MERCY & TRUTH. OR CHARITY MAINTAINED by Catholics. By way of Reply upon an Answer lately framed by D. POTTER to a Treatise which had formerly proved, That CHARITY was MISTAKEN by Protestants: With the want whereof Catholics are unjustly charged for affirming, That Protestancy unrepented destroys SALVATION. Divided into two Parts. Mercy and Truth have met together. Psalm. 84. v. 11. Better are the wounds of him that loveth, than the fraudulent kisses of him that hateth. Prou. cap. 27. v. 6. We love you Brethren, and desire the same things for you, which we do for ourselves. S. Aug. Ep. 166. Permissu Superiorum, M.DC.XXXIIII. TO THE MOST HIGH Mighty, Just, and Clement Prince, CHARLES King of Great-Brittaine, France, and Ireland, etc. THese Titles (most gracious Sovereign) partly flowing from your Royal Authority, and partly appropriated to your Sacred Person, have by their happy conjunction emboldened me to lay at your Princely Feet, with most humble respects, and profound submission, this REPLY of mine to a Book, lately written in obedience, as the Author thereof affirms, to your Majesty's particular Command. For, though your Regal Authority may seem to be an Object of only Dread and Awe; yet doth it not so much avert, as invite men to a confident approach, when it appears so swetly tempered, and adorned with such rare Personal Qualities as your Majesties are; justice to all; Clemency to every one of your meanest Subjects; Wisdom to discern with quickness & depth, and to determine with great maturity of judgement, between right and wrong; A Princely disdain, and just indignation against the least dissimulation, which may be repugnant to the secret testimony of Conscience; An heroical Affection, and even as it were a natural kind of sympathy with all Sincerity, and Truth. So that, when your Majesty thought fit to impose a Commandment of writing upon one; I could not but conceive it to be also your gracious Pleasure and Will, that in Virtue of the same Royal Command, others who are of contrary judgement, were suffered at least, if not obliged, to answer for themselves; but yet with all due respect, and Christian moderation: Which, I have as carefully endeavoured to observe, as if I had written by the express Command, & spoken in the Hearing, and acted the part of Truth, in the presence of so Great, so Modest, and so judicious a Monarch, as your Majesty is. I was therefore supported by contemplation of these your rare Endowments of Mind: which, as they are the Happiness of all your Subjects; so were they no less a Hope to me, that your Majesty would not disdain to cast an eye of Grace upon this REPLY, not according to the face of present times, but with regard to the Plea's of Truth, appearing in times more ancient, and in places more diffused, by the allegation of one, who doth so cordially profess himself your Majesty's most humble subject, as that from the depth of a sincere hart, and with all the powers of his soul, he wishes that God be no longer merciful, and good to him, and all your other Catholics Subjects, than they, and he shall both in desire, and deed, approve themselves upon all occasions, sincerely Loyal to the most Excellent Person, and thrice hopeful Issue of your Sacred Majesty. This our Catholic Religion teaches us to profess and perform: and heerwith I lay this poor Work, and prostrate the Author thereof, at the Throne of your Royal Feet. Your Majesty's most humble and most loyal Subject. I. H. Advertisement of the Printer. THis REPLY, Good Reader, was indeed long since finished by the Author: but by reason of some impediment, it could not be commodiously transported, so soon as he wished, and desired it should. TO THE READER. GIVE me leave (good Reader) to inform thee, by way of Preface, of three points The first concerns D. Potter's Answer to Charity Mistaken. The second relates to this Reply of mine. And the third contains some Premonitions, or Prescriptions in case D. Potter, or any in his behalf think fit to rejoin. 2. For the first point concerning D. Potter's Answer, I say in general, A general consideration of D. Potter's Answer. reserving particulars to their prroper places, that in his whole Book he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question, which was, Whether both Catholics and Protestants can be saved in their several professions. And therefore Charity Mistaken judiciously pressing those particulars, wherein the difficulty doth precisely consist, proves in general, that there is but one true Church; that all Christians are obliged to hearken to her; that she must be ever visible, and infallible; that to separate one's self from her Communion is Schism, and to descent from her doctrine is Heresy, though it be in points never so few, or never so small in their own nature; and therefore that the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental is wholly vain, as it is applied by Protestants. These (I say) and some other general grounds Charity Mistaken handles, and out of them doth clearly evince, that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation on both sides: and therefore since it is apparent, that Catholics 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 destroys Salvation; so must they also believe that we cannot be saved, if they judge their own Religion to be true, and ours to be false. And whosoever disguizeth this truth, is an enemy to souls, which he deceives with ungrounded false hopes of salvation, indifferent Faiths, and Religions. And this, Charity Mistaken performed exactly, according to that which appears to have been his design, which was not to descend to particular disputes, as D. Potter affectedly does, namely, Whether or no the Roman Church be the only true Church of Christ; and much less whether General Counsels be infallible; whether the Pope may err in his Decrees common to the whole Church; whether he be above a General Council; whether all points of faith be contained in Scripture; whether Faith be resolved into the authority of the Church, as into his last formal Object, and Motive; and least of all did he discourse of Images, Communion under both kinds, public Service in an unknown Tongue, Seven Sacraments, Sacrifice of the Mass, Indulgences, and Index Expurgatorius: all which and diverse other articles D. Potter (as I said) draws by violence into his Book. & he might as well have brought in Pope loan, or Antichrist, or the jews who are permitted to live in Rome, which are common Themes for men that want better matter, as D. Potter was forced to fetch in the aforesaid Controversies, that so he might dazzle the eyes, & distract the mind of the Reader, and hinder him from perceiving that in his whole Answer he uttered nothing to the purpose, & point in question: which if he had followed closely, I dare well say, he might have dispatched his whole Book in two or three sheets of paper. But the truth is, he was loath to affirm plainly, that generally both Catholics 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, & to fill up his Book with points which make nothing to the purpose. Wherein he is less excusable, because he must grant, that those very particulars to which he digresseth, are not fundamental errors, though it should be granted that they be errors, which indeed are Catholic verities. For since they be not fundamental, nor destructive of salvation, what imports it whether we hold them or no, for as much as concerns our possibility to be saved? 3. In one thing only he will perhaps seem to have touched the point in question, to wit, in his distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental: because some may think, that a difference in points which are not fundamental breaks not the Unity of Faith, and hinders not the hope of salvation in persons so disagreeing. And yet in this very distinction, he never speaks to the purpose indeed, but only says, that there are some points so fundamental, as that all are obliged to know and believe them explicitly, 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 itself of any great consequence, or moment; & since of two disagreeing in matters of faith, one must necessarily deny some such truth; it clearly follows that amongst men of different Faiths, or Religions, one only can be saved, though their difference consist of diverse, or but even one point, which is not in his own nature fundamental, as I declare at large in diverse places of my first Part. So that it is clear, D. Potter even in this his last refuge and distinction, never comes to the point in question: to say nothing that he himself doth quite overthrew it, and plainly contradict his whole design, as I show in the third Chapter of my first Part. 4. And as for D. Potter's 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 clearly answered even in Charity Mistaken; but he takes no knowledge at all of any such answers, and much less doth he apply himself to confute them. He allegeth also Authors with so great corruption and fraud, as I would not have believed, if I had not found it by clear, and frequent experience. In his second Edition, he hath indeed left out one or two gross corruptions, amongst many others no less notorious, having as it seems 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 withal 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 pains if he had ingenuously acknowledged, where the whole substance, yea and sometime the very words & phrases of his book may be found in fare briefer manner, namely, in a Sermon of D. Ushers preached before our late sovereign Lord King james the 20. of june. 1624. at Wansted, containing A Declaration of the Universality of the Church of Christ, and the Unity of Faith, professed therein, which Sermon having been roundly and wittily confuted by a Catholic Divine, under the name of Paulus Veridicus, within the compass of about 4. sheets of Paper, D. Potters Answer to Charity Mistaken was in effect confuted before it appeared. And this may suffice for a general Censure of his Answer to Charity Mistaken. 6. For the second, touching my Reply: if you wonder at the Bulk thereof, compared either with Charity Mistaken, or D. Potter's Answer, Concerning my Reply. 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 mere necessity of not being so short, as otherwise might peradventure be desired. Charity Mistaken is short I grant, and yet very full, and large for as much as concerned his design, 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 coming forth, if it had not been prevented by the Treatise of Charity Mistaken, which seemed to make the other intended work a little less seasonable at that tyme. But Charity Mistaken proves only in General out of some Universal Principles, well backed and made good by choice and authorities, ●hat of two disagreeing in points of Faith, one only without repentance can be saved; which aim exacted no great bulk. And as for D. Potter's Answer, even that also is not so short as it may seem. For if his marginal notes printed in a small letter were transfered into the Text, the Book would appear to be of some bulk: though indeed it might have been very short, if he had kept himself to the point treated by Charity Mistaken, as shall be declared anon. But contrarily, because the question debated betwixt Charity Mistaken & D. Potter, is a point of the highest consequence that can be imagined, & in regard that there is not a more pernicious Heresy, or rather indeed ground of Atheism, than a persuasion that men of different Religions may be saved, if otherwise forsooth they lead a kind of civil and moral life: I conceived, that my chief endeavour was not to be employed in answering D. Potter, but that it was necessary to handle the Question itself somewhat at large, and not only to prove in general, that both Protestants and Catholics cannot be saved; but to show also, that Salvation cannot be hoped for out of the Catholic Roman Church; and yet withal, not to omit to answer all the particules of D Potter's Book which may any way import. To this end I thought it fit, to divide my Reply into two Parts: in the former whereof, the main question is handled by a continued discourse without ste●●ping aside to confute the particulars of D. Potter's Answer, though yet so, as that even in this first Part, I omit not to answer such passages of his, as I find directly in my way, and naturally belong to the points whereof I treat: & in the second Part I answer D. Potter's Treatise, Section by Section, as they lie in order I here therefore entreat the Reader, that if heartily he desire satisfaction in this so important question, he do not content himself with that which I say to Doctor Potter in my second Part, but that he take the First before him, either all, or at least so much as may serve most to his purpose of being satisfied in those doubts which press him most. For which purpose I have caused a Table of the Chapters of the first Part, together with their Titles & Arguments, to be prefixed before my Reply. 