know this so certainly, as you pretend to doe, and that the Apostles (after that those words were spoken in their hearing, by vertue whereof S. Peter is pretended to have been made their head,) should still be so ignorant of it, as to question which of them should be the greatest? yet more strange, that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error, by telling them S. Peter was the man, but rather confirme it by saying, the Kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them, but it should not be so among them. No lesse a wonder was it that S. Paul should so farre forget S. Peter and himselfe, as that first mentioning him often, he should doe it without any title of Honour. Secondly, speaking of the severall degrees of men in the Church, he should not give S. Peter the highest, but place him in equipage with the rest of the Apostles, and say, God hath appointed (not first Peter, then the rest of the Apostles, but) first Apostles, secondly Prophets. Certainly if the Apostles were all first, to me it is very probable, that no one of them was before the rest. For by First, all men understand either that which is before all, or that before which is nothing. Now in the former sense, the Apostles could not be all first, for then every one of them must have been before every one of the rest. And therefore they must be First in the other sense. And therefore No man, and therefore not S. Peter, must be before any of them. Thirdly and Lastly, that speaking of himselfe in particular, and perhaps comparing himselfe [Page] with S. Peter in particular, rather then any other, he should say in plain termes, I am in nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles. But besides all this, Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more, that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles, not in our but in your sense, and that S. Peter indeed was so; yet still you are very farre from shewing, that in the judgement of Optatus, the Bishop of Rome, was to be at all, much lesse by divine right, successor to S. Peter in this his Headship & Authority. For what incōgruity is there, if we say, that he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care, the government of that particular Church, (as sure he did even while S. Peter was living,) and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship, nor in his government of the Church Vniversall? Especially seeing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles, by laying the foundations of the Church, were to be the Foundations of it, and accordingly are so called in Scripture. And therefore as in a building it is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations: So it may be in the Church, that any other Apostle should succeed the first.

101 Ad §. 37. The next Paragraph I might well passe over, as having no Argument in it. For there is nothing in it but two sayings of S. Austine, which I have great reason to esteeme no Argument, untill you will promise me, to grant whatsoever I shall prove by two sayings of S. Austine. But moreover, the second of these sentences seemes to me, to imply the contradiction of the first. For to say, That the Sacriledge of Schisme is eminent, when there is no cause of separation, implyes to my understanding, that there may be a cause of Separation. Now in the first, he saies plainly That this is impossible. Neither doth any reconciliation of his wordes occurre to me, but only this, that in the former he speaks upon supposition, that the Publique service of God, where in men are to communicate is unpolluted, and no unlawfull thing practised in their communion, which was so true of their communion, that the Donatists who separated did not deny it. And to make this Answer no improbable evasion, it is observable out of S. Austine and Optatus, that though the Donatists, at the beginning of their Separation, pretended no cause for it, but only that the men from whom they separated, were defiled with the contagion of Traditors; yet afterwards, to make the continuance of it more justifiable, they did invent and spread abroad this calumny against Catholiques, that they set pictures upon their Altars: which when S. Austine comes to Answer, he does not deny the possibility of the thing, for that had been to deny the Catholique Church to be made up of men, all which had free will to evill, and therefore might possibly agree in doeing it, and had he denyed this, the Action of after Ages had been his refutation: Neither does he say, (as you would have done,) that it was true, they placed pictures there, and moreover worshipped them, but yet not for their own sakes, but for theirs who were represented by them: Neither does he say, (as you doe in this Chapter) that though this were granted a Corruption, yet were they not to separate for it. What then does he? certainly nothing else, but abhorre the [Page] thing, and deny the imputation: Which way of answering, does not I confesse plainly shew, but yet it somewhat intimates that he had nothing else to answer; and that if he could not have denyed this, he could not have denyed the Donatists separation from them to have been just. If this Answer, to this little Argument seem not sufficient, I adde moreover, that if it be applyed to Luthers separation, it hath the common fault of all your Allegations out of Fathers, impertinence. For it is one thing to separate from the Communion of the whole world, another to separate from all the Communions in the world: One thing to divide from them who are united among themselves, another to diuide from them who are divided among themselves. Now the Donatists separated from the whole World of Christians, united in one Communion, professing the same Faith, serving God after the same manner, which was a very great Argument, that they could not have just cause to leave them: according to that of Tertullian, Variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum, quod autem apud multos unumest, non est Erratum sed Traditum. But Luther and his followers did not so. The world, I mean of Christians and Catholiques, was divided and subdivided long before hee divided from it; and by their divisions had much weakned their own Authority, and taken away from you this plea of S. Austine, which stands upon no other Foundation, but the Vnity of the whole worlds Communion.

102 Ad §. 38. If Luther were in the right, most certain those Protestants that differed from him were in the wrong: But that either he or they were Schismatiques, it followes not. Or if it does, then either the Iesuits are Schismatiques from the Dominicans, or they from the Iesuits; The Canonists from the Iesuites, or the Iesuites from the Canonists: The Scotists from the Thomists, or they from the Scotists: The Franciscans from the Dominicans, or the Dominicans from the Franciscans. For between all these the world knowes; that in point of Doctrine, there is plain and irreconcileable contradiction, and therefore one Part must be in error, at least not Fundamentall. Thus your Argument returnes upon your selfe, and if it be good, proves the Roman Church in a manner to bee made up of Schismatiques. But the Answer to it is, that it begges this very false and vain supposition; That whosoever erres in any point of doctrine is a Schismatique.

103 Ad §. 39. In the next place you number up your victories, and tell us, that out of these premises, this conclusion followes, That Luther and his followers were Schismatiques from the Visible Church, the Pope, the Diocesse wherein they were baptized, from the Bishop vnder whom they lived, from the country to which they belonged, from their Religious order, wherein they were professed, from one another, and lastly, from a mans selfe: Because the selfesame Protestant is convicted to day, that his yesterdaies opinion was an error. To which I Answer, that Luther and his followers separated from many of these, in some opininions and practices▪ But that they did it without cause, which only can make them Schismatiques, that was the only thing you should have prov'd, and to that you have not urged one reason of any moment. [Page] All of them for weight and strength, were cosen-germans to this pretty device, wherewith you will prove them Schismatiques from themselves, because the selfesame Protestant to day is convicted in conscience, that his yesterdaies opinion was an error. It seemes then that they that hold errors, must hold them fast, and take speciall care of being convicted in conscience, that they are in error, for fear of being Schismatiques! Protestants must continue Protestants, and Puritans Puritans, and Papists Papists, nay Iewes, and Turkes, and Pagans, must remain Iewes, and Turkes, and Pagans, and goe on constantly to the Divell, or else forsooth they must be Schismatiques, and that from themselves. And this perhaps is the cause that makes Papists so obstinate, not only in their common superstition, but also in adhering to the proper phancies of their severall Sects, so that it is a miracle to heare of any Iesuite, that hath forsaken the opinion of the Iesuites: or any Dominican that hath chang'd his for the Iesuits. Without question, this Gentleman my Adversary knowes none such, or else methinkes he should not have objected it to D. Potter (That he knew a man in the world who from a Puritan, was turned to a moderate Protestant, which is likely to bee true. But sure if this bee all his fault, hee hath no reason to be ashamed of his acquaintance. For possibly it may be a fault to be in error, because many times it proceeds from a fault: But sure the forsaking of error cannot be a sinne, unlesse to be in error be a vertue. And therefore, to doe as you doe, to damne men for false opinions, and to call them Schismatiques for leaving them; to make pertinacy in error, that is, an unwillingnesse to be convicted, or a resolution not to be convicted, the forme of Heresies, and to find fault with men, for being convicted in conscience that they are in error, is the most incoherent and contradictious injustice that ever was heard of. But Sir, if this be a strange matter to you, that which I shall tell you will be much stranger. I know a man that of a moderate Protestant turn'd a Papist, and the day that he did so, (as all things that are done are perfected some day or other,) was convicted in conscience, that his yesterdaies opinion was an error, and yet thinks hee was no Schismatique for doing sos, and desires to bee informed by you, whether or no hee was mistaken? The same man afterwards upon better consideration, became a doubting Papist, and of a doubting Papist, a confirm'd Protestant. And yet this man thinks himselfe no more to blame for all these changes, then a Travailer, who using all diligence to find the right way to some remote Citty, where he never had been, (as the party I speak of had never been in Heaven,) did yet mistake it, and after finde his error, and amend it. Nay he stands upon his justification so farre, as to maintain that his alterations, not only to you, but also from you by Gods mercy, were the most satisfactory actions to himselfe, that ever he did, and the greatest victories that ever he obtained over himselfe, and his affections to those things which in this world are most precious; as wherein for Gods sake and (as he was verily perswaded,) out of love to the Truth, he went upon a certain expectation of those inconveniences, [Page] which to ingenuous natures are of all most terrible. So that though there were much weaknesse in some of these alterations, yet certainly there was no wickednesse. Neither does he yeeld his weaknesse altogether without apology, seeing his deductions were rationall, and out of Principles commonly received by Protestants as well as Papists, and which by his education had got possession of his understanding.

104 Ad §. 40. 41. D. Potter p. 81. of his booke, to prove our separation from you, not only lawfull but necessary, hath these words, Although we confesse the Church of Rome (in some sense) to be a true Church, and her error (to some men) not damnable; yet for us who are convinced in conscience, that she erres in many things, a necessity lies upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors. He meanes not, in the belief of those errors; for that is presupposed to be done already: for whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that she erres, hath for matter of belief forsaken, that is, ceased to believe those errors. This therefore he meant not, nor could not meane: but that whosoever is convinc'd in conscience, that the Church of Rome erres, cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of these errors: and the reason hereof is manifest; because otherwise, he must professe what he believes not, and practise what he approves not. Which is no more then you selfe in thesi have diverse times affirmed. For in one place you say, It is unlawfull to speak any the least untruth: Now he that professeth your Religion, and believes it not, what else doth he but live in a perpetuall lye! Again in another, you have called them that professe one thing and believe another, a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants: And therefore in inveighing against Protestants for forsaking the Profession of these errors, the beleefe whereof they had already forsaken, what doe you but raile at them for not being a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants? And lastly §. 42. of this chap. within three leaves after this, whereas D. Potter grants but only a necessity of peaceable externall obedience to the Declaration of the Church, though perhaps erroneous, (provided it be in matter not of faith, but of opinions or Rites,) condemning those men who by occasion of errors of this quality, disturbe the Churches peace, and cast off her communion: Vpon this occasion you come upon him with this bitter sarcasme, I thank you for your ingenuous confession, in recompence whereof I will doe a deed of Charity, by putting you in minde into what Labyrinths you are brought, by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of faith, and yet that it is not lawfull for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion, though he have evidence of Scripture against her! Will you have such a man dissemble against his Conscience, or externally deny Truth known to be contained in holy Scripture? I Answer for him, no: It is not he but you, that would have men doe so: not he, who saies plainly, that whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that any Church erres, is bound under pain of damnation to forsake her in her Profession and practice of these errors: but you, who finde fault with him, and make long discourse against him, for thus [Page] Affirming. Not he who can easily winde himselfe out of your Imaginary Labyrinth, by telling you, that he no where denies it lawfull for any man to oppose any Church, erring in matter of faith, for that he speaks not of matters of faith at all, but only of Rites and Opinions. And in such matters, he saies indeed at first, It is not lawfull for any man to oppose his judgement to the publique: But he presently explaines himselfe by saying, not only that he may hold an opinion contrary to the Publique resolution, but besides that he may offer it to be considered of, (so farre is he from requiring any sinfull dissimulation,) Provided, he doe it with great Probability of Reason, very modestly and respectfully, and without separation from the Churches communion. It is not therefore in this case, opposing a mans private judgement to the publique simply, which the Doctor findes fault with: But the degree only and malice of this opposition, opposing it factiously. And not holding a mans own conceit, different from the Church absolutely, which here he censures: But a factious advancing it, and despising the Church, so farre as to cast off her Communion, because forsooth she erres in some opinion, or useth some inconvenient, though not impious rites and ceremonies. Little reason therefore have you to accuse him there, as if he required that men should dissemble against their conscience, or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture. But certainly a great deale lesse, to quarrell with him, for saying (which is all that here he saies,) that men under pain of demnation, are not to dissemble, but if they be convinc'd in conscience, that your, or any other Church (for the reason is alike for all,) erres in many things, are of necessity to forsake that Church, in the Profession and practice of those errors.

105 But to consider your exception to this speech of the Doctors, somewhat more particularly: I say your whole discourse against it, is compounded of falsehoods and impertinencies. The first falsehood is, that he in these words avoucheth, that no learned Catholiques can be saved: Vnlesse you will suppose, that all learned Catholiques are convinc'd in conscience, that your Church erres in many things. It may well be fear'd that many are so convinc'd, and yet professe what they believe not. Many more have been, and have stifled their consciences, by thinking it an act of humility, to doe so. Many more would have beene, had they with liberty and indifference of judgement, examined the grounds of the Religion which they professe. But to think that all the Learned of your side, are actually convinc'd of errors in your Church, and yet will not forsake the profession of them, this is so great an uncharitablenesse, that I verily believe, D. Potter abhorres it. Your next falsehood is, That the Doctor affirmes, that you Catholiques want no meanes to Salvation: and that he judges the Roman errors not to be in themselves fundamentall or damnable. Which calumny I have very often confuted: and in this very place it is confuted by D. Potter, and confessed by your selfe. For in the beginning of this Answer you tell us, that the Doctor avouches of all Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse, that they cannot be saved. Certainly then he must needs esteeme them to want something necessary to Salvation. And then in [Page] the Doctors saying, it is remarkable that he confesses your errors to some men not damnable: which cleerely imports, that according to his judgement, they were damnable in themselves, though by accident to them who lived and died in invincible ignorance, and with repentance, they might prove not damnable. A third is, that these Assertions, the Roman Errors are in themselves not damnable, and yet it is damnable for me (who know them to be errors,) to hold and confesse them, are absolutely inconsistent; which is false; for be the matter what it will, yet for a man to tell a lye, especially in matter of Religion, cannot but be damnable. How much more then, to goe on in a course of lying by professing to believe these things divine Truths, which he verily believes to be falsehoods and fables? A fourth is, that if we erred in thinking that your Church holds errors, this error or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed and deposed, by judging those errors not damnable. For what repugnance is there between these two suppositions, that you doe hold some errors, and that they are not damnable? And if there be no repugnance between them, how can the beleefe of the latter remove or destroy, or if it be erroneous, rectify the belief of the former? Nay seeing there is a manifest consent between them, how can it be avoided, but the belief of the latter, will maintaine and preserve the belief of the former? For who can conjoyne in one braine not crackt, (pardon me, if I speake to you in your own words,) these Assertions: In the Roman Church there are errors not damnable, and, in the Roman Church there are no errors at all? Or what sober understanding would ever think this a good collection, I esteeme the errors of the Roman Church not damnable, therefore I doe amisse to think that she erres at all? If therefore you would have us alter our judgements, that your Church is erroneous, your only way is to shew, your doctrine consonant, at least not evidently repugnant to Scripture and Reason. For as for this device, this short cut, of perswading our selves that you hold no errours, because we believe your errors are not damnable, assure your selfe it will never hold.

106 A fift falsehood is, That we daily doe this favour for Protestants, you must mean (if you speak consequently) to judge they have no errors, because we judge they have none damnable. Which the world knowes to be most untrue. And for our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errors, the justification hereof, is not so much, that their errors are not damnable: as that they require not the beliefe and profession of these errors, among the conditions of their communion. Which puts a main difference between them and you: because we may continue in their communion without professing to believe their opinions, but in yours we cannot. A sixt is, that according to the Doctrine of all Divines, there is any difference between a speculative perswasion of conscience, of the unlawfulnesse of any thing, and a practicall Dictamen that the same thing is unlawfull. For these are but diverse words signifying the same thing, neither is such a perswasion wholly speculative, but tending to practice: nor such a dictamē wholly practicall, but grounded upon speculation. A Seventh is, That Protestants[Page]did only conceive in speculation, that the Church of Rome erred in some doctrines, and had not also a practicall dictamen, that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errors. An eighth is, that it is not lawfull to separate from any Churches communion, for errors not appertaining to the substance of Faith: which is not universally true, but with this exception, unlesse that Church requires the belief and profession of them. The ninth is, that D. Potter teacheth that Luther was bound to forsake the house of God, for an unnecessary light. Confuted manifestly by D. Potter in this very place, for by the house of God you mean the Roman Church, and of her the Doctor saies: that a necessity did lye upon him, even under pain of damnation, to forsake the Church of Rome in her errors. This sure is not to say, that he was obliged to forsake her, for an unnecessary light. The tenth is covertly vented in your intimation, that Luther and his followers were the proper cause of the Christian worlds combustion: Whereas indeed the true cause of this lamentable effect, was your violent persecution of them, for serving God according to their conscience, which if it be done to you, you condemne of horrible impiety, and therefore may not hope to be excused, if you doe it to others.

107 The eleaventh is, that our first reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain. Which is to say, that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture: which in formall and expresse termes, containes many of these opinions. And the reason of this assertion is very vaine: for though they had not an absolute infallibility promised unto them, yet may they be of some things infallibly certaine. As Euclide sure was not infallible, yet was he certain enough, that twice two were foure, and that every whole was greater then a part of that whole. And so though Calvin & Melancthō were not infallible in all things, yet they might and did know well enough, that your Latine Service was condemned by S. 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 [Page] 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 L [...]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 [Page] 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 it seem uniust. As if I be cast wrongfully in a suit at law, and sentenced to pay an hundred pound, I am bound to pay the mony, yet I know no law of God or man, that binds me in conscience to acquit the Iudge of errour in his sentence. The question therefore being only what men ought to think, it is vain for you to tell us what M. Hooker saies at all. For M. Hooker, though an excellent man, was but a man. And much more vain, to tell us out of him, what men ought to doe, for point of externall obedience. When in the very same place, he supposeth and alloweth, that in their private opinion they may think, this sentence to which they yeeld a passive obedience, to swarve utterly from that which is right. If you will draw his words to such a construction, as if he had said, they must think the sentence of iudiciall and finall decision iust and right, though it seem in their private opinion to swarue utterly from what is right; It is manifest you make him contradict [Page] himselfe, & make him say in effect, They must think thus, though at the same time they think the contrary. Neither is there any necessity, that hee must either acknowledge the universall infallibility of the Church, or driue men into dissembling against their conscience, seeing nothing hinders, but I may obey the sentence of a Iudge, paying the mony he awards me to pay, or forgoing the house or land which hee hath judged from me, and yet withall plainly professe, that in my conscience I conceive his judgement erroneous. To which purpose they haue a saying in France, that whosoever is cast in any cause, hath liberty for ten daies after, to rayle at his Iudges.

110 This answer to this place, the words themselves offered mee, even as they are alleaged by you: But upon perusall of the place in the Author himselfe, I finde that here, as elsewhere you and M. Brerely wrong him extremely. For mutilating his words, you make him say that absolutely, which he there expresly limits to some certain cases. In litigious and controverted causes of such a quality (saith he) the will of God, is to haue them doe whatsoever the sentence of iudiciall and finall decision shall determine. Obserue, I pray, He saies not absolutely and in all causes, this is the will of God: But only in litigious causes, of the quality of those whereof he there entreats. In such matters, as haue plaine Scripture or reason, neither for them nor against them, and wherein men are perswaded this or that way, Vpon their own only probable collection; In such cases, This perswasion (saith he) ought to bee fully setled in mens hearts, that the will of God is, that they should not disobey the certain commands of their lawfull superiors, upon uncertain grounds: But doe that which the sentence of iudiciall and finall decision shall determine. For the purpose, a Question there is, whether a Surplice may be worne in Divine service: The authority of Superiors injoynes this Ceremony, and neither Scripture nor reason plainely forbids it. Sempronius notwithstanding, is by some inducements, which he confesses to be onely probable, lead to this perswasion that the thing is unlawfull. The quaere is, whether he ought for matter of practise follow the injunction of authority, or his own private and only probable perswasion? M. Hooker resolves for the former, upon this ground, that the certain commands of the Church we liue in, are to be obeyed in all things, not certainly unlawfull. Which rule is your own, and by you extended to the commands of all Superiors, in the very next Section before this, in these words, In cases of uncertainty we are not to leaue our Superiour, nor cast off his obedience, or publiquely oppose his decrees. And yet if a man should conclude upon you, that either you make all Superiours universally infallible, or else driue men into perplexities and labyrinths of doing against conscience, I presume you would not think your self fairely dealt with; but alleage, that your words are not extended to all cases, but limited to cases of uncertainty. As little therefore ought you to make this deduction from M. Hookers words, which are apparently also restrained to cases of uncertainty. For as for requiring a blind and an unlimited obedience, to Ecclesiasticall decisions universally and in all cases, even when plain Text or reason seemes to controule them, [Page] M. Hooker is as far from making such an Idol of Ecclesiasticall Authority, as the Puritans whom he writes against. I grant (saith he,) that proof derived from the authority of mans iudgement, is not able to worke that assurance which doth grow by a stronger proofe. And therefore although ten thousand Generall Councels would set down one and the same definitiue sentence, concerning any point of religion whatsoever, yet one demonstrative reason alleaged, or one manifest testimony cited from the word of God himselfe, to the contrary, could not choose, but over-weigh them all: in as much as for them to be deceived it is not impossible, it is that Demonstrative Reason, or Divine Testimony should deceiue. And again, Whereas it is thought, that especially with the Church, and those that are called, mans authority ought not to prevail: It must and doth prevaile even with them, yea with them especially, as far as equity requireth, and farther we maintain it not. For men to be tied and led by authority, as it were with a kinde of captivitie of iudgement, and though there bee reason to the contrary, not to listen to it, but to follow like beasts, the first in the Heard, this were brutish. Again, that authority, of men should prevaile with men either against or aboue reason, is no part of our beliefe. Companies of learned men, be they never so great and reverend, are to yeeld unto reason, the weight whereof, is no whit preiudic'd by the simplicity of his person which doth alleage it, but being found to be sound and good, the bare opinion of men to the contrary, must of necessitie stoop and giue place. Thus M. Hooker in his 7. Sect. of his Second Book: which place because it is far distant from that which is alleaged by you, the oversight of it might be excusable, did you not impute it to D. Potter as a fault, that he cites some clauses of some Books, without reading the whole. But besides, in that very Section, out of which you take this corrupted sentence, he hath very pregnant words to the same effect. As for the Orders established, sith equity and reason favour that which is in being, till orderly iudgement of decision be given against it, it is but iustice to exact of you, and perversnesse in you it should be to deny thereunto your willing obedience. Not that I iudge it a thing allowable, for men to obserue those Lawes, which in their hearts they are stedfastly perswaded, to bee against the Law of God: But your perswasion in this case, yee are all bound for the time to suspend, and in otherwise doing, yee offend against God, by troubling his Church without iust and necessary cause. Be it that there are some reasons inducing you to think hardly of our Lawes: Are those Reasons demonstrative, are they necessary, or but meer probabilities only? An argument necessary and demonstratiue is such, as being proposed to any man and understood, the minde cannot choose but inwardly assent. Any one such reason dischargeth, I grant, the conscience, and setteth it at ful liberty. For the publique approbation given by the body of this whole Church, unto those things which are established, doth make it but probable that they are good. And therefore unto a necessary proofe that they are not good, it must giue place. This plain declaration of his judgement in this matter, this expresse limitation of his former resolution, hee makes in the very same Section, which affords your former quotation; and therefore what Apology can bee made for you, and your store-house M. [Page] Brerely, for dissembling of it, I cannot possibly imagine.

111 D. Potter p. 131. saies, That the errors of the Donatists and Novatians, were not in themselves Heresies, nor could be made so by the Churches determination. But that the Churches intention was only to silence disputes, and to settle peace and unity in her government: which because they factiously opposed, they were justly esteemed Schismatiques. From hence you conclude, that the same condemnation must passe against the first Reformers, seeing they also opposed the commands of the Church, imposed on them, for silencing all disputes, and setling Peace and Vnity in government. But this collection is deceitfull, and the reason is: Because though the first Reformers, as well as the Donatists and Novatians, opposed herein the Commands of the Visible Church, that is, of a great part of it: yet the Reformers had reason, nay, necessity to doe so, the Church being then corrupted with damnable errors: which was not true of the Church, when it was opposed by the Novatians and Donatists. And therefore though they, and the Reformers, did the same action, yet doing it upon different grounds, it might in these merit applause, and in them condemnation.

112 Ad §. 43. The next §. hath in it some objections against Luthers person, but none against his cause, which alone I have undertaken to justify, & therefore I passe it over. Yet this I promise, that when you, or any of your side, shall publish a good defence, of all that your Popes have said & done, especially of them whom Bellarmin beleeves, in such a long train to have gone to the Divell: then you shall receive an ample Apology for all the actions and words of Luther. In the mean time, I hope all reasonable and equitable judges, will esteeme it not unpardonable in the great and Heroicall spirit of Luther, if being opposed, and perpetually baited with a world of Furies, hee were transported sometimes, and made somewhat furious. As for you, I desire you to be quiet, and to demand no more, whether God be wont to send such Furies to preach the Gospell? Vnlesse you desire to heare of your killing of Kings: Massacring of Peoples; Blowing up of Parliaments: and have a minde to be ask't, whether it bee probable, that that should bee Gods cause, which needs to bee maintained by such Divellish meanes?

112 Ad §. 44. 45. In the two next Particles, which are all of this Chapter, that remain unspoken to, you spend a great deale of reading, & wit, & reason, against some men, who pretending to honour & believe the Doctrine & practice of the visible Church, (you mean your own,) and condemning their Forefathers who forsook her, say they would not have done so, yet remain divided from her Communion. Which men in my judgement cannot be defended. For if they believe the Doctrine of your Church, then must they believe this doctrine, that they are to returne to your Communion. And therefore if they doe not so, it cannot be avoided but they must be [...], and so I leave them, only I am to remember you, that these men cannot pretend to be Protestants, because they pretend to believe your doctrine, which is opposite in Diameter unto the doctrine of Protestants; and therefore in [Page] a worke which you professe to have written meerly against Protestants, all this might have been spared.

CHAP. VI.
That Luther, and the rest of Protestants, have added Heresie unto Schisme.

BECAVSE Vice is best knowne by the contrary Vertue, we cannot well determine what Heresie is, nor who be Heretiques, but by the opposite vertue of Faith, whose Nature being once understood as farre as belongs to our present purpose, we shall passe on with ease to the definition of Heresie, and so be able to discerne who be Heretiques. And this I intend to doe, not by entring into such particular Questions as are controverted between Catholiques and Protestants, but only by applying some generall grounds, either already proved, or else yeelded to, on all sides.

2 Almighty God having ordained Man to a supernaturall End of Beatitude by supernaturall meanes, it was requisite that his Vnderstanding should be enabled to apprehend that End, and meanes by a supernaturall knowledge. And because if such a knowledge were no more then probable, it could not be able sufficiently to overbeare our Will, and encounter with human probabilities, being backed with the strength of flesh and blood; It was further necessary, that this supernaturall knowledge should be most certaine and infallible; and that Faith should beleeue nothing more certainly then that it self is a most certain Beliefe, and so be able to beat downe all g [...]y probabilities of humane Opinion. And because the aforesaid Means and end of Beatificall Vision, do farre exceed the reach of naturall wit, the certainty of faith could not alwaies be joyned with such evidence of reason, as is wont to be found in the Principles, or Conclusions of humane naturall Sciences; that so all flesh might not glory in the arme of flesh, but that he, who glories, should glory 2. Cor. 10. in our Lord, Moreover, it was expedient that our belief, or assent to divine truths should not only be unknowne, or inevident by any humane discourse, but that absolutely also it should be obscure in it self, and (ordinarily speaking) be void even of supernaturall evidence; that so we might have occasion to actuate, and testifie the obedience which we owe to our God, no [...] only by submitting our Will to this Will and Commands, but by subjecting also our Vnderstanding to this Wisdome and Words, captivating (as the Apostle speaks) the same Vnderstanding 2. Cor. 10. 5. to the Obedience of Faith: Which occasion had been wanting, if Almighty God had made [...]ere to us, the truths which now are certainly, but not evidently presented to our minds. For where Truth doth manifestly open it self; not obedience, but necessity commands our assent. For this reason, Divines teach, that the Objects of Faith being not evident to humane reason, it is in mans power not only to abstaine from believing, by suspending our Iudgments, or exercising no act one way or other; but also to disbelieve, that is, to believe the contrary of that which Faith proposeth; as the examples of innumerable Arch-heretiques can beare witnesse. This obscurity of faith we learne from holy Scripture, according to those words of the Apostle. Faith is the Heb. 11. substance of things to be hoped for, the argument of things not appearing. And, We see by a glasse 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. in a dark manner: but then face to face. And, accordingly S. Peter saith: Which you doe well attending unto, as to 2. Pet. 1. [...]. 19. a Candle shining in a dark place.

3 Faith being then obscure (whereby it differeth from naturall Sciences) and yet being most certain and infallible (wherein it surpasseth humane Opinion) it must relie upon some motive and ground, which may be able to give it certainty, and yet not release it from obscurity. For if this motive, ground, or formall Object of Faith, were any thing evidently presented to our understanding: and if also we did evidently know, that it had a necessary connection with the Articles which we believe, our assent to such Articles could not be obscure, but evident; which, as we said, is against the nature of our Faith. If likewise the motive or ground of our faith were obscurely propounded to us, but were not in it selfe infallible, it would leave our assent in obscurity, but could not endue it with certainty. We must therefore for the ground of our Faith, find out a motive obscure to us, but most certain in it selfe, that the act of faith may remaine both obscure, and certain. Such a motive as this, can be no other but the divine authority of almighty God, revealing, or speaking those truths which our faith believes. For it is manifest, that God's infallible testimony may transfuse Certainty to our faith, and yet not draw it out of obscurity; because no humane discourse, or demonstration can evince, that God revealeth any supernaturall Truth, since God had beene no lesse perfect then he is, although he had never revealed any of those objects which we now believe.

4 Neverthelesse, because Almighty God out of his infinite wisdome and sweetnesse, doth concurre with his Creatures in such sort as may be fit the temper, & exigence of their natures; and because Man is a Creature endued with reason, God doth not exact of his Will or Vnderstanding any other then, as the Apostle saith, rationabile Rom, [...] 1. obs [...]uium, an Obedience, sweetned [Page] with good reason; which could not so appeare, if our Vnderstanding were summoned to believe with certainty, things no way represented as infallible and certain. And ther [...]fore Almighty God obliging us under paine of eternall damnation to believe with greatest certainty divers verities, not knowne by the light of naturall reason, cannot sayl [...] to furnish our Vnderstanding, with such inducements, motives, and arguments as may sufficiently perswade any mind which is not partiall or passionate, that the objects which we believe, proceed from an Authority so Wise, that it cannot be deceived, so Good that it cannot deceive; according to the words of David: Thy Testimonies are made Psal. 92. credible exceedingly. These inducements are by Divines, called argumēta credibilitatis, arguments of credibility, which though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome, & prudence, the objects of [...]aith deserve credit, & ought to be accepted as things revealed by God. For without such reasons & inducemēts our judgment of faith could not be conceived prudent, holy Scripture telling us, that, he who soone Eccles. 19. 4. believes, is light of heart. By these arguments and inducements our Vnderstanding is both satisfied with evidence of credibility, and the objects of faith retaine their obscurity: because it is a different thing to bee evidently credible, and evidently true; as those who were present at the Miracles wrough [...] by our blessed Saviour, and his Apostles, did not evidently see their doctrine to be true (for then it had not been Faith but Science, and all had been necessitated to believe, which we see fell out otherwise,) but they were evidently convinced, that the things confirmed by such Miracles, were most credible, and worthy to be imbraced as truths revealed by God.

5. These evident Arguments of Credibility are in great abundance found in the Visible Church of Christ, perpetually existing on earth. For, that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines, we have from our next Predecessours, and these from theirs upward, till we come to the Apostles, and our Blessed Saviour; which gradation is knowne by evidence of sense, by reading bookes, or hearing what one man delivers to another. And it is evident that there was neither cause, nor possibility, that men so distant in place, so different in temper, so repugnant in private ends, did, or could agree to tell one and the selfe same thing, if it had been but a fiction invented by themselves, as ancient Tertullian well saith: How is it likely that so many Praescript. cap. 28. and so great Churches should erre in one faith? Among many events there is not one issue, the error of the Churches must needs have varied. But that which among many is found to be One, is not mistaken, but delivered. Dare then any body say, that they erred who delivered it? With this never interrupted existence of the Church are joyned the many and great miracles wrought by men of that Congregation or Church; the sanctity of the persons; the renowned victories over so many persecutions, both of all sorts of men, and of the infernall spirits; and lastly, the perpetuall existence of so holy a Church, being brought up to the Apostles themselves, she comes to partake of the same assurance of truth, which They by so many powerfull wayes, did communicate to their Doctrine, and to the Church of their times, together with the divine Certainty which they received from our Blessed Saviour himselfe, revealing to Man-kind what he heard from his Fathe [...]; and so we conclude with Tertullian: We receive it from the Churches, the Churches Praesc. c. 21. & 37. from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from his Father, And if we once interrupt this line of succession, most certainly made knowne by meanes of holy Tradition, we cannot conjoyn the present Church, and doctrine, with the Church, and doctrine of the Apostles, but must invent some new meanes, and arguments sufficient of themselves to find out, and prove a true Church, and faith independently of the preaching, and writing of the Apostles; neither of which can be knowne but by Tradition; as is truely observed by Tertullian saying: I will prescribe, that Praes. c. 21. there is no meanes to prove what the Apostles preached, but by the same Church which they founded.

6 Thus then we are to proceed: By evidence of manifest and incorrupt Tradition, I know that there hath alwaies been a never-interrupted Succession of men from the Apostles time, believing, professing, and practising such and such doctrines: By evident arguments of credibility, as Miracles, Sanc [...]ty, Vnity, &c. and by all those wayes whereby the Apostles, and our Blessed Saviour himselfe confirmed their doctrine, we are assured that what the said never-interrupted Church proposeth, doth deserve to be accepted and acknowledged as a divine truth: By evidence of Sense, we see that the same Church proposeth such and such doctrines as divine truths, that is, as revealed and testified by Almighty God. By this divine Testimony we are infallibly assured of what we believe: and so the last period, ground, motive, and formall obiect of our Faith, is the inf [...]llible testimony of that supreme Verity, which neither can deceive, nor be deceived.

7 By this orderly deduction our Faith commeth to be endued with these qualities which we said were [...]equisite thereto; namely Certainty, Obscurity, and Prudence. Certainty proceeds from the infallible Testimony of God propounded and conveyed to our understanding by such a meane as i [...] infallible in it selfe, and to us is evidently knowne that it proposeth this point or that, and which can manifestly declare in what sense it proposeth them; which meanes we have proved to be only the visible Church of Christ. Obscurity from the manner in which God speakes to Mankind, which ordinarily is such, that it doth not manifestly shew the person who speakes, nor the truth of the thing spoken. Prudence is not wanting, because our faith is accompanyed with so many arguments of Credibility, that every well disposed Vnderstanding, may and ought to judge, that the doctrines so confirmed deserve to be believed, as proceeding from divine Authority.

8. And thus from what hath been said, we may easily gather the particular nature, or definition of Faith. For, it is a voluntary, or free, infallible, obscure assent to some truth, because it is testifed[Page]by God, and is sufficiently propounded to us for such: which proposall is ordinarily made by the Visible Church of Christ. I say, Sufficiently proposed by the Church; not that I purpose to dispute whether the proposall of the Church enter into the [...]ormall Obiect, or moti [...] of Faith: or whether an error be any heresie, formally and precisely, because it is against the proposition of the Church, as if such proposall were the formall Object of Faith, which D. Potter to no purpose a [...] all, labours so very hard to disprove: But I only affirme, that when the Church propounds any Truth, as revealed by God, we are assured that it is such indeed; and so it instantly growes, to be a fit Object for Christian faith, which enclines and enables us to beleeve whatsoever is d [...]ely presented, as a thing revealed by Almighty God. And in the same manner we are sure, that whosoever opposeth any doctrine proposed by the Church, doth thereby contradict a truth, which is testified by God: As when any lawfull Superiour notifies his will, by the meanes, and as it were proposall of some faithfull messenger, the subject of such a Superiour in performing, or neglecting what is delivered by the Messenger, is said to obey, or disobey his owne lawfull Superiour. And therefore because the testimony of God is notified by the Church, we may, and we doe most truely say, that not to beleeve what the Church proposeth, is to deny God's holy word or testimony, signified to us by the Church, according to that saying of S. Irenae [...]s. We need not goe Lib. 3 [...] haeres. cap. [...] to any other to seek the truth, which we may easily receive from the Church.