7. This was then a chief reason why I could not be very short. But yet there wanted not also diverse other causes of the same effect. For there are so several 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 unsatisfyed and even unspoken to, as if nothing had been said therein at all. As for example, some hold a necessity of a perpetual visible Church, and some hold no such necessity. Some of them hold it necessary to be able to prove it distinct from ours; & others, that their business is dispatched when they have proved ours to have been always visible: for than they will conceive that theirs hath been so: and the like may be truly said of very many other particulars. Besides, it is D. Potter's 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 trivial old objections, which if they be not all answered, it will, and must serve the turn, to make the more ignorant sort of men believe, and brag, as if some main unanswerable matter had been subtly & purposely omitted; and every body knows that some objection may be very plausibly made in few words the clear and solid answer whereof will require more leaves of paper then one. And in particular D. Potter doth couch his corruption of Authors within the compass of so few lines, and with so great confuseones and fraud, that it requires much time, pains, and paper to open them so distinctly, as that they may appear to every man's eye. It was also necessary to show, 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 add 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 than Books for answering of Books: yet I was so ill furnished in this kind, that I was forced to omit the examination of diverse Authors cited by D. Potter, merely upon necessity; though I did very well perceive by most apparent circumstances, that I must probably have been sure enough to find them plainly misalleadged, and much wronged: and for the few which are examined, there hath not wanted some difficulties to do 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 itself in the midst of all difficulties which may occur. As for me, when I allege Protestant Writers as well domestical, as foreign, I willingly and thankfully acknowledge myself obliged for diverse of them to the Author of the Book entitled, The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church, who calls himself john Brereley, whose care, exactness, and fidelity is so extraordinary great, as that he doth not only cite the Books, 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 find what he cities, yet suspend your judgement, till you have read the corrections placed at the end of his book; though it be also true, that after all diligence and faithfulness on his behalf, 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 as much as concerns the manner of my Reply, I have procured to do it without all bitterness, or gall of invective words, both for as much as may import either Protestants in general, or D. Potter's person in particular; unless, for example, he will call it bitterness for me to term a gross impertinency, a sleight, or a corruption, by those very names, without which I do not know how to express the things: and yet wherein I can truly affirm 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 profess, 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 remiss, then moderate. But since in the very Title of my Reply I profess to maintain Charity, I conceive that the excess will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men, if it fall to be in mildness, then if it had appeared in too much zeal. 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 myself as many & more personal defects, than he can heap upon me. Truth only and sincerity I so much value and profess, as that he shall never be able to prove the contrary in any one lest passage or particle against me. 9 Rules to be observed if D. Potter intent a Re●oynders. In the third & last place, I have thought fit to express myself thus. If D. Potter, or any other resolve to answer my Reply; I desire that he will observe some things which may tend to his own reputation, the saving of my unnecessary pains, and especially to the greater advantage of truth. I wish then that he would be careful 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 concerns the question between D. Potter and Charity Mistaken) doth he so often and seriously labour to prove, that faith is not resolved into the Authority of the Church, as into the formal Object 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 diocese, is not all one with the universal Church? Or that the Pope as a private Doctor may err? With many other such points as will easily appear in their proper places. It will also be necessary for him not to put certain Doctrines upon us, from which he knows we disclaim as much as himself. 10. I must in like manner entreat him not to recite my reasons & discourses by halves, but to set them down faithfully & entirely, for as much as in very deed concerns 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 find how ill he hath complied with the promise which he made in his Preface to the Reader, not to omit without answer any one thing of moment in all the discourse of Charity Mistaken. Neither will this course be a cause that his Rejoinder grow too large, but it will be occasion of brevity to him, and free me also from the pains of setting down all the words which he omits, and himself of demonstrating that what he omitted was not material. Nay I will assure him, that if he keep himself to the point of every difficulty, and not weary the Reader, and overcharge his margin, with unnecessary quotations of Authors in Greek and Latin, and sometime also in Italian and French, together with proverbs, sentences of Poets, and such grammatical stuff, nor affect to cite a multitude of our Catholic School divines to no purpose at all; his Book will not exceed a competent size, nor will any man in reason be offended with that length which is regulated by necessity. Again before he come to set down his answer, or propose his Arguments, let him consider very well what may be replied, and whether his own objections may not be retorted against himself, as the Reader will perceive to have happened often to his disadvantage in my Reply against him But especially I expect, and Truth itself exacts at his hand, that he speak clearly and distinctly, and not seek to walk in darkness, so to delude and deceive his Reader, now saying, and then denying, and always speaking with such ambiguity, as that his greatest care may seem to consist in a certain art to find a shift, as his occasions might chance, either now, or hereafter to require, and as he might fall out to be urged by divernty of several arguments. And to the end it may appear, that I deal plainly, as I would have him also do, I desire that he declare himself concerning these points. 11. First, whether our Saviour Christ have not always had, and be not ever to have a visible true Church on earth: & 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 can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ, distinct from the Church of Rome, and such Churches as agreed with her when Luther first appeared, whether it do not follow, that she hath not erred fundamentally; because every such error destroys the nature and being of the Church, and so our Saviour Christ should have had no visible Church on earth. 14. Fourthly, if the Roman Church did not fall into any fundamental error, let him tell us how it can be damnable to live in her Communion, or to maintain errors, which are known & confessed, not to be fundamental, or damnable. 15. Fiftly, if her Errors were not damnable, nor did exclude salvation, how can they be excused from Schism, who forsook her Communion upon pretence of errors, which were not damnable? 16. Sixtly, if D. Potter have a mind to say, that her Errors are damnable, or fundamental, let him do us so much charity, as to tell us in particular what those fundamental errors be. But he must still remember (and myself must be excused, for repeating it) that if he say the Roman Church e●●ed fundamentally, he will not be able to show, that Christ our Lord had any visible Church on earth, when Luther appeared: & let him tell us how Protestants had, or can have any Church which was universal, and extended herself to all ages, if once he grant, that the Roman Church ceased to be the true Church of Christ; and consequenly how they can hope for Salvation, if they deny it to us. 17. Seaventhly, whether any one Error maintained against any one Truth though never so small in itself, yet sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by almighty God, do not destroy the Nature and Unity of Faith, or at least is not a grievous offence excluding Salvation. 18. Eightly, if this be so, how can Lutherans, Caluinists, Zwinglians, and all the rest of disagreeing Protestant's, hope for salvation, since it is manifest that some of them must needs err against some such truth as is testified by almighty God, either fundamental, or at least not fundamental. 19 Ninthly, we constantly urge, and require to have a particular Catalogue of such points as he calls fundamental. A catalogue, I say, in particular, and not only some general definition, or description, wherein Protestants may perhaps agree, though we see that they differ when they come to assign what points in particular be fundamental; and yet upon such a particular Catalogue much depends: as for example in particular, whether or no a man do not err in some point fundamental or necessary to salvation; and whether or no Lutherans, Caluinists, and the rest do disagree in fundamentals, which if they do, the same Heaven cannot receive them all. 20. Tenthly, and lastly I desire that in answering to these points, he would let us know distinctly, what is the doctrine of the Protestant English Church concerning them, and what he utters only as his own private opinion. 21. These are the questions which for the present I find it fit and necessary for me to ask of D. Potter, or any other who will defend his cause, or impugn ours. And it will be in vain to speak vainly, and to tell me, that a Fool may ask more questions in an hour, than a wiseman can answer in a year; with such idle Proverbs as that. For I ask but such questions as for which he gives occasion in his Book, and where he declares not himself but after so ambiguous and confused a manner, as that Truth itself can scarce tell how to convince him so, but that with ignorant and ill-iudging men he will seem to have somewhat left to say for himself, though Papists (as he calls them) and Puritan should press him contrary ways at the same time: and these questions concern things also of high importance, as whereupon the knowledge of God's Church, & true Religion, and consequently Salvation of the soul depends. And now because he shall not tax me with being like those men in the Gospel whom our blessed Lord and Saviour charged with laying heavy burdens upon other men's shoulders, who yet would not touch them with their finger: I oblige myself to answer upon any demand of his, both to all these Questions, if he find that I have not done it already, and to any other concerning matter of faith that he shall ask. And I will tell him very plainly, what is Catholic 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 perform these things, as a man who professeth learning should do, not flying from questions which concern things as they are considered in their own nature, to accidental, or rare circumstances of ignorance, incapacity, want of means to be instructed, erroneous conscience, and the like, which being very various and different, cannot be well comprehended under any general Rule. But in delivering general doctrines we must consider things as they be ex naturarei, or per se loquendo (as Divines speak) that is, according to their natures, if all circumstances concur proportionable thereunto. As for example some may for a time have invincible ignorance, even of some fundamental article of faith, through want of capacity, instruction, or the like, and so not offend either in such ignorance or error; and yet we must absolutely say, that error in any one fundamental point is damnable, because so it is, if we consider things in themselves, abstracting from accidental circumstances in particular persons: as contrarily if some man judge some act of virtue, or some indifferent action to be a sin, in him it is a sin indeed, by reason of his erroneous conscience; and yet we ought not to say absolutely, that virtuous, or indifferent actions are sins: and in all sciences we must distinguish the general Rules from their particular Exceptions. And therefore when, for example, he answers to our demand, whether he hold that Catholics may be saved, or whether their pretended errors be fundamental and damnable, he is not to change the state of the question, and have recourse to Ignorance, and the like, but to answer concerning the errors being considered what they are apt to be in themselves, 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 again desire an answer without any of these, or the like ambiguous terms, in some sort, in some seize, in some degree, which may be explicated afterward as strictly or largely as may best serve his turn; but let him tell us 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 mere 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 less abused, and truth will also receive more right. And since we have already laid the grounds of the question, much may be said hereafter in few words, if (as I said) he keep close to the real point of every difficulty without wand'ring into impertinent disputes, multiplying vulgar and threadbare objections and arguments, or labouring to prove what no man denies, or making a vain ostentation by citing a number of Schoolmen, which every Puny brought up in Schools is able to do; and if he cite his Authors with such sincerity, as no time need be spent in opening his corruptions▪ and finally if he set himself a work with this consideration, that we are to give a most strict account to a most just, and unpartial judge, of every period, line, and word that passeth under our pen. For if at the later 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 books concerning true faith and religion, without which no Soul can be saved, makes a man's Errors more material, than they would be, if question were but of toys. A TABLE OF THE Chapters, and Contents of this ensuing First Part of Reply. CHAP. I. THE true state of the Question: With a Summary of the Reasons, for which, amongst men of different Religions, one side only can be saved. CHAP. II. What is that means 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 fundamental, and not fundamental, is neither pertinent, nor true in our present Controversy. And that the Catholic visible Church cannot err in either kind of the said points. CHAP. FOUR To say, that the Creed contains all points necessarily to be believed, is neither pertinent to the Question in hand, nor in itself true. CHAP. V. That Luther, Caluin, their associates, and all who began, or continue the separation from the external Communion of the Roman Church, are guilty of the proper, and formal sin of Schism. CHAP. VI That Luther, and therest of Protestants have added Heresy to Schism. CHAP. VII. In regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones self, Protestants are in state of Sin, as long as they remain separated from the Roman Church. 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. NEVER is Malice more indiscreet, then when it chargeth others with imputation of that, to which itself becomes more liable, even by that very act of accusing others. For, though guiltiness be the effect of some error, yet usually it begets a kind of Moderation, so far forth, as not to let men cast such aspersions upon others, as must apparently reflect upon themselves. Thus cannot the Poet endure, Quis tulerit Gracchum etc. that Gracchus, who was a factious and unquiet man, should be inveighing against Sedition: and the Roman Orator rebukes Philosophers who, to wax glorious, superscribed their Names upon those very Books 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 affirm, that Protestancy destroyeth Salvation; while he himself is in act of pronouncing the like heavy doom against Roman Catholics? For, not satisfied with much uncivil language, in affirming the Roman Church many (a) Pag. 11. ways to have played the Harlot, and in that regard deserved a bill of divorce from Christ, and detestation of Christians; in styling her, that proud (b) Ibid. and cursed Dame of Rome, which takes upon her to revel in the House of God; in talking of an Idol (c) Pag. 4. Edit. 1. to be worshipped at Rome; he comes at length to thunder out this fearful sentence against her: For that (d) Pag. 20 Mass of Errors (saith he) 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. And in another place he saith: For us who (e) Pag. 81. are convinced in conscience, that she er in many things, a necessity lies upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those Errors By the acerbity of which Censure, he doth not only make himself guilty of that, which he judgeth to be a heinous offence in others, but freeth us also from all colour of crime by this his unadvised recrimination. For, if Roman Catholics be likewise convicted in conscience of the Errors of Protestants; they may, and must, in conformity to the Doctors own rule, judge a reconciliation with them to be also damnable. And thus, all the Want of Charity so deeply charged on us, dissolves itself into this poor wonder, Roman Catholics believe in their conscience, that the Religion which they profess is true, and the contrary false. 2. Nevertheless, 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 do we understand, why our most dear Country men should be offended, if the Universality be particularised under the Name of Protestants, first given (g) Sleïdan. l. 6. fol. 84. to certain Lutherans, who protesting that they would stand out against the Imperial 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 disclaimed by Caluinists, and Zwinglians, our naming or exemplifying a general 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 case desperate. God forbidden! We hope, we pray for their Conversion; and sometimes we find happy effects of our charitable desires. Neither is our Censure immediately directed to particular persons. The Tribunal of particular judgement is Gods alone. When any man esteemed a Protestant, leaveth to live in this world, we do not instantly with precipitation avouch, that he is lodged in Hell. For we are not always acquainted with what sufficiency or means he was furnished for instruction; we do not penetrate his capacity to understand his Catechist; we have no revelation what light might have cleared his errors, or Contrition retracted his sins, in the last moment before his death. In such particular cases, we wish more apparent signs of salvation but do not give any dogmatic sentence of perdition How grievous sins, Disobedience, Schism, and Heresy are, is well known. But to discern how far the natural 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, he (h) See Pag. 39 makes Ignorance the best hope of salvation. Much less comfort, can we expect from the fierce doctrine of those chief 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 belief 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 plain words of (i) Art. 28. Scripture; our Masses to be blasphemous (k) Art. 31. Fables, with much more to be seen in the Articles themselves. In a certain Confession of the Christian faith, at the end of their books of Psalms collected into Meeter, and printed Cum privilegio Regis Regali, they call us Idolaters, and limbs of Antichrist; and having set down a Catalogue of our doctrines, they conclude that for them we shall after the General Resurrection be damned to unquenchable fire. 5. But yet lest any man should flatter himself with our charitable Mitigations, and thereby wax careless 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 judgement may be esteemed rash, or prudent, except by weighing the reasons upon which it is grounded, we will here, under one aspect, present a Summary of those Principles, from which we infer, that Protestancy in itself unrepented destroys 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 Want of Charity. 7. Now, this is our gradation of reasons. Almighty God, having ordained Mankind to a supernatural End of eternal felicity; hath in his holy Providence settled competent and convenient Means, whereby that end may be attained. The universal grand Origen of all such means, is the Incarnation and Death of our Blessed Saviour, whereby he merited internal grace for us; and founded an external 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 effectual means to beget, and conserve faith, to maintain Unity, to discover and condemn Heresies, to appease and reduce Schisms, and to determine all Controversies in Religion. For without such means, the Church should not be furnished with helps sufficient to salvation, not God afford sufficient means to attain that End, to which himself ordained Mankind. This means to decide Controversies in faith and Religion (whether it should be the holy Scripture, or whatsoever else) must be endued with an Universal Infallibility, in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth, that is, as revealed, spoken, or testified by Almighty God, whether the matter of its nature, be great or small. For if it were subject to error 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 err in that particular. 8. Thus fare all must agree to what we have said, unless they have a mind to reduce Faith to Opinion. And even out of these grounds alone, without further proceeding, it undeniably follows, that of two men dissenting in matters of faith, great or small, few or many, the one cannot be saved without repentance, unless Ignorance accidentally may in some particular person, plead excuse. For in that case of contrary belief, one must of necessity be held to oppose God's 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 itself great or small. And thus we 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 Nevertheless, to the end that men may know in particular what is the said infallible means upon which we are to rely in all things concerning Faith, and accordingly may be able to judge in what safety or danger, more or less they live; and because D. Potter descendeth to diverse particulars about Scriptures and the Church etc. we will go forward, & prove, that although Scripture be in itself most sacred, infallible, & divine; yet it alone cannot be to us a Rule, or judge, fit and able to end all doubts and debates emergent in matters of Religion; but that there must be some external, visible, public, living judge, to whom all sorts of persons both learned & unlearned, may without danger of ●●●our, have recourse; and in whose judgement they may rest, for the interpreting and propounding of God's Word or Reuclation. And this living judge, we will most evidently prove to be no other, but that Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Visible Church, which our Saviour purchased with the effusion of his most precious blood. 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 she must be infallible in all her determinations, whether the matters of themselues be great or small; because as we said above, it must be agreed on all sides, that if that means 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 firm, and infallible belief of any one. 11. From this Universal Infallibility of God's Church it followeth, that whosoever wittingly denieth 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 only a fundamental error, but would overthrew the very foundation of all fundamental points, and therefore without repentance could not possibly stand with salvation. 12 Out of these grounds, we will show, that although the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental, be good and useful, as it is delivered and applied by Catholic Divines, to teach what principal Articles of faith, Christians are obliged explicitly to believe: yet that it is impertinent to the present purpose of excusing any man from grievous sin, 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 testified by God, & another positively to oppose what we know he hath testified. 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 allege the Creed, as containing all Articles of faith necessary to be explicitly believed, is not pertinent to free from sin the voluntary denial of any other point known to be defined by God's Church. And this were sufficient to overthrew all that D. Potter allegeth, concerning the Creed: though yet by way of Supererogation, we will prove, that there are diverse important matters of Faith which are not mentioned at all in the Creed. 14. From the aforesaid main principle, that God hath always had, and always 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, Caluin, 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 Schism, and Heresy, although they opposed her faith but in on● only point; whereas it is manifest, they descent from her, in many and weighty matters, concerning as well belief, as practise. 