9. From this definition of faith we may also know what Heresie is, by taking the contrary termes, as Heresie is contrary to Faith, and saying: Heresie is a voluntary error against that which God hath revealed, and the Church hath proposed for such. Neither doth it import, whether the error concerne points in themselves great or small, fundamentall or not fundamentall. For more being required to an act of Vertue, then of Vice, if any truth though neuer so small may be believed by Faith as soone as we know it to be testified by divine revelation; much more will it be a formall Heresie to deny any least point sufficiently propounded as a thing witnessed by God.

10. This divine Faith is divided into Actuall, and Habituall. Actuall faith, or faith actuated is when we are in act of consideration, and belife of some mystery of Faith; for example, that our Saviour Christ, is true God, and Man, &c. Habituall faith, is that from which we are denominated Faithfull, or Believers, as by Actuall faith they are stiled, Believing. This Habit of faith is a Quality enabling us most firmly to believe Objects above humane discourse, and it remaineth permanently in our Soule, even when we are sleeping, or not thinking of any Mystery of Faith, This is the first among the three Theologicall Vertues. For Charity unites us to God, as he is infinitely Good in himselfe; Hope tyes us to him, as he is unspeakably Good to us. Faith joynes us to him, as he is the Supreame immoveable Verity. Charity relies on his Goodnesse; Hope on his Power; Faith on his divine Wisdome. From hence it followeth, that Faith being one of the Vertues which Divines terme Infused (that is, which cannot be acquired by human wit, or industry, but are in their Nature and Essence, supernaturall,) it hath this property; that it is not destroyed by little and little, (contrarily to the Habits, called acquisiti, that is, gotten by human ende [...]vour, which as they are successiuely produced, so also are they lost successiuely, or by little and little) but it must either be conserved entire, or wholly destroyed: And since it cannot stand entire with any one act which is directly contrary, it must be totally overthrowne, and as it were demolished, and razed by every such act. Wherefore, as Charity, or the Love of God is expelled from our soule by any one act of Hatred, or any other mortall sinne against his divine Majesty: and as Hope is destroyed by any one act of voluntary Desperation: so Faith must perish by any one act of Heresy; because every such act is directly, and formally opposite therevnto. I know that some sinnes which (as Divines speak) are exgenere suo, in their kind, grievous and mortall, may be much lessened, and fall to be veniall, ob levitatem materiae; because they may happen to be exercised in a matter of small consideration; as for example, to steale a penny, is veniall, although Theft in his kind be a deadly sinne. But it is likewise true, that this Rule is not generall for all sorts of sinnes; there being some so inexcusably wicked of their owne nature, that no smalnesse of matter, not paucity in number, can defend them from being deadly sinnes. For, to give an instance, what Blasphemy against God, or voluntary false Oath is not a deadly sinne? Certainly, none at all, although the salvation of the whole world should depend upon swearing such a falshood. The li [...]e hapneth in our present case of Heresie, the iniquity whereof redounding to the injury of God's supreme wisdome and Goodnesse, is alwayes great, and enormous. They were no precious stones which David [...] picket out of the water, to encounter Goli [...]; & yet if a man take from the number but one, and say they were but foure, against the Scripture affirming them to have been fiue; he is instantly guilty of a damnable sinne. Why? Because by this subtraction of One, he doth deprive Gods word and Testimony of all credit and infallibility. For if either he could deceive, or be deceived in any one thing, it were but wisdome to suspect him in all. And seeing eve [...]y Here [...]y opposeth some Truth revealed by God; it is no wonder that no one can be excused from deadly, and damnable sinne. For if voluntary Blasphemy, and Periury, which are opposite only to the in [...]used Morall Vertue of Religion, can never be excused from mortall sinne: much lesse can Heresy be excused, which opposeth the Theologicall Vertue of Faith.

11 If any object, that Schisme may seem to be a greater sinne then Heresy; because the Ver [...]ue of Charity (to which Schisme is opposite) is greater then Faith, according to the Apostle, saying: Now there remain 1 Cor. 13. 13. Faith, Hope, Charity; but the great [...]r of these is Charity. S. Thomas answeres in these words: Charity hath two Obiects, one principall, to wit, the [...] 2. 2. q. 39. [...] [Page] Goodnesse; and another secondary, namely the good of our Neighbour; But Schisme and other sinnes which are committed against our Neighbour, are opposite to Charity in respect of this secondary good, which is lesse, then the obiect of Faith, which is God, as he is the Prime Verity, on which Faith doth relie; and therefore these sinnes are lesse then Infidelity. He takes Infidelity after a generall manner, as it comprehends Heresie, and other vices against Faith.

12. Having therefore sufficiently declared, wherein Heresy consists; Let us come to prove that which we proposed in this Chapter. Where I desire, it be still remembred: That the visible Catholique Church cannot erre damnably, as D. Potter confesseth: And, that when Luther appeared, there was no other visible true Church of Christ disagreeing from the Roman, as we have demonstrated in the next precedent Chapter.

13 Now, that Luther and his followers cannot be excused from formall Heresy, I prove by these reasons. To oppose any truth propounded by the visible true Church as revealed by God, is formall Heresie, as we have shewed out of the definition of Heresie: But Luther, Calvin, and the rest did oppose divers truths propounded by the visible Church as revealed by God; yea they did therefore oppose her, because shee propounded as divine revealed truths, things which they judged either to be fals, or human inventions: Therefore they committed formall Heresie.

14 Moreover, every Errour against any doctrine revealed by God, is damnable Heresie, whether the matter in it selfe be great or small, as I proved before: and therefore either the Protestants, or the Roman Church must be guilty of formall Heresy; because one of them must erre against the word & testimony of God: but you grant (perfor [...]e) that the Roman Church doth not erre damnably, & I adde that she cannot erre damnably, because she is the truly Catholique Church, which you confesse cannot erre damnably: Therefore Protestants must be guilty of formall Heresy.

15 Besides, we have shewed that the visible Church is Iudge of Controversies, and therefore must be infallible in all her Proposals; which being once supposed, it manifestly followeth, that to oppose what she delivereth as revealed by God, is not so much to oppose her, as God himself, and therefore cannot be excused from grievous Heresy.

16 Againe, if Luther were an Heretique, for those points wherein he disagreed from the Roman Church; All they who agree with him in those very points, must likewise be Heretiques. Now, that Luther was a formall Heretique I demonstrate in this manner. To say, that Gods visible true Church is not universall, but confined to one only place or corner of the world, is according to your owne expresse words [...]ag. 1 [...]6. properly Heresy, against that Article of the Creed, wherein we professe to beleeve the holy Catholique Church: And you brand Donatus with heresy, because he limited the universall Church to Africa. But it is manifest, and acknowledged by Luther himself, aud other chief Protestants that Luthers Reformation when it first began (and much more for divers Ages before) was not Vniversall, nor spread over the world, but was confined to that compasse of ground which did contain Luthers body. Therefore his Reformation cannot be excused from formall Heresy. If S. Augustine in those times said to the Donatists, There are innumerable testimonies Epist. 50. of holy Scripture in which it appeareth that the Church of Christ is not only in Africa, as these men with most impudent vanity doe rave, but that she is spread over the whole earth: much more may it be said; It appeareth by innumerable testimonies of holy Scripture that the Church of Christ cannot be confined to the Ci [...]ty of Wittemberg, or to the place where Luthers feet stood, but must be spread over the whole world. It is therefore most impudent vanity, and dotage to limit her to Luthers Reformation. In another place also this holy Father writes no lesse effectually against Luther then against the Donatists. For having out of those words, In thy [...]eed all Nations shall be blessed, proved that Gods Church must be universall, he saith: Why De Vnit Eccles. cap. 6. doe you superadde, by saying that Christ remaines heire in no part of the earth, except where he may have Donatus for his Coheire. Give me this (Vniversall) Church if it be among you: shew your selves to all Nations, which we already shew to be blessed in this Seed: Give us this (Church) or else laying aside all fury, receive her from us. But it is evident, that Luther could not, when he said, At the beginning I was alone, give us an universall Church: Therefore happy had he been, if he had then, and his followers would now, receive her from us. And therefore we must conclude with the same holy Father, saying in another place of the universall Church: She hath this Cont. lit. Pe [...]il. lib. 1. cap. 104. most certain mark, that she cannot be bidden: She is then knowne to all Nations. The Sect of Donatus is unknowne to many Nations; therefore that cannot be she. The Sect of Luther (at least when he began, and much more before his beginning) was unknowne to many Nations, therefore that cannot be she.

17 And that it may yet further appeare how perfectly Luther agreed with the Donatists: It is to be noted, that they never taught, that the Catholique Church ought not to extend it self further then that part of Africa, where their faction reigned, but only that in fact it was so confined, because all the rest of the Church was prophaned, by communicating with Caecili [...]us, whom they falsly affirmed to have been ordained Bishop by those who were Traditours, or gives up of the Bible to the Persecutors to be burned: yea at that very time they had some of their Sect residing in Rome, and sent thither one Victor, a Bishop, under colour to take care of the Brethren in that Citty, but indeed as Baronius Anno 3 [...]1. [...]u. 2, Sp [...]nd. observeth, that the world might account them Catholiques by communicating with the Bishop of Rome, to communicate with whom was ever taken by the Ancient Fathers as an assured signe of being a true Catholique. They had also, as S. Augustine [...], a pretendedDe V [...]. Eccle [...] ▪ 3. Church in the house and territory of a Spanish Lady called Lucilla, [Page] who went flying out of the Catholique Church, because she had been justly checked by Caecilianus. And the same Saint speaking of the conference he had with Fortunius the Donatist, saith [...] Here did he first Ep. 163. attempt to affirme that his Communion was spread over the whole Earth &c. but because the thing was evidently false, they got out of this discourse by confusion of language whereby neverthelesse they sufficiently declared, that they did not hold, that the true Church ought necessarily to be confined to one place, but only by meere necessity were forced to yield that it was so in fact, because their Sect which they held to be the only true Church was not spread over the world: In which point Fortunius, and the rest were more modest, then he who should affirme that Luther's reformation in the very beginning was spread over the whole Earth; being at that time by many degrees not so farre diffused as the Sect of the Dou [...]tists. I have no desire to prosecute the similitude of Protestants with Donatists, by remembring that the Sect of these men was begun and promoted by the passion of Lucilla; and who is ignorant what influence two women, the Mother, and Daughter, ministred to Protestancy in England? Nor will I stand to observe their very likenes of phrase with the Donatists, who called the Chaire of Rome, the Chaire of pestilence, and the Roman Church an Harlot, which is D. Potter's owne phrase, wherein he is lesse excusable then they, because he maintaineth her to be a true Church of Christ: and therefore let him duely ponder these words of S. Augustine against the D [...]atists. If I persecute him iustly who detracts Conc. super. gest. cum E [...]rit. from his Neighbour, why should I not persecute him who detracts from the Church of Christ, and saith, this is not she, but this is an Harlot? And least of all, will I consider, whether you may not be well compared to one Ticonius a Donatist, who wrote against P [...]rmenianus likewise a Donatist, who blasphemed, that the Church of Christ had perished (as you doe even in this your Book writ against some of your Protestant Brethren, or as you call them Zelo [...]s among you, who hold the very same or rather a worse Heresie) and yet remained among them, even after Parmenianus had excommunicated him, (as those your Zealous Brethren would proceed against you if it were in their power,) and yet like Ticonius you remain in their Communion, and come not into that Church which is, hath been, and shall ever be universall: For which very cause S. Augustin complaines of Ticonius, that although he wrote against the Donatists, yet he was of an hart De doct [...]. Chri [...]. lib. 3. cap. 30. so extreamly absurd, as not to forsake them altogether. And speaking of the same thing in another place he observes, that although Ti [...]onius did manifestly confute them who affirmed that the Church had perished; yet, he saw not (saith this holy Father) that which in good consequence Cont. Par [...]. l. 1. cap. 1. he should have seen, that those Christians of Africa belonged to the Church spread over the whole world, who remained vnited, not with them who were divided from the communion and vnity of the same world, but with such as did communicate with the whole world. But Parmenianus, and the rest of the Donatists saw that consequence and resolved rather to settle their mind in obstinacy against the most manifest truth which Tico [...]us maintained, then by yeelding thereto, to be overcome by those Churches in Africa, which enioyed the Communion of that vnity which Ticonius defended, from which they had divided themselves. How fitly these words agree to Catholiques in England in respect of the Protestants, I desire the Reader to consider. But thes [...] and the like resemblances of Protestants to the Donatists, I willingly let passe, and only vrge the main point: That since Luthers Reformed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Luther, and yet was (because so forsooth they will needs have it) in the Apostles time, they must of necessity affirme heretically with the Donatists, that the true and unspotted Church of Christ perished; and that she which remained on earth was (O b [...]asphemy [...]) [...] Harlot. Moreover the same heresy followes out of the doctrine of D. Potter, and other Protestants, that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall; because we have shewed that every errour against any one revealed truth, is Heresy and damnable, whether the matter bee otherwise of it selfe, great or small. And how can the Church more truely be said to perish, then when she is permitted to maintaine a damnable Heresy? Besides, we will hereafter prove, that by any act of Heresy all divine faith is lost; and to imagine a true Church of faithfull persons without any faith, is as much as to fancy a living man without life. It is therefore cleere, that Donatist-like they hold that the Church of Christ perished: yea they are worse then the Donatists, who sa [...]d, that the Church remained at least in Africa; whereas Protestants must of necessity be forced to grant, that for along space before Luther, she was no where at all. But let us goe forward to other reasons.

18 The holy Scripture, and Ancient Fathers doe assigne Separation from the Visible Church as a mark of Heresie; according to that of S. Ioh [...]: They went out 2▪ Ioan. 19. from us. And, Some who Act. 15. 2 [...] ▪ went out from us. And, Out of you shall Act. 20. 30. arise men speaking perverse things. And accordingly Vincentius Lyrinensis saith: Who ever Lib. adversus haer. c. 3 [...]. began heresies, who did not first separate himself from the Vniversality, Antiquity, and Consent of the Catholique Church? But it is manifest, that when Luther appeared, there was no visible Church distinct from the Roman, out of which she could depart, as it is likewise well knowne that Luther, and his followers departed out of her: Therefore she is no way lyable to this Mark of Heresie, but Protestants cannot possibly avoid it. To this purpose S. Prosper hath these pithy words: A Christian communicatingDimi [...]. temp. cap. 5. with the universall Church is a Catholique, and he who is divided from her, is an Heretique; and Antichrist. But Luther in his first Reformation could not communicate with the visible Catholique Church of those times, because he began his Reformation by opposing the supposed Errors of the then visible Church: we must therefore say with S. Prosper, that he was an Heretique &c. Which likelikewise [Page] is no lesse cleerely proved out of S. Cypri [...]n, saying: Not we (g) departed from them, but they from us, and since Heresies and Schismes are bred afterwards, while they make to themselves divers Conventicles, they have forsake [...] the head and origen of Truth.

19 And that we might not remain doubtfull what separation it is, which is the marke of Heresy, the ancient Fathers tell us more in particular, that it is from the Church of Rome, as it is the Sea of Peter. And therefore D. Potter need not to be so hot with us, because we say and write that the Church of Rome, in that sense as she is the Mother Church of all others, and with which all the rest agree, is truly called the Catholique Church. S. Hierome writing to Pope Damasus saith: I am in the CommunionEp. 57. ad Damas. of the Chaire of Peter; I know that the Church is built upon that Rock Whosoever shall eat the Lambe out of this house, he is prophane. If any shall not be in the Arke of Noe, he shall perish in the time of the deluge: Whosoever doth not gather with thee, doth scatter, that is, he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist. And elsewhere, Which doth heLib. 1. Apoleg. call his faith? That of the Roman Church? Or that which is contained in the Bookes of Origen? If he answer, the Roman, then we are Catholiques, who have translated nothing of the error of Origen. And yet farther: Know thou, that theIbid. lib. 3. Roman faith commended by the voice of the Apostle doth not receive these delusions, though an Angell should denounce otherwise, then it hath once been preached. S▪ Ambrose recounting how his Brother Satyrus inquiring for a Church wherein to give thankes for his delivery from shipwrack, saith: he called unto himDe obitu Satyri fratris. the Bishop, neither did he esteeme any favour to be true, except that of the true faith, and he asked of him whether he agreed with the Catholique Bishops; that is, with the Roman Church? And having understood that he was a Schismatique, that is, separated from the Roman Church, he abstained from communicating with him. Where we see the priviledge of the Roman Church confirmed both by word and deed, by doctrine and practice. And the same Saint saith of the Roman Church: From thence the RightsLib. 1 cp. 4. ad I [...]pera [...]ores. of Venerable Communion doe flow to all. S. Cyprian saith: They are boldEpist. 55. ad Cornel. to saile to the Chaire of Peter, and to the principall Church, from whence Priestly Vnity hath sprung. Neither doe they consider, that they are Romans, whose faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle, to whom falshood cannot have accesse. Where we see this holy Father joynes together the principall Church, and the Chaire of Peter; and affirmeth that falsehood not only hath not had, but cannot have accesse to that Sea. And elsewhere: Thou wrotest that I should sendEpist. 52. a Coppy of the same letters to Cornelius our Collegue, that laying aside all solicitude, he might now be assured that thou didst Communicate with him, that is, with the Catholique Church. What think you M. Doctor of these words? Is it so strange a thing to take for one and the same thing, to communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome, and to communicate with the Catholique Church! S. Ireneus saith: Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches,Lib. 3. cont. [...]. [...]. 3. we declaring the Tradition (and faith preached to men, and comming to us by Tradition) of the most great, most ancient, and most known Church, founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul; which Tradition it hath from the Apostles, comming to us by succession of Bishops; we confound all those who any way either by evill complacence of thēselves, or vain glory, or by blindnes, or ill Opinion doe gather otherwise th [...] they ought. For to this Church for a more powerfull Principality, it is necessary that all Churches resort, that is, all faithfull people of what place soever: in which (Roman. Ch.) the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes been conserved from those who are every where. S. Augustine saith: It grieves usIa Psal. cont. patrem Donati. to see you so to lie cut off. Number the Priests even from the Sea of Peter; and consider in that order of Fathers who succeeded to whom. She is the Rock which the proud Gates of Hell doe not overcome. And in another place, speaking of Caecilianus, he saith: He might contemne the conspiringEp. 162. multitude of his Enemies, because he knew himselfe to be vnited, by Communicatory letters both to the Roman Church in which the Principality of the Sea Apostolique did alwayes florish; and to other Countries from whence the Gospell came first into Africa. Ancient Tertullian saith: If thou be neere Italy, thou hast Rome, whosePraeser. cap. 36. Authority is neere at hand to us: a happy Church, into which the Apostles haue powred all Doctrine, together with their blood. S. Basill in a letter to the Bishop of Rome [...]aith, In very deed that which was given Epist. ad Pont. Rom by our Lord to thy Piety, is worthy of that most excellent voice which proclaimed thee Blessed, to wit, that thou maist discern betwixt that which is counterfeit, and that which is lawfull and pure, and without any diminution mayest preach the Faith of our Ancestors. Maximinianus Bishop of Constantin [...]ple about twelue hundred yeares agoe, said: All the bounds of the earth who haue sincerely acknowledged our Lord, and Catholiques through the whole world professing the true Faith, look upon the power of the Bishop of Rome, as upon the sunne &c. For the Creator of the world, amongst all men of the world elected him, (he speaks of S. Peter) to whom he granted the Chaire of Doctour to be principally possessed by a perpetuall right of Priviledge; that whosoever is desirous to know any Divine and profound thing, may hau [...] recourse to the Oracle, and Doctrine of this instruction. Iohn Patriarck of Constantinople, more then eleven hundred yeares agoe in an Epistle to Pope Hormisda, writeth thus: BecauseEpist. ad H [...]rmis. P. P. the beginning of salvation is to conserue the rule of right Faith, and in no wise to swarue from the tradition of our fore-Fathers; because the words of. our Lord cannot faile, saying: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church; the proofes of deeds haue made good those words, because in the Sea Apostolicall the Catholique Religion is alwaies conserved inviolable. And again: We promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred Mysteries the names of them who are excluded from the Communion of the Catholique Church, that is to say, who consent not fully with the Sea Apostolique. Many other Authorities of the ancient Fathers might [Page]be produced to this purpose; but these may serue to shew, that both the Latin, and Greek Fathers held for a Note of being a Catholique, or an Heretique, to haue been united, or divided from the Sea of Rome. And I haue purposely alleaged only such Authorities of Fathers, as speak of the privileges of the Sea of Rome, as of things permanent, and depending on our Saviours promise to S, Peter, from which a generall rule, and ground ought to be taken for all Ages, because Heaven and Earth shallMat. 24. 35. passe, but the word of our Lord shall remain for ever. So that I here conclude, that seeing it is manifest that Luther and his followers divided themselues from the Sea of Rome, they beare the inseparable Mark of Heresie.

20 And though my meaning be not to treat the point of Ordination, or Succession in the Protestants Church, because the Fathers alleaged in the last reason, assigne Succession as one mark of the true Church; I must not omit to say, that according to the grounds of Protestants themselves, they can neither pretend personall Succession of Bishops, nor Succession of doctrine. For whereas Succession of Bishops signifies a never-interrupted line of Persons, endued with an indelible Quality, which Divines call a Character, which cannot be taken away by deposition, degradation, or other meanes whatsoever; and endued also with Iurisdiction and Authority to teach, to preach, to govern the Church by lawes, precepts, censures, &c. Protestants cannot pretend Succession in either of these. For (besides that there was never Protestant Bishop before Luther, and that there can be no continuance of Succession, where there was no beginning to succeed,) they commonly acknowledge no Character, and consequently must affirme that when their pretended Bishops or Priests are deprived of Iurisdiction, or degraded, they remain meer lay Persons as before their Ordination; fulfilling what Tertullian objects as a mark of Heresie: To [...]ay a Priest, to morrow Praes [...]r. cap. 41. a Lay-man. For if here be no immoveable Character, their power of Order must consist only in Iurisdiction, and authoritie, or in a kinde of morall deputation to some function, which therefore may be taken away by the same power, by which it was given. Neither can they pretend Succession in Authority, or Iurisdiction. For all the Authority, or Iurisdiction which they had, was conferred by the Church of Rome, that is, by the Pope: Because the whole Church collectively doth not meet to ordain Bishops or Priests, or to giue them Authority. But according to their own doctrine, they believe that the Pope neither hath, or ought to haue any Iurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Preheminence, or Authority Ecclesiassicall, or Spirituall within this Realme, which they sweare even when they are ordained Bishops, Priests, and Deacons: How then can the Pope giue Iurisdiction where they sweare he neither hath, nor OVGHT to haue any? Or if yet he had, how could they without Schisme withdraw themselves from his obedience? Besides, the Roman Church never gaue them Authority to oppose Her, by whom it was given. But grant, their first Bishops had such Authority from the Church of Rome: after the decease of those men, who gaue Authority to their pretended Successours? The Primate of England? But from whom had he such Authority? And after his decease, who shall confer Authority upon his Successours? The temporall Magistrate? King Henry, neither a Catholique, nor a Protestant? King Edward, a Child? Queen Elizabeth, a Woman? An Infant of one houres Age, is true King in case of his Predecessours decease: But shall your Church lye fallow till that Infant-King, and green Head of the Church come to yeares of discretion? Doe your Bishops, your Hierarchy, your Succession, your Sacraments, your being or not being Heretiques for want of Succession, depend on this new-found Supremacy-doctrine brought in by such a man meerly upon base occasions, and for shameful ends; impugned by Calvin, and his followers; derided by the Christian world; and even by chiefe Protestants as D. Andrewes, Wotton, &c. not held for any necessary point of faith? And from whō I pray you, had Bishops their Authority, when there were no Christian Kings? Must the Greeke Patriarchs receiue spirituall Iurisdiction from the Greek Turk? Did the Pope, by the Baptisme of Princes, loose the spirituall Power he formerly had of conferring spirituall Iurisdiction upon Bishops? Hath the temporall Magistrate authority to preach, to assoile from sinnes, to inflict excommunications, and other Censures? Why hath he not Power to excommunicate, as well as to dispense in Irregularity, as our late Soveraign Lord King Iames, either dispensed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury, or else gaue commission to some Bishops to doe it? and since they were subject to their Primate, and not he to them, it is cleer, that they had no Power to dispense with him, but that power must proceed from the Prince, as Superiour to them all, and head of the Protestants Church in England. If he haue no such authority, how can he giue to others what himselfe hath not? Your Ordination, or Consecration of Bishops and Priests imprinting no Character, can only consist in giving a Power, Authority, Iurisdiction, or (as I said before) some kind of Deputation to exercise Episcopall, or Priestly functions: If then, the temporall Magistrate conferres this Power &c. he can, nay he cannot chuse but Ordain, and consecrate Bishops, & Priests, as often as he confers Authority or Iurisdiction: and your Bishops as soone as they are designed & confirmed by the King, must ip so facto be Ordained and Consecrated by him without intervention of Bishops, or Matter and Form of Ordination: Which absurdities you will bee more unwilling to grant, then well able to avoid, if you will be true to your own doctrines. The Pope from whom originally you must beg your Succession of Bishops, never received, nor will, nor can acknowledge to receiue any Spiri [...]uall Iurisdiction from any Temporall Prince, and therefore if Iurisdiction must be derived from Princes, he hath none at all: and yet either you must acknowledge, that hee hath true spirituall Iurisdiction, or that yourselves can receiue none from him.

21 Moreover, this new Reformation, or Reformed Church of Protestants, will by them be [Page] pretended to be Catholique, or Vniversall, and not confined to England alone, as the Sect of the Donatists was to Africa: and therefore it must comprehend all the Reformed Churches in Germany, Holland, Scotland. France &c. In which number, they of Germany, Holland, and France are not governed by Bishops, nor regard any personall succession, unlesse of such fat-benefi [...]ed Bishops as Nicolaus Amsfordius, who was consecrated by Luther, (though Luther himselfe was never Bishop) as witnessethIn Millenario sexto Pag. 187. Dresserus. And though Scotland hath of late admitted some Bishops, I much doubt whether they hold them to be necessary, or of divine Institution; and so their enforced admitting of them, doth not so much furnish that kingdome with personall Succession of Bishops, as it doth convince them to want Succession of Doctrine; since in this their neglect of Bishops they disagree both from the milder Protestants of England, and the true Catholique Church: And by this want of a continued personall Succession of Bishops, they retaine the note of Schisme, and Heresy. So that the Church of Protestants, must either not be Vniversall, as being confined to England; Or if you will needs comprehend all those Churches which want succession, you must confesse, that your Church doth not only communicate with Schismaticall and Hereticall Churches, but is also compounded of such Churches; and your selves cannot avoid the note of Schismatiques, or Heretiques, if it were but for participating with such hereticall Churches. For it is impossible to retain Communion with the true Catholique Church, and yet agree with them who are divided from her by Schisme, or Heresy; because that were to affirme, that for the selfe same time, they could be within, and without the Catholique Church, as proportionably I discoursed in the next precedent Chapter, concerning the communicating of moderate Protestants with those who maintaine that Heresy of the Latency and Invisibility of Gods Church, where I brought a place of S. Cyprian to this purpose, which the Reader may be pleased to review in the fift Chapter, and 17. Number.

22 But besides this defect in the personall Succession of Protestant Bishops, there is another of great moment; which is, that they want the right Forme of ordaining Bishops, and Priests, because the manner which they use is so much different from that of the Roman Church (at least according to the common opinion of Divines) that it cannot be sufficient for the Essence of Ordination; as I could demonstrate if this were the proper place of such a Treatise, and will not faile to doe if D. Potter give me occasion. In the mean time the Reader may be pleased to read the Author See Adamum Tā [...]erum tom. 4. disp. 7. quaest. 2. du [...]. 3. & 4. cited here in the margent, and then compare the forme of our Ordination with that of Protestants; and to remember, that if the forme which they use either in Consecrating Bishops, or in ordaining Priests be at least doubtfull, they can neither have undoubted Priests, nor Bishops. For Priests cannot be ordained but by true Bishops, nor can any be a true Bishop, unlesse he first be Priest. I say, their Ordination is at least doubtfull; because that sufficeth for my present purpose. For Bishops and Priests, whose Ordination is notoriously known to be but doubtfull, are not to be esteemed Bishops, or Priests: and no man without Sacriledge can receive Sacraments from them; all which they administer unlawfully: And (if we except Baptisme, with manifest danger of invalidity, and with obligation to be at least conditionally repeated) so Protestants must remain doubtfull of Remission of sinnes, of their Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy, and may not pretend to be a true Church, which cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests, not without due administration of Sacraments, which (according to Protestants) is an essentiall note of the true Church. And it is a world to observe the proceeding of English Protestants in this point of their Ordinations. For first, Ann. 3. Edw. 6. cap. 2. when he was a Child about twelve yeares of age, It was enacted, that such Dyer. fol. 234. term. Mich. 6. & [...]. Eliz. forme of making, and consecrating of Bishops and Priests, as by sixe Prelates, and sixe other to be appointed by the King, should be devised (marke this word devised) and set forth under the great Seale; should be used, and none other. But after this Act was repealed 1. Mar. Sess. 2. in so much as that when afterward An. 6. & 7 Reg. Eliz. Bishop Bonner being endicted upon a certificate made by D. Horne a Protestant Bishop of Winchester, for his refusall of the Oath of Supremacy; and he excepting against the endictment because D, Horne was no Bishop; all the Iudges resolved that his exception was good, if indeed D. Horne was not Bishop, and they were all at a stand, till An. 8. Eliz cap. 1. the act of Edw. 6. was renewed and confirmed, with a particular proviso, that no man should be impeached or molested by meanes of any certificate by any Bishop or Archbishop made before this last Act. Whereby it is cleere, that they made some doubt of their own ordination, and that there is nothing but uncertainty in the whole businesse of their Ordination, which (forsooth) must depend upon sixe Prelats, the great Seale, Acts of Parliaments being contrary one to another, and the like.

23 But though they want Personall Succession, yet at least they have Succession of doctrine as they say, and pretend to prove, because they believe as the Apostles believed. This is to begg the Question, and to take what they may be sure, will never be granted. For if they want Personall Succession, and sleight Ecclesiasticall Tradition, how will they perswade any man, that they agree with the doctrine of the Apostles? We have heard Tertullian saying: I will prescribe Sup. c. 5. against all Heretiques) that there is no meanes to prove what the Apostles preached, but by the same Churches which they founded. And S. Irenaeus tels us that, We may L. 3. c. 5. behold the Tradition of the Apostles in every Church, if men be desirous to hear the truth, and we can number them who were made Bishops by the Apostles in Churches, and their Successors even to us. And the same Father in another place saith: We ought to obey L. 4. c. 43. those Priests who are in the Church, who have Succession from the Apostles, and who together with Succession in their Bishopricks have received the[Page]certain gift of truth. S. Austine saith: I am kept in the Church Contr. epist. Fundam. c. 4. by the succession of Priests from the very Sea of Peter the Apostle, to whom our Saviour after his Resurrection committed his sheep to be fed, even to the present Bishop. Origen to this purpose giveth us a good and wholsome Rule (happy, if himselfe had followed the same) in these excellent words: Since there be many who think Praef. ad lib▪ Periarchon. they believe the things which are of C [...]rist, and some are of different opinion from those who went before them; let the preaching of the Church be kept, which is delivered by the Apostles by order of Succession, and remaines in the Church to this very day; that only is to be believed for truth, which in nothing disagrees from the Tradition of the Church. In vain then doe these men brag of the doctrine of the Apostles, unles first they can demonstrate that they enjoyed a continued succession of Bishops from the Apostles, and can shew us a Church which, according to S. Austine, is deduced by undoubted SVCCESSION from the Sea Cont. Faust▪ cap. 2. of the Apostles, even to the present Bishops.

23 But yet neverthelesse, suppose it were granted, that they agreed with the doctrine of the Apostles; this were not sufficient to prove a Succession in Doctrine. For Succession, besides agreement or similitude, doth also require a never-interrupted conveying of such doctrine, from the time of the Apostles, till the daies of those persons, who challenge such a Succession. And so S. Augustine saith: We are to believe that▪ Gospell which from the time of the Apostles, the Lib. 28. cont. Eaust, cap. 2. Church hath brought downe to our daies by a never-interrupted course of times, and by undoubted succession of connection. Now, that the Reformation begunne by Luther, was interrupted for divers ages before him, is manifest out of History, and by his endeavouring a Reformation, which must presuppose abuses. He cannot therefore pretend a continued Succession of that Doctrine which he fought to revive, and reduce to the knowledge, and practice of men. And they ought not to prove that they have Succession of doctrine, because they agree with the doctrine of the Apostles; but contrarily we must inferre, that they agree not with the Apostles, because they cannot pretend a never-interrupted succession of doctrine from the times of the Apostles, till Luther. And here it is not amisse to note, that although the Waldenses, Wicliffe &c. had agreed with Protestants in all points of doctrine; yet they could not bragge of Succession from them, because their doctrine hath not been free from interruption, which necessarily crosseth Succession.

24 And as want of Succession of Persons and Doctrine, cannot stand with that Vniversality of Time, which is inseparable from the Catholique Church; so likewise the disagreeing Sect [...] which are dispersed throughout divers Countries, and Nations, cannot help towards that Vniversality of Place, wherewith the true Church must be endued: but rather such locall multiplication, doth more & more lay open their division, & want of Succession in Doctrine. For the excellent Observation of S. Augustine doth punctually agree with all modern Heretiques; wherein this holy Father having cited these words out of the Prophet Ezechiell,Cap. 24. My flocks▪ are dispersed upon the whole face of the Earth; he addes this remarkable sentence: Not all HeretiquesLib. de P [...] storib. c. 8. are spread over the face of the Earth, and yet there are Heretiques spread over the whole face of the Earth, some here, some there, yet they are wanting in no place, they know not one another. One Sect for example in Africa, another Heresy in the East, another in Egypt, another in Mesopotamia. In divers places they are divers: one Mother, pride hath begot them all, as our own Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all faithfull people dispersed throughout the whole world. No wonder then, if Pride breed Dissention, and Charity Vnion. And in another place, applying to Heretiques those words of the Canticles: If thou know notCant. [...]. thy selfe, goe forth, and follow after the steps of the flocks, and feed thy kids, he saith: If thou know not thy selfe, goeEp. 48. thou forth, I doe not cast thee out; but goe thou out, that it may be said of thee: They went from us, but they were not of us. Goe thou out in the steps of the flocks; not in my steps, but in the steps of the flocks, nor of one flock, but of divers and wandring flocks; And feed thy Kids, not as Peter, to whom is said, Feed my sheepe: but seed thy Kids in the Tabernacles of the Pastors, not in the Tabernacle of the Pastor, where there is one flock, and one Pastor. In which words this holy Father doth set down the Markes of Heresy, to wit, going out from the Church, and Want of Vnity among themselves, which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme Visible Pastor and Head under Christ. And so it being Proved that Protestants having neither succession of Persons, nor Doctrine, nor Vniversality of Time, or Place, cannot avoid the just note of Heresy.

25 Hitherto we have brought arguments to prove, that Luther, and all Protestants are guilty of Heresy against the Negative Precept of faith, which obligeth us under pain of damnation, not to imbrace any one errour, contrary to any Truth sufficiently propounded, as testified or revealed by Almighty God. Which were enough to make good, that among Persons who disagree many one point of Faith, one part only can be saved: Yet we will now prove that Whosoever erreth in any one point, doth also break the Affirmative Precept of Faith, whereby we are obliged positively, to believe some revealed truth with an infallible, and supernaturall Faith, which is necessary to salvation, even necessitate finis, or me [...]ii, as Divines speak; that is, so necessary that not any, after he is come to the use of Reason, was or can be saved without it, according to the words of the Apostle: Without Faith Heb. 11. 6. it is impossible to please God.

[Page] 26 In the beginning of this Chapter I shewed, that to Christian Catholique faith are required Certainty, Obscurtty, Prudence; and Supernaturality; All which Conditions we will proue to bee wanting in the beliefe of Protestants, even in those points which are true in themselu [...]s, and to which they yeeld assent, as hapeneth in all those particulars, wherein they agree with us; from whence it will follow, that they wanting true Divine Faith, want meanes absolutely necessary to salvation.

27 And first,The faith of Protestants wanteth Certainty. that their beliefe wanteth Certainty, I proue, because denying the Vniversall infallibility of the Church, can haue no certain groūnd to know what Objects are [...]evealed, or testified by God. Holy Scripture is in it selfe most true and infallible; but without the direction & declaration of the Church, we can neither haue certain means to know what Scripture is Canonicall; nor what Translations be faithfull, nor what is the true meaning of Scripture: Every Protestant, as I suppose, is perswaded that his own opinions, be true, and that he hath used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture, as Prayer, Conferring of divers Texts, &c. and yet their disagreements shew tha [...] some of them are deceaved: And therefore it is cleer that they haue no one certain ground whereon to rely for understanding of Scripture. And seeing they hold all the Articles of Faith, even concerning fundamentall points, upon the selfe same ground of Scripture, interpreted, not by the Churches Authority, but according to some other Rules, which as experience of their contradictions teach, doe sometimes faile; it is cleer that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all. And albeit sometime it chance to hit on the truth, yet it is likewise apt to lead them to errour: As all Arch-heretiques believing some truths, & withall divers errours upon the same ground and motive, have indeed no true divine infallible faith, b [...]t only a fallible humane opinion, and perswasion. For if the ground upon which they rely were certain, it could never produce any errour.

28 Another cause of uncertainty in the faith of Protestants, must rise from their distinction of points fundamentall, and not fundamentall. For since they acknowledge, that every errour in fundamentall points destroyeth the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points bee fundamentall; it followeth that they must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamentall error, and so want the substance of faith, without which there can be no hope of Salvation.

29 And that he who erreth against any one revealed truth (as certainly some Protestants must doe, because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true) doth loose all Divine faith; is a very true doctrine delivered by Catholique Divines, with so generall a consent, that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious. The Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas proposeth this Question: Whether2. 2. 4. 5. ar. 3. in corp. he who denieth one Article of faith, may retain faith in other Articles? and resolveth that he cannot which he proveth, (Argument [...] sed contra) because, As deadly sin is opposits to Charity; so to deny one Article of faith is opposite to faith. But Charity doth not remain with any one deadly sin; therefore faith doth not remain after the deniall of any one Article of faith. Whereof he gives this farther reason: Because (saith he) the nature of every habit doth depend upon the formall Motiue and Obiect thereof, which Motiue being taken away, the nature of the habit cannot remain. But the formall Obiect of faith is the supreme truth as it is manifested in Scriptures, and in the doctrine of the Church, which proceeds from the same supreme verity. Whosoever therefore doth not rely upon the doctrine of the Church (which proceeds from the supreme verity, manifested in Scripture) as upon an infallible Rule, hee hath not the habit of faith, but belieues those things which belong to faith by some other me anes then by faith: as if one should remember some Conclusion, and not know the reason of that demonstration, it is cleer that hee hath not certain knowledge, but only Opinion. Now it is manifest, that hee who relies on the doctrine of the Church, as upon an infallible Rule, will yeeld his assent to all, that the Church teacheth. For if among those things, which she teacheth, he hold what he will, and doth not hold what he will not, hee doth not rely upon the doctrine of the Church, as upon an infallible Rule, but only upon his own will. And so it is cleer that an Heretique, who with pertinacity denieth one Article of faith, is not ready to follow the doctrine of the Church in all things: And therefore it is manifest, that whosoever is an Heretique in any one Article of faith, concerning other Articles, hath not saith, but a kind of Opinion, or his own will. Thus far. S. Thomas. And afterward: A man doth belieueAd 2. all the Articles of faith for one and the selfe same reason, to wit, for the Prime Verity proposed to us in the Scripture, understood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church: and therefore whosoever fals from this reason or motiue, is totally deprived of faith. From this true doctrine wee are to infer, that to retain, or want the substance of faith, doth not consist in the matter, or multitude of the Articles, but in the opposition against Gods divine testimony, which is involved in every least error against faith. And since some Protestants must needs erre, and that they haue no certain rule to knowe, why rather one then another; it manifestly follows that none of them haue any Certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point. Moreover D. Potter, being forced to confesse that the Roman Church wants not the substance of faith, it follows that she doth not erre in any one point against faith, because as we haue seen out of S. Thomas, every such errour destroies the substance of faith. Now if the Roman Church did not erre in any one point of faith, it is manifest that Protestants erre in all those points wherein they are contrary to her. And this may suffice to[Page]prove that the faith of Protestants wants Infallibility.

30 And now for the second Condition of faith, I say: If Protestants haue Certainty, they want Obscurity, They want the second Condition of Faith: Obscurity. and so haue not that faith which, as the Apostle saith, is of things not appearing, or not necessi [...]ating our Vnderstanding to an assent. For the whole edifice of the faith of Protestants, is setled on these two Principles: These particular Books are Canonicall Scripture: And the sense and meaning of these Canonicall Scriptures, is cleer and evident, at least in all points necessary to Salvation. Now, these Principles being once supposed, it cleerly followeth, that what Protestants belieue as necessary to salvation, is evidently known by them to be true, by this argument: It is certain and evident, that whatsoever is contained in the word of God, is true. But it is certain and evident, that these Books in particular are the word of God: Therefore it is certaine and evident, that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true. Which Conclusion I take for a Maior in a second Argument, and say thus: It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true: but it is certain and evident, that such particular Articles (for example, the Trinity, Incarnation, Originall sin, &c.) are contained in these Books: Therefore it is certain and evident, that these particular Objects are true. Neither will it avail you to say, that the said Principles are not evident by naturall discourse, but onely to the eye of reason cleered by grace, as you speak. For supernaturall evidence, no lesse (yea rather more) drawes and excludes obscurity, then naturall evidence doth: neither can the party so enlightned be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light, but rather his understanding is by a necessity made captive, and forced not to disbelieve, what is presented by so cleare a light: And therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the Apostle, but an invention of your own.

31 That the faith of Protestants wanteth the third Condition which was Prudence, Their faith wants Prudence. is deduced from all that hitherto hath been said. What wisdome was it, to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient, and besides which, there could be demonstrated no other visible Church of Christ upon earth? A Church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation; endued with Succession of Bishops, with Visibility and Vniversality of Time and Place; A Church which if it bee not the true Church, her enemies cannot pretend to have any Church, Ordination, Scriptures, Succession, &c. and are forced for their own sake, to maintain her perpetuall Existence, and Being! To leave, I say, such a Church, and frame a Community, without either Vnity, or means to procure it; a Church which at Luthers first revolt had no larger extent then where his body was; A Church without Vniversality of place or Time; A Church which can pretend no Visibility, or Being, except only in that former Church which it opposeth▪ A Church void of Succession of Persons o [...] Doctrine? What wisedome was it to follow such men as Luther, in an opposition against the visible Church of Christ, begun upon meer passion? What wisdome is it to receive from Vs, a Church, Ordination, Scriptures, Personall Succession, and not Succession of Doctrine? Is not this to verifie the name of Heresie, which signifieth Election or Choice? Whereby they cannot avoid that note of Imprudency, (or as S. Augustine calls it) Foolishnesse, set down by him against the Manichees; and by me recited before. I would not (saith he) belieue Cont. ep. Fund. c. 5. the Gospell, unlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me. Those therefore whom I obeyed, saying, Belieue the Gospel, why should I not obey the same mē saying to me, Doe not belieue Manichaeus (Luther, Calvin, &c.) Choose what thou pleasest: If thou say, Belieue the Catholiques; they warne me not to belieue thee. Wherefore if I belieue them, I cannot belieue thee. If thou say, Doe not belieue the Catholiques; thou shalt not doe well, in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus, because by the Preaching of Catholiques, I believed the Gospell it selfe. If thou say; you did well to belieue them (Catholiques) commending the Gospell, but you did not well to belieue them, discommending Manichaeus; dost thou think me so very FOOLISH, that without any reason at all, I should belieue what thou wilt, and not belieue, what thou wilt not? Nay this holy Father is not content to call it Foolishnesse, but meer Ma [...]nesse, in these words: Why should I not most diligently enquire Lib. de util. Cred. c. 14. what Christ commanded of those before all others, by whose Authority I was moved to belieue, that Christ commanded any good thing? Canst thou better declare to me, what he said, whom I would not haue thought to haue been, or to be, if the Beliefe thereof had been recommended by thee to me? Th [...] therefore I believed by fame, strengthned with Celebrity, Consent, Antiquitie. But every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new: can produce nothing which deserues Authority. What MADNESSE is this? Belieue them (Catholiques) that we ought to belieue Christ; but learne of us what Christ said. Why I beseech thee? Surely if they (Catholiques) were not at all, and could not teach mee any thing, I would more easily perswade my selfe, that I were not to belieue Christ, then I should learne any thing concerning him from other then those, by whom I believed him. Lastly, I aske what wisedome it could bee to leaue all visible Churches; and consequently the true Catholique Church of Christ, which you confesse cannot erre in points necessary to salvation, and the Roman Church which you grant doth not erre in fundamentalls, and follow private men who may erre even in points necessary to salvation? Especially if we adde, that when Luther rose, there was no visible true Catholique Church besides that of Rome, and them who agreed with her; in which sense, she was, and is, the only true Church of Christ; and not capable of any Error in faith. Nay, even Luther, who first opposed the Roman Church, yet comming to dispute against other Heretiques, he is forced to give the Lye both to his [Page] own words and deeds, in saying: We freely confesse I [...] epist. co [...]t. Anah. ad duos Parocho [...]. to. 2. Germ. Witt. sol. 229. & 230. that in the Papacy there are many good things, worthy the name of Christian, which have come from them to us. Namely, we confesse that in the Papacy there is true Scripture, true Baptisme; the true Sacrament of the Altar, the true keys for remission of sinnes, the true office of Preaching, true Catechisme, as our Lords Prayer, Ten Commandements, Articles of faith &c. And afterward: I avouch, that under the Papacy there is true Christianity, yea the Kernell and Marrow of Christianity, and many pious and great Saints. And again he affirmeth, that the Church of Rome hath the true Spirit, Gospells, Faith, Baptisme, Sacraments, the Keyes, the Office of Preaching, Prayer, Holy Scripture, and whatsoever Christianity ought to have. And a little before: I heare and see that they bring in Anabaptisme only to this end, that they may spight the Pope, as men that will receive nothing from Antichrist; no otherwise then the Sacramentaries doe, who therefore believe only Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament, meerely in hatred against the Bishop of Rome; and they think that by this meanes they shall overcome the Papacy. Verily these men rely upon a weak ground, for by this meanes they must deny the whole Scripture, and the Office of Preaching. For we have all these things from the Pope; otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture. O Truth, more forcible (as S. Austine saies) to wring out Contra Donar. post collat. cap. 24. Confession, then is any racke, or torment! And so we may truly say with Moyses: Inimici nostri sunt Iudices: Our very Enemies give Deut. c. 32. 31. Their faith wants Supernaturality. sentence for us.

32 Lastly, since your faith wanteth Certainty, and Prudence, it is easy to inferre that it wants the fourth Condition, Supernaturality. For being but an Humane perswasion, or Opinion, it is not in nature, or Essence Supernaturall. And being imprudent, and rash, it cannot proceed from divine Motion and grace; and therefore it is neither supernaturall in it selfe, nor in the cause from which it proceedeth.

33 Since therefore we have proved, that whosoever erres against any one point of faith, looseth all divine faith, even concerning those other Articles wherein he doth not erre; and that although he could still retaine true faith for some points, yet any one errour in whatsoever other matter concerning faith, is a grievous sinne; it cleerely followes, that when two or more hold different doctrines concerning faith and Religion, there can be but one Part saved. For declaring of which truth, if Catholiques be charged with Want of Charity, and Modesty, and be accused of rashnesse, ambition, and fury, as D. Potter is very free in this kind; I desire every one to ponder the words of S. Chrysostome, who teacheth, that every least errour overthrowes all faith, and whosoever is guilty thereof, is in the Church, like one, who in the Common wealth forgeth false come. Let them heare (saith this holy Father)▪ what S. Paul saith: Namely, that they who brought in some small errour Galat. 1. 7. had overthrown the Gospell. For, to shew how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole, he said, that the Gospell was subverted. For as he who clips a little of the stamp from the Kings mony, makes the whole piece of no value: so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound faith, is wholly corrupted, alwaies going from that beginning to worse things. Where then are they, who condemne us as contentious persons, because we cannot agree with Heretiques, and doe often say, that there is no difference betwixt us and them, but that our disagreement proceeds from Ambition to dominere? And thus having shewed that Protestants want true Faith, it remaineth that, according to my first designe, I examine whether they doe not also want Charity, as it respects a mans selfe.

THE ANSVVER TO THE SIXTH CHAPTER.
That Protestants are not Heretiques.

HE that will accuse any one man,Ad §. 1 much more any great multitude of men of any great and horrible crime, should in all reason and justice take care that the greatnesse of his evidence doe equall, if not exceed the quality of the crime. And such an accusation you would here make shew of, by pretending, first, to lay such grounds of it, as are either already proved, or else yeelded on all sides: and after to raise a firme and stable structure of convincing arguments upon them. But both these I find to be meere and vaine pretences, and [Page] having considered this Chapter also without prejudice or passion, as I did the former, I am enforc'd by the light of Truth, to pronounce your whole discourse, a painted and ruinous Building upon a weak & sandy Foundation.

2 Ad §. 2. 3. First for your grounds, a great part of thē, is falsely said to be either proved or granted. It is true indeed that Man by his naturall wit or industry could never have attained to the knowledge of Gods will to give him a supernaturall and eternall happinesse, nor of the meanes by which his pleasure was to bestow this happinesse upon him. And therefore your first ground is good, That it was requisite his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that end and meanes by a knowledge supernaturall. I say this is good, if you mean by knowledge, an apprehension or beliefe. But if you take the word properly and exactly, it is both false, for faith is not knowledge, no more then three is foure, but eminently contained in it, so that he that knowes, believes, and something more, but he that believes many times doe not know, nay if he doth barely and meerely believe, he doth never know: and besides it is retracted by your selfe presently, where you require, That the object of faith must be both naturally and supernaturally unknown. And againe in the next page, where you say, Faith differs from science in regard of the objects obscurity. For that science and knowledge properly taken are Synonimous termes, and that a knowledge of a thing absolutely unknown is a plain implicancy, I think are things so plain, that you will not require any proofe of them.

3 But then whereas you adde, that if such a knowledge were no more then probable, it could not be able sufficiently to over beare our will, and encounter with humane probabilities, being backed with the strength of flesh and bloud, and therefore conclude, that it was farther necessary, that this supernaturall knowledge should be most certain and infallible: To this I answere, that I doe heartily acknowledge and believe the Articles of our faith be in themselves Truths, as certain and infallible as the very common Principles of Geometry and Metaphysicks. But that there is required of us a knowledge of them, and an adherence to them, as certain as that of sense or science, that such a certainty is required of us under pain of damnation, so that no man can hope to be in the state of Salvation, but he that findes in himselfe such a degree of faith, such a strength of adherence: This I have already demonstrated to be a great errour, and of dangerous and pernitious consequence. And because I am more and more confirm'd in my perswasion that the truth which I there delivered, is of great and singular use, I will here confirme it with more reasons. And to satisfy you that this is no singularity of my own, my Margent presents you with aM. Hooker in his answer to Travers his supplication.—I have taught that the assurance of things which we believe by the word, is not so certain as of that we perceive by sence. And is it as certaine? Yes I taught, that the things which God doth promise in his word are surer unto us then any thing we touch, handle or see. But are we so sure and certain of them? If we be, why doth God so often prove his promises unto us, as he doth by arguments taken from our sensible experience? We must be surer of the proofe then the thing proved, otherwise it is no proofe. How is it that if ten men doe all looke upon the Moone, every one of them knowes it as certainly to bee the Moone as another: but many believing one and the same promises all haue not one and the same fullnesse of perswasion? How falleth it out that men being assured of any thing by sence, can be no surer of it then they are? whereas the strongest in faith that liveth upon the earth, had alwaies need to labour, and strive, and pray, that his assurance concerning heavenly and spirituall things may grow, increase, and be augmented. Protestant [Page] Divine of great authority, and no way singular in his opinions, who hath long since preached and justified the same doctrine.

4 I say that every Text of Scripture which makes mention of any that were weake, or of any that were strong in faith: of any that were of litle, or any that were of great faith: of any that abounded, or any that were rich in faith: of encreasing, growing, rooting, grounding, establishing, confirming in faith: Every such Text, is a demonstrative refutation of this vain fancy: proving that faith, even true and saving faith, is not a thing consisting in such an indivisible point of perfection as you make it, but capable of augmentation and diminution. Every Praier you make to God to encrease your faith (or if you conceive such a prayer derogatory from the perfection of your faith,) The Apostles praying to Christ to encrease their faith, is a convincing argument of the same conclusion. Moreover if this doctrine of yours were true, then seeing not any the least doubting can consist with a most infallible certainty, it will follow that every least doubting in any matter of faith, though resisted and involuntary, is a damnable sinne, absolutely destructive, so long as it lasts, of all true and saving faith: which you are so farre from granting, that you make it no sinne at all, but only an occasion of merit: and if you should esteeme it a sinne, then must you acknowledge, contrary to your owne Principles, that there are Actuall sinnes meerely involuntary. The same is furthermore invincibly confirmed by every deliberate sinne that any Christian commits; by any progresse in Charity that he makes. For seeing, as S. Iohn assures us, our faith is the victory which overcomes the world, certainly if the faith of all true Believers were perfect, (and if true faith be capable of no imperfection, if all faith be a knowledge most certain and infallible, all faith must be perfect, for the most imperfect that is, according to your doctrine, if it be true, must be most certain, and sure the most perfect that is, cannot be more then most certain,) then certainly their victory over the World, and therefore over the flesh, and therefore over sinne, must of necessity be perfect, and so it should be impossible for any true believer to commit any deliberate sinne, and therefore he that commits any sinne, must not think himselfe a true believer. Besides seeing faith worketh by Charity, and Charity is the effect of faith: certainly if the cause were perfect, the effect would be perfect, and consequently as you make no degrees in faith, so there would be none in charity, and so no man could possibly make any progresse in it, but all true believers should be equally in Charity, as in faith you make them equall: & from thence it would follow unavoidably, that whosoever findes in himselfe any true faith, must presently perswade himselfe that he is perfect in Charity: and whosoever on the other side, discovers in his charity any imperfection, must not believe that he hath any true faith. These you see are strange and portentous consequences, and yet the deduction of them from your doctrine is cleere and apparent; which shewes this doctrine of yours, which you would fain have true, that there might be some necessity of your Churches infallibility, to be indeed plainly repugnant not [Page] only to Truth but even to all Religion and Piety, & fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progresse in faith or Charity. And therefore I must entreat and adjure you either to discover unto me (which I take God to witnesse I cannot perceive,) some fallacy in my reasons against it, or never hereafter to open your mouth in defence of it.

5 As for that one single reason which you produce to confirm it, it will appeare upon examination to be resolved finally into a groundlesse Assertion of your own, contrary to all Truth and experience, and that is, That no degree of faith, lesse then a most certaine and infallible knowledge, can bee able sufficiently to overbeare our will and encovnter with humane probabilities, being backt with the strength of Flesh and Blood. For who sees not that many millions in the world forgoe many times their present ease and pleasure, undergoe great and toylsome labours, encounter great difficulties, adventure vpon great dangers, and all this not upon any certain expectation, but upon a probable hope of some future gain and commodity, and that not infinite and eternall, but finite and temporall? Who sees not that many men abstain from many things they exceedingly desire, not upon any certain assurance, but a probable feare of danger that may come after? What man ever was there so madly in loue with a present penny, but that hee would willingly spend it upon any litle hope that by doing so hee might gain an hundred thousand pound? And I would fain know what gay probabilities you could devise to disswade him from this Resolution. And if you can devise none, what reason then, or sense is there, but that a probable hope of infinite and eternall happinesse, provided for all those that obey Christ Iesus, and much more a firme faith, though not so certain, in some sort, as sense or science, may be able to sway our will to obedience, and encounter with all those temptations which Flesh and Blood can suggest to avert us from it? Men may therefore talke their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty, but did they generally believe that obedience to Christ were the only way to present and eternall felicity, but as firmly and undoubtedly as that there is such a Citty as Constantinople, nay but as much as Caesars Commentaries, or the History of Salust, I believe the liues of most men, both Papists and Protestants would be better then they are. Thus therefore out of your own words I argue against you: He that requires to true faith, an absolute and infallible certainty, for this onely Reason because any lesse degree could not be able to overbeare our will, &c. imports, that if a lesse degree of faith were able to doe this, then a lesse degree of faith may be true and divine and saving Faith: But experience shews, and reason confirmes, that a firm faith, though not so certain as sense or science, may be able to encounter and overcome our will and affections: And therefore it followes from your own reason, that faith which is not a most certain and infallible knowledge may be true and divine and saving faith.

6 All these Reasons I haue imployed to shew that such a most certain and infallible faith as here you talk of, is not so necessary, but that [Page] without such a high degree of it, it is possible to please God. And therefore the Doctrines delivered by you § 25. are most presumptuous and uncharitable: viz: That such a most certain and infallible faith is necessary to salvation, necessitate Finis, or Medii, so necessary, that after a man is come to the use of reason, no man ever was or can bee saved without it. Wherein you boldly intrude into the judgement seat of God, & damne men for breaking Lawes, not of God's, but your own making. But withall, you cleerly contradict your selfe, not only where you affirm,P. 1. C. 2. § 14. That your faith depends finally upon the Tradition of Age to Age, of Father to Sonne, which cannot be a fit ground, but onely for a Morall Assurance;P. 2. C. 5. §. 32. nor only, where you pretend, that not alone Hearing and Seeing, but also Histories, Letters, Relations of many (which certainly are things not certain and infallible,) are yet foundations good enough to support your faith; Which Doctrine, if it were good and allowable, Protestants might then hope that their Histories and Letters and Relations might also passe for means sufficient of a sufficient Certainty, and that they should not bee excluded from Salvation for want of such a Certainty. But indeed the pressure of the present difficulty compell'd you to speak here, what I believe you wil not justify, and with a pretty tergiversation to shew D. Potter your means of morall certainty; whereas the Objection was that you had no means or possibility of infallible certainty, for which you are plainly at as great a losse and as far to seek as any of your Adversaries. And therefore it concernes you highly not to damne others for want of it, least you involue your selues in the same condemnation; according to those terrible words of S. Paul, Inexcusabilis es, &c. In this therefore you plainly contradict your selfe. And lastly most plainly, in saying as you doe here, you contradict and retract your pretence of Charity to Protestants in the beginning of your Book: For there you make profession, that you haue no assurance but that Protestants dying Protestants, may possibly dye with contrition, and be saved: And here you are very peremptory, that they cannot but want a means absolutely necessary to salvation, and wanting that cannot but be damned.

7 The third Condition you require to faith, is, that our assent to divine Truths should not only be unknown and unevident by any humane discourse, but that absolutely also it should be obscure in it selfe, and ordinarily speaking, be void even of supernaturall evidence. Which words must have a very favourable constructiō, or else they will not be sense. For who can make any thing of these words taken properly, that faith must be an unknown unevident assent, or an assent absolutely obscure? I had alwaies thought that known and unknown, obscure and evident had been affections, not of our Assent, but the Object of it, not of our beliefe, but the thing believed. For well may wee assent to a thing unknown, obscure, or unevident; but that our assent it selfe should bee called therefore unknown or obscure, seems to me as great an impropriety, as if I should say, your sight were green or blew, because you see something that is so. In other places therefore I answer your words, but here I must answer your meaning: which I conceive to be, That it [Page] is necessary to faith that the Objects of it, the points which we belieue should not be so evidently certain, as to necessitate our understandings to an Assent, that so there might be some merit in faith, as you love to speak (who will not receive no not from God himselfe, but a penny-worth for a penny,) but as we, some obedience in it, which can hardly have place where there is no possibility of disobedience, as there is not where the understanding does all, and the will nothing. Now seeing the Religion of Protestants, though it be much more credible then yours, yet is not pretended to haue the absolute evidence of sense or demonstration; therefore I might let this doctrine passe without exception, for any prejudice that can redound to us by it. But yet I must not forbeare to tell you, that your discourse proves indeed this condition requisite to the merit, but yet not to the essence of faith: without it faith were not an act of obedience, but yet faith may bee faith without it; and this you must confesse, unlesse you will say either the Apostles believed not the whole Gospel which they preached, or that they were not eye-witnesses of a great part of it: unlesse you will question S. Iohn for saying that which we haue seen with our eyes, and which our hands haue handled, &c. declare we unto you: nay our Saviour himselfe for saying. Thomas because thou seest thou be lievest, Blessed are they which haue not seen and yet haue believed. Yet if you will say that in respect of the things which they saw, the Apostles assent was not pure & proper and meer faith, but somewhat more; an assent containing faith but superadding to it, I will not contend with you, for it will bee a contention about words. But then again I must crave leave to tell you, that the requiring this condition, is in my judgement a plain revocation of the former. For had you made the matter of faith either naturally or supernaturally evident, it might have been a fitly attēpered & duely proportioned object for an absolute certainty naturall or supernaturall: But requiring as you doe, that faith should be an absolute knowledge of a thing not absolutely known, an infallible certainty of a thing which though it is in it selfe, yet is it not made appeare to us to be infallibly certain, to my understanding you speak impossibilities. And truly for one of your Religion to doe so, is but a good Decorum. For the matter and object of your Faith being so full of contradictions, a contradictictious faith may very well become a contradictious Religion. Your faith therefore, if you please to haue it so, let it be a free, necessitated, certain, uncertain, evident, obscure, prudent and foolish, naturall and supernaturall unnaturall assent. But they which are unwilling to believe non-sense themselves, or to perswade others to doe so, it is but reason they should make the faith wherewith they believe, an intelligible, compossible, consistent thing, and not define it by repugnances. Now nothing is more repugnant, then that a man should be required to give most certain credit unto that which cannot be made appeare most certainly credible: and if it appeare to him to be so, then is it not obscure that it is so. For if you speak of an acquired, rationall, discursive faith, certainly these Reasons which make the object seem credible, must be the cause of it, and consequently the strength and firmity [Page] of my assent must rise and fall together with the apparent credibility of the object. If you speak of a supernaturall infused faith, then you either suppose it infused by the former meanes, and then that which was said before must be said again: for whatsoever effect is wrought meerly by meanes, must beare proportion to, and cannot exceed the vertue of the meanes, by which it is wrought: As nothing by water can be made more cold then water, nor by fire more hot then fire, nor by honey more sweet then honey, nor by gall more bitter then gall: Or if you will suppose it infused without meanes, then that power which infuseth into the understanding assent which beares analogie to sight in the eye, must also infuse evidence, that is, Visibilitie into the Object: & look what degree of assent is infus'd into the understanding, at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the Object. And for you to require a strength of credit beyond the appearance of the objects credibility, is all one as if you should require me to goe ten miles an houre upon a horse that will goe but fiue: to discern a man certainly through a myst or cloud that makes him not certainly discernable; To heare a sound more cleerly then it is audible; to understand a thing more fully then it is intelligible: and he that doth so, I may well expect that his next injunction will be, that I must see something that is invisible, heare something inaudible, understand something that is wholly unintelligible. For he that demands ten of me, knowing I haue but five, does in effect, as if he demanded five, knowing that I have none: and by like reason, you requiring that I should see things farther then they are visible, require I should see something invisible, and in requiring that I believe something more firmly then it is made to mee evidently credible, you require in effect that I believe something which appeares to me incredible, and while it does so. I deny not but that I am bound to believe the truth of many Texts of Scripture the sense whereof is to me obscure, & the truth of many Articles of faith the manner whereof is obscure, and to humane understandings incomprehensible; But then it is to be observed, that not the sense of such Texts, not the manner of these things is that which I am bound to believe, but the truth of them. But that I should believe the truth of any thing, the truth whereof cannot bee made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of faith required of me, this I say for any man to be bound to, is unjust and unreasonable, because to doe it is impossible.

8 Ad § 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. & 12. Yet though I deny that it is required of us to be certain in the highest degree, infallibly certain of the truth of the things which we believe, for this were to know & not believe, neither is it possible unlesse our evidence of it, be it naturall or supernaturall, were of the highest degree; yet I deny not but, that wee are to believe the Religion of Christ, we are and may be infallibly certain. For first, this is most certain, that we are in all things to doe according to wisdome and reason rather then against it. Secondly, this is as certain, That wisdome and Reason require that wee should believe these things which are by many degrees more credible and probable [Page] then the contrary. Thirdly, this is as certain, that to every man who considers impartially what great things may be said for the truth of Christianity, and what poore things they are which may be said against it, either for any other Religion or for none at all, it cannot but appear by many degrees more credible, that Christian Religiō, is true then the contrary. And from all these premises, this conclusion evidently followes, that it is infallibly certain, that we are firmely to beleeve the truth of Christian Religion.

9 Your discourse therefore touching the fourth requisite to faith which is Prudence, I admit so farre as to grant. 1. That if we were required to believe with certainty (I mean a Morall certainty,) things no way represented as infallible and certain, (I mean morally,) an unreasonable obedience were required of us. And so likewise were it, were we required to believe as absolutely certain, that which is no way represented to us as absolutely certain. 2. That whom God obligeth to believe any thing, he will not fail to furnish their understandings with such inducements, as are sufficient (if they be not negligent or perverse) to perswade them to believe. 3. That there is an abundance of Arguments exceedingly credible, inducing men to believe the Truth of Christianity: I say so credible, that though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome and prudence, the Articles of it deserve credit, and ought to be accepted as things revealed by God. 4. That without such reasons and inducements, our choice even of the true faith, is not to be commended as prudent, but to be condemned of rashnesse and levity.

10 But then for your making Prudence, not only a commendation of a believer, and a justification of his faith, but also essentiall to it, and part of the definition of it, in that questionlesse you were mistaken, and have done as if being to say what a man is, you should define him, A Reasonable creature that hath skill in Astronomy. For as all Astronomers are men, but all men are not Astronomers, and therefore Astronomy ought not to be put into the definition of men, where nothing should have place, but what agrees to all men: So though all that are truly wise (that is, wise for eternity,) will believe aright, yet many may believe aright which are not wise. I could wish with all my heart as Moses did, that all the Lords people could Prophesy: That all that believe the true Religion were able (according to S. Peters injunction) to give a reason of the hope that is in them, a reason why they hope for eternall happinesse by this way rather then any other! neither doe I think it any great difficulty that men of ordinary capacities, if they would give their minde to it, might quickly be enabled to doe so. But should I affirme that all true Believers can doe so, I suppose it would be as much against experience and modesty, as it is against Truth and Charity, to say as you doe, that they which cannot doe so, either are not at all, or to no purpose true believers. And thus wee see that the foundations you build upon, are ruinous and deceitfull, and so unfit to support your Fabrick that they destroy one another. I come now to shew that your Arguments to prove Protestants Heretiques, [Page] are all of the same quality with your former grounds: which I will doe by opposing cleere and satisfying Answers in order to them.

11 Ad §. 13. To the first then, delivered by you §. 13. That Protestants must be Heretiques, because they opposed divers Truths propounded for divine by the Visible Church: I Answer, It is not Heresy to oppose any Truth propounded by the Church, but only such a Truth as is an essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ. 2. The Doctrines which Protestants opposed, were not Truths, but plain and impious falshoods: Neither thirdly, were they propounded as Truths by the Visible Church, but only by a Part of it, and that a corrupted Part.

12 Ad §. 14. The next Argument, in the next Particle tell us, That every error against any doctrine revealed by God is damnable Heresy: Now either Protestants or the Roman Church must erre against the word of God: But the Roman Church we grant (perforce) doth not erre damnably, neither can she, because she is the Catholique Church, which we (you say) confesse cannot erre damnably: Therefore Protestants must erre against Gods word, and consequently are guilty of formall Heresy. Whereunto I answer plainly, that there be in this argument almost as many falshoods as assertions. For neither is every error against any Doctrine revealed by God a damnable Heresy, unlesse it be revealed publiquely, & plainly with a command that all should beleeve it. 2. D. Potter no where grants, that the Errors of the Roman Church are not in themselves damnable, though he hopes by accident they may not actually damne some men amongst you: and this you your selfe confesse in divers places of your book, where you tell us, that he allowes no hope of Salvation to those amongst you, Ch. 5. §. 41. whom ignorance cannot excuse. 3. You beg the Question twice in taking for granted, First that the Roman Church is the truly Catholique Church; which without much favour can hardly passe for a part of it: And againe, that the Catholique Church cannot fall into any error of it selfe damnable: for it may doe so, and still be the Catholique Church, if it retain those Truths which may be an antidote against the malignity of this error, to those that held it out of a simple un-affected ignorance. Lastly, though the thing be true, yet I might well require some proofe of it from you, that either Protestants or the Roman Church must erre against Gods word. For if their contradiction be your only reason, then also you or the Dominicans must be Heretiques, because you contradict one another as much as Protestants and Papists.

13 Ad §. 15. The third Argument pretends that you have shewed already, that the Visible Church is Iudge of Controversies, and therefore infalliable; from whence you suppose that it followes, that to oppose her, is to oppose God. To which I answer, that you have said onely, and not shewed that the Visible Church is Iudge of Controversies. And indeed how can she be Iudge of them if she cannot decide them? And how can she decide them, if it be a question whether she be Iudge of them? That which is question'd it selfe, cannot with any sense be pretended to be fit to decide other questions; and much lesse this question, whether it have Authority to judge and decide all questions? 2. If she [Page] were Iudge, it would not follow that she were infallible, for we have many Iudges in our Courts of Iudicature, yet none infallible. Nay you cannot with any modesty deny, that every man in the world ought to judge for himselfe, what Religion is truest, and yet you will not say that every man is infallible. 3. If the Church were supposed Infallible, yet it would not follow at all, much lesse manifestly, that to oppose her declaration is to oppose God: unlesse you suppose also that as she is infallible, so by her opposers, she is known or believed to be so. Lastly, If all this were true (as it is all most false) yet were it to little purpose, seeing you have omitted to prove that the Visible Church is the Roman.

14 Ad §. 16. In stead of a fourth Argument this is presented to us, That if Luther were an Heretique, then they that agreed with him must be so. And that Luther was a formall Heretique, you endeavour to prove by this most formall Syllogisme; To say the Visible Church is not Vniversall, is properly an Heresy: But Luthers Reformation was not Vniversall; Therefore it cannot be excused from formall Heresy. Whereunto I Answer, first to the first part, that it is no way impossible that Luther, had he been the inventor and first broacher of a false Doctrine, (as he was not) might have been a formall Heretique, and yet that those who follow him may be only so materially and improperly, and indeed no Heretiques. Your own men out of S. Augustine distinguish between Haeretici & Haereticorum sequaces: And you your selfe though you pronounce the leaders among the Arrians formall Heretiques, yet confesse that Salvian was at least doubtfull whether these Arrians, who in simplicity followed their Teachers, might not be excused by ignorance. And about this suspension of his you also seeme suspended, for you neither approve nor condemne it. Secondly, to the second part I say, that had you not presumed upon our ignorance in Logick as well as Metaphysicks and Schoole Divinity, you would never have obtruded upon us this rope of sand for a formall Syllogisme. It is even Cosen German to this, To denie the Resurrection is properly an Heresie; But Luthers Reformation was not Vniversall, Therefore it cannot be excused from 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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. [Page] 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 such Authorities as these, and think you selves at liberty from them; and that you should account them Fathers when they are for [Page] you, and Children when they are against you. Yet I would not you should interpret this as if I had not great assurance, that it is not possible for you ever to gain this cause at the tribunall of the Fathers, nay not of the Fathers whose sentences are here alleaged. Let us consider them in order, and I doubt not to make it appear that farre the greater part of them, nay all of them that are any way considerable fall short of your purpose.