15. To these reasons drawn from the virtue of Faith, we will add one other taken from Charitas propria, the Virtue of Charity, as it obligeth us, not to expose our soul to hazard of perdition, when we can put ourselves in a way much more secure, as we will prove, that of the Roman Catholics 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 fundamental, and not fundamental, maketh nothing to our present Question. Thirdly, that to say the Creed contains all fundamental points of faith, is neither pertinent, nor true. Fourthly, that both Luther, & all they who after him, persist in division, from the Communion, and Faith of the Roman Church, cannot be excused from Schism Fifthly, nor from Heresy Sixtly and lastly, that in regard of the precept of Charity towards ones self, Protestants be in state of sin, as long as they remain divided from the Roman Church. And these six points, shall be several 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 affirm 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 pass for good. For, is it not a grievous sin, to deny any one truth contained in holy Writ? Is there in such denial, any distinction betwixt points fundamental, and not fundamental, sufficient to excuse from heresy? Is it not impertinent, to allege the Creed containing all fundamental 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 Error 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 fundamental points) must be damnable. What is this, but to say with us, Of persons contrary in whatsoever point of belief, one party only can be saved? And D. Potter must not take it ill, if Catholics 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 scandal where none is given; we must comfort ourselves with that grave, and true saying of S. Gregory: If scandal (l) S. Greg. Hom. 7. in Ezes. be taken from declaring a truth, it is better to permit scandal, then forsake the truth. But the solid grounds of our Assertion, and the sincerity of intention in uttering what we think, yield us confidence, that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of Pope Gelasius to Anastasius the Emperor: Fare be it from the Roman Emperor 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 Protestats & us, for as much as concerns the present Question, & is contained in the Argument of the next ensuing Chapter. CHAP. II. What is that means, whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our Understanding, and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion. OF our estimation, respect, and reverence to holy Scripture even Protestants themselves do in fact give testimony, while they possess it from us, & take it upon the integrity of our custody No cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of supreme & sole judge to holy Writ if both the thing were not impossible in itself & if both reason & 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 external judge to keep, to propose, to interpret it in a true, Orthodox, and Catholic sense. Every single Book, every Chapter, yea every period of holy Scripture is infallibly true, & wants no due perfection. But must we therefore infer, 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 Books of the old & New Testament were written, they did not exclude unwritten Traditions, nor the Authority of the Church to decide Controversies; & who hath then so altered their nature, & filled them with such jealousies, as that now they cannot agree for fear of mutual 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 joined with the written? Who ever heard, that to commend the fidelity of a Keeper, were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody? Or that, to extol the integrity and knowledge, and to avouch the necessity of a judge in suits of law, were to deny perfection in the law? Are there not in Common wealths besides the laws written & unwritten customs, judges appointed to declare both the one, the other, as several occasions may require? 2. That the Scripture alone cannot be judge in Controversies of faith, we gather very clearly. From the quality of a writing in general: From the nature of holy Writ in particular, which must be believed as true, and infallible: From the Editions, & Translations of it: From the difficulty to understand it without hazard of Error: From the inconveniences that must follow upon the ascribing of sole judicature to it: & finally from the Confessions of our Adversaries. And on the other side, all these difficulties ceasing, and all other qualities requisite to a judge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord, we must conclude, that ●he 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 judge cannot in common reason agree to any mere 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 judge, 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 do all this, as the diversity of Controversies persons, occasions, and circumstances may require. There is a great & plain distinction betwixt a judge and a Rule. For as in a kingdom, the judge hath his Rule to follow which are the received Laws and customs; so are not they fit or able to declare, or be judges to themselves, but that office must belong to a living judge. The holy Scripture may be, and is a Rule, but cannot be a judge, because it being always the same, cannot declare itself any one time, or upon any one occasion more particularly then upon any other; and let it be read over an hundred times, it willbe still the same, and no more fit alone to terminate controversies in faith, than the Law would be to end suits, if it were given over to the fancy, & gloss of every single man. 4. This difference betwixt a judge and a Rule, D. Potter perceived, when more than once, having styled the Scripture a judge, by way of correcting that term, he adds or rather a Rule, because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a judge. Fron hence also it was, that though Protestants in their beginning, affirmed Scripture alone to be the judge 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 judge in Controversies. A difference without a disparity. The Holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us, than the Scripture in which he speaks; as a man speaking only Latin, can be no better understood, than the tongue wherein he speaketh. And therefore to say, a judge 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 speaks in Scripture. And it were a conceit, equally foolish and pernicious, if one should seek to take away all judges in the kingdom, upon this nicety, that albeit Laws cannot be judges, yet the Lawmaker speaking in the Law, may perform that Office; as if the Lawmaker speaking in the Law, were with more perspicuity understood, than the Law whereby he speaketh. 5. But though some writing were granted to have a privilege, to declare itself upon supposition that it were maintained in being, and preserved entire from corruptions; yet it is manifest, that no writing can conserve itself, nor can complain, or denounce the falsifier of it; and therefore it stands in need of some watchful and not erring eye, to guard it, by means of whose assured vigilancy, we may undoubtedly receive it sincere and pure. 6. And suppose it could defend itself from corruption, how could it assure us that itself were Canonical, and of infallible Verity? By saying so? Of this very affirmation, there will remain the same Question still; how it can prove itself to be infallibly true? Neither can there ever be an end of the like multiplied demands, till we rest in the external Authority of some person or persons bearing witness to the world, that such, or such a book is Scripture: and yet upon this point according to Protestant's all other Controversies in faith depend. 7. That Scripture cannot assure us, that itself is Canonical Scripture, is acknowledged by some Protestants in express words, and by all of them in deeds. M. Hooker, whom D. Potter ranketh (a) Pag. 131. among men of great learning and judgement, saith: Of things (b) In his first book of Eccles. Policy Sect. 14. pag. 6●. necessary, the very chiefest is to know what books we are to esteem holy; which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach. And this he proveth by the same argument, which we lately used, saying t'has: It is not (c) Ibid. lib. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102. the word of God which doth, or possibly can, assure us, that we do 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 unto it. Neither could we come to any pause whereon to rest, unless besides Scripture, there were something which might assure us etc. And this he acknowledgeth to be the (d) l. 3. Sect. 8. pag. 1. 146. & 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 sixth 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 Canonical Scriptures, is defined to us, not by testimony of the private spirit, which (saith he) being private and secret, is (e) Aduersus Stapl. l. 2. cap. 6. pag. 270 & pag. 357. unfit to teach and refel others; but (as he acknowledgeth) by the (f) Aduersus Stapl. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 300. Ecclesiastical Tradition: An argument (saith he) whereby may be argued, and convinced what books be Canonical, and what be not. Luther saith: This (g) lib. de captain. Babyl. tom. 2. Wittomb. fol. 8●. indeed the Church hath, that she can discern the word of God, from the word of men: as Augustine confesseth, that he believed the Gospel, being moved by the authority of the Church, which did preach this to be the Gospel. Fulke teacheth, that the Church (h) In his answer to a countefaite Catholic pag. 5. hath judgement to discern true writings from counterfeit, and the word of God from the writing of men, and that this judgement she hath not of herself, but of the Holy Ghost. And to the end that you may 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 despite the Pope. Verily (saith he) these (i) Epist. count. Anabap. ad dnos 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 Church's authority, no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonical, while they cannot agree in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture. Of the Epistle of S. james, Luther hath these words: The (k) Praefat. in epist. lac. inedit. jenensi. Epistle of ●ames is contentions, swelling, dry strawy and unworthy of an Apostolical Spirit. Which censure of Luther, Illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth. Kemnitius teacheth, that the second Epistle (l) In Enchirid. pag. 63. of Peter, the second and third of john, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of james, the Epistle of jude, and the Apocalyps of john are Apocryphal, as not having sufficient Testimony (m) In exa. min. Conc. Trid. part. 1. pag. 55. of their authority, and therefore that nothing in controversy can be proved out of these (n) Ibid. Books The same is taught by diverse other Lutherans: and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since Luther's time, I wonder what new infallible ground they can allege, why they leave their Master, and so many of his prime Scholars? I know no better ground, then because they may with as much freedom abandon him, as he was bold to alter that Canon of Scripture, which he found received in God's Church. 9 What Books of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonical, is not easy to affirm In their sixth Article they say: In the name of the Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doub●● in the Church. What mean they by these words? That by the Church's consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonical? This were to make the Church judge, and not Scriptures alone. Do 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 have excluded it from the Canon, as (o) Apud Eus●b. l. 4. hist. cap. 26. Melito Asianus, (p) in Synop. Athana●us, and (q) In corm. de genu●●●s Scriptures. Gregory Nazianzen. And Luther (if Prote stants will be content that he be in the Church) saith: The jews (r) lib de seruo arbitr●o contra Eras. tom. 2. Witt. fol. 471. place the book of Esther in the Canon, which yet, if I might be judge, doth rather deserve to be put out of the Canon. And of Ecclesiastes he saith: This (s) 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 spurs, that is, he hath no perfect sentence, he rides upon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him: who (t) In Germanicis colloq. Lutheri ab Aurtfabro editis Francofurti tit. de libris veteris & novi Test. fol. 379. saith further, that the said book was not written by Solomon, but by Syrach in the time of the Maccabees, and that it is like to the Talmud (the jews bible) out of many books heaped into one work, perhaps out of the Library of king Ptolomous And further he saith, that (u) Ibid. tit. de Patriarchis & Prophet fol. 282. he doth not be lief all to have been done as 〈◊〉 is ●●t down. And he teacheth the (w) Tit de lib. Vet. & rout Test. book of job to be as it were an argument for a fable (or Comedy) to set before us an example of Patience. And he (x) Fol. 380. delivers this general censure of the Prophet's 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 means the Bible was conserved. If this were so, the Books of the Prophets, being not written by themselves, but promiscuously, and casually, by their Disciples, will soon be called in question. Are not these errors of Luther, fundamental? and yet if Protestants deny the infallibility of the Church, upon what certain ground can they disprove these Lutherian, and Luciferian blasphemies? o godly Reformer of the Roman Church! But to return to our English Canon of Scripture. In the New Testament by the above mentioned rule (of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church) diverse Books of the New Testament must be discanonized, to wit, all those of which some Ancients have doubted, and those which diverse Lutherans have of late denied. It is worth the observation how the before mentioned sixth Article, doth specify by name all the Books of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonical; but those of the New, without naming any one, they shuffle over with this generality: All the Books of the New Testaments as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. The mystery is easily to be unfolded. If they had descended to particulars, they must have contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren. As they are commonly received etc. I ask: By whom? By the Church of Rome? Then, by the same reason they must receive diverse Books of the Old Testament, which they reject. By Lutherans? Then with Lutherans they may deny some Books of the New Testament. If it be the greater, or less number of voices, that must cry up, or down, the Canon of Scripture, our Roman Canon will prevail: and among Protestants the Certainty of their Faith must be reduced to an Uncertain Controversy of Fact, whether the number of those who reject, or of those others who receive such and such Scriptures, be greater. Their faith must alter according to years, and days. When Luther first appeared, he, and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church; and so this claim (Of being commonly received) stood for them, till Zvinglius & Caluin grew to some equal, or greater number than 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 do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church; and in the latter part, speaking again of the New Testament, they give a far different rule, saying: All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. 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, pass for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament; why not of the Old? Above all we desire to know, upon what infallible ground, in some Books they agree with us against Luther, and diverse principal Lutherans, and in others jump with Luther against us? But seeing they disagree among themselves, it is evident that they have no certain rule to know the Canon of Scripture, in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity err, because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true. 10. Moreover the letters, syllables, words, phrase, or matter contained in holy Scripture have no necessary, or natural connexion with divine Revelation or Inspiration: and therefore by seeing, reading, or understanding them, we cannot infer that they proceed from God, or be confirmed by divine authority, as because Creatures involve a necessary relation, connexion, and dependence on their Creator, Philosophers may by the light of natural reason, demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things. In Holy Writ there are innumerable truths not surpassing the sphere of humane wit, which are, or may be delivered by Pagan Writers, in the self same words and phrase as they are in Scripture. And as for some truths peculiar to Christians, (for Example, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity etc.) 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, Trismegistus, Sibyls, Ovid etc. must be esteemed Canonical Scripture, because they fall upon some truths proper to Christian Religion. The internal light, and inspiration which directed & moved the Authors of Canonical Scriptures, is a hidden Quality infused into their understanding and will, and hath no such particular sensible influence into the external 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 itself alone, but by some other extrinsecall authority. 11. And here we appeal to any man of judgement, whether it be not a vain brag of some Protestants to tell us, that they wots full well what is Scripture, by the light of Scripture itself, or (as D. Potter word's it) by (y) Pag. 14●. that glorious beam of divine light which shines therein; even as our eye distinguisheth light from darkness, without any other help then light itself; and as our ear knows a voice, by the voice itself alone. But this vanity is refuted, by what we said even now; that the external Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connexion with divine inspiration, or revelation. Will D. Potter hold all his Brethren for blind men, for not seeing that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture, about which they cannot agree? Corporal light may be discerned by itself alone, as being evident, proportionate, & connatural to our faculty of seeing. That Scripture is divine, and inspired by God, is a truth exceeding the natural capacity and compass of man's understanding, to us obscure, and to be believed by divine faith, which according to the Apostle is; argumentum (z) Heb. v. 1 non apparentium; an argument, or conviction, of things not evident: and therefore no wonder if Scripture do not manifest itself by itself alone, but must require some other means for applying it to our understanding. Never theles their own similitudes and instances, make against themselves. For suppose a man had never read, or heard of Sun, Moon, Fire, Candle etc. and should be 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 an one, by only beholding the light, certainly know, whether it were produduced by the Sun, or Moon & c? Or if one hear 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, unless they first know the writer, and what hand he writes: as likewise I cannot know whose voice it is which I hear, unless I first both know the person who speaks, & with what voice he useth to speak; and yet even all this supposed, I may perhaps be deceyved. For there may be voices so like, and Hand so counterfeited, that men may be deceyved by them, as birds were by the grapes of that skilful Painter. Now since Protestants affirm knowledge concerning God as our supernatural end, must be taken from Scripture, they cannot in Scripture alone discern that it is his voice, or writing, because they cannot know from whom a writing, or voice proceeds, unle, first they know the person who speaketh, 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 signify, or affirm any thing, but only to set down, 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 himself understands not: or when one writes what another dictates, and in other such cases, wherein it is clear, that the writer speaks, or signifies nothing in such his writing; & therefore by it we cannot hear, or understand his voice. With what certainty then can any man affirm, that by Scripture itself they can see, that the writers did intent to signify any thing at all; that they were Apostles, or other Canonical Authors; that they wrote their own sense, and not what was dictated by some other man; and finally, & especially, that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost? 12. But let us be liberal, and for the present suppose (not grant) that Scripture is like to corporal light, by itself alone able to determine, & move our understanding to assent; yet the similitude proves against themselues. For light is not visible, except to such as have 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 clear only to those who are endued with the eye of faith; or, as D. Potter above cited saith, to all that have (a) Pag. 141. eyes to discern the shining beams thereof; that is, to the believer, as immediately 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 means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith, which can be no other than the Church. 13. Others affirm, that they know Canonical Scriptures to be such, by the Title of the Books. But how shall we know such Inscriptions, or Titles to be infallibly true? From this their Answer, our argument is strengthened, because diverse Apocryphal writings have appeared, under the Titles, and Names of sacred Authors, as the Gospel of Thomas mentioned by S (b) Cont. Adimantum c. 17. Augustine: the Gospel of Peter, which the Nazaraei did use, as (c) l. 2. heretic fab. Theodoret witnesseth, with which Scraphion a Catholic Bishop, was for sometime deceived, as may be read in (d) lib. 6. cap. 10. Eusebius, who also speaketh of the Apocalyps of (e) lib. 6. cap. 11. Peter. The like may be said of the gospels of Barnabas, Bartholomew, and other such writings specified by Pope (f) Dist. Can. Sancta Romana. Gelasius. Protestants reject likewise some part of Esther and Daniel, which bear the same Titles with the rest of those Books, as also both we, and they hold for Apocryphal the third and fourth Books which go under the name of Esdras, and yet both of us receive his first and second book. Wherefore Titles are not sufficient assurances what books be Canonical: which (h) In 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 do 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 God's Church, which teacheth us to receive Marks Gospel, who was not an Apostle, and to refuse the Gospel of Thomas who was an Apostle: and to retain Luke's Gospel who saw not Christ, and to reject the Gospel 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. So D. (i) Pag 234 Potter. But this neither a plain begging of the question, or manifestly untrue, and is directly against their own octrine, 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 intent, that Scripture is a Principle, but not the first, and most known in Christianity, than Scripture may be proved. For principles, that are not the first, nor known of themselves may, & aught to be proved, before we can yield 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 affirm, that one part of Scripture may be known to be Canonical, 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 affirm. For since all Principles cannot be proved, we must (that our labour may not be endless) come at length to rest in some principle, which may not require any other proof. Such is Tradition, which involues 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 himself comes 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 God's Church. S. (k) In Synopsi. Athanasius saith, that only four Gospels are to be received, because the Canons of the Holy, and Catholic Church have so determined. The third Council of (l) Can. 47. Carthage having set down the Books of holy Scripture gives the reason, because, We have received from our Fathers that these are to be read in the Church. S. Augustine (m) Cont. ep. Funaam. c. 5. speaking of the Acts of the Apostles, saith: To which book I must give credit, if I give credit to the Gospel, because the Catholic Church doth a like recommend to me both these Books. And in the same place he hath also these words: I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church did move me. A saying so plain, that Zuinglius, is forced to cry out: Hear I (n) Tom. 1. fol. 135. implore your equity to speak freely, whether this saying of Augustine seem not overbould, or else unadvisedly to have fallen from him. 15. But suppose they were assured what Books were Canonical, this will little avail them, unless they be likewise certain in what language they remain uncorrupted, or what Translations be true. Caluin (o) 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, yea period, can be securely understood without the help of some Translation. If with points: These were after S. Hierom's time, invented by the jews, who either by ignorance might mistake, or upon malice force the Text, to favour their impieties. And that the Hebrew Text still retains much ambiguity, is apparent by the disagreeing Translations of Novellists; which also proves the Greek for the New Testament, not to be void of doubtfulness, as Caluin (p) Instit. ca 7. §. 12. confesseth it to be corrupted. And although both the Hebrew and Greek 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 promise, or assurance of infallibility, Protestants who rely upon Scripture alone, will find no certain ground for their faith: as accordingly Whitaker (q) lib. de sancta Scriptura p. 523. affirmeth: Those who understand not the Hebrew and Greek do err often, and avoidable. 16. Now concerning the Translations of Protestants, it will be sufficient to set down what the laborious, exact, and judicious Author of the Protestants Apology &c. dedicated to our late King james of famous memory, hath to this (r) Tract. 1. Sect. 10. subd. 4. joined with tract. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 10. subd. 2. purpose. To omit (saith he) particulars, whose recital would be infinite, & to touch this point but generally only, the Translation of the New Testament by Luther is condemned by Andreas, Osiander, 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 Zwinglians terming them in matter of divinity, fools, Asses, Antichrists, deceavers, and of Asslike understanding. In so much that when Proscheverus the Zwinglian Printer of Zurich sent him a Bible translated by the divines there, Luther would not receive the same, but sending it back rejected it, as the Protestant Writers Hospinians, and Lavatherus witness. 