23 S. Hierome (you say) writing to Pope Damasus, saith, I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter: &c. But then I pray consider he saith it to Pope Damasus: and this will much weaken the Authority, with them who know how great over-truths men usually write to one another in letters. Consider againe, that he saies only, that he was then in Communion with the Chaire of Peter, Nott hat he alwayes would, or of necessity must be so: for his resolution to the contrary is too evident out of that which he saith elswhere which shall be produced hereafter. He saies that the Church at that present was built upon that Rock; but not that only, Nor that alwayes. Nay his judgment as shall appeare is expresse to the contrary. And so likewise the rest of his expressions (if we meane to reconcile Hierome with Hierome) must bee conceived as intended by him, of that Bishop and Sea of Rome, at that present time, and in the present State, and in respect of that doctrine which he there intreats of. For otherwise had he conceiu'd it necessary for him and all men to conform their judgments in matters of faith, to the judgment of the Bishop & Church of Rome, how came it to passe that he chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall, upō the Authority of the Easterne Church, then to reject it from the Canon upon the Authority of the Roman? How comes it to passe that he dissented from the Authority of that Church, touching the Canon of the Old Testament? For if you say, that the Church then consented with S. Hierome, I feare you will loose your Fort by maintaining your Out-works, and by avoyding this, runne into a greater danger of being forc'd to confesse the present Roman Church opposite herein to the Ancient. How was it possible, that he should ever beleeue that Liberius Bishop of Rome either was or could haue been wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia, and brought after two years banishment to subscribe Heresie? Hierom de scrip. Eccle. tit. Fortunatianus. Which Act of Liberius though some fondly question, being so vain as to expect we should rather believe them that lived but yesterday, thirteen hundred years almost after the thing is said to be done, and speaking for themselves in their own Cause, rather then the dis-interessed time-fellowes or immediate Successors of Liberius himselfe: yet I hope they will not proceed to such a degree of immodesty, as once to question whether S. Hierome thought so. And if this cannot be denyed, I demand then if he had lived in Liberius his time, could he or would he have written so to Liberius as he does to Damasus? would he have said to him, I am in the Communion of the Chair of Peter, I know that the Church is built upon this Rock, Whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth. Would he then have said, the Roman faith and the Catholique were the same: or, that [Page] the Roman faith received no delusions, no not from an Angell? I suppose he could not have said so with any coherence to his own beleif; and therefore conceive it undeniable that what he said then to Damasus, he said it (though perhaps he streyned too high) only of Damasus, and never conceiv'd that his words would have been extended to all his Predecessors and all his Successors.

24 The same Answer I make to the first place of S. Ambrose, viz. that no more can be certainly concluded from it, but that the Catholique Bishops and the Roman Church were then at unity; so that whosoever agreed with the latter could not then but agree with the former. But that this Rule was perpetuall, and that no man could ever agree with the Catholique Bishops, but he must agree with the Roman Church, this he saies not, nor gives you any ground to conclude from him. Athanasius when he was excommunicated by Liberius, agreed very ill with the Roman Church, and yet you will not gainsay, but he agreed well enough with the Catholique Bishops. The second, I am uncertain what the sense of it is, and what truth is in it; but most certain that it makes nothing to your present purpose. For it neither affirmes nor imports, that separation from the Roman Church is a certain marke of Heresy. For the Rights of Communion (whatsoever it signifies,) might be said to flow from it, if that Church were by Ecclesiasticall Law, the head of all other Churches: But unlesse it were made so by divine Authority, and that absolutely, Separation from it could not be a marke of Heresy.

25 For S. Cyprian all the world knowes that heIt is confessed by Baronius Anno. 238. N. 41. By Bellarm. l. 4. de R. Pont. c. 7. § Tertia ratio. resolutely opposed a Decree of the Roman Bishop, and all that adhered to him in the point of Re. baptizing, which that Church at that time delivered as a necessary Tradition. So necessary, that by the Bishop of Rome Firmilianus and other Bishops of Cappadocia, Cilicia and Galatia, and generally all who persisted in the contrary opinion,Confessed by Baronius An. 258. N. 14. & 15. By Card. Perron. Repl. l. 1. c. 25. were therefore deprived of the Churches Communion, (which excōmunication could not but involve S. Cyprian, who defended the same opinion as resolutely as Firmilianus, though Cardinall Perron magisterially and without all colour of proofe affirme the contrary,) and Cyprian in particular so farre cast off, as for it to be pronounc'd by Stephen a false Christ. Again so necessary that the Bishops which were sent by Cyprian from Africk to Rome, were not admitted to the Communion of ordinary conference: But all men who were subject to the Bishop of Romes Authority, were cōmanded by him not only to deny them the Churches peace & Communion, but even lodging and entertainment: manifestly declaring, that they reckoned them among those whom S. Iohn forbids to receive to house, or to say God speed to them. All these terrors notwithstanding S. Cyprian holdes still his former opinion, & though out of respect to the Churches peaceVide Con. Cartho apud sur. To. 1. he judged no man, nor cut off any man from the right of Communion, for thinking otherwise then he held, yet he conceived Stephen & his adherents,Bell. l. 2. de Con. c. 5. Aug. ep. 48. & lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 13, to hold a pernitious error. And S. Austin, (though disputing with the Donatists he useth some Tergiversatiō in the point,) yet confesseth elsewhere, that it is not found that [Page]Cyprian did ever change his opinion. And so farre was he from conceiving any necessity of doing so, in submitting to the judgement of the Bishop and Church of Rome, that he plainly professeth that no other Bishop, but our Lord Iesus only, had power to judge (with authority) of his judgement, and as plainly intimates that Stephen, for usurping such a power, and making himselfe a judge over Bishops, was little better then a Tyrant: and as heavily almost he censures him, and peremptorily opposes him as obstinate in error, in that very place where he delivers that famous saying, How can he have God for his Father, who hath not the Church for his Mother? little doubting it seemes but a man might have the Church for his Mother, who stood in opposition to the Church of Rome, and farre from thinking what you fondly obtrude upon him, that to be united to the Roman Church, and to the Church was all one, and that separation from S. Peters Chaire was a marke, I mean a certain marke, either of Schisme or Heresy. If after all this, you will catch at a phrase or a complement of S. Cyprians, and with that hope to perswade Protestants, who know this story as well as their own name, that S. Cyprian did believe that falsehood could not have accesse to the Roman Church, and that opposition to it was the brand of an Heretique: may we not well expect, that you will the next time you write vouch Luther & Caluin also for Abettors of this Phancy, and make us poore men believe not only (as you say) that we have no Metaphysicks,Bell. l. 2. de Con. c 5. § 1. Canisius in Initio Catech. but that we have no sense? And when you have done so, it will be no great difficulty for you, to assure us that we read no such thing in Bellarmine, as that Cyprian was alwaies accounted in the number of Catholiques; nor in Canisius, that he was a most excellent Doctor and a most glorious Martyr; Sept. die 14. nor in your Calendar, that he is a Saint and a Martyr; but that all these are deceptions of our sight, and that you ever esteemed him a very Schismatique and an Heretique, as having on him the Marke of the Beast, opposition to the chaire of Peter, Nay that he (what ever he pretended) knew and believed himselfe to be so; in as much as he knew (as you pretend,) and esteemed this opposition to be the Marke of Heresy, and knew himselfe to stand and stand out in such an opposition.

26 But we need not seeke so farre for matter to refute the vanity of this pretence. Let the reader but peruse this very Epistle out of which this sentence is alleaged, and he shall need no farther satisfaction against it. For he shall finde, first, that you have helped the dice a little with a false, or at least with a very bold and streined Translation: for S. Cyprian saith not to whom falshood cannot have accesse, by which many of your favourable Readers I doubt understood, that Cyprian had exempted that Church from a possibility of error, but to whom perfidiousnesse cannot have accesse, meaning by perfidiousnesse in the abstract, according to a common figure of speech, those perfidious Schismatiques whom he there complaines of: and of these by a Rhetoricall insinuation, he saies that with such good Christians as the Romans were, it was not possible they should finde favourable entertainment. Not that he conceived it any way impossible they should doe so, for [Page] the very writing this Epistle, and many passages in it, plainly shew the contrary: But because he was confident, or at least would seeme to be confident, they never would, and so by his good opinion and confidence in the Romans, lay an obligation upon them, to doe as he presum'd they would doe; as also in the end of his Epistle, he saies even of the people of the Church of Rome, that being defended by the providence of their Bishop, nay by their own Vigilance sufficiently guarded, they could not be taken nor deceived with the poysons of Heretiques. Not that indeed he thought either this or the former any way impossible: For to what purpose, but for prevention hereof, did he write this long and accurate and vehement Epistle to Cornelius? which sure had been most vainly done, to prevent that which he knew or believed impossible! Or how can this consist with his taking notice in the begining of it, that Cornelius was somewhat moved and wrought upon by the attempts of his Adversaries, with his reprehending him for being so, and with his vehement exhorting him to courage and constancy, or with his request to him, in the conclusion of his Epistle, that it should be read publiquely to the whole Clergy and Laity of Rome, to the intent, that if any contagion of their poisoned speech and pestiferous semination, had crept in amongst them, it might be wholly taken away from the eares and the hearts of the Brethren, and that the entire and syncere charity of good men might be purged from all drosse of hereticall detraction: Or lastly with his vehement perswasions to them to decline for the time to come, and resolutely avoid their word and conference, because their speech crept as a canker, as the Apostle saith; because evill communication would corrupt good natures, because wicked men carry perdition in their mouthes, and hide fire in their lips? All which had been but vain and ridiculous pagentry, had he verily believed the Romans such inaccessible Forts, such immoveable Rocks, as the former sentences would seeme to import, if we will expound them rigidly and strictly, according to the exigence of the words, & not allow him who was a professed Maister of the Art, to have used here a little Rhetorique, and to say, That could not be, whereof he had no absolute certainty but that it might be, but only had, or would seem to have a great confidence that it never would be, ut fides habita fidem obligaret, that he professing to be confident of the Romans, might lay an obligation upon them to doe as he promist himselfe they would doe. For as for joyning the Principall Church and the Chair of Peter, how that will serve for your present purpose, of proving separation from the Roman Church a marke of Heresy, I suppose it is hard to understand! Nor indeed how it will advantage you in any other designe against us, who doe not altogether deny, but that the Church of Rome might be called the Chaire of Peter, in regard he is said to have preached the Gospell there, and the principall Church, because the City was the Principall and Imperiall City: which Prerogative of the City, if we believe the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon was the ground and occasion, why the Fathers of former time (I pray observe,) conferred upon this Church, this Prerogative above other Churches.

[Page]27 And as farre am I from understanding, how you can collect from the other sentence, that to communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome, and to communicate with the Catholique Church, is alwaies (for that is your Assumpt) one and the same thing. S. Cyprian speaks not of the Church of Rome at all, but of the Bishop only, who when he doth communicate with the Catholique Church, as Cornelius at that time did, then whosoever communicates with him, cannot but communicate with the Catholique Church: and then by accident one may truly say, such a one communicates with you, that is, with the Catholique Church, and that to communicate with him is to communicate with the Catholique Church. As if Titius and Sompronius be together, he that is in company with Titius, cannot but be at that time in company with Sempronius. As if a Generall be marching to some place with an Army, he that then is with the Generall must at that time be with the Army: And a man may say without absurdity, such a time I was with the Generall, that is, with the Army, and that to be with the Generall is to be with the Army. Or as if a mans hand be joyned to his body, the finger which is joyned to the hand is joyned to the body, and a man may say truly of it, this finger is joyned to the hand, that is, to the body, and to be joyned to the hand is to be joyned to the Body; because all these things are by accident true. And yet I hope you would not deny, but the finger might possibly be joyned to the hand, and yet not to the Body, the hand being cut off from the Body; and a man might another time, be with his Generall and not with his Army, he being absent from the Army. And therefore by like Reason your collection is sophisticall, being in effect but this, to communicate with such a Bishop of Rome, who did communicate with the Catholique Church, was to Communicate with the Catholique Church, therefore absolutely and alwaies it must be true, that to communicate with him, is by consequent to communicate with the Catholique Church, and to be divided from his Communion, is to be an Heretique.

28 In urging the place of Irenaeus you have shewed much more ingenuity then many of your Fellowes. For whereas they usually beginne at, Declaring the Tradition of the &c. and conceale what goes before, you have set it down, though not so compleatly as you should have done, yet sufficiently to shew, that what Authority in the matter he attributed to the Roman Church in particular, the same for the kind (though perhaps not in the same degree) he attributed to all other Apostolique Churches. Either therefore you must say that he conceived the Testimony of other Apostolique Churches divine and infallible, (which certainly he did not, neither doe you pretend he did, and if he had, the confessed Errors and Heresies which after they fell into, would demonstrate plainly that he had erred,) or else that he conceived the testimony of the Roman Church only humane and credible, though perhaps more credible then any one Church beside, (as one mans Testimony is more credible then anothers;) but certainly much more Credible, which was enough for his purpose, then that secret [Page] Tradition, to which those Heretiques pretended, against whom he wrote, overbearing them with an argument of their own kinde, farre stronger then their own. Now if Irenaeus thought the Testimony of the Roman Church in this point only humane and fallible, then surely he could never think, either adhering to it a certain marke of a Catholique, or separation from it a certain marke of a Heretique.

29 Again, whereas your great Achilles Cardinall Perron in French, as also his noble Translatresse misled by him, in English, knowing that mens resorting to Rome would doe his cause little service, hath made bold with the Latine tongue, as he does very often with the Greek, and rendred Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, To this Church it is necessary that every Church should agree, you have Translated it, as it should be, to this Church it is necessary that all Churches resort: wherein you have shewed more sincerity, and have had more regard to make the Author speak sense. For if he had said, By shewing the Tradition of the Roman Church we confound all Heretiques, For to this Church, all Churches must agree, what had this been, but to give for a reason, that which was more questionable then the thing in question: as being neither evident in it selfe, and plainly denied by his adversaries, and not at all proved nor offered to be proved here or elsewhere by Irenaeus. To speak thus therefore had been weak and ridiculous. But on the other side, if we conceive him to say thus, You Heretiques decline a tryall of your Doctrine by Scripture, as being corrupted and imperfect, and not fit to determine Controversies, without recourse to Tradition, and instead hereof, you fly for refuge to a secret Tradition, which you pretend that you received from your Ancestors, and they from the Apostles: certainly your calumnies against Scripture are most uniust and unreasonable, but yet moreover, assure your selves, that if you will be tryed by Tradition, even by that also you will be overthrown. For our Tradition is farre more famous, more constant, and in all respects more credible, then that which you pretend to. It were easy for me, to muster up against you the uninterrupted successions of all the Churches founded by the Apostles, all conspiring in their Testimonies against you: But because it were too long to number up the Successions of all Churches, I will content my selfe with the Tradition of the most ancient and most glorious Church of Rome, which alone is sufficient for the confutation and confusion of your Doctrine, as being in credit and authority, as farre beyond the Tradition you build upon, as the light of the Sunne, is beyond the light of the Gloworme. For to this Church, by reason it is placed in the Imperiall Citty, whither all mens affaires doe necessarily draw them, or by reason of the powerfull Principality it hath over all the adiacent Churches, there is, and alwaies hath been a necessity of a perpetuall recourse of all the faithfull round about: who if there had been any alteration in the Church of Rome, could not in all probability but have observed it. But they to the contrary, have alwaies observed in this Church the very Tradition which came from the Apostles and no other. I say if we conceive his meaning thus, his words will be intelligible and rationall: which if in stead of resort we put in agree will be quite lost. Herein therefore [Page] we have been beholding to your honesty, which makes me think you did not wittingly falsify, but only twice in this sentence mistake Vndi (que) for Vbi (que) and Translate it, every where, and of what place soever, in stead of round about. For that it was necessary for all the faithfull of what place soever to resort to Rome is not true. That the Apostolike Tradition hath alwaies been conserved there from those who are every where, is not Sense. Now instead of conservata read observata, as in all probability it should be, and translate undi (que) truly round about, and then the sense will be both plain and good; for then it must be rendred thus, For to this Church, by reason of a more powerfull principality, there is a necessity that all the Churches, that is, all the faithfull round about, should resort, in which the Apostolique Tradition hath been alwaies observed by those who were round about. If any man say I have been too bold a Critick in substituting observata instead of conseruata, I desire him to know, that the conjecture is not mine, and therefore as I expect no praise for it, so I hope I shall be farre from censure. But I would intreat him to consider, whether it be not likely that the same greek word signifying observo and conservo, the Translater of Irenaeus who could hardly speak Latine, might not easily mistake, and translate, [...] conservata est, instead of observata est; Or whether it be not likely, that those men which ancienly wrote Books, and understood them nor, might not easily commit such an error; Or whether the sense of the place can be salved any other way; if it can in Gods name let it, if not, I hope he is not to be condemned, who with such a little alteration hath made that sense which he found non sense.

30 But whether you will have it Observata or Conservata, the new sumpsimus or the old mumpsimus, possibly it may be something to Irenaus but to us or our cause it is no way materiall. For if the rest be rightly translated, neither will Conservata afford you any argument against us, nor Observata helpe us to any evasion. For though at the first hearing the glorious attributes here given, (and that justly) to the Church of Rome, the confounding Heretiques with her tradition, and saying it is necessary for all Churches to resort to her, may sound like Arguments for you: yet hee that is attentive I hope will easily discover, that it might be good and rationall in Irenaeus having to doe with Heretiques, who, somewhat like those who would be the only Catholiques, declining a tryall by Scripture as not contayning the Truth of Christ perfectly, and not fit to decide Controversies without recourse to Tradition: I say he will easily perceive that it might be rationall in Iraeneus to urge them with any Tradition of more credit then their own, especially a Tradition consonant to Scripture, and even contain'd in it; and yet that it may be irrationall in you to urge us, who doe not decline Scripture but appeale to it as a perfect rule of faith, with a Tradition which we pretend is many wayes repugnant to Scripture, and repugnant to a Tradition far more generall then it self, which gives Testimony to Scripture, and lastly repugnant to it self as giving attestation both to Scripture and to Doctrines plainly contrary to Scripture. Secondly that the Authority of the Roman Church [Page] was then a far greater Argument of the Truth of her Tradition when it was Vnited with all other Apostolique Churches, then now when it is divided from them, according to that of Tertullian, Had the Churches erred they would have varied, but that which is the same in all, cannot be errour but Tradition; and therefore though Irenaeus his Argument may be very probable, yet yours may be worth nothing. Thirdly, that foureteen hundred yeares may have made a great deale of alteration in the Roman Church: as Rivers, though neere the fountain they may retaine their native and unmixt syncerity, yet in long progresse cannot but take in much mixture that came not from the fountain. And therefore the Roman Tradition though then pure, may now be corrupt and impure: and so this Argument (being one of those things which are the worse for wearing) might in Irenaeus his time be strong and vigorous, and after declining and decaying may long since have fallen to nothing. Especially considering that Irenaeus plaies the Historian only and not the Prophet, and saies only, that the Apostolique Tradition had been alwayes there as in other Apostolique Churches conserved or observed, choose you whether, but that it should be alwayes so, he saies not, neither had he any warrant. He knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the Churches of Christ to Anti-christ: that the Roman Church in particular was forewarned that she also,Rom. 11. nay the whole Church of the Gentiles, might fall if they look not to their standing: and therefore to secure her that she should stand for ever, he had no reason, nor Authority. Fourthly, that it appeares manifestly out of this book of Irenaeus quoted by you, that the doctrine of the Chiliasts was in his judgment Apostolique Tradition, as also it was esteemed (for ought appeares to the contrary) by all the Doctors, and Saints, and Martyrs of or about his time, for all that speak of it, or whose judgments in the point are any way recorded, are for it: and Iustine Martyr professeth that all good and Orthodoxe Christians of his time beleeved it, In Dial. cunt. Tryphon. and those that did not, he reckons amongst Heretiques. Now I demand, was this Tradition one of those that was conserved, and observed in the Church of Rome, or was it not? If not, had Irenaeus known so much, he must have retracted this commendation of that Church. If it was, then the Tradition of the present Church of Rome contradicts the Ancient, and accounts it Hereticall, and then sure it can be no certain note of Heresie to depart from them, who have departed from themselves, and prove themselves subject unto Errour by holding contradictions. Fiftly and lastly, that out of the Story of the Church it is as manifest as the light at noone, that though Irenaeus did esteem the Roman Tradition, a great Argument of the doctrine which he there delivers and defends against the Heretiques of his time viz: that there was one God, yet he was very far from thinking that Church was, and ever should be a safe keeper, and an infallible witnesse of Tradition in generall: Inasmuch as in his own life, his action proclaim'd the contrary. For when Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunication, and [Page]damnation, Irenaeus, and all the other Western Bishops, though agreeing with him in his observation yet sharply reprehended him for excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their disagreeing, plainly shewing, that they esteemed that not a necessary doctrine and a sufficient ground of excommunication, which the Bishop of Rome and his adherents did so account of: For otherwise how could they have reprehended him for excommunicating them, had they conceived the cause of his excommunication just and sufficient? And besides evidently declaring that they esteemed not separation from the Roman Church a certain mark of Heresie, seeing they esteemed not them Heretiques though separated and cut off from the Roman Church.

Cardinall Perron to avoyd the stroak of this conuincing argument, raiseth a cloud of eloquent words,Lib. 3 cap. 2. Or this reply to King Iames. C. 2. §. 32. which because you borrow them of him in your Second part, I will here insert, and with short censures dispell, and let his Idolaters see that Truth is not afraid of Giants: His words are these.

The first instance then that Calvin alleageth against the Popes censures, is taken from Eusebius (a) an Arrian author, and from Ruffinus (b) enemie to the Roman Church his translator; who writ, (c) that S. IRENEVS reprehended Pope Victor for having excommunicated the Churches of Asia for the question of the day of Pasche, which they observed according to a particular tradition that S. IOHN had introduced (d) for a time in their Provinces, because of the neighbourhood of the Iewes, and to bury the Synagogue with honour, and not according to the universall tradition of the Apostles.Calv. ubi sup [...]a. Irenaeus (saith Calvin) reprehended Pope Victor bitterly, because for a light cause he had moved a great and perillous contention in the Church. There is this in the text that Calvin produceth, He reprehended him, that he had not done well, to cut off from the body of unity, Ruffin. in vers. hist. Eccl. Eus. l. 5. c. 24. so many and so great Churches. But against whom maketh this, but (e) against those that obiect it? for who sees not, that S. IRENEVS, doth not there reprehend the Pope for the (f) want of power, but for the ill use of his power; and doth not reproach to the Pope, that he could not excommunicate the Asians, but admonisheth him, that for (g) so small a cause he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church?Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Iraeneus (saith Eusebius) did fitly exhort Pope Victor, Kuffin. b. c. 24. that he should not cut off all the Churches of God which held this ancient tradition. And Ruffinus translating and envenoming Eusebius saith.Iren. l. 3. c. 3. 1. Booke▪ [...] 25 He questioned Victor, that he had not done well in cutting off from the body of unity so many and so great Churches of God▪ And in truth, how could S. IRENEUS have reprehended the Pope for want of power; he that cries: To the Roman Church, because of a more powerfull principality; (that is to say) as aboue appeareth, (h) because of a principality more powerfull then the temporall: or (as wee have expounded other where) because of a more powerful Original: (i) it is necessary that every Church should agree? And (k) therefore also S. IRENEVS alleageth not to Pope Victor the example of him, and of the other Bishops of the Gaules assembled in a councell holden expressely for this effect who had not excommunicated the Asians, Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. l. 22▪ nor the example of Narcissus [Page] Bishop of Ierusalem, and of the Bishops of Palestina assembled in an other Councell, holden expressely for the same effect, who had not excommunicated them, nor the example of Palmas, and of the other Bishops of Pontus assembled in the same manner, and for the same cause in the Region of Pontus, who had not excommunicated them,Iren. apud Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 26. but only alleadges to him the example of the Popes his predecessors: The Prelates (saith he) who have presided before Soter in the Church where thou presidest, Anisius, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Sixtus, have not observed this custome, &c. and neverthelesse none of those that observed it, have been excommunicated. And yet, O admirable providence of God, the (l) successe of the after ages shewed, that even in the use of his power, the Popes proceeding was iust. For after the death of Victor, the Councels of Nicea, Conc. Antioch. c. 1. of Constantinople, and of Ephesus, excommunicated again those that held the same custome with the provinces,Conc. Const. c. 7. that the Pope had excommunicated, and placed them in the Catalogue of heretiques,Conc. Eph. p. 2. act. [...]. under the titles of heretiques Quarto decumans!

But to this instance Calvins Sect doe annex two new observations; the first, that the Pope having threatned the Bishops of Asia to excommunicate them, Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of Asia, despised the Popes threats,Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Hieron. in script. Eccl. in Polyer. as it appeares by the answer of the same Polycrates to Pope Victor, which is inserted in the writings of Eusebius, and of S. IEROM, and which S. IEROM seemeth to approve, when he saith, he reports it to shew the spirit and authority of the man. And the second, that when the Pope pronounced anciently his excommunications, he did no other thing but separate himself from the communion of those that he excommunicated, and did not thereby separate them from the universall communion of the Church. To the first then we say, that so farre is this Epistle of Polycrates from abating and deminishing the Popes authority, that contrary wise it greatly magnifies and exalts it. For although Polycrates blinded with the love of the custome of his nation, which he beleeved to be grounded upon the word of God, who had assigned the fourteenth of the Moneth of March for the observation of the Pasche, and upon the example of S. IOHNS tradition maintaines it obstinately; Neverthelesse, this that he answeres, speaking in his own name,Exod. 12. and in the name of the Councell of the Bishops of Asia, Hieronym, ubi supra. to whom he presided; I feare not those that threaten us, for my elders have said, it is better to obey God then man. Doth it not shew, that had it not been, that he beleeved the Popes threat, was against the expresse word of God, there had been cause to feare it, and he had been obliged to obey him; for (m) who knowes not, that this answer; it is better to obey God then men, is not to be made but to those, whom we were obliged to obey, if their commandements were not contrary to the commandements of God; And that he adds, that he had called the Bishops of Asia, to a Nationall Councell, being (n) summoned to it by the Pope; doth it not insinuate, that the other Councels whereof Eusebius speaks, that were holden about this matter,Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23. through all the provinces of the Earth, and particularly that of Palestina, which if you beleeve the act that Beda said came to his hands,Beda in frag. de Aequinoctio. ve [...]nali. Theophilus Archbishop of Cesarea had called by the auctority of Victor, were holden at the instance of the [Page] Pope, and consequently that the Pope was the first mover of the universall Church? And that the Councels of Nicea, of Constantinople of Ephesus embraced the censure of Victor, and excommunicated those that observed the custome of Polycrates: doth it not prove, that it was not the Pope but (o) Polycrates that was deceived, in beleeving that the Popes cōmandement, was against Gods commandement? And that S. IEROM himselfe celebrates the Paschall Homelies of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria, which followed the order of Nicea concerning the Pasche; Doth it not iustifie, that when S. IEROM saith; that he reports the Epistle of Polycrates, to shew the spirit, and authority of the man he intends by authority, not authority of right, but of fact▪ that is to say, the credit that Polycrates had amongst the Asians and other Quarto decimans?

These are the Cardinall words, The most materiall and considerable passages whereof to save the trouble of repetition, I have noted with letters of reference: whereunto my answers noted respectively with the same letters follow now in order.

(a) If Eusebius were an Arrian author, It is nothing to the purpose; what he writes there is no Arrianisme, 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, [Page] 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, Can. 2 [...]. 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 Romā, 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 areIn his Letter to Casaubon towards the end., For who knowes not that [Page]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 accou [...]t them Saints and Martyrs? But the truth is, that these Councells did no way shew the Popes proceedings just, but rather the contrary. For though they setled an uniformity in this matter, yet they setled it as a matter formerly indifferent, & not as a matter of faith or necessity, as it is evident out ofIn ep. ad. Episcopos in Africa [...] Where he cleerely shewes that this question was not a question of faithe by saying, The C [...]uncello [...] Nice was celebrated, by occasion of the Arrian heresy and the difference about Easter. In so much [...] they in [...] and M [...]sopotamia, did [...]ffer herein from us, and kept this feast on the same day with the I [...]wes: But thankes be to God▪ an agreement was made, as concerning the Faith, so [...] concerning this holy [...]. Athanasius; & consequently they rather declare Victors proceeding unjust, who excommunicated so many Churches, for differing from him in an indifferent matter.

(m) It seemes then Polycrates might be a Saint and a Martyr, and yet think the commands of the Roman Church enjoyned upon pain of damnation, contrary to the commandements of God. Besides S. Peter himselfe, the head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ (as you pretend) made this very answer to the High Priest, yet I hope you will not say, he was his inferior and obliged to obey him. Lastly, who sees not, that when the Pope commandes us any thing unjust, as to communicate Lay men in one kinde, to use the Latine service, we may very fitly say to him, it is better to obey God then men, and yet never think of any authority he hath over us?

(n) Between requesting and summoning, methinkes there should be some difference, and Polycrates saies no more, but that hee was requested by the Church of Rome to call them, and did so. Here then (as very often) the Cardinall is faine to help the dice with a false translation, and his pretence being false, every one must see, that that which [Page] he pretends to be insinuated by it, is cleerely inconsequent.

(o) Polycrates was deceived, if he believed it to be against Gods commandement, and the Pope deceived as much, in thinking it to be Gods commandement, for it was neither the one nor the other, but an indifferent matter, wherein God had not interposed his Authority. Neither did the Councell of Nice embrace the censure of Victor, by acknowledging his Excommunication to be just and well grounded, for which the Cardinall neither doth pretend, nor can produce any proofe, any way comparable to the fore-alleaged words of Athanasius testifying the contrary; though peradventure, having setled the observation, and reduced it to an uniformity, they might excommunicate those who afterward should trouble the Churches peace for an indifferent matter. And thus much for Irenaeus.

31 I come now to S. Austine, and to the first place out of him, where he seemes to say, that the Succession in the Sea of Peter, was the Rock which our Saviour meant when he said, upon this Rock, &c. I answer, first we have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof, because S. Austine himselfe was not, but retracts it as uncertain, & leaves to the Reader whether he will think that, or another more probable. Retr. l. 1. c. 26. Secondly, what he saies of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place, he saies it else where, of all the Successions in all other Apostolique Churches. Thirdly, that as in this place he urgeth the Donatists with separation from the Roman Church, as an argument of their Error: So elsewhere he presseth them with their Separation from other Apostolique Churches, nay more from these then from that, because in Rome the Donatists had a Bishop, though not a perpetuall Succession of them, but in other Apostolique Churches they wanted both. These scatter'd men (saith he of the Donatists Epist. 165.) read in the holy bookes the Churches to which the Apostles wrote, and have no Bishop in them: But what is more perverse and mad, then to the Lectors reading these Epistles to say, Peace with you, and to separate from the peace of these Churches, to which these Epistles were written? So Optatus having done you (as it might seeme) great service, in upbraiding the Donatists as Schismatiques, because they had not Communion with the Church of Rome, overthrowes and undoes it all againe, and as it were with a spunge wipes out all that he had said for you, by adding after, that they were Schismatiques, because They had not the fellowship of Cōmunion with the seven Churches of Asia, to which S. Iohn writes: whereof he pronounces confidently, (though I know not upon what ground) [...] septem Ecclesias quicquid for is est, alienum est. Now I pray tell me, doe you esteeme the Authority of these Fathers a sufficient assurance, that separation from these other Apostolique Churches, was a certain marke of Heresy, or not? If so, then your Church hath been for many Ages hereticall. If not, how is their authority, a greater argument for the Roman, then for the other Churches? If you say, they conceived separation from these Churches a note of Schisme, only when they were united to the Roman: so also they might conceive of the Roman, only when it was united to [Page] them. If you say, they urg'd this only as a probable, and not as a certain Argument, so also they might doe that. In a word, whatsoever answer you can devise to shew, that these Fathers made not separation from these other Churches a mark of Heresy, apply that to your own Argument, and it will be satisfied.

32 The other place is evidently impertinent to the present question, nor is there in it any thing but this, That Caecilian might contemne the multitude of his adversaries, because those that were united with him were more, and of more account then those that were against him. Had he preferr'd the Roman Church alone, before Caecilians enemies, this had been litle, but something; but when other Countries from which the Gospell came first into Africa, are joyned in this Patent, with the Church of Rome, how she can build any singular priviledge upon it I am yet to learne! Neither doe I see what can be concluded from it, but that in the Roman Church was the Principality of an You doe ill to translate it, the Principality of the Sea Apostolique, as if there were but one: whereas S. Austine presently after speaks of Apostolicall Churches, in the plurall number; and makes the Bishops of the, joynt Commisioners for the judging of Ecclesi [...]sticall causes. Apostolique Sea, which no man doubts: or that the Roman Church was not the Mother Church, because the Gospell came first into Africa, not from her, but from other Churches.

33 Thus you see his wordes make very litle, or indeed nothing for you▪ But now his Action, which according to Cardinall Perrons rule, is much more to be regarded then his words, as not being so obnoxious to misinterpretatiō, I mean his famous opposition of three Bishops of Rome in succession, touching the great question of Appeales, wherein he and the rest of the African Bishops proceeded so farre in the first or second Milevitan Councell, as toThe words of the Decree (which also Bellarmine l, 1. de Matrim c. 17. assures us to have bin [...]erm'd by S. Austine) are these. Si qui (Africani,) ab Epis [...]pis provocandum putaverint, non nisi ad African [...] provocent Concilia, vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum. Ad transmarina autem, qui putaverit appellandum, à nullo intra Africa [...] in Communionem suscipiatur. This Decree is by Gratian most impudently corrupted. For whereas the Fathers of that Councell intended it particularly against the Church of Rome, he tels us they forbad Appeales to All excepting only the Church of Rome. decree any African Excommunicate, that should appeale to any man out of Africk, and therein continued resolute unto death: I say this famous Action of his, makes cleerely and evidently and infinitely against you. For had Boniface, and the rest of the African Bishops, a great part whereof were Saints and Martyrs, believed as an Article of faith, that Vnion and Conformity with the doctrine of the Roman Church, in all things which she held necessary, was a certain note of a good Catholique, and by Gods command necessary to Salvation, how was it possible they should have opposed it in this? Vnlesse you will say they were all so foolish as to believe at once direct contradictions, viz. that conformity to the Roman Church was necessary in all points, and not necessary in this: or else so horribly impious, as believing this doctrine of the Roman Church true, and her power to receive Appeales derived from divine Authority, notwithstanding to oppose and condemne it, and to Anathematize all those Africans, of what condition soever, that should appeale unto it. I say of what condition soever: For it is evident, that they concluded in their determination, Bishops as well as the inferior Clergy and Laity: And Cardinall Perrons pretence of the contrary, is a [Page] shamelesse falshood, [...] repugnant to the plaine words of the Remonstrance of the African Bishops to Celestine Bishop of Rome.

34 Your allegation of Tertullian is a manifest conviction of your want of syncerity: For you produce with great ostentation what he saies of the Church of Rome, but you and your fellowes alwaies conceale and dissemble, that immediatly before these words he attributes as much for point of direction to any other Apostolique Church, and that as he sends them to Rome who lived neare Italy, so those neare Achaia hee sends to Corinth, those about Macedonia to Philippi, and Thessalonica, those of Asia to Ephesus. His words are, Goe to now thou that wilt better imploy thy curiosity in the businesse of thy salvation, run over the Apostolicall Churches, wherein the Chaires of the Apostles are yet sate upon in their places, wherein their Authentique Epistles are recited, sounding out the voyce, and representing the face of of every one! Is Achaia neere thee? there thou hast Corinth: If thou art not farre from Macedonia, thou hast Philippi, thou hast Thessalonica: If thou canst goe into Asia, there thou hast Ephesus: If thou be adjacent to Italy, thou hast Rome, whose Authority is neere at hand to us (in Africk;) A happy Church, into which the Apostles powred forth all their Doctrine together with their blood, &c. Now I pray Sir tell me, if you can for blushing, why this place might not have been urg'd by a Corinthian, or Philippian, or Thessalonian, or an Ephesian, to shew that in the judgment of Tertullian, separation from any of their Churches is a certain mark of Heresie, as iustly and rationally as you alleadge it to vindicate this priviledge to the Roman Church only? Certainly if you will stand to Tertullians judgment, you must either grant the authority of the Roman Church (though at that time a good Topicall Argument, and perhaps a better then any the Heretiques had, especially in conjunction with other Apostolique Churches:) yet I say you must grant it perforce but a fallible Guide as well as that of Ephesus, and Thessalonica, and Philippi, and Corinth: or you must maintain the Authority of every one of these infallible, as well as the Roman. For though he make a Panegyrick of the Roman Church in particular, and of the rest only in generall, yet as I have said, for point of direction he makes them all equall; and therefore makes them (choose you whether) either all fallible, or all infallible: Now you will and must acknowledge that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the Churches of Ephesus, or Corinth, or if he did, that (as experience shewes) he erred in doing so; and what can hinder, but then we may say also that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the Roman Church, or if he did that he erred in doing so?

35 From the saying of S. Basil, certainly nothing can be gathered, but only that the Bishop of Rome may discerne betweene that which is counterfeit, and that which is lawfull and pure, and without any diminution may preach the faith of our Ancestours. Which certainly he might doe, if ambition and covetousnesse did not hinder him, or else I should never condemne him for doing otherwise. But is there no difference betweene may and must? Beleeve hee may doe so, and he [Page] cannot but doe so? Or doth it follow, because he may doe so, therefore he alwayes shall or will doe so? In my opinion rather the contrary should follow! For he that saith you may doe thus, implies according to the ordinary sense of words, that if he will he may doe otherwise. You certainly may if you please leave abusing the world with such Sophistry as this; but whether you will or no, of that I have no assurance.

36 Your next Witnesse I would willingly have examined, but it seemes you are unwilling he should be found, otherwise you would have givē us your direction where we might have him. Of that Maximianus who succeeded Nestorius, I can find no such thing in the Councels: Neither can I beleeve that any Patriarch of Constantinople twelve hundred yeares agoe was so base a parasite of the Sea of Rome.

37 Your last Witnesse Iohn of Constantinople, I confesse speaks home and advanceth the Roman sea, even to heaven: But I feare it is, that his owne may goe up with it, which hee there professes to bee all one sea with the sea of Rome; and therefore his Testimony, as speaking in his own case is not much to be regarded. But besides, I have litle reason to be confident that this Epistle is not a forgery, for certainly Binius hath obtruded upon us many a hundred such. This though written by a Graecian is not extant in Greek but in Latine only. Lastly, it comes out of a suspicious place, an old book of the Vatican Library: which Library the world knowes to have been the Mint of very many impostures.

38 Ad §. 20. 21. 22. 23. The summe of your discourse in the 4. next Sections, if it be pertinent to the Question in agitation, must be this: Want of succession of Bishops and Pastours holding alwayes the same doctrine, and of the formes of ordaining Bishops and Priests which are in use in the Roman Church, is a certain mark of Heresie: But Protestants want all these things: Therefore they are Heretiques. To which I Answer, That nothing but want of truth and holding errour, can make or prove any man or Church hereticall. For if he be a true Aristotelian, or Platonist, or Pyrrhoniā, or Epicurean, who holds the doctrine of Aristotle, or Plato, or Pirrho, or Epicurus, although he cannot assigne any that held it before him for many Ages together, why should I not be made a true and orthodox Christian, by beleeving all the doctrine of Christ, though I cannot derive my descent from a perpetuall Successiō that beleev'd it before me? By this reason you should say as well, that no man can be a good Bishop or Pastour, or King or Magistrate, or Father that succeeds a bad one. For if I may conforme my will and actions to the Commandements of God, why may I not embrace his doctrine with my understanding, although my predecessour doe not so? You have aboue in this Chapter defin'd Faith a free Infallible, obscure, supernaturall assent to divine Truths, because they are revealed by God & sufficiently propounded: This definition is very phantasticall; but for the present I will let it passe, and desire you to give me some peece or shadow of reason, why I may not doe all this without a perpetuall Succession of Bishops and Pastours that have done so before me? You [Page] may judge as uncharitably, and speak as maliciously of me, as your blind zeale to your Superstition shall direct you, but certainly I know, (and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know,) that I doe beleeve the Gospell of Christ (as it is delivered in the undoubted books of Canonicall Scripture,) as verily as that it is now day, that I see the light, that I am now writing: and I beleeve it upon this Motive, because I conceive it sufficiently, abundantly, superabundantly proved to be divine Revelation. And yet in this, I doe not depend upon any Succession of men that have alwayes beleeved it without any mixture of Errour; nay I am fully perswaded, there hath been no such Succession, aud yet doe not find my self any way weakned in my faith by the want of it; but so fully assured of the truth of it, that not only, though your divels at Lowden doe tricks against it, but though an Angell from heaven should gainsay it or any part of it, I perswade my self that I should not be moved. This I say, and this I am sure is true: and if you will be so hyperscepticall as to perswade me, that I am not sure that I doe beleeve all this, I desire you to tell me, how are you sure that you beleeve the Church of Rome? For if a man may perswade himself he doth beleeve what he doth not beleeve, then may you think you beleeve the Church of Rome, and yet not beleeve it. But if no man can erre concerning what he beleeves, then you must give me leave to assure my selfe that I doe beleeve, and consequently that any man may beleeve the foresaid truths upon the foresaid motives, without any dependance upon any Succession that hath beleeved it alwayes. And as from your definition of faith, so from your definition of Heresy, this phancy may be refuted. For questionlesse no man can be an Heretique but he that holds an Heresie, and an Heresie you say is a Voluntary Errour; therefore no man can be necessitated to be an Heretique whether he will or no, by want of such a thing that is not in his power to have: But that there should have been a perpetuall Succession of Beleevers in all points Orthodox, is not a thing which is in your power, therefore our being or not being Heretiques depends not on it. Besides, what is more certain, then that he may make a streight line who hath a Rule to make it by, though never man in the world had made any before: and why then may not he that beleeves the Scripture to be the word of God, and the Rule of faith, regulate his faith by it, and consequently beleeve aright without much regarding what other men either will doe or have done? It is true indeed there is a necessity that if God will have his words beleeved, he by his Providence must take order, that either by succession of men, or by some other meanes naturall or supernaturall, it be preserv'd and delivered, and sufficiently notified to bee his word; but that this should be done by a Succession of men that holds no errour against it, certainly there is no more necessity, then that it should be done by a Succession of men that commit no sinne against it. For if men may preserve the Records of a Law, and yet transgresse it, certainly they may also preserve directions for their faith, and yet not follow them. I doubt not but Lawyers at the Barre doe find by frequent experience, that many [Page] men preserve and produce evidences, which being examined of times make against themselves. This they doe ignorantly, it being in their power to suppresse, or perhaps to alter them. And why then should any man conceive it strange, that an erroneous and corrupted Church should preserve and deliver the Scriptures uncorrupted, when indeed for many reasons which I have formerly alleaged, it was impossible for them to corrupt them? Seeing therefore this is all the necessity that is pretended of a perpetuall Succession of men orthodoxe in all points, certainly there is no necessity at all of any such, neither can the want of it prove any man or any Church Hereticall.

39 When therefore you have produced some proofe of this, which was your Major in your former Syllogisme, That want of Succession is a certain mark of Heresy, you shall then receive a full answer to your Minor. We shall then consider whether your indelible Character be any reality, or whether it be a creature of your own making, a fancy of your own imagination? And if it be a thing, and not only a word, whether our Bishops and Priests have it not as well as yours; & whether some mens perswasion that there is no such thing, can hinder them from having it, or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing! (Any more then a mans perswasion that he has not taken Physick or Poyson, will marke him not to have taken it if hee has, or hinder the operation of it?) And whether Tertullian in the place quoted by you, speak of a Priest made a Lay-man, by just deposition or degradation, and not by a voluntary desertion of his Order? And whether in the same place he set not some make upon Heretiques that will agree to your Church? Whether all the Authority of our Bishops in England before the Reformation, was conferr'd on them by the Pope? And if it were, whether it were the Pope's right, or an usurpation? If it were his right, whether by Divine Law or Ecclesiasticall? And if by Ecclesiasticall only, whether he might possibly so abuse his power, as to deserve to loose it? Whether de facto he had done so? Whether supposing he had deserved to loose it, those that deprived him of it had power to take it from him? Or if not, whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it, untill good caution were put in, and good assurance given, that if he had it again, he would not abuse it as he had formerly done? Whether in case they had done unlawfully that took his power from him, it may not (things being now setled, and the present government established) be as unlawfull to goe about to restore it? Whether it be not a Fallacy to conclude, because we believe the Pope hath no power in England, now when the King and State and Church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it, therefore wee cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation? Whether without Schisme, a man may not withdraw obediēce from an usurp'd Authority commanding unlawfull things? Whether the Roman Church might not give authority to Bishops and Priests to oppose her errors, as well as a King gives Authority to a Iudge to judge against him, if his cause be bad; as well as Traian gave his sword to his Prefect, with this commission, that if he governed well, he should use it for him, if ill [Page]against him. Whether the Roman Church gave not Authority to her Bishops and Priests to preach against her corruptions in manners? And if so, why not against her errors in doctrine, if she had any? Whether she gave them not authority to preach the whole Gospell of Christ, and consequently against her doctrine, if it should contradict any part of the Gospell of Christ? Whether it be not acknowledged lawfull in the Church of Rome, for any Lay man or woman that has ability to perswade others by word or by writing from error, and unto truth? And why this liberty may not be practised against their Religion, if it be false, as well as for it if it be true? Whether any man need any other commission or vocation then that of a Christian, to doe a work of charity? And whether it be not one of the greatest works of Charity (if it be done after a peaceable manner, and without an unnecessary disturbance of order,) to perswade men out of a false, unto a true way of eternall happinesse? Especially the Apostle having assur'd us, that he, (whosoever he is) who converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soule from death, and shall hide a multitude of sinnes? Whether the first Reformed Bishops died all at once, so that there were not enough to ordain Others in the places that were vacant? Whether the Bishops of England may not consecrate a Metropolitan of England, as well as the Cardinalls doe the Pope? Whether the King or Queen of England, or they that have the government in their hands, in the minority of the Prince, may not lawfully commend one to them to be consecrated, against whom there is no Canonicall exception? Whether the Doctrine, that the King is supream head of the Church of England, (as the Kings of Iudah, & the first Christian Emperors were of the Iewish and Christian Church,) be any new found doctrine? Whether it may not be true, that Bishops being made Bishops, have their authority immediatly from Christ, though this or that man be not made Bishop without the Kings authority; as well as you say, the Pope being Pope, has authority immediatly from Christ, and yet this or that man cannot be made Pope without the authority of the Cardinalls? Whether you doe well to suppose, that Christian Kings have no more authority in ordering the affaires of the Church, then the great Turk, or the Pagan Emperors? Whether the King may not give authority to a Bishop to exercise his function in some part of his Kingdome, and yet not be capable of doing it himselfe: as well as a Bishop may give authority to a Physitian, to practise Physick in his Diocesse, which the Bishop cannot doe himselfe? Whether if Ner [...] the Emperour would have commanded S. Peter or S. Paul to preach the Gospell of Christ, and to exercise the office of a Bishop of Rome, whether they would have question'd his Authority to doe so? Whether there were any Law of God or man, that prohibited K. IAMES to give Commission to Bishops, nay to lay his injunction upon them, to doe any thing that is lawfull? Whether a casuall irregularity may not be lawfully dispenc'd with? Whether the Popes irregularities if he should chance to incurre any, be indispensable? And if not who is he or who are they, whom the Pope is so subject unto, that they may dispense [Page] with him? Whether that be certain which you take for granted; That your Ordination imprints a character and ours doth not? Whether the power of consecrating and ordaining by imposition of hands, may not reside in the Bishops, and be derived unto them, not from the King but God; and yet the King have authority to command them to apply this power to such a fit person, whom he shall commend unto them: As well as if some Architects only had the faculty of architecture, and had it immediatly by infusion from God himselfe, yet, if they were the Kings subjects, he wants not authority to command them to build him a Palace for his use, or a fortresse for his service: Or as the King of France pretends not to have power to make Priests himselfe, yet I hope, you will not deny him power to command any of his subjects that has this power, to ordaine any fit person Priest, whom he shall desire to be ordained? Whether it doe not follow, that whensoever the King commands an house to be built, a message to be delivered, or a murtherer to be executed, that all these things are presently done without intervention of the Architect, messenger, or executioner: As well as, that they are ipsofacto ordain'd and consecrated, who by the Kings authority are commended to the Bishops to be ordained and consecrated: Especially seeing the King will not deny, but that these Bishops may refuse to doe what he requires to be done, lawfully if the person be unworthy, if worthy, unlawfully indeed, but yet de facto they may refuse: and in case they should doe so, whether justly or unjustly; neither the King himselfe, nor any body else, would esteeme the person Bishop upon the Kings designation? Whether many Popes, though they were not consecrated Bishops by any temporall Prince, yet might not, or did not receive authority from the Emperor to exercise their Episcopall function in this or that place? And whether the Emperors had not authority, upon their desert, to deprive them of their jurisdiction, by imprisonment or banishment? Whether Protestants doe indeed pretend that their Reformation is universall? Whether in saying, the Donatists, Sect was confined to Africa, you doe not forget your selfe, and contradict what you said above, in §. 17. of this Chapter, where you tell us, they had some of their Sect residing in Rome? Whether it be certain, that none can admit of Bishops willingly, but those that hold them of divine institution? Whether they may not be willing to have them, conceiving that way of government the best, though not absolutely necessary? Whether all those Protestants that conceive the distinction between Priests and Bishops, not to be of divine institution, be Schismaticall and Hereticall for thinking so? Whether your forme of ordaining Bishops and Priests, be essentiall to the constitution of a true Church? Whether the formes of the Church of England differ essentially from your formes? Whether in saying, that the true Church cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests, you have not overthrown the truth of your own Church: wherein I have proved it plainly impossible, that any man should be so much as morally certain, either of his own Priesthood or any other mans? Lastly, whether any one kind of these externall formes and orders, [Page] and government be so necessary to the being of a Church, but that they may not be diverse in diverse places, and that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to submit himself to the Government of the place where he lives whatsoever it be? All these Questions will be necessary to be discussed for the clearing of the truth of the Minor proposition of your former Syllogisme, and your proofs of it: and I will promise to debate them fairly with you, if first you will bring some better proof of the Maior, That want of Succession is a certain note of Heresy, which for the present remaines both unprov'd and unprobable.

40 Ad §. 23. The Fathers, you say, assigne Succession as one mark of the true Church: I confesse they did urge Tradition as an argument of the truth of their doctrine and of the falsehood of the contrary; and thus farre they agree with you. But now see the difference: They urg'd it not against all Heretiques that ever should be, but against them who rejected a great part of the Scripture, for no other reason but because it was repugnant to their doctrine, and corrupted other parts with their additions and detractions, and perverted the remainder with divers absurd interpretations: So Tertullian not a leafe before the words by you cited. Nay they urg'd it against them who when they were confuted out of Scripture, fell to accuse the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right, and came not from good authority, as if they were various one from another, and as if truth could not bee found out of them, by those who know not Tradition, for that it was not delivered in writing, (they did meane wholly,) but by word of mouth: And that thereupon Paul also said, wee speak wisdome amongst the perfect. So Irenaeus in the very next Chapter before that which you alleage. Against these men being thus necessitated to doe so, they did urge Tradition, but what or whose Tradition was it: Certainly no other but the joint Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches, with one mouth and one voice teaching the same doctrine. Or if for brevity sake they produce the Tradition of any one Church, yet is it apparent, that, that one was then in conjunction with all the rest; Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, testifie as much in the words cited, and S. Austin, in the place before alleaged by mee. This Tradition they did urge against these men, and in a time, in comparison of ours, almost contiguous to the Apostles: So neare, that one of them, Irenaeus, was Scholar to one who was Scholar to S. Iohn the Apostle, Tertullian and Origen were not an age remov'd from him: and the last of them all, litle more then an age from them. Yet after all this they urg'd it not as a demonstration, but only as a very probable argument, far greater then any their Adversaries could oppose against it. So Tertullian in the place above quoted §. 5. How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one faith? (it should be, should have erred into on faith.) And this was the condition of this argument as the Fathers urg'd it. Now if you having to deale with us, who question no Booke of Scripture, which was not anciently questioned by some whom you your selves esteem good Catholiques; nay who refuse not to be tryed by your owne Canons, your own Translations, [Page] who in interpreting Scriptures are content to allow of all those rules which you propose, only except that we will not allow you to be our Iudges; if you will come fifteen hundred years after the Apostles, a fair time for the purest Church to gather much drosse and corruption, and for the mystery of iniquity to bring its work to some perfection, which in the Apostles time began to work, If (I say) you will come thus long after and urge us with the single Tradition of one of these Churches, being now Catholique to it selfe alone, and Hereticall to all the rest: nay not only with her ancient and originall Traditions, but also with her post-nate and introduc'd Definitions, and these as we pretend, repugnant to Scripture, and ancient Tradition, and all this to decline an indifferent tryall by Scripture, under pretence (wherein also you agree with the calumnie of the old Heretiques) that all necessary truth cannot be found in them without recourse to Tradition: If, I say, notwithstanding all these differences, you will still be urging us with this argument, as the very same and of the same force with that wherewith the fore-mentioned Fathers urg'd the old Heretiques, certainly this must needs proceed from a confidence you have, not only that we have no School-Divinity, nor Metaphysicks, but no Logick or common sense, that we are but pictures of men, and have the definition of rational creatures given us in vain.

41 But now suppose I should be liberall to you, and grant what you cannot prove, that the Fathers make Succession a certain and perpetuall ma [...]k of the true Church; I beseech you what will come of it? What, that want of Succession is a certain signe of an Hereticall company? Truly if you say so, either you want Logick, which is a certain signe of an ill disputer; or are not pleas'd to use it, which is a worse. For speech is a certain signe of a living man, yet want of speech is no sure argument that he is dead, for he may be dumb and yet living still, and we may have other evident tokens that hee is so, as eating, drinking, breathing, moving: So, though the constant and universall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolique Churches ever since the Apostles, be a very great argument of the truth of it, yet there is no certainty, but that truth, even Divine truth, may through mens wickednesse, be contracted from its universality, and interrupted in its perpetuity, and so loose this argument, and yet not want others to iustifie and support it self. For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens hearts, or a conclusion evidently arising from them: It may be either contain'd in Scripture in expresse terms, or deducible from it by apparent consequence. If therefore you intend to prove want of a perpetuall Succession of Professors a certain note of Heresie, you must not content your self to shew, that having it is one signe of truth; but you must shew it to be the only signe of it and inseparable from it. But this, if you be well advis'd, you will never undertake. First because it is an impossible attempt: and then because if you doe it you will marre all: for by proving this an inseparable signe of Catholique doctrine, you will prove your own, which apparently wants it in many points, not to be Catholique. For whereas you say [Page] this Succession requires two things, agreement with the Apostles doctrine, and an uninterrupted conveyance of it down to them that challenge it: It will be prov'd against you that you fail in both points; and that some things wherein you agree with the Apostles have not been held alwaies, as your condemning the doctrine of the Chiliasts, and holding the Eucharist not necessary for Infants; and that in many other things you agree not with them nor with the Church for many ages after. For example; In mutilation of the Communion, in having your Service in such a language as the Assistants generally understand nor, your offering to Saints, your picturing of God, your worshipping of Pictures.

42 Ad §. 24. As for Vniversality of place, the want whereof you object to Protestants as a marke of Heresie: You have not set down cleerely and univocally what you mean by it, whether universality of fact or of right: and if of fact, whether absolute or comparative: and if comparative, whether of the Church in comparisō of any other Religion, or only of Hereticall Christians: or if in comparison of these, whether in comparison of all other Sects conjoyn'd, or in comparison only of any One of them. Nor have you proved it by any good argument in any sense to be a certain mark of Heresy: For those places of S. Austine doe not deserve the name. And truly in my judgement you have done advisedly in proving it no better. For as for Vniversality of right, or a right to Vniversality, all Religions claime it, but only the true has it, and which has it cannot be determin'd, unlesse it first be determin'd which is the true. An absolute Vniversality, and diffusion through all the world if you should pretend to, all the world would laugh at you. If you should contend for latitude with any one Religion, Mahumetisme would carry the victory from you. If you should oppose your selves against all other Christians besides you, it is certain you would be cast in this suit also. If lastly, being hard driven you should please you selves with being more then any one Sect of Christiās, it would presently be replied, that it is ūcertain whether now you are so, but most certain that the time has been when you have not been so. Then when theHierom. Cont. Lucif [...] rianos. whole world wondred that it was become Arrian: then when Athanasius oppos'd the world, and the world Athanasius: then whenIn Theodoret. Hist. 16. c. l. 2. your Liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him as a note of error, answered for himselfe, There was a time when there were but three opposed the decree of the King, and yet those three were in the right, and the rest in the wrong: then when the Professors of error surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in proportion, as the sands of the Sea doe the Starres of the Heaven. (AsIn ep. 48. [...] Vincentium. S. Austine acknowledgeth:) then whenConvnenitorij. lib. 1. c. 4. Vincentius confesseth, that the poyson of the Arrians had contaminated, not now some certain portion, but almost the whole World: then when the author of Nazianzens life testifies, That In vita Naziauz the Heresy of Arrius, had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world; and when Nazianzen found cause to cry out, In Orat. Arian. & [...]. Where are they who reproach us with our pouerty, who define the Church by the multitude, and despise the little flock? They have the People, but [Page]we the faith. And lastly when Athanasius was so overborn with Sholes & floods of Arriās, that he was enforc'd to write a Treatise on purpose To. [...] against those, who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents. So that if you had prov'd want of Universality even thus restrained, to be an infallible note of Heresy, there would have been no remedy but you must have confessed, that the time was when you were Heretiques. And besides, I see not how you would have avoided this great inconvenience, of laying grounds and storeing up arguments for Antichrist, against he comes, by which he may prove his Company the true Church. For it is evident out of Scripture, and confessed by you, that though his time be not long, his dominion shall be very large; and that the true Church shall be then, the woman driven into the wildernesse.

43 Ad §. 25. & 26. The remainder of this Chapter if I would deale strictly with you, I might let passe as impertinent to the question now disputed. For whereas your argument promises that this whole Chapter shall be imploied in proving Luther & the Protestants guilty of Heresy, here you desert this question, and strike out into another accusation of them, that their faith even of the truth they hold, is not indeed true faith. But put case it were not, does it follow, that the having of this faith makes them Heretiques, or that they are therefore Heretiques because they have this faith? Aristotle beleeved there were Intelligences which moved the Spheares; he believed this with an humane perswasion, and not with a certain, obscure, prudent, supernaturall faith: and will you make Aristotle an Heretique, because he believed so? You believe there was such a man as Iulius Caesar, that there is such a City as Constantinople, and your beliefe here of has not these qualifications which you require: And will you be content that this shall passe for a sufficient proofe that you are an Heretique? Heresy you have defin'd above to be a voluntary error: but he that believes truth, though his belief be not qualified according to your minde, yet sure in believing truth he believes no error; & from hence according to ordinary Logick methinkes it should follow, that such a man for doing so, cannot be guilty of Heresy.

44 But you will say, though he be not guilty of Heresy for believing these truths, yet if his faith be not saving, to what purpose will it be? Truly very litle to the purpose of Salvation, as litle as it is to your proving Protestants guilty of Heresy. But out of our wonted indulgence, let us pardon this fault also, and doe you the favour to hear what you can say, to beget this faith in us, that indeed wee have no faith, or at least not such a faith, without which it is impossible to please God. Your discourse upon this point, you have, I know not upon what policie, disjoynted, and given us the grounds of it in the begining of the Chapter, and the superstructure here in the end. Them I have already examined, and for a great part of them, proved them vain and deceitfull. I have shewed by many certain arguments, that though the subject matter of our faith be in it selfe most certain, yet that absolute certainty of adherence, is not required to the essence of faith, no [Page] nor to make it acceptable with God, but that to both these effects it is sufficient, if it be firme enough to produce Obedience and Charity. I haue shewed besides, that Prudence is rather commendable in faith, then intrinsecall and essentiall to it. So that whatsoever is here said, to prove the faith of Protestants no faith, for want of certainty or for want of prudence, is already answered before it is objected: for the foundation being destroyed the building cannot stand. Yet for the fuller refutation of all pretences, I will here make good, that to prove our faith destitute of these qualifications, you have produc'd but vain Sophismes, and for the most part, such arguments as returne most violently upon your selves. Thus then you say,

45 First that their belief wanteth certainty, I prove, because they denying the universall Infallibility of the Church, can have no certain ground to know what objects are revealed or testified by God. But if there be no other ground of certainty but your Churches infallibility, upon what certain ground doe you know that your Church is infallible? Upon what certain ground doe you know all those things which must be known before you can know that your Church is infallible? As that there is a God: that God hath promised his assistance to your Church in all her Decrees: that the Scripture wherein this promise is extant is the word of God: that those texts of Scripture which you alleage for your infallibility are incorrupted: that that which you pretend is the true sense of them? When you have produc'd certain grounds for all these things, I doubt not but it will appeare, that we also may have grounds certain enough to believe our whole Religion, which is nothing else but the Bible, without dependance on the Churches infallibility. Suppose you should meet with a man that for the present, believes neither Church, nor Scripture, nor God, but is ready & willing to believe them all, if you can shew some sufficient grounds to build his faith upon; will you tell such a man there are no certain grounds, by which he may be converted; or there are? If you say the first, you make all Religion an uncertain thing; If the second, then either you must ridiculously perswade, that your Church is infallible, because it is infallible, or else that there are other certain grounds besides your Churches infallibility.

46 But you proceed and tell us, that Holy Scripture is in it selfe most true and infallible, but without the direction and declaration of the Church, we can neither have certain meanes to know what Scripture is Canonicall, nor what Translations be faithfull, nor what is the true meaning of Scripture. Answ. But all these things must be known, before we can know the direction of your Church to be infallible, for no other proofe of it can be pretended, but only some Texts of Canonicall Scripture, truly interpreted: Therefore either you are mistaken, in thinking there is no other meanes to know these things, but your Churches infallible direction, or we are excluded from all meanes of knowing her direction to be infallible.

47 But Protestants, though as you suppose, they are perswaded their own oponions are true, and that they have used such meanes as are wont to [Page]be prescribed for understanding the Scripture, as Prayer, conferring of Texts &c. Yet by their disagreement shew, that some of them are deceived. Now they hold all the Articles of their faith, upon this only ground of Scripture, interpreted by these rules, and therefore it is cleere, that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all. The first of these suppositions must needs be true, but the second is apparently false: I mean, that every Protestant is perswaded that he hath used those means which are prescribed for understanding of Scripture. But that which you collect from these suppositions is cleerely inconsequent: and by as good Logick you might conclude, that Logick and Geometry stand upon no certain grounds, that the rules of the one, and the principles of the other doe sometimes faile, because the disagreement of Logicians and Geometricians shew, that some of them are deceived. Might not a Iew conclude as well against all Christians, that they have no certain ground whereon to rely in their understanding of Scripture, because their disagreements shew that some are deceived; because some deduce from it the infallibility of a Church, and others no such matter? So likewise a Turke might use the same argument against both Iewes and Christians, and an Atheist against all Religions, and a Sceptick against all reason. Might not the one say, Mens disagreement in Religion, shew that there is no certainty in any; and the other, that experience of their contradictions teacheth, that the rules of reason doe sometimes faile? Doe not you see and feele how void of reason and how full of impiety your sophistry is? And how transported with zeale against Protestants, you urge arguments against them, which if they could not be answered, would overthrow not only your own, but all Religion? But God be thanked, the answere is easy and obvious! For let men but remember not to impute the faults of men but only to men, and then it will easily appear, that there may be sufficient certainty in reason, in Religion, in the rules of interpreting Scripture, though men through their faults, take not care to make use of them, and so run into divers errors and dissentions.

48 But Protestants cannot determine what points be fundamentall, and therefore must remain uncertain, whether or no they be not in some fundamentall error. Ans. By like reason since you acknowledge, that every error in points defin'd and declared by your Church destroies the substance of faith, and yet cannot determine what points be defined, it followeth that you must remain uncertain, whether or no you be not in some fundamentall error, and so want the substance of faith, without which there can be no hope of Salvation. Now that you are uncertain what points are defined, appeares from your owne words. c. 4. §. 3. of your second Part, where say you, No lesse impertinent is your discourse, concerning the difficulty to know what is Heresy: For we grant that it is not alwaies easy to determine in particular occasions, whether this or that Doctrine be such, because it may be doubtfull, whether it be against any Scripture, or divine Tradition, or Definition of the Church. Neither were it difficult to extort from you this confession, by naming diverse Points, which some of you say are defin'd, others the contrary. [Page] And others hang in suspense, and know not what to determine. But this I have done elsewhere: as also I have shewed plainly enough, that though we cannot perhaps say in particular, thus much, and no more is fundamentall, yet believing all the Bible, we are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamentall. As he that in a receit, takes twenty ingredients whereoften only are necessary, though he know not which those ten are, yet taking the whole twenty he is sure enough that he has taken all that are necessary.

49 Ad §. 29. But that he who erreth against any one revealed truth looseth all Divine Faith, is a very true doctrine delivered by Catholique Divines, (you mean your own) with so generall a consent, that the contrary is wont to be censur'd as temerarious: Now certainly some Protestants must doe so, because they hold contradictions which cannot all be true; Therefore some of them at least, have no divine faith. Ans. I passe by your weaknesse, in urging Protestants with the authority of your Divines, which yet in you might very deservedly be censur'd. For when D. Potter, to shew the many actuall dissentions between the Romish Doctors, notwithstanding their braggs of potentiall Vnity, referres to Pappus, who has collected out of Bellar▪ their contradictions, and set them down in his own words to the number of 237. & to Flacius, de Sect is & controversiis Religionis Papisticae; you making the very same use of M. Breerely against Protestants; yet jeere and scorne D. Potter, as if he offer'd you for a proofe, the bare authority of Pappus and Flacius, and tell him, which is all the answer you vouchsafe him, It is pretty that he brings Pappus and Flacius, flat Heretiques, to prove your many contradictions▪ As if he had proved this with the bare authority, the bare judgement of these men, which sure he does not, but with the formall words of Bellarmine faithfully collected by Pappus. And why then might not we say to you, Is it not pretty that you bring Breerly as flat an Heretique as Pappus or Flacius, to prove the contradictions of Protestants? Yet had he been so vain as to presse you with the meere authority of Protestant Divines in any point, me thinkes for your own sake, you should have pardon'd him, who here and in many other places, urge us with the judgement of your Divines as with weighty arguments. Yet, if the authority of your Divines were even Canonicall, certainly nothing could be concluded from it in this matter, there being not one of them, who delivers for true doctrine this position of yours, thus nakedly set down, That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine faith. For they all require, (not your selfe excepted) that this truth must not only be revealed, but revealed publiquely, and (all things considered) sufficiently propounded to the erring Party, to be one of those, which God under pain of damnation commands all men to believe. And therefore the contradiction of Protestants (though this vaine doctrine of your Divines were supposed true, is but a weak argument) That any of them have no divine. Faith, seeing you neither have, not ever can prove▪ (without begging the Question of your Churches infallibility,) that the truthes about which they differ, are of this quality and condition. [Page] But though out of curtesy wee may suppose this doctrine true, yet we have no reason to grant it, nor to think it any thing but a vain and groundlesse fancy: and that this very weak and inartificiall argument, from the authority of your Divines, is the strongest pillar which it hath to support it. Two reasons you alleage for it out of Thomas Aquinas, the first whereof vainly supposeth against reason and experience, that by the commission of any deadly sinne, the habit of Charity is quite extirpated. And for the second, though you cry it up for an Achilles, and think like the Gorgons head it will turne us all into stone, and in confidence of it, insult upon D. Potter as if he durst not come near it, yet in very truth having considered it well, I finde it a serious, grave, prolixe, and profound nothing. I could answer it in a word, by telling you, that it beggs without all proofe or colour of proofe, the main question between us, that the infallibility of your Church is either the formall motive, or rule, or a necessary condition of faith: which you know we flatly deny, and therefore all that is built upon it has nothing but wind for a foundation. But to this answer I will adde a large confutation of this vain fancy, out of one of the most rationall and profound Doctors of your own Church, I mean Estius, who upon the third of the Sent. the 23. dist▪ the 13. §. writes thus, It is disputed (saith he) whether in him who believes some of the Articles of our faith, and disbelieves others, or perhaps someone, there be faith properly so called in respect of that which he does believe? In which question we must before all, carefully distinguish between those, who retaining a generall readinesse to believe whatsoever the Church believes, yet erre by ignorance in some doctrine of faith, because it is not as yet sufficiently declared to them that the Church does so believe; and those who after sufficient manifestation of the Churches doctrine, doe yet choose to dissent from it, either by doubting of it, or affirming the contrary. For of the former the answer is easy; but of these, that is, of Heretiques retaining some part of wholsome doctrine, the question is more difficult, and on both sides by the Doctors probably disputed. For that there is in them true faith of the Articles wherein they doe not erre, first experience seemes to convince: For many at this day denying, for example sake, Purgatory, or Invocation of Saints, neverthelesse firmely hold, as by divine revelation, that God is Three and One▪ that the Sonne of God was incarnate and suffered, and other like things. [...]As anciently the Novatians, excepting their peculiar error, of denying reconciliation to those that fell in persecution, held other things in common with Catholiques: So that they assisted them very much against the Arrians, as Socrates relates in his Eccl. Hist. Moreover the same thing is proved by the example of the Apostles, who in the time of Christs passion being scandaliz'd, lost their faith in him: as also, Christ after his resurrection upbraids them with their incredulity, and calls Thomas incredulous, for denying the Resurrection, Ioh. 20. Whereupon S. Austine also in his preface upon the 96. Ps. saith, That after the Resurrection of Christ, the faith of those that fell was restored again. And yet we must not say, that the Apostles then lost the faith of the Trinity, of the Creation of the world, of Eternall life, and such like other Articles.[Page]Besides, the Iewes before Christs comming, held the faith of one God the Creator of Heaven and Earth: who although they lost the true faith of the Messias by not receiving Christ, yet we cannot say, that they lost the faith of one God, but still retained this Article as firmely as they did before.

Adde hereunto, that neither Iewes nor Heretiques seeme to lye, in saying they believe either the books of the Prophets, or the four Gospels: It being apparent enough, that they acknowledge in them Divine Authority, though they hold not the true sense of them, to which purpose is that in the Acts. c. 20. Believest thou the Prophets? I know that thou believest. Lastly it is manifest, that many gifts of God, are found even in bad men, and such as are out of the Church; therefore nothing hinders but that Iewes and Heretiques, though they erre in many things, yet in other things may be so divinely illuminated as to believe aright. So S. Austin seemes to teach in his book, De Vnico Baptismo: contra Pe [...]ilianum c. 3. in these words: When a Iew comes to us to be made a Christian, we destroy not in him Gods good things but his own ill. That he believes one God is to be worshipped, that he hopes for eternall life, that he doubts not of the Resurrection, we approve and commend him: we acknowledge, that as he did believe these things, so he is still to believe them, and as he did hold, so he is still to hold them. Thus he: subioyning more to the same purpose in the next, and again in the 26. Chapter, and in his third book, De Bapt. contr. Donat. cap. ult. and upon Psal. 64. But now this reason seems to perswade the contrary: Because the formall obiect of faith seemes to be the first verity, as it is manifested by the Churches Doctrine as the Divine and infallible Rule, wherefore whosoever adheres not to this Rule, although he assent to some matters of faith, yet he embraces them not with faith, but with some other kinde of assent: as if a man assent to a conclusion, not knowing the reason by which it is demonstrated, he hath not true knowledge, but an opinion only of the same conclusion. Now that an Heretique adheres not to the r [...]le aforesaid, it is manifest: Because if he did adhere to it, as divine and infallible, he would receive all without exception, which the Church teacheth, and so would not be an Heretique. After this manner discourseth S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 5. art. 3. From whom yet Dur and dissents upon this distinction, thinking there may be in an Heretique true faith, in respect of the Articles in which he doth not erre. Others, as Scotus and Bonaventure, define not the matter plainly, but seeme to choose a middle way.

To the authority of S. Austine and these Schooleme [...], this may be adjoyned, That it is usuall with good Christians to say, that Heretiques have not the entire faith. Whereby it seemes to be intimated, that some part of it they doe retaine. Whereof this may be another reason: That if the truths which a Iew or a Heretique holds, he should not hold them by faith, but after some other manner, to wit, by his own proper will and judgement, it will follow, that all that excellent knowledge of God and divine things, which is found in them, is to be attributed not to the grace of God, but the strength of Free will, which is against S. Austine, both elsewhere, and especially in the end of his book De potentia.