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 ethnical. As concerning Caluins' translation, that learned Protestant Writer Carolus Molinaeus saith thereof: Caluin in his Harmony maketh the Text of the Gospel to leap up and down: he useth violence to the letter of the Gospel; and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Beza's translation (to omit the dislike had thereof by Seluccerus the German Protestant of the University of jena) the foresaid Molinaeus saith of him, de facto mutat textum; he actually changeth the text; and giveth further sundry instances of his corruptions: as also Castalio that learned Caluinist, and most learned in the tongues, reprehendeth Beza in a whole book of this matter, and saith; that to note all his errors 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 margin, or else utterly prohibited. All which confirmeth your Majesty's grave and learned Censure, in your thinking the Geneva translation to be worst of all; and that in the Marginal notes annoxed to the Geneva translation, some are very partial, untrue, seditious, etc. Lastly concerning the English Translations, the Puritans say: Our translation of the Psalms comprised 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 do therefore profess to rest doubtful, whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereto. And M. Caerlile saith of the English Translators, that they have depraved the sense, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant; that in many places they do detort the Scriptures from the right sense. And that, they show themselves to love darkness more than light, falsehood more than truth. And the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese give their public 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 affirm, that you could never yet see a Bible well translated into English. Thus far the Author of the Protestants Apology etc. 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 account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law, in favour of justification by faith alone, translateth (justified by faith A LOAN.) As likewise the falsification of Zuinglius is no less 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 blood. And here let Protestants consider duly 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 than a most certain possibility to err, and no greater evidence of Truth, then that it is evident some of them embrace falsehood, by reason of their contrary translations. What then remaineth, but that truth, faith, salvation, & all, must in them rely upon a fallible, and uncertain ground? How many poor souls 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 always visible Catholic Church, against which the gates of hell can never so far prevail, as that she shall be permitted to deceive the Christian world with false Scriptures. And Luther himself, by unfortunate experience, was at length forced to confess thus much, saying: If the (s) lib cont, Zwingl, de verit. corp. Christi in Euchar. world last longer, it will be again necessary to receive the Decrees of Counsels, & to have recourse to them, by reason of diverse interpretations of Scripture which now reign. On the contrary side, the Translation approved by the Roman Church, is commended even by our Adversaries: and D. Covell in particular saith, that it was used in the Church, one thousand (t) In his answer unto M. John Burges pag. 94. three hundred years ago, and doubteth not to prefer (u) 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 cometh nearest to the vulgar, and is commonly called the Bishop's Bible. So that the truth of that translation which we use, must be the rule to judge of the goodness of their Bibles: and therefore they are obliged to maintain our Translation if it were but for their own sake. 17. But doth indeed the source of their manifold uncertainties stop here? No! The chiefest difficulty remains, concerning the true meaning of Scripture: for attaining whereof, if Protestants had any certainty, they could not disagree so hugely as they do. Hence M. Hooker saith: We are (w) In his Preface to his Books of Ecclesiastical Policy. 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 itself unto some judicial, 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 controversies (x) In 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 leisure, fewer strength of under standing to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out which among all the societyes in the world, is that blessed Company of holy Ones, that hou●●●ould of Faith, that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the living God, which is the Pillar and ground of Truth, that so they may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her judgement. 18. And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture, aught to be received from the Church, it is also proved by what we have already demonstrated, that she it is, who must declare what Books 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 proof 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 (y) Cont. ep. Fund. cap. 5. believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Church did move me. Them therefore whom I obeyed saying, Believe the Gospel, why should I not obey saying to me, Do not believe Manichaeus (Luther, Caluin, etc.) Choose what thou pleasest. If thou shalt say, Believe the Catholics; They warn me not to give any credit to you. If therefore I believe them, I cannot believe thee. If thou say, Do not believe the Catholics, thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus, because by the preaching of Catholics I believed the Gospel itself. If thou say, you did well to believe them (Catholics) commending the Gospel, 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 wilts, & not believe what thou wilts not? And do not Protestant's perfectly resemble these men, to whom S. Augustine spoke, 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 less prophetically, then doctrinally, when he said: Why should I not most (z) lib. de util. cre. cap. 14. diligenily inquire what Christ commanded 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 me? This therefore I believed by fame, strengthened with celebrity, consent, Antiquity. But every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing deserving authority. What madness is this? Believe them (Catholics) that wrought to believe Christ; but learn of us what Christ said. Why I beseech thee? Surely if they (Catholics) were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, I would more easily persuade myself, that I were not to believe Christ, then that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other than 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 judge 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 universal judge, 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 internal private Spirit, because there is really no middle way betwixt a public external, and a private internal voice; & whosoever refuseth the one, must of necessity adhere to the other. 21. This Tenet also of Protestants, by taking the office of judicature from the Church, comes to confer it upon every particular man, who being driven from submission to the Church, cannot be blamed if he trust himself as fare as any other, his conscience dictating, that wittingly he means not to cousin himself, as others maliciously may do. Which inference is so manifest, that it hath extorted from diverse Protestants the open Confession of so vast an absurdity. Hear Luther: The Governors (a) Tom. 2. Wittenberg. fol. 375. of Churches and Pastors of Christ's sheep have indeed power to teach, but the sheep ought to give judgement whether they propound the voice of Christ, or of Aliens. Lubbertus saith: As we have (b) In lib. de principi●s Christian. dogm. lib. 6. cap. 13. demonstrated that all public judges may be deceived in interpreting; so we affirm, that they may err in judging. All faithful men are private judges, and they also have power to judge of doctrines and interpretations. Whitaker, even of the unlearned, saith: They (c) De Sacra Scriptura pag. 529. ought to have recourse unto the more learned, but in the mean time we must be careful not to attribute to them overmuch, but so, that still we retain our own freedom. Bilson also affirmeth; that, The people (d) In his true difference part. 2. must be discerners, and judges of that which is taught. This same pernicious doctrine is delivered by Brentius, Zanchius, Cartwright, and others exactly cited by (e) Tract. 2. cap. 1. Sect. 1. Brereley; & nothing is more common in every Protestants mouth, then that he admits of Fathers, Counsels, Church etc. as far as they agree with Scripture; which upon the matter is himself. Thus Heresy ever falls upon extremes: It pretends to have Scripture alone for judge of Controversies, and in the mean time sets up as many judges, as there are men, and women in the Christian world. What good Statesmen would they be, who should idëate, or fancy such a Common wealth, as these men have framed to themselves a Church? They verify what S. Augustine objecteth against certain Heretics. You sces (f) lib 32. cont. Faust. that you go about to overthrew all authority of Scripture, and that every man's mind may be to himself a Rule, what he is to allow, or disallow in every Scripture. 22. Moreover what confusion to the Church, what danger to the Common wealth, this denial of the authority of the Church, may bring, I leave 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 prove him that gain saith them to be an Heretic, saith thus: This Proposition (g) pag. 247 of revealed truths, is not by the infallible determination of Pope, or Church; (Pope, and Church being excluded, let us hear what more secure rule he will prescribe) but by whatsoever means a man may be convinced in conscience of divine revelation. If a Preacher do clear any point of faith to his Hearers; if a private Christian do make it appear to his Neighbour, that any conclusion, or point of faith is delivered by divine revelation of God's word; if a man himself (without any Teacher) by reading the Scriptures, or hearing them read, be convinced of the truth of any such coclusion: this is a sufficient proposition to prove him that gain saith any such proof, to be an Heretic, and obstinate opposer of the faith. Behold what goodly safe Propounders of faith arise in place of God's universal visible Church, which must yield to a single Preacher, a Neighbour, a man himself if he can read, or at least have ears to hear Scripture read. Verily I do not see, but that every well— governed Civil Commonwealth, aught to concur 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 seditions creature. 23. Moreover, there was no Scripture, or written word for about two thousand years from Adam to Moses, whom all acknowledge to have been the first Author of Canonical Scripture: And again for about two thousand years more, from Moses to Christ our Lord, holy Scripture was only among the people of Israel; and yet there were Gentiles endued in those days with divine Faith, as appeareth in job, and his friends. Wherefore during so many ages, the Church alone was the decider of Controversies, and Instructor of the faithful. Neither did the Word written by Moses, deprive that Church of her former Infallibility, or other qualities requisite for a judge: yea D. Potter acknowledgeth, that besides the Law, there was a living judge in the jewish 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 successively upon several occasions; and some after the decease of most of the Apostles: & after they were written, they were not presently known 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 Controversies in Religion? That some Churches had one judge of Controversies, and others another? That with months, or years, as new Canonical Scripture grew to be published, the Church altered her whole Rule of faith, or judge of Controversies? After the Apostles time, and after the writing of Scriptures, Heresies would be sure to rise, requiring in God's Church for their discovery and condemnation, Infallibility, either to write new Canonical Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emergent heresies; or infallibility to interpret Scriptures, already written, or, without Scripture, by divine vn written Traditions, and affistance of the holy Ghost to determine all Controversies, as Tertullian saith: The soul is (h) De test. antm. cap. 5. before the letter; and speech before Books; and sense before style. Certainly such addition of Scripture, with derogation, or subtraction from the former power and infallibility of the Church, would have 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, infallibility settled in a living judge, is incomparably more useful 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 milk of sacred Writ? No, No. Her Infallibility was, and is derived from an inexhausted fountain. If Protestants will have the Scripture alone for their judge, let them first produce some Scripture affirming, that by the entering thereof, Infallibility went out of the Church. D. Potter may remember what himself teacheth; That the Church is still endued with infallibility in points fundamental, 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 coming of Scripture, was deprived of infallibility in some points, & not in others? He affirmeth that the jewish Synagogue retained infallibility in herself, notwithstanding the writing of the Old Testament; and will he so unworthily and unjustly deprive the Church of Christ of infallibility by reason of the New Testament? Especially of we consider, that in the Old Testament, Laws, Ceremonies, Rites Punishments, judgements, Sacraments, Sacrifices etc. were more particularly, and minutely delivered to the jews, 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 than the jewish Synagogue. D. Potter, (i) Pag. 24. against this argument drawn from the power and infallibility of the Synagogue, objects; that we might as well infer, that Christians must have one sovereign Prince over all, because the jews had one chief judge. But the disparity is very clear. The Synagogue was a type, and figure of the Church of Christ, not so their civil government of Christian Commonwealths, or kingdoms. The Church succeeded to the Synagogue, but not Christian Princes to jewish Magistrates: And the Church is compared to a house, or (k) Heb. 13. family; to an (l) Cant. 2. Army, to a (m) 1. Cor. 10. Ephes. 