[Page] As for the reason alleaged to the contrary, We answer: It is impertinent to faith, by what meanes we believe the prime Verity, that is, by what meanes God useth to conferre upon men the gift of Faith. For although now the ordinary meanes be the Testimony and teaching of the Church, yet it is certain that by other meanes, faith hath been given heretofore, and is given still. For many of the Ancients, as Adam, Abraham, Melchisedeck, Iob, received faith by speciall revelation; the Apostles by the Miracles and Preaching of Christ; others again by the Preaching and miracles of the Apostles; and Lastly others, by other meanes, when as yet they had heard nothing of the infallibility of the Church; to little Children by Baptisme, without any other help, faith is infus'd: And therefore it is possible, that a man not adhering to the Churches doctrine as a Rule infallible, yet may receive some things for the word of God, which doe indeed truly belong to the faith, either because they are now, or heretofore have been confirm'd by miracles: Or because he manifestly sees that the ancient Church taught so, or upon some other inducement. And yet neverthelesse we must not say, that Heretiques and Iewes doe hold the Faith, but only some part of the Faith. For the Faith signifies an entire thing, and compleat in all parts; whereupon an Heretique is said to be simply an Infidell, to have lost the Faith, and according to the Apostle 1. Tim. 1. to have made shipwrack of it, although he holds some things, with the same strength of assent and readinesse of will, wherewith by others are held all those points which appertaine to the Faith. And thus farre Estius. Whose discourse I presume may passe for a sufficient refutation of your argumēt out of Aquinas. And therefore your Corollaries drawn from it, That every error against faith, involves opposition against Gods testimony, That Protestants have no Faith, no certainty, and that you have all Faith, must together with it fall to the ground.

50 But if Protestants have certainty, they want obscurity, and so have not that faith, which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing. This argument you prosecute in the next Paragraph; But I can find nothing in it, to convince or perswade me that Protestants cannot have as much certainty as is required to faith, of an object not so evident as to beget science. If obscurity will not consist with certainty in the highest degree, then you are to blame for requiring to faith contradicting conditions. If certainty and obscurity will stand together, what reason can be imagin'd that a Protestant may not entertain them both as well as a Papist? Your bodies & souls, your understandings and wills are, I think, of the same condition with ours: And why then may not we be certain of an obscure thing as well as you? And as you made this long discourse against Protestants, why may not wee putting Church instead of Scripture, send it back again to you? And say; If Papists have certainty, they want obscurity, and so have not that faith, which as the Apostle saith, is of things not appearing, or not necessitating our understanding to an assent? For the whole edifice of the faith of Papists is setled on these two principles, These particular propositions are the propositions of the Church, And the sense and meaning of them is clear and evident, at least in all points necessary to salvation. [Page] Now these principles being one suppos'd, it clearly followeth, that what Papists beleeve as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true, by this argument; It is certain and evident, that whatsoever is the word of God or Divine Revelation is true; But it is certain and evident that these propositions of the Church in particular are the word of God and Divine Revelations; therefore it is certain and evident, that all propositions of the Church are true. Which Conclusion I take for a Major in a second argument, and say thus; It is certain and evident that all propositions of the Church are true; But it is certain and evident, that such particulars, for example, The lawfulnesse of the halfe Communion, The lawfulnesse and expedience of Latine Service, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Indulgences &c. are the Propositions of the Church; therefore it is certain and evident that these particular objects are true. Neither will it avail you to say, that the said principles are not evident by naturall discourse, but only by the eye of reason clear'd by grace: For supernaturall evidence, no lesse (yea rather more) drowns and excludes obscurity, then naturall evidence doth. Neither can the Partie so enlightned, be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light, but rather his understanding is by necessity made captive and forc'd not to disbeleeve what is presented by so clear a light. And therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the Apostle, but an invention of your own.

51 And having thus cryed quittance with you, I must intreat you to devise (for truly I cannot) some answer to this argument, which will not serve in proportion to your own. For I hope you will not pretend that I have done you injurie, in setling your faith upon principles which you disclaim. And if you alleage this disparity, That you are more certain of your principles, then we of ours, and yet you doe not pretend that your principles are so evident, as we doe that ours are: what is this to say, but that you are more confident then we, but confesse you have lesse reason for it? For the evidence of the thing assented to, be it more or lesse, is the reason and cause of the assent in the understanding. But then besides, I am to tell you, that you are here, as every where, extremely, if not affectedly mistaken in the Doctrine of Protestants; who though they acknowledge, that the things which they beleeve are in themselves as certain as any demonstrable or sensible verities, yet pretend not that their certainty of adherence is most perfect and absolute, but such as may be perfected and increas'd as long as they walke by faith and not by sight. And consonant hereunto is their doctrine touching the evidence of the objects whereunto they adhere. For you abuse the world & them, if you pretend that they hold the first of your two principles, That these particular Books are the word of God, (for so I think you mean) either to be in it self evidently certain, or of it self and being devested of the motives of credibility, evidently credible: For they are not so fond as to be ignorant, nor so vain as to pretend, that all men doe assent to it, which they would if it were evidently certain, nor so ridiculous as to imagine, that if an [Page] Indian that never heard of Christ or Scripture, should by chance find a Bible in his own Language, and were able to read it, that upon the reading it hee would certainly without a miracle beleeve it to bee the word of God: which he could not chuse if it were evidently credible. What then doe they affirm of it? Certainly no more then this, that whatsoever man that is not of a perverse mind, shall weigh with serious and mature deliberation, those great moments of reason which may incline him to beleeve the Divine authority of Scripture, and compare them with the light objections that in prudence can be made against it, he shall not chuse but find sufficient nay abundant inducements to yeeld unto it firme faith and syncere obedience. Let that learned man Hugo Grotius speake for all the Rest, in his Booke of the truth of Christian Religion; which Book whosoever attentively peruses shall find that a man may have great reason to be a Christian without dependance upon your Church for any part of it: and that your Religion is no foundation, but rather a scandall and an objection against Christianity. He then in the last Chapter of his second book hath these excellent words, If any be not satisfied with these arguments above-said, but desires more forcible reasons for confirmation of the excellency of Christian Religion, let such know that as there are variety of things which be true, so are there divers waies of proving or manifesting the truth. Thus is there one way in Mathematicks, another in Physicks, a third in Ethicks, and lastly another kind when a matter of fact is in question: wherein verily we must rest content with such testimonies as are free from all suspition of untruth; otherwise down goes all the frame and use of history, and a great part of the art of Physick, together with all dutifulnesse that ought to be between parents and children: for matters of practice can no way else be known but by such testimonies. Now it is the pleasure of Almighty God that those things which he would have us to beleeve (so that the very beleef thereof may be imputed to us for obedience) should not so evidently appear, as those things which are apprehended by sense and plaine demonstration, but only be so farre forth revealed as may beget faith, and a perswasion thereof, in the hearts and minds of such as are not obstinate: That so the Gospell may be as a touchstone for triall of mens judgments, whether they be sound or unsound. For seeing these arguments, whereof we have spoken, have induced so many honest, godly, and wise men to approve of this Religion, it is thereby plain enough that the fault of other mens infidelity is not for want of sufficient testimony, but because they would not have that to be had and embraced for truth which is contrary to their wilfull desires; it being a hard matter for them to relinquish their honours, and set at naught other commodities; which thing they know they ought to doe, if they admit of Christs doctrine and obey what he hath commanded. And this is the rather to be noted of them, for that many other historicall narrations are approved by them to be true, which notwithstanding are only manifest by authority, and not by any such strong proofs, and perswasions, or tokens, as doe declare the history of Christ to be true: which are evident, partly by the confession of those Iewes that are yet alive; and partly in those companies and congregations of[Page]Christians which are any where to be found; whereof doubtlesse there was some cause.

Lastly seeing the long duration or continuance of Christian Religion, and the large extent thereof can be ascribed to no humane power, therefore the same must be attributed to miracles: or if any deny that it came to passe through a miraculous manner; this very getting so great strength and power without a miracle, may be thought to surpasse any miracle.

52 And now you see I hope that Protestants neither doe nor need to pretend to any such evidence in the doctrine they beleeve, as cannot well consist both with the essence and the obedience of faith. Let us come now to the last nullity which you impute to the faith of Protestants, and that it is want of Prudence. Touching which point, as I have already demonstrated, that wisdome is not essentiall to faith, but that a man may truly beleeve truth, though upon insufficient motives; So I doubt not but I shall make good, that if prudence were necessary to faith, we have better title to it then you; and that if a wiser then Solomon were here, he should have better reason to beleeve the Religion of Protestants then Papists, the Bible rather then the Councell of Trent. But let us hear what you can say!

53 Ad §. 31. You demand then first of all, What wisdome was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient, and besides which there could be demonstrated no other Visible Church of Christ upon earth? I answer: Against God and truth there lyes no presoription, and therefore certainly it might be great wisdome to forsake ancient errours for more ancient Truths. One God is rather to be follow'd then innumerable worlds of men: And therefore it might be great wisdome either for the whole Visible Church, nay for all the men in the world, having wandred from the way of Truth, to return unto it; or for a part of it, nay for one man to doe so, although all the world besides were madly resolute to doe the contrary. It might be great wisdome to forsake the errors though of the only Visible Church, much more the Roman, which in conceiving her self the whole Uisible Church, does somewhat like the Frog in the Fable, which thought the ditch he liv'd in to be all the world.

54 You demand again, What wisdome was it to forsake a Church acknowledg'd to want nothing necessary to Salvation, indued with Succession of Bishops, &c, us (que) ad Election or Choice? I answer: Yet might it be great wisdome to forsake a Church not acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation, but accused and convicted of many damnable errors: certainly damnable to them who were convicted of them, had they still persisted in them after their conviction; though perhaps pardonable (which is all that is acknowledg'd) to such as ignorantly continued in them. A Church vainly arrogating without possibility of proof a perpetuall Succession of Bishops, holding alwaies the same doctrine; and with a ridiculous impudence pretending perpetuall possession of all the world: whereas the world knows, that a litle before Luthers arising, your Church was confined to a part of a part of it. Lastly a Church vainly glorying in the dependance of other [Page] Churches upon her, which yet she supports no more then those crouching Anticks which seeme in great buildings to labour under the weight they beare, doe indeed support the Fabrick. For a corrupted and false Church may give authority to preach the truth, and consequently against her own falshoods and corruptions. Besides, a false Church may preserve the Scripture true, (as now the Old Testament is preserved by the Iewes,) either not being arriv'd to that height of impiety as to attempt the corruption of it, or not able to effect it, or not perceiving, or not regarding the opposition of it to her corruptions. And so we might receive from you lawfull Ordination and true Scriptures, though you were a false Church; and receiving the Scriptures from you (though not from you alone,) I hope you cannot hinder us, neither need wee aske your leave, to believe and obey them. And this, though you be a false Church, is enough to make us a true one. As for a Succession of men that held with us in all points of Doctrine, it is a thing we need not, and you have as litle as we. So that if we acknowledge that your Church before Luther was a true Church, it is not for any ends, for any dependance that we have upon you; but because we conceive that in a charitable construction, you may passe for a true Church. Such a Church (and no better) as you doe sometimes acknowledge Protestants to be, that is, a Company of men, wherein some ignorant soules may be saved. So that in this ballancing of Religion against Religion, and Church against Church, it seemes you have nothing of weight and moment to put into your scale; nothing but smoak and winde, vaine shadowes and phantasticall pretences. Yet if Protestants on the other side, had nothing to put in their Scale but those negative commendations which you are pleas'd to afford them; nothing but, no unity, nor meanes to procure it; no farther extent when Luther arose then Luthers body; no Vniversality of time or place; no visibility or being, except only in your Church; no Succession of persons or doctrine; no leader but Luther, in a quarrell begun upon no ground but passion; no Church, no Ordination, no Scriptures but such as they receiv'd from you; if all this were true, and this were all that could be pleaded for Protestants, possibly with an allowance of three graines of partiality your Scale might seem to turne. But then if it may appear that part of these objections are falsely made against them, the rest vainely; that whatsoever of truth is in these imputations, is impertinent to this triall, and whatsoever is pertinent is untrue; and besides, that plenty of good matter may be alleaged for Protestants which is here dissembled: Then I hope, our cause may be good notwithstanding these pretences.

55 I say then, that want of Vniversality of time & place, The invisibility or not existence of the professors of Protestant Doctrine before Luther, Luthers being alone when he first opposed your Church, Our having our Church, Ordination, Scriptures, personall and yet not doctrinall Succession from you, are vain and impertinent allegations, against the truth of our Doctrine and Church. That the entire truth of Christ without any mixture of error should be professed or believed [Page] in all places at any time, or in any place at all times, is not a thing evident in reason, neither have we any Revelation for it. And therefore in relying so confidently on it, you build your house upon the sand. And what obligation we had either to be so peevish, as to take nothing of yours, or so foolish as to take all, I doe not understand. For whereas you say that this is to be choosers and therefore Heretiques, I tell you that though all Heretiques are choosers, yet all choosers are not Heretiques, otherwise they also, which choose your Religion must be Heretiques. As for our wanting Vnity and Meanes of proving it, Luthers opposing your Church upon meere passion, our following private men rather then the Catholique Church; the first and last are meere untruths, for we want not Vnity, nor Meanes to procure it in things necessary. Plain places of Scripture, and such as need no interpreter are our meanes to obtaine it. Neither doe we follow any private men, but only the Scripture, the word of God as our rule, and reason, which is also the gift of God given to direct us in all our actions, in the use of this rule. And then for Luthers opposing your Church upon meere passion, it is a thing I will not deny because I know not his heart, and for the same reason you should not have affirmed it. Sure I am, whether he opposed your Church upon reason or no, he had reason enough to oppose it. And therefore if he did it upon passion, we will follow him only in his action and not in his passion, in his opposion, not in the manner of it; and then I presume you will have no reason to condemne us, unlesse you will say that a good action cannot be done with reason, because some body before us hath done it upon passion. You see then how imprudent you have been in the choice of your arguments, to prove Protestants unwise in the choice of their Religion.

56 It remaines now, that I should shew that many reasons of moment may bee alleaged for the justification of Protestants, which are dissembled by you, and not put into the ballance. Know then Sir that when I say, The Religion of Protestants, is in prudence to be preferr'd before yours: as on the one side I doe not understand by your Religion, the doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius, or any other privat man amongst you, nor the Doctrine of the Sorbon, or of the Iesuits, or of the Dominicans, or of any other particular Company among you, but that wherein you all agree, or professe to agree, the Doctrine of the Councell of Trent: so accordingly on the other side, by the Religion of Protestants, I doe not understand the Doctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or Melancthon; nor the Confession of Augusta, or Geneva, nor the Catechisme of Heidelberg, nor the Articles of the Church of England, no nor the Harmony of Protestant Confessions; but that wherin they all agree, and which they all subscribe with a greater Harmony, as a perfect rule of their Faith and Actions, that is, The BIBLE. The BIBLE, I say, The BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants! Whatsoever else they believe besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion, but as matter of Faith and Religion, neither can they with coherence [Page] to their own grounds believe it themselves, nor require the beliefe of it of others, without most high and most Schismaticall presumption. I for my part after a long (and as I verily believe & hope,) impartiall search of the true way to eternall happinesse, doe professe plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot, but upon this Rock only. I see plainly and with mine own eyes, that there are Popes against Popes, Councells against Councells, some Fathers against others, the same Fathers against themselves, a Consent of Fathers of one age against a Consent of Fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age. Traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended, but there are few or none to be found: No Tradition but only of Scripture, can derive it selfe from the fountain, but may be plainly prov'd, either to have been brought in, in such an age after Christ; or that in such an age it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only, for any considering man to build upon. This therefore, and this only I have reason to believe: This I will professe, according to this I will live, and for this, if there be occasion, I will not only willingly, but even gladly loose my life, though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me. Propose me any thing out of this book, and require whether I believe it or no, and seeme it never so incomprehensible to humane reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger then this, God hath said so, therefore it is true. In other things I will take no mans liberty of judgement from him; neither shall any man take mine from me. I will think no man the worse man, nor the worse Christian: I will love no man the lesse, for differing in opinion from me. And what measure I meat to others I expect from them again. I am fully assured that God does not, and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man then this, To believe the Scripture to be Gods word, to endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it.

57 This is the Religion which I have chosen after a long deliberation, and I am verily perswaded that I have chosen wisely, much more wisely thē if I had guided my selfe according to your Churches authority. For the Scripture being all true, I am secur'd by believing nothing else, that I shall believe no falshood as matter of Faith. And if I mistake the sense of Scripture, and so fall into error, yet am I secure from any danger thereby, if but your grounds be true: because endeavouring to finde the true sense of Scripture, I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy, and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto mee. And then all necessary truth being as I have prov'd, plainly set down in Scripture, I am certain by believing Scripture, to believe all necessary Truth: And he that does so, if his life be answerable to his faith, how is it possible he should faile of Salvation?

58 Besides, whatsoever may be pretended to gain to your Church the credit of a Guide, all that & much more may be said for the Scripture. Hath your Church been ancient? The Scripture is more ancient. [Page] Is your Church a meanes to keep men at vnity? So is the Scripture to keep those that believe it and wil obey it, in unity of belief, in matters necessary or very profitable, and in unity of Charity in points unnecessary. Is your Church universall for time or place? Certainly the Scripture is more universall. For all the Christians in the world (those I mean that in truth deserve this name,) doe now, and alwaies have believed the Scripture to be the word of God: whereas only you say that you only are the Church of God, & all Christians besides you deny it.

59 Thirdly, following the Scripture, I follow that whereby you prove your Churches infallibility, (whereof were it not for Scripture what pretence could you have, or what notion could we have?) and by so doing tacitely confesse, that your selves are surer of the truth of the Scripture then of your Churches authority. For we must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proved, otherwise it is no proofe.

60 Fourthly, following the Scripture, I follow that which must be true if your Church be true: for your Church gives attestation to it. Whereas if I follow your Church, I must follow that which, though Scripture be true, may be false; nay which if Scripture be true must be false, because the Scripture testifies against it.

61 Fiftly, to follow the Scripture I have Gods expresse warrant and command, and no colour of any prohibition: But to believe your Church infallible, I have no cōmand at all, much lesse an expresse cō mand. Nay I have reason to fear that I am prohibited to doe so in these words: call no man Master on earth: They fell by infidelity, Thou standest by faith, Bee not high minded but feare: The spirit of truth The world cannot receive.

62 Following your Church I must hold many things not only above reason but against it, if any thing be against it: whereas following the Scripture I shall believe many mysteries but no impossibilities; many things above reason, but nothing against it; many things which had they not been reveal'd, reason could never have discover'd, but nothing which by true reason may be confuted: many things which reason cannot comprehend how they can be, but nothing which reason can comprehend that it cannot be. Nay I shall believe nothing which reason will not convince that I ought to believe it: For reason will convince any man, unlesse he be of a perverse mind, that the Scripture is the word of God: And then no reason can be greater then this, God sayes so therefore it is true.

63 Following your Church I must hold many things which to any mans judgment that will give himself the liberty of judgment, will seem much more plainly contradicted by Scripture, then the infallibility of your Church appeares to be confirm'd by it; and consequently must be so foolish as to believe your Church exempted from error upon lesse evidence, rather then subject to the common condition of mankind upon greater evidence. Now if I take the Scripture only for my Guide, I shall not need to doe any thing so unreasonable.

64 If I will follow your Church I must believe impossibilities, and that with an absolute certainty, upon motives which are confess'd [Page] to be but only Prudentiall and probable: That is, with a weak foundation I must firmly support a heavy, a monstrous heavy building: Now following the Scripture I shall have no necessity to undergoe any such difficulties.

65 Following your Church I must be servant of Christ and a Subject of the King, but only-Ad placitum Papae. I must bee prepar'd in mind to renounce my allegiance to the King, when the Pope shall declare him an Heretique and command me not to obey him: And I must be prepar'd in mind to esteem Vertue Vice, and Vice Vertue if the Pope shall so determine. Indeed you say it is impossible he should doe the latter; but that you know is a great question, neither is it fit my obedience to God and the King should depend upon a questionable foundation. And howsoever, you must grant that if by an impossible supposition the Popes commands should be contrary to the law of Christ, that they of your Religion must resolve to obey rather the commands of the Pope then the law of Christ. Whereas if I follow the Scripture, I may, nay I must obey my Soveraign in lawfull things, though an Heretique, though a Tyrant, and though, I doe not say the Pope, but the Apostles themselves, nay an Angell from heaven should teach any thing against the Gospell of Christ, I may, nay I must denounce Anathem [...] to him.

66 Following the Scripture I shall believe a Religion, which being contrary to flesh and blood, without any assistance from worldly power, wit or policy; nay against all the power and policy of the world prevail'd and enlarg'd it self in a very short time all the world over. Whereas it is too too apparent, that your Church hath got and still maintaines her authority over mens consciences, by counterfeiting false miracles, forging falle stories, by obtruding on the world suppositious writings, by corrupting the monuments of former times, and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you, by warres, by persecutions, by Massacres, by Treasons, by Rebellions; in short, by all manner of carnall meanes whether violent or fraudulent.

67 Following the Scripture I shall believe a Religion, the first Preachers and Professors whereof, it is most certain they could have no worldly ends upon the world, that they could not project to themselves by it any of the profits or honours or pleasures of this world, but rather were to expect the contrary, even all the miseries which the world could lay upon them. On the other side, the Head of your Church, the pretended Successor of the Apostles, and Guide of faith, it is even palpable, that he makes your Religion the instrument of his ambition, & by it seekes to entitle himselfe directly or indirectly to the Monarchy of the world. And besides, it is evident to any man that has but halfe an eye, that most of those Doctrines which you adde to the Scripture doe make one way or other, for the honour or temporall profit of the Teachers of them.

68 Following the Scripture only, I shall embrace a Religion of admirable simplicity, consisting in a manner wholly in the worship of [Page] God in spirit and truth. Whereas your Church and Doctrine is even loaded with an infinity of weak, childish, ridiculous, unsavoury superstitions and ceremonies, and full of that righteousnesse for which Christ shall judge the world.

69 Following the Scripture, I shall believe that which Vniversall, never-failing Tradition assures me, that it was by the admirable supernaturall worke of God confirm'd to be the word of God: whereas never, any miracle was wrought, never so much as a lame horse cur'd in confirmation of your Churches authority and infallibility. And if any strange things have been done, which may seeme to give attestation to some parts of your doctrine, yet this proves nothing but the truth of the Scripture, which foretold that (Gods providence permitting it, and the wickednesse of the world deserving it) strange signes and wonders should be wrought to confirme false doctrine, that they which love not the truth, may be given over to strange delusions. Neither does it seeme to me any strange thing, that God should permit some true wonders to be done to delude them who have forged so many to deceive the world.

70 If I follow the Scripture, I must not promise my selfe Salvation without effectuall dereliction and mortification of all vices, and the effectuall practice of all Christian vertues: But your Church opens an easier and a broader way to Heaven, and though I continue all my life long in a course of sinne, and without the practice of any vertue, yet gives me assurance that I may be let in to heaven at a posterne gate, even by any act of Attrition at the houre of death, if it be joyn'd with confession, or by an act of Contrition without confession.

71 Admirable are the Precepts of piety and humility, of innocence and patience, of liberality, frugality, temperance, sobriety, justice, meeknesse, fortitude, constancy and gravity, contempt of the world, love of God and the love of man kind; In a word, of all vertues, and against all vice, which the Scriptures impose upon us, to be obeyed under pain of damnation: The summe whereof is in manner compriz'd in our Saviours Sermon upon the Mount, recorded in the 5. 6. and 7. of S. Matthew, which if they were generally obeyed, could not but make the world generally happy, and the goodnesse of them alone were sufficient to make any wise and good man believe that this Religion rather then any other, came from God the Fountain of all goodnesse. And that they may be generally obeyed, our Saviour hath ratified them all in the close of his Sermon, with these universall Sanctions, Not every one that sayeth Lord Lord, shall enter into the Kingdome, but he that doth the will of my Father which is in Heaven: and again, whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doth them not, shall be likned unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand, and the ruine descended, and the stood came, and the winds blew, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. Now your Church, notwithstanding all this, enervates and in a manner dissolves and abrogates many of these precepts, teaching men that they are not lawes for all Christians, but Counsells of perfection and matters of Supererrogation: that a man [Page] shall doe well if he doe observe them, but he shall not sinne if he observe them not; That they are for them who ayme at high places in heaven, who aspire with the two sonnes of Zebede, to the right hand or to the left hand of Christ: But if a man will be content barely to goe to heaven, and to be a doore keeper in the house of God, especially if he will be content to tast of Purgatory in the way, he may obtaine it at any easier purchase. Therefore the Religion of your Church is not so holy nor so good as the doctrine of Christ delivered in Scripture, and therefore not so likely to come from the Fountaine of holinesse & goodnesse.

72 Lastly, if I follow your Church for my Guide, I shall doe all one, as if I should follow a Company of blind men in a judgement of colours, or in the choice of a way. For every unconsidering man is blind in that which he does not consider. Now what is your Church but a Company of unconsidering men, who comfort themselves because they are a great company together, but all of them, either out of idlenesse refuse the trouble of a severe tryall of their Religion, (as if heaven were not worth it,) or out of superstition fear the event of such a tryall, that they may be scrupled and staggered and disquieted by it; and therefore, for the most part doe it not at all. Or if they doe it, they doe it negligently and hypocritically, and perfunctorily, rather for the satisfaction of others then themselves: but certainly without indifference, without liberty of judgement, without a resolution to doubt of it, if upon examination the grounds of it prove uncertain, or to leave it, if they prove apparently false. My own experience assures me, that in this imputation I doe you no injury: but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking, doubting of any part of your Doctrine, among mortall sinnes. For from hence it followes, that seeing every man must resolve that he will never commit mortall sinne, that he must never examine the grounds of it at all, for fear he should be mov'd to doubt: or if he doe, he must resolve that no motives, be they never so strong shall move him to doubt, but that with his will and resolution he will uphold himselfe in a firme belief of your Religon, though his reason and his understanding faile him. And seeing this is the condition of all those whom you esteem good Catholiques, who can deny, but you are a Company of men unwilling and afraid to understand, least you should doe good! That have eyes to see and will not see, that have have not the love of truth (which is only to be known by an indifferent tryall,) & therefore deserve to be given over to strong delusions; men that love darknesse more then light: in a word, that you are the blind leading the blind, and what prudence there can be, in following such Guides, our Saviour hath taught us in saying, If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

73 There remaines unspoken to in this Section, some places out of S. Austin, and some sayings of Luther, wherein he confesses that in the Papacy are many good things. But the former I have already considered, and return'd the argument grounded on them. As for Luthers speeches, I told you, not long since, that we follow no privat [Page] men, and regard not much what he saies either against the Church of Rome, or for it, but what he proves. He was a man of a vehement Spirit, and very often what he took in hand, he did not doe it but over doe it. He that will justify all his speeches, especially such as he wrote in heat of opposition, I believe will have work enough. Yet in these sentences, though he overreach in the particulars, yet what he saies in generall we confesse true, and confesse with him that in the Papacy are many good things, which have come from them to us, but withall we say there are many bad, neither doe wee think our selves bound in prudence either to reject the good with the bad, or to retain the bad with the good, but rather conceive it a high point of wisdome, to separate between the pretious and the vile, to sever the good from the bad, and to put the good in vessels to be kept, and to cast the bad away; to try all things, and to hold that which is good.

74 Ad §. 32. Your next and last argument against the faith of Protestants is, because wanting Certainty and Prudence, it must also want the fourth condition, Supernaturality. For that being a humane perswasion, it is not in the essence of it supernaturall: and being imprudent and rash, it cannot proceed from Divine motion, and so is not supernaturall in respect of the cause from which it proceedeth. Ans. This litle discourse stands wholly upon what went before, and therefore must fall together with it. I have proved the Faith of Protestants as certain, and as prudent as the faith of Papists; and therefore if these be certain grounds of supernaturality, our faith may have it as well as yours. I would here furthermore be inform'd how you can assure us that your faith is not your perswasion or opinion (for you make them all one,) that your Churches doctrine is true? Or if you grant it your perswasion, why is it not the perswasion of men, and in respect of the subject of it, an humane perswasion? I desire also to know, what sense there is in pretending that your perswasion is, not in regard of the object only and cause of it, but in nature or essence of it supernaturall? Lastly, whereas you say, that being imprudent it cannot come from divine motion: certainly by this reason all they that believe your own Religion, and cannot give a wise and sufficient reason for it, (as millions amongst you cannot) must be condemn'd to have no supernaturall faith: or if not, then without question nothing can hinder, but that the imprudent faith of Protestants may proceed from divine motion, as well as the imprudent faith of Papists.

75 And thus having weighed your whole discourse, and found it altogether lighter then vanity, why should I not invert your conclusion; and say, Seeing you have not proved that whosoever erres against any one point of Faith looseth all divine Faith: nor that any error whatsoever concerning that which by the Parties litigant may be esteem'd a matter of faith is a grievous sinne, it followes not at all, that when two men hold different doctrines concerning Religion, that but one can be saved? Not that I deny, but that the sentence of S. Chrysost. with which you conclude this Chapt. may in a good sense be true: for oftimes by the faith is meant only that Doctrine which is necessary to [Page] salvation, and to say that salvation may be had without any the least thing which is necessary to salvation, implyes a repugnance and destroies it selfe. Besides, not to believe all necessary points, and to believe none at all, is for the purpose of salvation all one; and therefore he that does so, may justly be said to destroy the Gospell of Christ, seeing he makes it uneffectuall to the end for which it was intended, the Salvation of mens soules. But why you should conceive that all differences about Religon, are concerning matters of faith, in this high notion of the word, for that I conceive no reason.

CHAP. VII.
In regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones self, Protestants are in state of Sinne, as long as they remain separated from the Roman Church.

THAT, due Order is to be observed in the Theologicall Vertue of Charity, whereby we are directed to preferre some Objects before others, is a truth taught by all Divines, and declared in these words of holy Scripture: He hath ordered Cant. 2, 4. Charity in me. The reason whereof is: because the infinite Goodnesse of God, which is the formall Obiect, or Motive of Charity, and for which all other things are loved, is differently participated by different Objects; and therefore the love we beare to them for Gods sake, must accordingly be unequall. In the vertue of Faith, the case is farre otherwise; because all the Objects, or points which we believe, doe equally participate the divine Testimony or Revelation, for which we believe alike all things propounded for such. For it is as impossible for God, to speake an untruth in a small, as in a great matter. And this is the ground for which we have so often affirmed, that any least errour against Faith, is injurious to God, and destructive of Salvation.

2 This order in Charity may be considered; Towards God; Our owne soule; The soule of our Neighbour; Our owne life, or Goods; and the life or goods of our Neighbour. God is to be beloved above all things, both objectivè (as the Divines speake) that is, we must wish or desire to God, a Good more great, perfect, and noble then to any; or all other things: namely, all that indeed He is, a Nature Infinite, Independent, Immense &c. and also appretiative, that is, wee must sooner loose what good soever, then leave, and abandon Him. In the other Objects of Charity, of which I spake, this order is to be kept. We may, but are not bound, to preferre the life and goods of our Neigbour before our owne: we are bound to pre [...]erre the soule of our Neighbour before our own temporall goods or life, if he happen to be in extreme spirituall necessity, and that we by our assistance can succour him, according to the saying of S. Iohn: In this we have knowne 1. Ioan. 3. v. 16. the Charity of God, because he hath yielded his life for us: and we ought to yield our life for our Brethren. And S. Augustine likewise saith: A Christian will not doubt De mendac. cap. 6. to loose his owne temporall life, for the eternall life of his Neighbour. Lastly we are to preferre the spirituall good of our own soule, before both the spirituall and temporall good of our Neighbour, because as Charity doth of its own Nature, chiefly encline the person in whom it resides, to love God, and to be united with him: so of it selfe it enclines him to procure those things whereby the said Vnion with God is effected, rather to himselfe then to others. And from hence it followes, that in things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case, or in any respect whatsoever, to preferre the spirituall good, either of any particular person, or of the whole world before his own soule; according to those words of our Blessed Saviour: What doth it; Mat. 6 availe a man, if he gaine the whole world, and sustaine the damage of his own soule? And therefore (to come to our present purpose) it is directly against the Order of Charity, or against Charity as it hath a reference to our selves, which Divines call Charitas propria, to adventure either the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation, or the committing of any thing repugnant to it, for whatsoever respect, and consequently, if by living out of the Roman Church we put our selves in hazard, either to want some thing necessarily required to salvation, or else to performe some act against it, wee commit a most grievous sinne against the vertue of Charity, as it respect our selves, and so cannot hope for salvation without repentance.

3 Now, of things necessary to salvation, there are two sorts, according to the doctrine of all [Page] Divines. Some things (say they) are necessary to salvation, necessitate praecepti, necessary only because they are commanded; For, If thou wilt Math. 10. 17. enter into life, keepe the Commandements. In which kind of things, as probable ignorance of the Law, or of the commandement doth excuse the party from all faulty breach thereof; so likewise doth it not exclude salvation in case of ignorance. Some other things are said to be necessary to salvation necessitate medij, finis, or salutis; because they are Meanes appointed by God to attaine our End of eternall salvation, in so strict a manner, that it were presumption to hope for Salvation without them. And as the former meanes are said to be necessary, because they are commanded, so the latter are commonly said to be commanded: because they are necessary, that is: Although there were no other speciall precept concerning them; yet supposing they bee once appointed as meanes absolutely necessary to salvation, there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them, in vertue of that universall precept of Charity, which obligeth every man to procure the salvation of his own soule. In this sort divine infallible Faith is necessary to salvation; as likewise repentance of every deadly sinne, and in the doctrine of Catholiques, Baptisme in re, that is, in act, to Children, and for those who are come to the use of reason, in voto, or harty desire, when they cannot have it in act. And as Baptisme is necessary for remission of Originall and Actuall sinne committed before it: so the Sacrament of Confession, or Pennance is necessary in re, or in voto, in act, or desire, for the remission of mortall sinnes, committed after Baptisme. The Minister of which Sacrament of Pennance being necessarily a true Priest, true Ordination is necessary in the Church of God for remission of sinnes by this sacrament, as also for other ends not belonging to our present purpose. From hence it riseth, that no ignorance or impossibility can supply the want of those means which are absolutely necessary to salvation. As if, for example, a sinner depart this world without repenting himselfe of all deadly sinnes, although he dye suddenly, or unexpectedly fall out of his wits, and so commit no new sinne by omission of repentance; yet he shall be eternally punished for his former sinnes committed, and never repented. If an Infant dye without Baptisme, he cannot be saved, not by reason of any actuall sinne committed by him in omitting Baptisme, but for Originall sinne, not forgiven by the meanes which God hath ordained to that purpose. Which doctrine, all, or must Protestants will (for ought I know) grant to be trve, in the Children of Infidels, yea not only Lutherans, but also some other Protestants, as M. Bilson late of Winchester In his true difference &c. Part. 4. pag. 168. & 369. & others hold it to be true, even in the Children of the faithfull. And if Protestants in generall disagree fom Catholiques in this point, it cannot be denyed but that our disagreement is in a point very fundamentall. And the like I say of the Sacrament of Pennance, which they deny to be necessary to salvation, either in act, or in desire; which error is likewise fundamentall, because it concernes (as I said) a thing necessary to salvation: And for the same reason, if their Priesthood and Ordination be doubtfull, as certainly it is, they are in danger to want a meanes without which they cannot be saved. Neither ought this rigour to seeme strange, or unjust: For Almighty God having of his own Goodnesse, without our merit, first ordained Man to a supernaturall end of eternall felicity; and then; after our fall in Adam vouchsafed to reduce us to the attaining of that End, if his blessed Will be pleased to limit the attaining of that End, to some meanes which in his infinite Wisdome he thinks most fit; who can say, why dost thou so? Or who can hope for that End, without such meanes? Blessed be his divine Majesty, for vouchsafing to ordaine us, base creatures, to so sublime an End, by any meanes at all!

4 Out of the foresaid difference followeth another, that (generally speaking) in things necessary only, because they are commanded, it is sufficient for avoiding sinne, that we proceed prudently, and by the conduct of some probable opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men of vertue, learning and wisdome, Neither are we alwaies obliged to follow the most strict, and severe, or secure part, as long as the doctrine which wee embrace, proceeds upon such reasons, as may warrant it to be truly probable, and prudent, though the contrary part want not also probable grounds. For in humane affaires, and discourse, evidence and certainty cannot be alwaies expected. But when wee treat not precisely of avoiding sinne, but moreover of procuring some thing without which I cannot bee saved; I am obliged by the Law, and Order of Charity to procure as great certainty as morrally I am able; and am not to follow euery probable opinion or dictamen, but tutiorem partem, the safer part, because if my probability prove false, I shall not probably, but certainly come short of Salvation. Nay in such case, I shall incurre a new sinne against the Vertue of Charity towards my selfe, which obligeth every one not to expose his soule to the hazard of eternall perdition, when it is in his power, with the assistance of Gods grace, to make the matter sure. From this very ground it is, that although some Divines be of opinion, that it is not a sinne to use some Ma [...]ter, or Form of Sacraments, only probable, if we respect precisely the reverence or respect which is due to Sacraments, as they belong to the Morall i [...]fused Vertue of Religion; yet when they are such Sacraments, as the invalidity thereof may endanger the salvation of soules, all doe with one consent agree, that it is a grievous offence to use a doubtfull, or onely probable Matter or Forme, when it is in our power to procure certainty. If therefore it may appeare, that though it were not certaine that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation (as we have proved to be very certaine) yet at least that is probable, and with all, that there is a way more safe; it will follow out of the grounds already said, that they are obliged by the law of Charity to imb [...]ace that safe way.