4. body; to a (n) Matt. 12 kingdom etc. all which require one Master, one General, one head, one Magistrate, one spiritual King; as our blessed Saviour with fiet Vnum ovile, (o) joan. c. 10. joined Vnus Pastor: One sheepfold, one Pastor. But all distinct kingdoms, or Commonwealths, are not one Army, Family, etc. And finally, it is necessary to salvation, that all have recourse to one Church; but for temporal weal, there is no need that all submit, or depend upon one temporal Prince, kingdom, or Commonwealth: and therefore our Samour hath left to his whole Church, as being One, one Law, one Scripture, the same Sacraments etc. Whereas kingdoms have their several Laws, disterent governments, diversity of Powers, Magistracy etc. And so this objection returneth upon D. Potter. For as in the One Community of the jews, there was one Power and judge, to end debates, and resolve 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. Irenaeus (p) lib. 3. c. 4 in these words: What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures, ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches? to which order many Nations yield assent, who believe in Christ, having salvation written in their hearts by the spirit of God, without letters or Ink, and diligently keeping ancient Tradition. It is easy to receive the truth from God's Church, seeing the Apostles have 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 we not to have recourse to the most ancient Churches, and from them to receive what is certain and clear concerning the present question? 25 Besides all this, the doctrine of Protestants is destructive of itself. For either they have certain, and infallible means not to err in interpreting Scripture; or they have not. If not; then the Scripture (to them) cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith, nor a meet judge of Controversies. If they have certain infallible means, and so cannot err in their interpretations of Scriptures; then they are able with infallibility to hear, examine, and determine all controversies of faith, and so they may be, and are judges of Controversies, although they use the Scripture as a Rule. And thus, against their own doctrine, they constitute an other judge of Controversies, besides Scripture alone. 26. Lastly, I ask D. Potter, whether this Assertion, (Scripture alone is judge of all Controversies in faith,) be a fundamental point of faith, or no? He must be well advised, before he say, that it is a fundamental point. For he will have against him, as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone, it is impossible to know what Books be Scripture, which yet to Protestants is the most necessary and chief point of all other. D. Covell expressly saith: Doubtless (q) In his defence of M. Hokers' books art. 4. p. 31. it is a tolerable opinion in the Church of Rome, if they go no further, as some of them do not (he should have said as none of them do) to affirm, that the Scriptures are holy and divine in themselves, but so esteemed by us, for the authority of the Church. He will likewise oppose himself to those his Brethren, who grant that Controversies cannot be ended, without some external living authority, as we noted before. Besides, how can it be in us a fundamental error to say, the Scripture alone is not judge of Controversies, seeing (notwithstanding this our belief) we use for interpreting of Scripture, all the means which they prescribe, as Prayer, Conferring of places, Consulting the Originals &c. and to these add the Instruction, and Authority of God's Church, which even by his Confession cannot err damnably, and may afford us more help, then can be expected from the industry, learning, or wit of any private person: & finally D Potter grants, that the Church of Rome doth not maintain any fundamental error against faith; and consequently, he cannot affirm that our doctrine in this present Controversy is damnable. If he answer, that their Tenet, about the Scriptures being the only judge of Controversies, is not a fundamental point of faith: then, as he teacheth that the universal Church may err in points not fundamental; so I hope he will not deny, but particular Churches, and private men, are much more obnoxious to error in such points; and in particular in this, that Scripture alone is judge of Controversies: And so, the very principle upon which their whole faith is grounded, remains to them uncertain; and on the other side, for the self same reason, they are not certain, but that the Church is judge of Controversies, which if she be, than their case is lamentable, who in general deny her this authority, & in particular Controversies oppose her definitions. Besides among public Conclusions defended in Oxford the year 1633. to the questions, Whether the Church have authority to determent Controversies in faith; And, To interpret holy Scripture? The answer to both is Affirmative. 27. Since then, the Visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Means whereby the reucaled Truths of Almighty God are conveyed to our Understanding; it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himself; which blessed S. Augustine plainly affirmeth, when speaking of the Controversy about Rebaptisation of such as were baptised by Heretics, he saith. This (r) Deunit. 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 perform what he should say, lest we might seem to gainsay not him so much as Christ, by whose testimony he was recommended. Now Christ beareth witness to his Church. And a little after: Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church, doth resist our Saviour himself, who by his testimony recommends the Church. I conclude therefore with this argument. Whosoever resisteth that means which infallibly proposeth to us God's Word or Revelation, commits a sin, which, unrepented, excluds salvation: But whosoever resisteth Christ's visible Church, doth resist that means, which infallibly proposeth God's word or revelation to us: Therefore whosoever resisteth Christ's visible Church, commits a sin, which, unrepented, excluds salvation. Now, what visible Church was extant, when Luther began his pretended Reformation, whether it were the Roman, or Protestant Church; & whether he, and other Protestants do not oppose that visible Church, which was spread over the world, before, and in Luther's time, is easy to be determined, and importeth every one most seriously to ponder, as a thing whereon eternal salvation dependeth. And because our Adversaries do here most insist upon the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental, and in particular teach, that the Church may err in points not fundamental, it will be necessary to examine the truth, and weight of this evasion, which shall be done in the next Chapter. CHAP. III. That the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, is neither pertinent, nor true in our present Controversy. And that the Catholic Visible Church cannot err, in either kind 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, & 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 shows) that they differ only in points not fundamental. If you convince them, even by their own Confessions, that the ancient Fathers taught diverse points held by the Roman Church against Protestants; they reply, that those Fathers may nevertheless be saved, because those errors were not fundamental. If you will them to remember, that Christ must always have a visible Church on earth, with administration of Sacraments, and succession of Pastors, and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman, whose Communion and Doctrine, Luther then forsook, and for that cause must be guilty of Schism and Heresy; they have an Answer (such as it is) that the Catholic Church cannot perish, yet may err in points not fundamental, and therefore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors, under pain of Damnation; as if (forsooth) it were Damnable, to hold an error not Fundamental, nor Damnable. If you wonder how they can teach, that both Catholics, and Protestants may be saved in their several professions; they salve this contradiction, by saying, that we both agree in all fundamental 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 fundamental, but only by some general description, or by referring us to the Apostles Creed, without determining, what points therein be fundamental, or not fundamental for the matter; and in what sense, they be, or be not such: and yet concerning the meaning of diverse 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 remain uncertain, whether or not they disagree from one another; from the ancient Fathers; and from the Catholic Church, in points fundamental: 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 hereafter. 2. And to the end, that what shall be said concerning this distinction, may be better understood, we are to observe; that there be two precepts, which concern the virtue of faith, or our obligation to believe divine truths. The one is by Divines called Affirmative, whereby we are obliged to have a positive, explicit belief of some chief Articles of Christian faith. The other is termed Negative, which strictly binds us not to disbelieve, that is, not to believe the contrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our understancing, as revealed, or spoken by Almighty God The said Affirmative Precept (according to the nature of such commands) injoines 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 explicitly, and several believed then other: either because they are in themselves more great, and weighty; or else in regard they instruct us in some necessary Christian duty towards God, ourselves, or our Neighbour. For persons; no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more than 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 several 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; & at all times; semper & pro semper, as Divines speak. This general doctrine will be more clear by examples. I am not obliged to be always helping my Neighbour, because the Affirmative precept of Charity, bindeth only in some particular cases: But I am always bound by a Negative precept, never to do him any hurt, or wrong. I am not always bound to utter what I know to be true: yet I am obliged, never to speak any one lest 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 explicitly, 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 affirm, that God could be deceived, or would deceive; which were to over throw the whole certainty of our faith, wherein the thing most principal, is not the point which we believe, which Divines call the Material Object, but the chiefest is the Motive for which we believe, to wit, Almighty God's infallible revelation, or authority which they term the Formal object of our faith. In two senses therefore, and with a double relation, points of faith may be called fundamental, 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 explicitly and severally. In this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith, which D: Potter (a) Pag. 209 to no purpose laboureth to prove against his Adversary, who in express words doth grant and explicate (b) Charity Mistaken c. 8. pag. 75. it. But the Doctor thought good to dissemble the matter, & not 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 Fundamental, and necessary to salvation, with reference to the Negative precept of faith, is such, that we cannot not without grievous sin, 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 be damnable, and to reject others, equally proposed as God's word, might stand with salvation. Yea the obligation