5 Now, that Protestants have reason at least to doubt in what case they stand, is deduced [Page] from what we have said, and proved about the universall infallibility of the Church, and of her being Iudge of Controversies, to whom all Christians ought to submit their Iudgement (as even some Protestants g [...]ant,) and whom to oppose in any one of her definitions; is a grievous sinne: As also from what we have said of the Vnity, Vniversality, and Visibility of the Church, and of Succession of Persons, and Doctrine; Of the Conditions of Divine Faith, Certainty, Obscurity, Prudence, and Supernaturality, which are wanting in the faith of Protestants; Of the frivolous distinction of points fundamentall & not fundamentall, (the confutation whereof proveth that Heretiques disagreeing among themselves in any least point, cannot have the same faith, nor be of the same Church:) Of Schisme; of Heresy; of the Persons who first revolted from Rome, and of their Motives; of the Nature of Faith, which is destroyed by any least errour, & it is Certaine that some of thē must be in error & want the substance of true faith; & since all pretend the like certainty, it is cleer that none of them have any certainty at all, but that they want true faith, which is a meanes most absolutely necessary to Salvation. Moreover, as I said heretofore, since it is granted that every Error in fundamentall points is damnable, and that they cannot tell in particular, what points be fundamentall; it followes that none of them knowes whether he, or his Brethren doe not erre damnably, it being certain that amongst so many disagreeing persons some must erre. Vpon the same ground of not being able to assigne what points be fundamentall, I say, they cannot be sure whether the difference among them be fundamentall or no, and consequently whether they agree in the substance of faith and hope of Salvation. I omit to adde that you want the Sacrament of Pennance, instituted for remission of sinnes, or at least you must confesse that you hold it not necessary; and yet your own Brethren, for example, the Century Writers doeCent. 3. cap. 6. Col. 1 [...]7. acknowledg that in times of Cyprian, and Tertullian, Private Confession even of Thoughts was used; and that, it was then commanded, and thought necessary. The like, I say, concerning your Ordination, which at least is very doubtfull, and consequently all that depends thereon.

6 On the other side, that the Roman Church is the the safer way to Heaven (not to repeat what hath been already said upon divers occasions) I will again put you in mind, that unlesse the Roman Church was the true Church there was no visible true Church upon earth. A thing so manifest, that Protestants themselves confesse that more then one thousand years the Roman Church possessed the whole world, as we have shewed heretofore, out of their ownChap. 5. Hu [...]. 9. words: from whence it follows, that unlesse Ours be the true Church, you cannot pretend to any perpetuall visible Church of your Own; but Ours doth not depend on yours, before which it was. And here I wish you to consider with feate and trembling, how all Roman Catholiques, not one excepted; that is, those very men whom you must hold not to erre damnably in their belief, unlesse you will destroy your own Church, and salvation, doe with unanimous consent believe, and professe that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation; and then tell me, as you will answer at the last day, Whether it be not more safe, to live and die in that Church, which even your selves are forced to acknowledge not to be cut off from hope of Salvation, (which are your own words) then [...]live in a Church, which the said confessedly true Church doth firmly believe, and constantly professe not to be capable of Salvation. And therefore I conclude that by the most strict obligation of Charity towards your own soule, you are bound to place it in safety, by returning to that Church, from which your Progenitors Schismatically departed; least too late you find that saying of the holy Ghost verified in your selves: He that loves Eccl. 3. 27. the danger, shall perish therein.

7 Against this last argument of the greater security of the Roman Church drawn from your own confession, you bring an Objection; which in the end will be found to make for us, against your selfe. It is taken from the words of the Don [...]tists, speaking to Catholiques in this manner: Your selves confesse Pag. 112. our Baptisme, Sacraments, and Faith (here you put an Explication or your own, and say, for the most part, as if any small error in faith did not destroy all Faith) to be good, and available. We deny yours to be so, and say there is no Church, no salvation amongst you; Therefore it is safest for all to joyn with us.

8 By your leave our Argument is not (as you say) for simple people alone, but for all them who have care to save their soules. Neither is it grounded upon your Charitable Iudgement (as youPag. 81. speak) but upon an inevitable necessity for you, either to grant salvation to our Church, or to entaile certaine damnation upon your owne: because yours can have no being till Luther, unlesse ours be supposed to have been the true Church of Christ. And since you term this Argument a charme, take heed you be none of those, who according to the Prophet David, doe not heare the voice of him Ps. 57. 6. who charmeth wisely. But to come to the purpose: Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had a true Church, or might be saved: And therefore you having cited out of S. Augustine, the words of the Catholiques, that the Donatists had true Baptisme, when you come to the contrary words of the Donatists, you adde, No Church, No Salvation; making the Argument to have quin (que) terminos; without which Addition you did see it made nothing against us: For, as I said, the Catholiques never yielded, that among the Donatists there was a true Church, or hope of salvation. And your selfe, a few leaves after, acknowledge that the Donatists maintained an error, which was in the Matter and Nature of it properly haereticall, against that Article of the Creed, wherein we professe to believe the holy Pag. 126. Catholique Church: and consequently, you cannot allow salvation to them, as you doe, and must doe to us. And therefore the Donatists could not make the like argument against Catholiques, as Catholiques make against you, who grant us Salvation, which we deny to you. But at least (you will say) this Argument for the [Page] Certainty of their Baptisme, was like to Ours touching the Security and Certainty of our salvation; and therefore that Catholiques should have esteemed the Baptisme of the Donatists more certain then their own, and so have allowed Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques, or sinners, as the Donatists esteemed all Catholiques to be. I answer, no. Because it being a matter of faith, that Baptisme administred by Heretiques, observing due Matter, form &c. is valide; to rebaptize any so baptized, had been both a sacriledg in reiterating a Sacramēt not reiterable, and a profession also of a damnable Heresy, and therefore had not been more safe, but certainly damnable. But you confesse that in the doctrine or practice of the Roman Church, there is no belief, or profession of any damnable error, which if there were, even your Church should certainly be no Church. To believe therefore and professe as we doe, cannot exclude Salvation, as Rebaptization must have done. But if the Donatists could have affirmed with truth, that in the opinion both of Catholiques and themselves, their Baptisme was good, yea and good in such sort as that unlesse theirs was good, that of the Catholiques could not be such; but theirs might be good, though that of the Catholiques were not: and further that it was no damnable error to believe, that Baptisme administred by the Catholiques was not good, nor that it was any Sacriledg to reiterate the same Baptisme of Catholiques: If, I say, they could have truly affirmed these things, they had said somewhat, which at least had seemed to the purpose. But these things they could not say with any colour of truth, and therefore their argument was fond, and impious. But we with truth say to Protestants: You cannot but confesse that our doctrine containes no damnable error; and that our Church is so certainly a true Church, that unlesse ours be true you cannot pretend any; Yea you grant, that you should be guilty of Schisme, if you did cut off our Church from the Body of Christ, and the hope of salvation: But we neither doe, nor can grant that yours is a true Church, or that within it there is hope of salvation: Therefore it is safest for you to joyn with us, And now against whom hath your Objection greatest force?

9 But I wonder not a little, and so I think will ever body else, what the reason may be, that you doe not so much as goe about to answer the argument of the Donatists, which you say is all one with Ours, but referre us to S. Augustine there to read it; as if every one carried with him a Library, or were able to examine the places in S. Augustine: and yet you might be sure your Reader would be greedy to see some solid answer to an argument so often urged by us, and which indeed, unless you can confute it, ought alone to move every one who hath care of his soule, to take the safest way, by incorporating himself in our Church. But we may easily imagine the true reason of your silence: For the answer which S. Augustine gives to the Donatists, is directly against your self, and the same which I have given. Namely, that CatholiquesAd lit. Petil. l. 2. cap. 10 [...]. approve the Baptisme of Donatists, but abhorre their heresy of Rebaptization. And that as gold is good (which is the similitude used byContra Cresc, lib. 1. cap. 21. S. Augustine) yet not to be sought in company of theeves; so though Baptisme be good, yet it must not be sought for in the Conventicle of Donatists. But you free us from damnable heresy, and yield us salvation, which I hope is to be imbraced in whatsoever Company it is found; or rather that Company is to be imbraced before all other, in which all sides agree, that salvation may be found. We therefore must inferre, that it is safest for you to 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 thePag. 7 [...]. 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 V [...] tue of Hope, without which none can hope to be saved, and which you want, either by ex [...]sse of Confidence, or defect by Despair, not unlike to your Faith, which I shewed to be either [...]cient in Certainty, or excessive in Evidēce; 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, [Page] 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.

[Page]

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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 can you suppose, that our ignorance of this command, is not at the least probable, if not, all things considered, plainly invincible? Sure I am, for my part, that I have done my true endeavour to finde it true, and am still willing to doe so; but the more I seeke, the farther I am from finding, and therefore if it be true, certainly my not finding it is very excusable, and you have reason to be very charitable in your censures of me. 2. Whereas you say, That besides these things necessary because commanded, there are other things, which are commanded because necessary: of which number you make Divine infallible faith, Baptisme in Act for Children, and in Desire for those who are come to the use of Reason, and the Sacrament of Confession, for those who have committed mortall sinne: In these words you seeme to me to deliver a strange Paradoxe viz. That Faith, and Baptisme, and Confession are not therefore necessary for us, because God appointed them, but are therefore appointed by God because they were necessary for us, antecedently to his appointment; which if it were true, I wonder what it was beside God that made them necessary, and made it necessary for God to command them! Besides, in making faith one of these necessary meanes, you seem to exclude Infants from Salvation: Fo [...] Faith comes by hearing, and they have not heard. In requiring that this Faith should be divine and infallible, you cast your Credentes into [Page] infinite perplexity, who cannot possibly by any sure marke discerne whether their Faith be Divine or humane, or if you have any certain signe, whereby they may discerne, whether they believe your Churches infallibility with Divine or only with humane faith, I pray produce it, for perhaps it may serve us to shew, that our faith is divine as well as yours. Moreover in affirming that Baptisme in act is necessary for Infants, and for men onely in desire, You seeme to me in the latter to destroy the foundation of the former. For if a desire of Baptisme will serve men instead of Baptisme, then those words of our Saviour, Vnlesse a man be borne again of water &c. are not to be understood literally and rigidly of externall Baptisme; for a desire of Baptisme is not Baptisme, and so your foundation of the Absolute necessity of Baptisme is destroied. And if you may glosse the Text so farre, as that men may be saved by the desire, without Baptisme it selfe, because they cannot have it, why should you not glosse it a little farther, that there may be some hope of the salvation of unbaptized infants: to whom it was more impossible to have a desire of Baptisme, then for the former to have the thing it selfe? Lastly, for your Sacrament of Confession, we know none such, nor any such absolute necessity of it. They that confesse their sinnes and forsake them shall finde mercy, though they confesse them to God only and not to men. They that confesse them both to God and men, if they doe not effectually and in time forsake them, shall not finde mercy. 3. Whereas you say, that supposing these meanes once appointed as absolutely necessary to salvation, there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them; you must suppose I hope, that we know them to be so appointed, and that it is in our power to procure them: otherwise though it may be our ill fortune to faile of the end, for want of the meanes, certainly we cannot be obliged to procure them. For the rule of the law is also the dictate of common reason and equity, That no man can be obliged to what is impossible. We can be obliged to nothing but by vertue of some command: now it is impossible that God should command in earnest anything which he knowes to be impossible. For to command in earnest, is to command with an intent to be obeyed; which is not possible he should doe, when he knowes the thing commanded to be impossible. Lastly, whosoever is obliged to doe any thing, and does it not, commits a fault; but Infants commit no fault in not procuring to have Baptisme; therefore no obligation lies upon them to procure it. 4. Whereas you say, that if Protestants dissent from you in the point of the necessity of Baptisme for Infants, it cannot be denied but that our disagreement is in a point fundamentall; If you mean a point esteemed so by you, this indeed cannot be denied: But if you mean a point that indeed is fundamentall, this may certainly be denied, for I deny it, and say, that it doth not appear to me any way necessary to Salvation to hold the truth, or not to hold an error, touching the condition of these Infants. This is certain, and we must believe that God will not deale unjustly with them, but how in particular he will deale with them concernes not us, and therefore we need not much regard it. [Page] 5. Whereas you say the like of your Sacrament of Penance, you only say so, but your proofes are wanting. Lastly, whereas you say, This rigour ought not to seeme strange or uniust in God, but that we are rather to blesse him for ordaining us to Salvation by any meanes: I answer, that it is true, we are not to question the known will of God, of injustice; yet whether that which you pretend to be Gods will, be so indeed, or only your presumption, this I hope may be question'd lawfully & without presumption; and if we have occasion we may safely put you in mind of Ezekiel's commination, against all those who say, thus saith the Lord, when they have no certain warrant or authority from him to doe so.

8 Ad §. 4. In the fourth Paragraph you deliver this false & wicked Doctrine, that for the procuring our own salvation we are allwaies bound under pain of mortall sinne to take the safest way, but for avoiding sinne we are not bound to doe so, but may follow the opinion of any probable Doctors, though the contrary may be certainly free from sinne, and theirs be doubtfull. Which doctrine in the former part of it is apparētly false: For though wisdome and Charity to our selves would perswade us alwaies to doe so, yet many times, that way which to our selves and our salvation is more full of hazard, is notwithstanding not only lawfull, but more charitable and more noble. For example, to fly from a persecution and so to avoid the temptation of it, may be the safer way for a mans own salvation; yet I presume no man ought to condemne him of impiety, who should resolve not to use his liberty in this matter, but for Gods greater glory, the greater honor of truth, & the greater confirmation of his brethren in the faith, choose to stand out the storme and endure the fiery tryall, rather then avoid it; rather to put his own soule to the hazard of a temptation, in hope of Gods assistance to goe through with it, then to baulke the opportunity of doing God and his brethren so great a service. This part therefore of this Doctrine is manifestly untrue. The other not only false but impious; for therein you plainly give us to understand, that in your judgement, a resolution to avoid sinne, to the uttermost of our power, is no necessary meanes of Salvation, nay that a man may resolve not to doe so, without any danger of damnation. Therein you teach us, that we are to doe more for the love of our selves, and our own happinesse then for the love of God; and in so doing contradict our Saviour, who expresly commands us, to love the Lord our God withall our heart, withall our soule, and withall our strength; and hath taught us that the loue of God consists in avoiding sinne and keeping his commandements. Therein you directly crosse S. Pauls doctrine, who though he were a very probable Doctor, and had delivered his judgement for the lawfulnesse of eating meats offered to Idols; yet he assures us that he which should make scruple of doing so, and forbear upon his scruple, should not sinne, but only be aweak brother; whereas he, who should doe it with a doubtfull conscience, (though the action were by S. Paul warranted lawfull, yet) should sinne and be condemn'd for so doing. You pretend indeed to be rigid defenders and stout champions for the necessity of [Page] good workes; but the truth is, you speak lies in hypocrisy, and when the matter is well examin'd, will appear to make your selves and your own functions necessary, but obedience to God unnecessary: Which will appear to any man who considers what strict necessity the Scripture imposes upon all men, of effectuall mortification of the habits of all vices, and effectuall conversion to newnesse of life, and universall obedience,Bellar. Contr. Barcl. c. 7. In 7. c. resutare con [...]tur Bard [...]verba illa Romuli. Veteres illos Imperotores Constantium Valentem & Caeteros non ideo toleravit Ecclesia quod legitimè successissent, sed quod illos sine populi detrimento coercere non po [...]erat. Et miratur hoc idem scripsisse Bellarminum. l 5. de Pontif. c. 7. Sed ut magis miretur, sciat hoc idem sensisse S. Th [...]m [...]m. 2. 2. [...]. 12 art. 2. ad 1. [...]bi dicit Ecclesiam tolerasse ut sideles obedirent Iuliano Apostatae, qui [...]i [...] suinovitate nondum habebant vires [...]ōpescendi Principes terrenos. and withall remembers that an act of Attrition, which you say with Priestly absolution is sufficient to salvation, is not mortification, which being a work of difficulty and time, cannot be perform'd in an instant. But for the present, it appears sufficiently out of this impious assertion, which makes it absolutely necessary for men, either in Act if it be possible, or if not, in Desire, to be Baptiz'd and Absolv'd by you, and that with Intention: and in the mean time warrants them that for avoding of sinne, they may safely follow the uncertain guidance of a vain man, who you cannot deny may either be deceiv'd himselfe, or, out of malice deceive them, & neglect the certain direction of God himselfe, and their own consciences. What wicked use is made of this Doctrine, your own long experience can better informe you, then it is possible for me to doe: yet my own litle conversation with you affords one memorable example to this purpose. For upon this ground I knew a young Scholar in Doway, licenc'd by a great Casuist to swear a thing as upon his certain knowledge, whereof he had yet no knowledge but only a great presumption, because (forsooth) it was the opinion of one Doctor that he might doe so. And upon the same ground, whensoever you shall come to have a prevailing party in this Kingdome, and power sufficient to restore your Religion, you may doe it by deposing or killing the King, by blowing up of Parliaments, and by rooting out all others of a different faith from you. Nay this you may doe, though in your own opinion it be unlawfull, because Bellarmine, a man with you of approved vertue, learning and judgement, hath declared his opinion for the lawfulnesse of it, in saying, that want of power to maintaine a rebellion, was the only reason that the Primitive Christians did not rebell against the persecuting Emperors. By the same rule, seeing the Priests and Scribes and Pharisees, men of greatest repute among the Iewes for vertue, learning and wisdome, held it a lawfull and a pious work to persecute Christ and his Apostles,Et posi [...]a, Sanctus Gregorius decit, nullum adversus Iuliani persecutionem fuisse remediu [...] praeter lachrimas, quoniam non habebat Ecclesia vires, quibus illius tyrannidi resistere posset. it was lawfull for the people to follow their leaders: for herein, according to your Doctrine, they proceeded prudently, and according to the conduct of opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men as it seem'd to them of vertue, learning and wisdome; nay by such as sate in Moses chaire, and of whom it was said, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and doe: which universall you pretend is to be understood universally, and without any restriction or limitation. And as lawfull was it for the Pagans to persecute the Primitive Christians, because Truian & Pliny, men of great vertue and wisdome were of this opinion. Lastly, that most impious & detestable Doctrine, (which by a foule calumny you impute to me, who abhorre and detest it,) that men may be saved in any Religion, followes from this ground unavoidably. For certainly [Page] Religion is one of those things which is necessary only because it is commanded: for if none were commanded under pain of damnation, how could it be damnable to be of any? Neither can it be damnable to be of a false Religion, unlesse it be a sin to be so. For neither are men saved by good luck, but only by obedience; neither are they damned for their ill fortune but for sin and disobedience. Death is the wages of nothing but sin: and S. Iames sure intended to deliver the adequate cause of sin and death in those words, Lust when it hath conceived bringeth forth sin, and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death. Seeing therefore in such things, according to your doctrine, it is sufficient for avoiding of sin, that we proceed prudently, & by the conduct of some probable opinion, maturely weighed & approv'd by men of learning, vertue and wisdome: and seeing neither Iews want their Gamaliels, nor Pagans their Antoninus'es, nor any sect of Christians such professors and maintainers of their severall sects, as are esteem'd by the people, which know no better (and that very reasonably) men of vertue, learning, and wisdome, it followes evidently that the embracing their religion proceeds upon such reason as may warrant their action to bee prudent, and this is sufficient for avoiding of sin, and therefore certainly for avoiding damnation, for that in humane affaires and discourse, evidence and certainty cannot be alwaies expected. I haue stood the longer upon the refutation of this doctrine, not only because it is impious, and because bad use is made of it, and worse may be, but only because the contrary position, That men are bound for avoiding sin alwaies to take the safest way, is a faire and sure foundation, for a cleer confutation of the main conclusion, which in this Chapter you labour in vain to prove, and a certain proof that in regard of the precept of charity towards ones selfe, and of obedience to God, Papists (unlesse ignorance excuse them) are in state of sin as long as they remain in subjection to the Roman Church.

9 For if the safer way for avoiding sin, be also the safer way for avoiding damnation, then certainly whether the way of Protestants must be more secure, and the Roman way more dangerous, take but into your consideration these ensuing controversies: Whether it be lawfull to worship Pictures? to picture the Trinity? to invocate Saints and Angels? to deny Law-men the Cup in the Sacrament? to adore the Sacrament? to prohibite certain Orders of men and woemen to marry? to celebrate the publique service of God in a language which the assistants generally understand not? and you will not choose but confesse that in all these you are on the more dangerous side for the committing of sin, and we on that which is more secure. For in all these things, if we say true, you doe that which is impious: on the other side if you were in the right, yet we might be secure enough, for we should only not doe something which you confesse not necessary to be done. We pretend, and are ready to justifie out of principles agreed upon between us, that in all these things, you violate the manifest commandements of God; and alleage such texts of Scripture against you, as, if you would weigh them with any indifference, would put the matter [Page] out of question, but certainly you cannot with any modesty deny, but that at least they make it questionable. On the other side, you cannot with any face pretend, and if you should, know not how to goe about to proue, that there is any necessity of doing any of these things; that it is unlawfull not to worship pictures, not to picture the Trinity, not to invocate Saints & Angels, not to giue all men the entire Sacrament, not to adore the Eucharist, not to prohibite marriage, not to celebrate divine service in an unknown tongue: I say you neither doe nor can pretend that there is any law of God which enjoynes us, no nor so much as an Evangelicall Counsell that advises us to doe any of these things. Now where no law is there can be no sin, for sin is the transgression of the law; It remaines therefore that our forbearing to doe these things, must be free from all danger & suspicion of sin; whereas your acting of them, must be, if not certainly impious, without all contradiction questionable and dangerous. I conclude therefore that which was to be concluded, that if the safer way for avoiding sin, be also (as most certainly it is,) the safer way for avoiding damnation, then certainly the way of Protestants must bee more safe, and the Roman way more dangerous. You will say, I know, that these things being by your Church concluded lawfull, we are obliged by God, though not to doe, yet to approue them; at least in your iudgement we are so, and therefore our condition is as questionable as yours. I answer. The Authority of your Church is no common principle agreed upon between us, and therefore upon that you are not to dispute against us. We might presse you with our judgement as well and as justly as you doe us with yours. Besides, this very thing that your Church hath determin'd these things lawfull, and commanded the approbation of them, is that whereof she is accused by us, and we maintain you haue done wickedly, or at least very dangerously in so determining; because in these very determinations, you haue forsaken that way which was secure from sinne, and haue chosen that which you cannot but know to be very questionable and doubtfull; & consequently haue forsaken the safe way to heaven, and taken a way which is full of danger. And therefore, although if your obedience to your Church were questioned, you might fly for shelter to your Churches determinations, yet when these very determinations are accused, me thinks they should not be alleag'd in defence of themselues. But you will say, your Church is infallible, & therefore her determinations not unlawfull. Ans. They that accuse your Church of error, you may be sure doe question her infallibility: shew therefore where it is written, that your Church is infallible, and the dispute will be ended. But till you doe so, give mee leaue rather to conclude thus, your Church in many of her determinations, chooses not that way which is more secure from sin, and therefore not the safest way to salvation; then vainly to imagine her infallible, and there upon to belieue, though she teach not the securest way to avoid sin, yet shee teaches the certainst way to obtain salvation.

10 In the close of this Number, you say as followes, If it may appeare though not certain, yet at least probable, that Protestancy unrepented[Page]destroies salvation, and withall that there is a safer way, it will follow that they are obliged by the law of Charity to that safe way. Ans. Make this appear and I will never perswade any man to continue a Protestant, for if I should, I should perswade him to continue a fool. But after all these prolix discourses, still we see you are at, If it may appeare: From whence without all Ifs and Ands that appeares sufficiently which I said in the beginning of the Chapter, that the foure first Paragraphs of this Chap. are wholly spent in an unnecessary introduction, unto that which never by any man in his right wits was denied, That men in wisdome and charity to themselves are to take the safest way to eternall salvation.

11 Ad § 5. In the fift you begin to make some shew of arguing, & tells us, that Protestants haue reason to doubt in what case they stand from what you have said about the Churches universall infallibility, & of her being Iudge of Controversies, &c. Ans. From all that which you haue said, they have reason only to conclude that you haue nothing to say. They haue as much reason to doubt, whether there can bee any Motion, from what Zeno saies in Aristotles Physicks, as to doubt from what you haue said, whether the Roman Church may possibly erre. For this I dare say, that not the weakest of Zeno's arguments but is stronger then the strongest of yours, and that you would be more perplext in answering any one of them, then I haue been in answering all yours. You are pleas'd to repeat two or three of them in this Section, and in all probability so wise a man as you are, if he would repeat any, would repeat the best, and therefore if I desire the Reader by these to judge of the rest, I shall desire but ordinary justice.

12 The first of them being put into form stands thus, Every least errour in faith destroies the nature of faith; It is certain that some Protestants doe erre, and therefore they want the substance of Faith. The Major of which Syllogisme I haue formerly confuted by unanswerable argumēts out of one of your own best Authors, who shewes plainly that he hath amongst you, as strange as you make it, many other abettors. Besides, if it were true, it would conclude that either you or the Dominicans haue no faith, in as much as you oppose one another as much as Arminians and Calvinists.

13 The second Argument stands thus, Since all Protestants pretend the like certainty, it is clear that none of them haue any certainty at all: Which argument if it were good, then what can hinder but this must also be so, Since Protestants and Papists pretend the like certainty; it is cleer that none of them haue any certainty at all! And this too: Since all Christians pretend the like certainty it is cleer that none of them haue any certainty at all! And thirdly this: Since men of all religions pretend a like certainty, it is cleer that none of them haue any at all! And lastly this: Since oft-times they which are abused with a specious Paralogisme, pretend the like certainty with them which demonstrate, it is cleer that none of them haue any certainty at all! Certainly Sir, Zeal and the Divell did strangely blind you, if you did not see that these horrid impieties were the immediate consequences of your positions, [Page] if you did see it, & yet would set them down, you deserve worse censure. Yet such as these, are all the arguments wherewith you conceive your selfe to have prov'd undoubtedly, that Protestants haue reason at least to doubt in what case they stand. Neither am I afraid to venture my life upon it, that your selfe shall not choose so much as one out of all the pack, which I will not shew before indifferent Iudges, either to be impertinent to the question, inconsequent in the deduction, or grounded upon some false, or at least uncertain foundation.

14 Your third and fourth argument may bee thus put into one; Protestants cannot tell what points in particular be fundamentall; therefore they cannot tell whether they or their brethren doe not erre fundamentally, and whether their difference be not fundamentall. Both which deductions I haue formerly shewed to be most inconsequent; for knowing the Scripture to contain all fundamentalls, (though many more points besides, which makes it difficult to say precisely what is fundamentall and what not,) knowing this I say and believing it, what can hinder but that I may be well assured, that I belieue all fundamentalls, and that all who believe the Scripture syncerely as well as I, doe not differ from me in any thing fundamentall?

15 In the close of this Section, you say, that you omit to adde that we want the Sacrament of Repentance instituted for the remission of sins, or at least we must confesse that we hold it not necessary: and yet our own brethren the Century writers acknowledge that in the times of Cyprian and Tertullian, private Confession even of thoughts was used, and that it was then commanded and thought necessary; and then our Ordination, you say is very doubtfull and all that depends upon it. Ans. I also omit to answer, 1. That your brother Rhenanus, acknowledges the contrary, & assures us that the Confession then required and in use, was publique, and before the Church, and that your auricular Confession was not then in the world; for which his mouth is stopped by your Index Expurgatorius. 2. That your brother Arcudius acknowledges, that the Eucharist was in Cyprians time given to Infants, and esteemed necessary, or at least profitable for them, and the giving it shewes no lesse; & now I would know whether you will acknowledge your Church bound to giue it, and to esteem so of it? 3. That it might be then commanded, and being commanded be thought necessary, and yet be but a Church Constitution. Neither will I deny, if the present Church, could, and would so order it, that the abuses of it might bee prevented, and conceiving it profitable, should enjoyn the use of it, but that being commanded it would be necessary. 4. Concerning our Ordinations, besides that I haue prou'd it impossible that they should be so doubtfull as yours, according to your own principles; I answer, that experience shewes them certainly sufficient to bring men to faith and repentance, and consequently to salvation; and that if there were any secret defect of any thing necessary, which we cannot help, God will certainly supply it.

16 Ad § 6. In the sixt, you say, you will not repeat, but only put us again in minde that unlesse the Roman Church were the true Church there[Page]was no visible Church upon earth, a thing so manifest that Protestants themselves confesse, &c. Ans. Neither will I repeat, but only put you in minde that you haue not prov'd that there is any necessity that there should be any visible true. Church; nor if there were, that there was no other besides the Roman. For as for the confession of Protestants which here you insist upon, it is evident out of their own words cited by your selfe, that by the whole world, they meant onely the greatest part of it, which is an usuall figure of speech; and never intended to deny that besides the Church then reigning & triumphing in this world, there was another militant Church, other Christians visible enough though persecuted and oppressed. Nor thirdly doe you here make good so much as with one fallacy, that if the Roman Church were then the visible Church, it must needs be now the only or the safer way to heaven; and yet the connexion of this consequence was very necessary to be shewne. For, for ought I know, it was not impossible that it might then be the only Visible Church, & yet now a very dangerous way to heaven, or perhaps none at all.

17 Afterwards you vainly pretend that all Roman Catholiques, not one excepted, professe, that Protestancy unrepented destroies salvation. Frō which generality wee may except two at least to my knowledge, and those are, your selfe, and Franciscus de Sancta Clara, who assures us that Ignorance and Repentance may excuse a Protestant from damnation though dying in his errour. I [...] Problem. 15. & 16. And this is all the charity, which by your own confession also, the most favourable Protestants allow to Papists; and therefore with strange repugnance to your selfe you subjoyne, that these are the men whom we must hold not to erre damnably, unlesse we will destroy our owne Church and salvation. Whereas, as I have said before, though you were Turks, and Pagans, we might bee good Christians. Neither is it necessary for the perpetuating of a Church before Luther, that your errours even then should not be damnable, but only not actually damning to some ignorant soules among you. In vaine therefore doe you make such tragedies as here you doe! In vaine you conjure us with feare and trembling to consider these things! We have considered them againe and againe, and look't upon them on both sides, & finde neither terrour nor truth in them. Let children and fooles bee terrified with bug-beares, men of understanding will not regard them.

18 Ad §. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Your whole discourse in your five next Paragraphs, I have in the beginning of this Chapter fully confuted, by saying, that it stands altogether upon the false foundation of this affected mistake, that we doe and must confesse the Roman Church free from damnable error; which will presently be apparent, to any one who considers, that the seaventh and tenth are nothing but D. Potters words; and that in the other three, you obtrude upon us this Crambe no fewer then seven times. May you be pleased to look back to your own Book, & you shall find it so as I have said: & that at least in a hundred other places you make your advantage of this false imputation: which when you have observ'd, and withall considered that your selfe plainly intimate, that D. Potters discourses which here you censure, would [Page] be good and concluding, if we did not (as we doe not) free you from damnable errour, I hope you will acknowledge that my vouchsafing these Sections the honour of any farther answer, is a great supererrogation in point of civility. Neverthelesse partly that I may the more ingratiate my selfe with you, but especially, that I may stop their mouthes who will be apt to say, that every word of yours which I should omit to speak to, is an unanswerable argument, I will hold my purpose of answering them more punctually and particularly.

19 First then, to your little parenthesis, which you interline among D. Potters words, §. 7. That any small error in faith destroies all faith, (To omit what hath been said before,) I answer here what is proper for this place; that S. Austine, whose authority is here stood upon, thought otherwise: He conceived the Donatists to hold some error in faith and yet not to have no faith. His words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident, you are with us (saith he to the Donatists. Ep. 48.) in Baptisme, in the Creed, in the other Sacraments: And again. Super gestis cum emerit: Thou hast proved to me that thou hast faith; prove to me likewise that thou hast charity. Paralell to which words are these of Optatus, Lib. 5. prope initium. Amongst us and you is one▪ Ecclesiasticall conversation, common lessons; the same faith, the same Sacraments. Where by the way we may observe, that in the judgements of these Fathers, even the Donatists, though Heretiques and Schismatiques, gave true Ordination, the true Sacrament of Matrimony, true Sacramentall Absolution, Confirmation, the true Sacrament of the Eucharist, true extream Vnction; or else (choose you whether) some of these were not then esteem'd Sacraments. But for Ordination, whether he held it a Sacrament or no, certainly he held that it remain'd with them entire: for so he saies in expresse tearmes, in his book against Parmenianus his Epistle. Which Doctrine if you can reconcile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church,Lib. 2. c. 3. Eris mihi magnus Apollo.

20 Whereas in the beginning of the 8. Sect. you deny that your argument drawn from our confessing the Possibility of your Salvation, is for simple people alone, but for all men: I answer, certainly whosoever is moved with it, must be so simple as to think this a good and a concluding reason; Some ignorant men in the Roman Church may be sav'd, by the confession of Protestants, (which is indeed all that they confesse,) therefore it is safe for me to be of the Roman Church; and he that does think so, what reason is there why he should not think this as good, Ignorant Protestans may be saved, by the confession of Papists, (by name Mr K.) therefore it is safe for me to be of the Protestant Church? Whereas you say, that this your argument is grounded upon an inevitable necessity for us, either to grant Salvation to your Church, or to entail certain damnation upon our own, because ours can have no being till Luther, unlesse yours be supposed to have been the true Church. I answer, this cause is no cause: For first, as Luther had no being before Luther, and yet he was when he was, though he was not before; so there is no repugnance in the termes, but that there might be a true Church after Luther, though there were none for some ages [Page] before; as since Columbus his time, there have been Christians in America, though before there were none for many ages. For neither doe you shew, neither does it appear, that the generation of Churches is univocall, that nothing but a Church can possibly beget a Church; nor that the present being of a true Church, depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all ages; any more then the present being of Peripateticks or Stoicks depends upon a perpetuall pedigree of them. For though I at no hand deny the Churches perpetuity, yet I see nothing in your book to make me understand, that the truth of the present depends upon it, nor any thing that can hinder, but that a false Church, (Gods providence overwatching and overruling it,) may preserve the meanes of confuting their own Heresies, and reducing men to truth, and so raising a true Church, I mean the integrity and the authority of the word of God with men. Thus the Iewes preserve meanes to make men Christians, and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants, and Protestants (which you say are a false Church) doe, as you pretend, preserve means to make men Papists; that is, their own Bibles, out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be Papists. Secondly, you shew not, nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church depends on the truth of yours. For though you talke vainly, as if you were the only men in the world before Luther, yet the world knowes that this but talke, and that there were other Christians besides you, which might have perpetuated the Church though you had not beene. Lastly, you shew not, neither doth it appear, that your being acknowledged in some sense a true Church, doth necessarily import, that we must grant salvation to it, unlesse by it you understand the ignorant members of it, which is a very unusuall Sinechdoche.

21 Whereas you say, that Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saved. I answ. S. Austin himselfe granted that those among them, who sought the Truth, being ready when they found it to correct their error were not Heretiques, and therefore notwithstanding their error might be saved. And this is all the Charity that Protestants allow to Papists.

22 Whereas you say, that D. Potter having cited out of S. Austine the words of the Catholiques, that the Donatists had true Baptisme, when he comes to the contrary words of the Donatist, addes, no Church, no Salvation! Ans. You wrong D. Potter, who pretends not to cite S. Austines formall words but only his sense, which in him is compleat and full for that purpose whereto it is alleaged by D. Potter. His words are, Petilianus dixit, venite ad Ecclesiam Populi & aufugite Traditores, Cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. [...] ▪ si perire non vultis: Petilian saith, come to the Church yee people, and fly from the Traditours if ye will not be damn'd, for that yee may know that they being guilty, esteeme very well of our Faith, Behold I Baptize these whom they have infected; but they receive those whom we have baptized. Where it is plain, that Petilian by his words makes the Donatists the Church, and excludes the Catholiques from salvation absolutely. And therefore no Church, no Salvation was not D. Potters [Page] addition. And whereas you say, the Catholiques never yeelded that among the Donatists there was a true Church and hope of Salvation, I say it appears by what I have alleaged out of S. Austine, that they yeelded both these were among the Donatists, as much as we yeeld them to be among the Papists. As for D. Potters acknowledgement; that they maintained an error in the matter & nature of it Hereticall: This proves them but Materiall Heretiques, whom you doe not exclude from possibility of Salvation. So that all things considered, this argument must be much more forcible from the Donatists against the Catholiques, then from Papists against Protestants, in regard Protestants grant Papists no more hope of salvation then Papists grant Protestants: whereas the Donatists excluded absolutely all but their own Part from hope of Salvation, so farre as to account them no Christians that were not of it: the Catholiques mean while accounting them Brethren, and freeing those among them, from the imputation of Heresy, who being in error quaerebant cautâ sollicitudine veritatem corrigi parati cùm invenerint.

23 Whereas you say, That the Argument for the certainty of their Baptisme (because it was confessed good by Catholiques, whereas the Baptisme of Catholiques was not confessed by them to be good,) is not so good as yours, touching the certainty of your Salvation grounded on the confession of Protestants, because wee confesse there is no damnable error in the Doctrine or practice of the Roman Church: I Ans. no: we confesse no such matter, and though you say so a hundred times, no repetition will make it true. We professe plainly, that many damnable errors plainly repugnant to the precepts of Christ both Ceremoniall and Morall, more plainly then this of Rebaptization, and therefore more damnable, are believed and professed by you. And therefore seeing this is the only disparity you can devise, and this is vanished, it remaines that as good an answer as the Catholiques made touching the certainty of their Baptisme, as good may we make, and with much more evidence of Reason, touching the security and certainty of our Salvation.

24 By the way I desire to be inform'd, seeing you affirme that Rebaptizing those whom Hereticks had baptized was a sacriledge, and a profession of a damnable Heresie, when it began to be so? If from the beginning it were so, then was Cyprian a sacrilegious professor of a damnable heresy, and yet a Saint and a martyr. If it were not so, then did your Church excommunicate Firmilian and others, and separate from them without sufficient ground of Excommunication or Separation, which is Schismaticall. You see what difficulties you runne into on both sides; choose whether you will, but certainly both can hardly be avoided.

25 Whereas again in this §. you obtrude upon us, That we cannot but confesse that your doctrine containes no damnable error, and that yours is so certainly a true Church, that unlesse yours be true we cannot pretend any: I answer, there is in this neither truth nor modesty to outface us, that we cannot but confesse what indeed we connot but deny. [Page] For my part, if I were upon the rack, I perswade my selfe I should not confesse the one nor the other.

26 Whereas again presently you adde, that D. Potter grants we should be guilty of Schisme, if we did cut off your Church from the body of Christ and the hope of Salvation: I have shewed above that he grants no such matter. He saies indeed, that our not doing so frees us from the imputation of Schisme, & from hence you sophistically inferre, that he must grant, If we did so, wee were Schismatiques, and then make your Reader believe; that this is D. Potters confession, it being indeed your own false collection. For as every one that is not a Papist, is not a Iesuit, and yet not every one that is a Papist is a Iesuit: As whosoever comes not into England, comes not to London, and yet many may come to England, and not come to London: As whosoever is not a man, is not a King, and yet many are men that are not Kings: So likewise it may be certain, that whosoever does not so is free from Schisme, and yet they that doe so (if there be sufficient cause,) may be not guilty of it.

27 Whereas you pretend to wonder that the Doctor did not answer the argument of the Donatists, which he saies is all one with yours, but referres you to S. Austine there to read it, as if every one carried with him a Library, or were able to examin the places in S. Austin: I answer, the parity of the Arguments was that which the Doctor was to declare, whereto it was impertinent what the answer was: But sufficient it was to shew that the Donatists argument which you would never grant good, was yet as good [...] yours, and therefore yours could not be good. Now to this purpose as the concealing the answer was no way advantagious, so to produce it was not necessary; and therefore he did you more service then he was bound to, in referring you to S. Austin for an answer to it. Whereas you say, he had reason to conceale it because it makes directly against himselfe: I say it is so farre from doing so, that it will serve in proportion to the argument, as fitly as if it had been made for it: for as S. Austine saies, that Catholiques approve the Doctrine of Donatists, but abhorre their Heresy of Re-baptization: so we say, that we approve those fundamentall and simply necessary Truths which you retaine, by which some good soules among you may be saved, but abhorre your many Superstitions and Heresies. And as he saies, that as gold is good, yet ought not to be sought for among a company of Theeves, and Baptisme good but not to be sought for in the Conventicles of Donatists: so say we, that the Truths you retaine are good, and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant soules among you to salvation, yet are not to be sought for in the Conventicle of Papists, who hold with them a mixture of many vanities, and many impieties. For, as for our freeing you from damnable Heresy, and yeelding you Salvatiō, (which stone here again you stumble at,) neither he nor any other Protestant is guilty of it; and therefore you must confesse that this very answer will serve Protestants against this charme of Papists, as well as S. Austine against the Donatists, and that indeed it was not D. Potter but You, that, without a Sarcasme, had reason to conceale[Page]this Answer.

28 The last piece of D. Potters book, which you are pleased to take notice of in this first Part of yours, is an argument he makes in your behalfe p. 79. of his book, where he makes you speak thus, If Protestants believe the Religion of Papists to be a safe way to heaven, why doe they not follow it? This argument you like not, because many things may be good and yet not necessary to be embraced by every body, & therefore scoffe at it, and call it an argument of his own, a wise argument, a wise demand: and then aske of him, what he thinkes of it being fram'd thus, Our Religion is safe, even by your confession, and therefore you ought to grant that all may embrace it. And yet farther thus, Among different Religions one only can be safe: But yours by our own confession is safe: where as you hold that in ours there is no hope of salvation, therefore we ought to embrace yours. Ans. I have advised with him, & am to tell you frō him, that he thinks reasonable well of the arguments, but very ill of him that makes them, as affirming so often without shame and conscience, what he cannot but know to be plainly false: and his reason is because he is so farre from confessing, or giving you any ground to pretend he does confesse, that your Religion is safe for all that are of it, from whence only it will follow that all may safely embrace it, that in this very place, from which you take these words, he professeth plainly, that it is extreamly dangerous, if not certainly damnable to all such as professe it, when either they doe, or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinat might believe the contrary, and that for us wh [...] are convinc'd in conscience that she (the Rom [...] Church) erres in many things, it lies upon us, even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors. And though here you take upon you a shew of great rigour, and will seem to hold that in our way there is no hope of Salvation; yet formerly you have been more liberall of your charity towards us, and will needs vye and contend with D. Potter which of the two shall be more Charitable, assuring us that you allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter spares you, for whom he makes Ignorance the best hope of Salvation. Chap. 1. §. 4. And now I appeale to any indifferent reader, whether our disavowing to confesse you free from damnable error, were not (as I pretend) a full confutation of all that you say in these five foregoing Paragraphs: And as for you I wonder, what answer, what evasion, what shift you can devise to cleere your selfe from dishonesty, for imputing to him almost a hundred times, this acknowledgment which he never makes, but very often, and that so plainly that you take notice of it, professeth the contrary!

29 The best defence that possibly can be made for you, I conceive, is this, that you were led into this error, by mistaking a supposition of a confession, for a confession; a Rhetoricall concession of the Doctors, for a positive assertion. He saies indeed of your errors, Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which believe as they professe, yet for us to professe what we believe not, were without question damnable. But, to say, Though your errors be not damnable, we may not professe them, is not to say, your errors are not damnable, but only though they be not. [Page] As if you shoul say, though the Church erre in points not fundamentall, yet you may not separate from it: Or, though we doe erre in believing Christ really present, yet our error frees us from Idolatry: Or, as if a Protestant should say, Though you doe not commit Idolatry in adoring the Host, yet being uncertain of the Priests Intention to consecrate, at least you expose yourselfe to the danger of it: I presume you would not think it fairely done, if any man should interpret either this last speech as an acknowledgemēt, that you doe not commit Idol [...] try, or the former as confessions, that you doe erre in points not fundamentall, that you doe erre in believing the reall presence. And therefore you ought not so to have mistaken D. Potters words, as if he had confessed the errors of your Church not damnable, when he saies no more but this, Though they be so, or, suppose, or put the case they be so, yet being errors, we that know them may not professe them to be divine truths. Yet this mistake might have been pardonable, had not D. Potter in many places of his book, by declaring his judgement touching the quality and malignity of your errors, taken away from you all occasion of error. But now that he saies plainly, That your Church hath many waies played the Harlot, and in that regard, deserv'd a Bill of divorce from Christ, and the detestation of Christians p. 11. That for that Masse of Errors and abuses in judgement and practice which is proper to her, and wherein she differs from us, we judge a reconciliation impossible, and to us (who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions) damnable. pag. 20. That Popery is the contagion or plague of the Church. p. 60. That we cannot, we dare not communicate with her in her publique Liturgy, which is manifestly polluted with drosse of Superstition. p. 68. That they who in former ages dyed in the Church of Rome died in many sinfull errors. p. 78. That they that have understanding and means to discover their errors and neglect to use them, he dares not flatter them with so easy a censure, as to give them hope of salvation p. 79. That the way of the Roman Religion is not safe, but very dangerous, if not certainly damnable, to such as professe it, when they believe (or if their hearts were upright and not perversely obstinate might believe) the contrary, p. 79. That your Church is but (in some sense) a true Church, and your errors only to some men not damnable, & that we who are convinc'd in conscience that she erres in many things, are under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors. Seeing I say, he saies all this so plainly and so frequently, certainly your charging him falsely with this acknowledgement, and building a great part not only of your discourse in this Chapter, but of your whole book upon it, possibly it may be palliated with some excuse, but it can no way be defended with any just apology. Especially seeing you your selfe more then once or twice, take notice of these his severer censures of your Church, and the errors of it, and make your advantage of them. In the first number of your first Chapter, you set down three of the former places; and from thence inferre, That as you affirme Protestancy unrepented destroies Salvation, so D. Potter pronounces the like heavy doome against Roman Catholiques: and again §. 4. of the same Chap. We allow Protestants as much charity [Page]as D. Potter spare [...] us, for whom he makes ignorance the best hope of salvation. And c. 5. § 41. you have these words: It is very strange that you iudge us extreamly uncharitable in saying Protestants cannot be saved, while your selfe avouch the same of all Learned Catholiques, whom Ignorance cannot excuse! Thus out of the same mouth you blow hot and cold; and one while, when it is for your purpose, you professe D. Potter censures your errors as heavily as you doe ours; which is very true, for he gives hope of Salvation to none among you, but to those whose ignorance was the cause of their error, and no sinne cause of their ignorance: and presently after, when another project comes in your head, you make his words softer then oile towards you; you pretend he does and must confesse, That your Doctrine containes no damnable error, that your Church is certainly a true Church, that your way to heaven is a safe way, and all these acknowledgements you set down simple and absolute, without any restriction or limitation; whereas in the Doctor they are all so qualified, that no knowing Papist can promise himselfe any security or comfort from them. We confesse (saith he) the Church of Rome to be (in some sense) a true Church, and her errors (to some men) not damnable: we believe her Religion safe, that is, by Gods great mercy not damnable, to some such as believe what they professe: But we believe it not safe but very dangerous, if not certainly damnable to such as professe it, when they believe (or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinate might believe) the contrary. Observe I pray these restraining termes which formerly you have dissembled, A true Church in some sense, not damnable to some men, a safe way, that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some: And then seeing you have pretended these confessions to be absolute, which are thus plainly limited, how can you avoid the imputation of an egregious Sophister? You quarrell with the Doctor, in the end of your Preface, for using in his Book such ambiguous tearmes as these, in some sort, in some sense, in some degree: and desire him if he make any reply, either to forbear them, or to tell you roundly in what sort, in what sense, in what degree, he understands these and the like mincing phrases. But the truth is he hath not left them so ambiguous and undetermin'd as you pretend; but told you plainly, in what sense, your Church may passe for a true Church, viz. In regard we may hope that she retaines those truths which are simply, absolutely, and indispensably necessary to Salvation, which may suffice to bring those good soules to heaven, who wanted meanes of discovering their errors; this is the charitable construction in which you may passe for a Church: And to what men your Religion may be safe, and your errors not damnable, viz. to such whom Ignorance may excuse, and therefore he hath more cause to complain of you, for quoting his words without those qualifications, then you to finde fault with him for using of them.

30 That your Discourse in the 12. §. presseth you as forcibly as Protestants, I have shewed above: I adde here, 1. Whereas you say that faith, according to rigid Calvinists, is either so strong, that once had, it can never be lost, or so more then weak, and so much nothing that it can [Page]never begotten: That, these are words without sense. Never any Calvinist affirmed that faith was so weak, and so much nothing that it can never be gotten: but it seemes you wanted matter to make up your Antithesis, and therefore were resolved to speak empty words rather then loose your figure,

Crimina rasis

Librat in antithetis, doct as posuisse Figuras

Laudatur.

2. That there is no Calvinist that will deny the Truth of this proposition, Christ died for all, nor to subscribe to that sense of it, which your Dominicans put upon it; neither can you with coherence to the received Doctrine of your own Society, deny that they as well as the Calvinists, take away the distinction of sufficient and effectuall grace, and indeed hold none to be sufficient, but only that which is effectuall. 3. Whereas you say, They cannot make their calling certain by good workes, who doe certainly believe that before any good works they are justified, and justified by faith alone, and by that faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified: I ans. There is no Protestant but believes that Faith, Repentance, and universall Obedience, are necessary to the obtaining of Gods favour and eternall happinesse. This being granted, the rest is but a speculative Controversy, a Question about words which would quickly vanish, but that men affect not to understand one another. As if a company of Physitians were in consultation, and should all agree, that three medicines and no more were necessary for the recovery of the Patients health, this were sufficient for his direction towards the recovery of his health; though concerning the proper and specificall effects of these three medicines, there should be amongst them as many differences as men: So likewise being generally at accord that these three things, Faith, Hope, & Charity, are necessary to salvation, so that whosoever wants any of them cannot obtain it, and he which hath them all cannot faile of it, it is not very evident that they are sufficiently agreed for mens directions to eternall Salvation? And seeing Charity is a full comprehension of all good workes, they requiring Charity as a necessary qualification in him that will be saved, what sense is there in saying, they cannot make their calling certain by good workes? They know what salvation is as well as you, and have as much reason to desire it: They believe it as heartily as you, that there is no good worke but shall have its proper reward, and that there is no possibility of obtaining the eternall reward without good workes: and why then may not this Doctrine be a sufficient incitement and provocation unto good workes?

31 You say, that they certainly believe that before any good works they are iustified: But this is a calumny. There is no Protestant but requires to Iustification, Remission of sinnes, and to Remission of sinnes they all require Repentance, and Repentance I presume may not be denied the name of a good worke, being indeed, if it be rightly understood, and according to the sense of the word in Scripture, an effectuall conversion from all sinne to all holinesse. But though it be taken for meer sorrow for sinnes past, and a bare purpose of amendment, yet even this is a good worke, and therefore Protestants requiring this to [Page] Remission of sinnes, and Remission of sinnes to justification, cannot with candor be pretended to believe, that they are justified before any good worke.

32 You say, They believe themselves iustified by faith alone, and that by that faith whereby they believe themselves iustified: Some peradventure doe so, but withall they believe that that faith which is alone, and unaccompanied with sincere and universall obedience, is to be esteem'd not faith but presumption, and is at no hand sufficient to justification: that though Charity be not imputed unto justification, yet is it required as a necessary disposition in the person to be justified, and that though in regard of the imperfection of it, no man can be justified by it, yet that on the other side, no man can be justified without it. So that upon the whole matter, a man may truly and safely say, that the Doctrine of these Protestants, taken altogether, is not a Doctrine of Liberty, not a Doctrine that turnes hope into presumptiō, and carnall security; though it may justly be feared, that many licentious persons, taking it by halfes, have made this wicked use of it. For my part, I doe heartily wish, that by publique Authority it were so ordered, that no man should ever preach or print this Doctrine that Faith alone justifies, unlesse he joynes this together with it, that universall obedience is necessary to salvation. And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by faith, without the works of the Law, were never read in the Church, but when the 13. Chap. of the 1. Epist. to the Corinth. concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be, to prevent misprision, read together with them.

33 Whereas you say, that some Protestants doe expresly affirme the former point to be the soule of the Church, &c. and that therefore they must want the Theologicall vertue of Hope, and that none can have true hope, while they hope to be saved in their Communion. I Ans. They have great reason to believe the Doctrine of Iustification by faith only, a Point of great weight and importance, if it be rightly understood: that is, they have reason to esteeme it a principall and necessary duty of a Christian, to place his hope of justification and salvation, not in the perfection of his own righteousnesse (which if it be imperfect will not justify,) but only in the mercies of God through Christs satisfaction: and yet notwithstanding this, nay the rather for this, may preserve themselves in the right temper of good Christians, which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and feare. If this Doctrine be otherwise expounded then I have here expounded, I will not undertake the justification of it, only I will say (that which I may doe truly) that I never knew any Protestant such a soli-fidian, but that he did believe these divine truths; That he must make his calling certain by good workes: That he must work out his salvation with Fear and Trembling, and that while he does not so, he can have no well-grounded hope of Salvation: I say I never met with any who did not believe these divine Truths, and that with a more firme, and a more unshaken assent, then he does that himselfe is predestinate, and that he is [Page] justified by believing himselfe justified. I never met with any such, who if he saw there were a necessity [...] doe either, would not rather forgoe his beliefe of these Doctrines then the former: these which he sees disputed and contradicted and opposed with a great multitude of very potent Arguments; then those, which being the expresse words of Scripture, whosoever should call into question, could not with any modesty pretend to the title of Christian. And therefore there is no reason but we may believe, that their full assurance of the former Doctrines doth very well qualify their perswasion of the latter, and that the former (as also the lives of many of them doe sufficiently testify) are more effectuall to temper their hope, and to keep it at a stay of a filiall and modest assurance of Gods favour, built upon the conscience of his love and fear, then the latter can be to swell and puffe them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption. This reason, joyn'd with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men of this opinion, is a sufficient ground for Charity, to hope well of their hope: and to assure our selves that it cannot be offensive, but rather most acceptable to God, if notwithstanding this diversity of opinion, we embrace each other with the strict embraces of love & communion. To you and your Church we leave it, to separate Christians from the Church, and to proscribe them from heaven upon triviall and trifling causes: As for our selves, we conceive a charitable judgement of our Brethren and their errors, though untrue, much more pleasing to God then a true judgement, if it be uncharitable; and and therefore shall alwaies choose (if we doe erre) to erre on the milder and more mercifull part, and rather to retain those in our Communion which deserve to be ejected, then eject those that deserve to be retain'd.

34 Lastly, whereas you say, that seeing Protestants differ about the point of Iustification, you must needs inferre that they want Vnity in faith, and consequently all faith, and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamentall; I Answer, to the first of these inferences, that as well might you inferre it upon Victor Bishop of Rome and Poli [...]rates; upon Stephen Bishop of Rome and S. Cyprian: in as much as it is indeniably evident, that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation the other esteemed not so. But points of Doctrine (as all other things) are as they are, and not as they are esteemed: neither can a necessary point be made unnecessary by being so accounted, nor an unnecessary point be made necessary by being overvalued. But as the ancient Philosophers, (whose different opinions about the soule of man you may read in Aristotle de Anima, and Cicero's Tusculan Questions,) notwithstanding their divers opinions touching the nature of the soule, yet all of them had soules, and soules of the same nature: Or as those Physitians who dispute whether the braine or heart be the principall part of a man, yet all of them have braines and have hearts, and herein agree sufficiently: So likewise, though some Protestants esteeme that Doctrine the soule of the Church, which others doe not so highly value, yet this hinders not but that which is indeed the soule [Page] of the Church may be in both [...] of them; and though one account that a necessary truth which [...] account neither necessary nor perhaps true, yet this notwithstanding, in those truths which are truly & really necessary they may all agree. For no Argument can be more sophisticall then this; They differ in some points which they esteeme necessary; Therefore they differ in some that indeed and in truth are so.

[...]35 Now as concerning the other inference, That they cannot agree what points are fundamentall: I have said and prov'd formerly that there is no such necessity as you imagin or pretend, that men should certainly know what is, and what is not fundamentall. They that believe all things plainly delivered in Scripture, believe all things fundamentall, and are at sufficient Vnity in matters of faith, though they cannot precisely and exactly distinguish between what is fundamentall and what is profitable: nay though by error they mistake some vaine, or perhaps hurtfull opinions for necessary and fundamentall Truths.c. 3. §. 53. & [...]libi. Besides, I have shewed above, that as Protestants doe not agree (for you overreach in saying they cannot) touching what points are fundamentall; so neither doe you agree what points are defin'd & so to be accounted, and what are not: nay, nor concerning the subject in which God hath placed this pretended Authority of defining: some of you setling it in the Pope himselfe, though alone without a Councell: Others in a Councell, though divided from the Pope: Others only in the conjunction of Councell and Pope: Others not in this neither, but in the acceptation of the present Church Vniversall: Lastly, others not attributing it to this neither, but only to the perpetuall Succession of the Church of all ages: of which divided Company it is very evident and undeniable, that every former may be and are obliged to hold many things defin'd and therefore necessary, which the latter, according to their own grounds, have no obligation to doe, nay cannot doe so upon any firme and sure and infallible foundation.

THE CONCLVSION.

[Page]

ANd thus, by Gods assistance and the advantage of a good cause, I am at length through a passage rather tireing then difficult, arriv'd at the end of my undertaken voyage; and have, as I suppose, made appear to all dis-interessed and unprejudicate readers what in the begining I undertook, that a vein of Sophistry and Calumny runs clean through this first part of your book: wherein though I never thought of the directions you have been pleas'd to give mee in your Pamphlet entitled a Direction to N. N. yet upon consideration of my answer, I finde that I have proceeded as if I had had it alwaies before my eyes, and steer'd my course by it as by a card and compasse.

For first, I have not proceeded by a meere destructive way (as you call it,) nor objected such difficulties against your Religion, as upon examination tend to the overthrow of all Religion, but have shewed that the truth of Christianity is cleerely independent upon the truth of Popery: and that on the other side, the arguments you urge, and the courses you take for the maintenance of your Religion, doe manifestly tend (if they be closely and consequently followed) to the destruction of all religion, and lead men by the hand to Atheisme and impiety; whereof I have given you ocular demonstrations in divers places of my book, but especially, in my answer to your direction to N. N.

Neither can I discover any repugnance between any one part of my answer and any other, though I have used many more judicious and more searching eyes then mine owne to make, if it were possible, such a discovery: and therefore am in good hope that, though the musicke I have made be but dull and flat, and even downright plain-song, yet your curious and criticall eares shall discover no discord in it; but on the other side, I have charg'd you frequently and very justly, with manifest contradiction and retractation of your own assertions, and not seldome of the main grounds you build upon, and the principall conclusions which you endeavour to maintain: which I conceive my selfe to have made apparent even to the [...]ye, c. 2. §. 5. c. 3. §. 88. c. 4. §. .14. & 24. c. 5. §. 93. c. 6. §. 6. 7. 12. 17. c. 7. §. 29. and in many other parts of my answer.

And though I did never pretend to defend D. Potter absolutely and in all things, but only so farre as he defends truth; (neither did D. Potter desire me, nor any law of God or man oblige me to defend him any farther,) yet I doe not finde that I have cause to differ from him in any matter of moment: particularly, not concerning the infallibility of Gods Church, which I grant with him to be infallible in fundamentalls, because if it should erre in fundamentalls, it were not the Church: Nor concerning the supernaturality of Faith, which I know & believe as well as you to be the gift of God, and that flesh & blood reveal'd it not unto us, but our Father which is in Heaven. But now if it were demanded [Page] what defence you can make for deserting Ch. Mistaken in the main question disputed between him and D. Potter, Whether Protestancy, without a particular repentance and dereliction of it, destroy Salvation, whereof I have convinc'd you? I believe your answer would be much like that which Vlysses makes in the Me [...]amorphosis for his running away from his friend Nestor, that is, none at all.

For Opposing the Articles of the Church of England, the Approbation, I presume, cleeres my book from this imputation.

And whereas you give me a Caution, that my grounds destroy not the belief of diverse Doctrines which all good Christians believe, yea and of all verities that cannot be prov'd by naturall reason: I professe syncerely that I doe not know nor believe, that any ground laid by me in my whole Book, is any way inconsistent with any one such Doctrine, or with any verity revealed in the word of God, though neuer so improbable or incomprehensible to Naturall Reason: and if I thought there were, I would deale with it, as those primitive converts dealt with their curious Books in the Acts of the Apostles

For the Ep. of S. Iames, and those other Books which were anciently controverted, and are now received by the Church of England as Canonicall; I am so farre from relying upon any Principles which must (to my apprehension) bring with them the deniall of the authority of them, that I my selfe believe them all to be Canonicall.

For the overthrowing the Infallibility of all Scripture, my Book is so innocent of it, that the Infallibility of Scripture is the chiefest of all my grounds.

And lastly for Arguments tending to prove an impossibility of all Divine, Supernaturall, Infallible Faith and Religion, I assure my self that if you were ten times more a spider then you are, you could suck no poyson from them. My heart, I am sure, is innocent of any such intention: and the searcher of all hearts knowes that I had no other end in writing this Book, but to confirm to the uttermost of my ability the truth of the Divine and Infallible Religion of our dearest Lord and Saviour Christ Iesus, which I am ready to seale and confirm not with my arguments only, but my bloud!

Now these are directions which you have been pleas'd to give me, whether out of a fear that I might otherwise deviate from them, or out of a desire to make others think so: But howsoever, I have not, to my understanding, swarved from them in any thing, which puts me in good hope that my Answer to this first Part of your Book will give even to you your self indifferent good satisfaction.

I have also provided, though this were more then I undertook, a just and punctuall examination and refutation of your second Part: But (if you will give your consent) am resolv'd to suppresse it, and that for divers sufficient and reasonable considerations.

First, because the discussion of the Controversies entreated of in the first Part (if we shall think fit to proceed in it, as I for my part shall, so long as I have truth to reply,) will, I conceive, be sufficient employment for us, though wee cast off the burden of those many lesser dispu [...]es [Page] which remain behind in the Second. And perhaps wee may doe God and his Church more service by exactly discussing and fully clearing the truth in these few, then by handling many after a sleight and perfunctory manner.

Secondly, because the additiō of the Second Part whether for your purpose or mine is clearly unnecessary: there being no understanding man Papist or Pro [...]estant, but will confesse that (for as much as concernes the main Question now in agitation, about the saveablenesse of Protestants) if the first Part of your Book be answered, there needes no reply to the Second: as on the other side I shall willingly grant, if I have not answered the First, I cannot answer a great part of the Second.

Thirdly, because the addition of the Second not only is unnecessary, but in effect by your self confess'd to bee so. For in your preamble to your Second Part you tell us, That the substance of the present Controversie is handled in the first: and therein also you pretend to have answered the chief grounds of D. Potters book: So that in replying to your Second Part I shall doe litle else but pursue shadowes.

Fourthly, because your Second Part (setting aside Repetitions and References) is in a manner made up of disputes about particular matters, which you are very importunate to have forborn, as suspecting, at least pretending to suspect, that they were brought in purposely by D. Potter to dazle the Reader's eyes and distract his mind, that hee might not see the clearnesse of the reasons brought in defence of the Generall Doctrine delivered in Charity Mistaken. All which you are likely enough (if there bee occasion) to say again to mee; and therefore I am resolv'd for once even to humour you so farre as to keepe my discourse within those very lists and limits which your self have prescrib'd, and to deal with you upon no other arguments, but only those wherein you conceive your chief advantage and principall strength, and, as it were, your Sampson's lock to lye: wherein if I gain the cause clearly from you (as I verily hope by Gods help I shall doe) it cannot but redound much to the honour of the truth maintain'd by me, which by so weak a Champion can overcome such an Achilles for error even in his strongest holds.

For these reasons, although I have made ready an answer to your Second Part, and therein have made it sufficiently evident: That for shifting evasions from D. Potters arguments; for impertinent cavills, and frivolous exceptions, and injurious calumnies against him for misalleaging of Authors: For proceeding upon false and ungrounded princiciples; for making inconsequent and sophisticall deductions, and, in a word, for all the vertues of an ill answer your Second Part is no way second to the First. Yet notwithstanding all this anvantage, I am resolv'd, if you will give me leave, either wholly to suppresse it, or at least to deferre the publication of it, untill I see what exceptions, upon a twelve-months examinatiō (for so long I am well assur'd you have had it in your hands) you can take at this which is now published, that so if my grounds bee discovered false I may give over building on them: or [Page] (if it shall be thought fit) build on more securely when it shall appeare that nothing materiall and of moment is or can bee objected against them. This I say, upon a supposition that your self will allow these reasons for satisfying and sufficient, and not repent of the motion which your self has made, of reducing the Controversy between us to this short Issue. But in case your mind be altered, upon the least intimation you shall give mee, that you doe not desire to have it out, your desire shall prevail with me above all other reasons, and you shall not fail to receive it with all convenient speed.

Only that my Answer may be compleat, and that I may have all my work together, and not be troubled my self, nor enforc'd to trouble you with after-reckonings, I would first entreat you to make good your Promise of not omitting to answer all the particles of D. Potters book, which may any way import, and now at least to take notice of some (as it seemes to me) not unconsiderable passages of it, which between your first and second Part, as it were betweene two stooles, have beene suffer'd hitherto to fall to the ground, and not beene vouchsaf'd any answer at all.

For after this neglectfull fashion you have passed by in silence, First his discourse, wherein he proves briefly but very effectually, that Protestants may be sav'd, and that the Romā Church, especially the Iesuits are very uncharitable. S. 1. p. 6. 7. 8. 9. Secondly the authorities whereby he justifies, That the ancient Fathers, by the Roman understood alwaies a particular, and never the Catholique Church: to which purpose he alleageth the words of Ignatius, Ambrose, Innocentius, Celestine, Nicolaus▪ S. 1. p. 10, Whereunto you say nothing, neither doe you infringe his observation with any one instance to the contrary.

Thirdly, the greatest and most substantiall part of his answers to the Arguments of Charity Mistaken, built upon Deut. 17. Numb. 16. Mat. 28. 20. Mat. 18. 17. and in particular many pregnant and convincing Texts of Scripture, quoted in the margent of his book, p. 25. to prove that the Iudges of the Synagogue (whose Infallibility yet you make an Argument of yours, and therefore must be more credible then yours) are vainly pretended to have been infallible: but as they were oblig'd to judg according to the Law, so were obnoxious to deviations from it. S. 2. p. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Fourthly his discourse wherein hee shewes the difference betweene the Prayers for the Dead used by the Ancients, and those now in use in the Roman Church.

Fiftly, the Authority of three Ancient, and above twenty moderne Doctors of your own Church alleag'd by him, to shew that in their opinion even Pagans, and therefore much more erring Christians (if their lives were morally honest) by Gods extraordinary mercy and Christs merit may be saved. S. 2. p. 45.

Sixtly, a great part of his discourse whereby he declares that actuall and externall communion with the Church is not of absolute necessity to Salvation: nay that those might be saved whom the Church utterly refus'd to admit to her Communion. S. 2. p. 46. 47. 48. 49.

[Page] Seaventhly, his discourse concerning the Churches latitude, which hath in it a cleare determination of the maine Controversy against you: For therein he proves plainly, that all appertain to the Church, who believe that Iesus is the Christ the sonne of God and Saviour of the world with submission to his Doctrine in mind and will: which hee irrefragably demonstrates by many evident Texts of Scripture containing the substance of his Assertion even in termes. S. 4. p. 114. 115. 116. 117.

Eightly, that wherein he shewes by many pertinent examples, that grosse error and true Faith may bee lodged together in the same mind: And that men are not chargeable with the damnable consequences of their erroneous opinions. S. 4. p. 122.

Ninthly, a very great part of his Chapter touching the dissensions of the Roman Church, which he shewes (against the pretences of Charity Mistaken) to bee no lesse then ours for the importance of the matter, and the pursuite of them to bee exceedingly uncharitable. S. 6. p. 188. 189. 190. 191. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197.

Tenthly, his clear refutation and just reprehension of the Doctrine of implicite Faith as it is deliver'd by the Doctors of your Church: which he proves very consonant to the Doctrine of Heretiques and Infidels, but evidently repugnant to the word of God. Ibid. p. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205.

Lastly, his discourse wherein hee shewes that it is unlawfull for the Church of after Ages to adde any thing to the Faith of the Apostles: And many of his Arguments whereby hee proves that in the judgment of the Ancient Church the Apostles Creed was esteem'd a sufficient summary of the necessary Points of simple belief, and a great number of great authorities, to justifie the Doctrine of the Church of England touching the Canon of Scripture, especially the Old Testament. S. 7. p. 221, 223. 228. 229.

All these parts of Doctor Potter's book, for reasons best known to your self, you have dealt with as the Priest and Levite in the Gospell did with the wounded Samaritan, that is, only look't upon them and pass'd by: But now at least when you are admonish't of it, that my Reply to your second part (if you desire it,) may be perfect, I would entreat you to take them into your consideration, and to make some shew of saying something to them, least otherwise the world should interpret your obstinate silence a plaine confession that you can say nothing.

FINIS.

§

§

[Page]

GOod reader, through the Authors necessary absence for some weekes while this Book was printing, and by reason of an uncorrected Copy sent to the Presse, some errors have escap'd, notwithstanding the Printers sollicitous and extraordinary care, and the Correctors most assiduous diligence: which I would intreat thee to correct according to this following direction.

Pag. | Lin. | Err. | Corr.
6. | 1. | To the first and second | Adde §.
21. | Vlt. | To the ninth, to the ninteenth. | To the ninteenth, To the ninth,
64. | 21. | Principall | prudentiall.
67. | 29. | Canoniz'd | discanoniz'd.
73. | In marg. | posuit | potuit.
108. | 21. | ou [...] | one.
134. | 9. | In | for.
136. | 9. | some | some thing.
146. | 6. | a truth | truths.
150. | 19. | she | there.
157. | 13. | vowed | avowed.
158. | Pe [...]lt▪ | best | least.
168. | 11, | causa pro non caus [...] | non causa pro causa
176. | 3. | Atheists | Antith [...]sis.
ib. | 11. | dele with. |
180. | Antepen. | government | communion.
193. | 19. | that | the.
198. | 33. | continue the | immortall, the
218. | 44. | profession | p [...]fection.
220. | Post 53. | scribd | Ad §. 19.
I [...] ▪ | 11. | Faire | Fa [...]ce.
Ib. | 33. | instruct | mistrust.
221. | 38. | which is | which is the Church.
225. | 27. | nay | now▪
293. | 43. | so farre from | farre from so.
351. | 11. | exception | exposition.
361. | Vlt. | Canons | Canon.
372. | 17. | Foundation | Fundation of.
393. | 32. | dele whether |
402 | 44. | of themselves | in the issue.

[Page]

[Page]

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

The religion of protestants a safe vvay to salvation. Or An ansvver to a booke entitled Mercy and truth, or, charity maintain'd by Catholiques, which pretends to prove the contrary. By William Chillingworth Master of Arts of the University of Oxford

Chillingworth, William, 1602-1644.

Edition statement

1638

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2003-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A18610

ID [STC]

STC 5138

ID [STC]

ESTC S107216

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

99842918

ID [PROQUEST]

99842918

ID [VID]

7615

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A18610)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 7615)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 1167:13)

Source

— The religion of protestants a safe vvay to salvation. Or An ansvver to a booke entitled Mercy and truth, or, charity maintain'd by Catholiques, which pretends to prove the contrary. By William Chillingworth Master of Arts of the University of Oxford, Chillingworth, William, 1602-1644., Knott, Edward1582-1656. Mercy and truth. Part 1..

Extent

[32], 413, [3] p.

Printed by Leonard Lichfield, and are to be sold by Iohn Clarke under St Peters Church in Corn-hill [, London],. Oxford :: Anno salutis M.DC.XXXVIII. [1638]. (The last leaf is blank.) (A reply to, and reprinting of part 1 of, "Mercy & truth" by Edward Knott. Also replies to his: A direction to be observed by N.N. if hee meane to proceede in answering the booke intituled Mercy and truth, or charity mainteined by Catholiks &c.) (A variant of the edition without Clarke's name in the imprint.) (Reproduction of the original in the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.