of the Negative precept is far more strict, then is that of the Affirmative, which God freely imposed, & may freely release. But it is impossible, that he can dispense, or give leave to disbelieve, or deny what he affirmeth: and in this sense, sin & damnation are more inseparable from error in points not fundamental, then from ignorance in Articles fundamental. All this I show by an Example, which I wish to be particularly noted for the present, and for diverse other occasions hereafter. The Creed of the Apostles contains diverse fundamental points of faith, as the Deity, Trinity of Persons, Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of our Saviour Christ etc. It contains also some points, for their matter, and narure in themselves not fundamental, as under what judge our Saviour suffered, that he was buried, the circumstance of the time of his Resurrection the third day etc. But yet nevertheless, whosoever once knows that these points are contained in the Apostles Creed, the denial of them is damnable, and is in that sense a fundamental error: & 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 do but understand the terms, 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, & never regard how impertinently, and untruly it was applied by them at first, to make all Protestants seem to be of one faith, because forsooth they agree in fundamental points. For the difference among Protestants, consists not in that some believe some points, of which others are ignorant, or not bound expressly to know (as the distinction ought to be applied;) but that some of them disbelieve, and directly, wittingly, and willingly oppose what others do believe to be testified by the word of God, wherein there is no difference between points fundamental, and not fundamental; Because till points fundamental 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 fundamental, which as soon as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine Truths, they can no more be denied, then points fundamental propounded after the same manner. Neither will it avail them to their other end, that for preservation of the Church in being, it is sufficient that she do not err in poins fundamental. For if in the mean time she maintain any one Error against God's revelation, be the thing in itself never so small, her Error is damnable, and destructive of salvation. 4. But D. Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make use of their distinction, doth finally over throw it, & yields to as much as we can desire. For, speaking of that measure (c) pag. 211. and quantity of faith without which none can be saved, he saith: It is enough to believe some things by a virtual faith, or by a general, and as it were, a negative faith, whereby they are not denied or contradicted. Now our question is in case that divine truths, although not fundamental, be denied and contradicted; and therefore, even according to him, all such denial excludes salvation. After, he speaks more plainly. It is true (saith he) whatsoever (d) pag. 212. is revealed in Scripture, or prepounded by the Church out of Scripture, is in some sense fundamental, in regard of the divine authority of God, and his word, by which it is recommended: that is, such as may not be denied, or contradicted without Infidelity: such as every Christian is bound with himility, and reverence to believe, whensoever the knowledge thereof is offered to him. And further: Where (e) 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 Heretic, and Heresy is a work of the flesh which excludeth from heaven. (Gal. 5.20.21.) And hence it followeth, that it is FUNDAMENTAL 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 crearely or directly for us, that it is a Fundamental 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 fundamental, and not fundamental? And if any should chance to imagine, that it is against the foundation of faith, not to believe points Fundamental, although they be not sufficiently propounded, D. Potter doth not admit of this (f) Pag. 246. difference betwixt points fundamental, and not fundamental. 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 Saviour's Resurrection, (g) pag. 246. which is a very fundamental point of faith. Thus than I argue out of D. Potter's own confesson: No error is damnable unless 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 general 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 Unity, and distinction of every thing followeth the Nature & 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 God's word or Revelation) we must likewise affirm that the Unity, and Diversity of faith, must be measured by God's revelation (which is alike for all objects) and not by the smallness, or greatness of the matter which we believe. Now, that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatness, or smallness of the things believed, is manifest; because otherwise one who believes only fundamental points, and another who together with them, doth also believe points not fundamental, 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 etc. all which consequences are absurd, & therefore we must say, that Unity in Faith doth not depend upon points fundamental, or not fundamental, but upon God's revelation equally or unequally proposed: and Protestants pretending an Unity only by reason of their agreement in fundamental points, do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them, & since they disagree in things Equally revealed by Almighty God, it is evident that they forsake the very Formal motive of faith, which is God's revelation and consequently lose all Faith, and Unity therein. 6. The first part of the Title of this Chapter (That the distinction of points fundamental & not fundamental 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 concern points fundamental, or not fundamental. And this I prove by these reasons. 7. It hath been showed in the prcedent Chapter, that the Church is judge of Controversies in Religion; which she could not be, if she could err in any one point, as Doctor Potter would not deny, if he were once persuaded that she is judge. Because if she could err in some points, we could not rely upon her Authority and judgement in any one thing. 8. This same is proved by the reason we alleged before, that seeing the Church was infallible in all her definitions ere Scripture was written (unless we will take away all certainty of faith for that time) we cannot with any show of reason affirm, that she hath been deprived thereof by the adjoined comfort, & help of sacred Writ. 9 Moreover to say, that the Catholic Church may propose any false doctrine, maketh her liable to damnable sin and error; & yet D. Potter teacheth that the Church cannot err damnably. For if in that kind of Oath, which Divines call Assertorium, wherein God is called to witness, every falsehood is a deadly sin in any private person whatsoever, although the thing be of itself neither material, nor prejudicial to any; because the quantity, or greatness of that sin is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed, as by the manner, & authority whereby it is avouched, and by the injury that is offered to Almighty God in applying his testimony to a falsehood: in which respect it is the unanimous consent of all Divines, that in such kind of Oaths, no levitas materiae, that is, smallness of matter, can excuse from a mortal sacrilege, against the moral virtue of Religion which respects worship due to God: If, I say, every least falsehood be deadly sin in the foresaid kind of Oath; much more pernicious a sin must it be in the public person of the Catholic Church to propound untrue Articles of faith, thereby fastening Gods prime Verity to falsehood, and inducing and obliging the world to do the same. Besides, according to the doctrine of all Divines, it is not only injurious to God's Eternal Verity, to disbelieve things by him revealed, but also to propose as revealed truths, things not revealed: as in commonwealths it is a heinous offence to coin either by counterfeiting the mettle or the stamp, or to apply the King's seal to a writing counterfeit, although the contents were supposed to be true. And whereas, to show the detestable sin of such pernicious fictions, the Church doth most exemplarly punish all broachers of feigned revelations, visions, miracles, prophecies &c. as in particular appeareth in the Council of (h) Sub Leon. 10. Sess. 11. Lateran, excommunicating such persons; if the Church herself could propose false revelations, she herself should have been the first, and chiefest deserver to have been censured, and as it were excommunicated by herself. For (as they holy Ghost saith in (i) Cap. 13. v. 7. job) doth God need your lie, that for him you may speak deceypts? And that of the Apocalyps is most truly verified in fictitious revelations: If any (k) Cap. vlt. v. 18. shals add to these things, God will add unto him the plagues which are written in this Book: & D. Potter saith, To add (l) pag. 222. to it (speaking of the Creed) is high presumption, almost as great as to detract from it. And therefore to say the Church may add false Revelations, is to accuse her of high presumption, and of pernicious error excluding salvation. 10. Perhaps some will here reply that although the Church may err, yet it is not imputed to her for sin, by reason she doth not err 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 fundamental, she cannot but know, that she may err in points not fundamental, at least she cannot be certain that she cannot err, & therefore cannot be excused from headlong & pernicious temerity, in proposing points not fundamental, to be believed by Christians, as matters of faith, wherein she can have no certainty, yea which always imply a falsehood. For although the thing might chance to be true, and perhaps also revealed; yet for the matter she, for her part, doth always expose herself to danger of falsehood & error; and in fact doth always err in the manner in which she doth propound any matter not fundamental; because she proposeth it as a point of faith certainly true, which yet is always uncertain, if she in such things may be deceived. 12. Besides, if the Church may err in points not fundamental, she may err in proposing some Scripture for Canonical, which is not such: or else err in keeping and conserving from corruptions such Scriptures as are already believed to be Canonical. For I will suppose, that in such Apocryphal Scripture as she delivers, there is no fundamental error against faith, or that there is no falsehood at all but only want of divine testification in which case D. Potter must either grant, that it is a fundamental error, to apply divine revelation to any point not revealed, or else must yield, that the Church may err in her Proposition, or Custody of the Canon of Scripture: And so we cannot be sure whether she have not been deceived already, in Books 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 Books of Scripture which were not always known to be Canonical, have been afterward received for such; but never any one Book, or syllable defined by the Church to be Canonical, was afterward questioned, or rejected for Apocryphal. A sign, that God's Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost, never to propose as divine truth, any thing not revealed by God: & that, Omission 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 general promises of our Saviour Christ made to his Church to points only fundamental, namely, that the gates (m) Matt. 16.18. of hell shall not prevail against her: and that, the holy Ghost (n) joan. 16.13. shall lead her into all truth etc. 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 fundamental: and whatsoever general Texts of Scripture shall be alleged for their Infallibility, they may, by D. Potter's example be explicated, & restrained to points fundamental. By the same reason it may be further affirmed, that the Apostles, and other Writers of Canonical Scripture, were endued with infallibility, only in setting down points fundamental. For if it be urged, that all Scripture is divinely inspired; that it is the word of God etc. D. Potter hath afforded you a ready answer to say, that Scripture is inspired &c. only in those parts, or parcels, wherein it delivereth fundamental points. In this manner D. Fotherbie saith: The Apostle (o) In his Sermonsserm: 2. pag. 50. twice in one Chapter professed, that this he speaketh, & not the Lord; He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the express 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 fundamental, because as Nature, so God is neither defective in (p) pag. 150. necessaries, nor lavish in superfluities. 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 superfluities. 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 (q) Joan. c. 16.13. etc. 14.16. you for ever, he saith: Though that promise was (r) Pag. 151.152. directly, and primarily made to the Apostles (who had the Spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner, than any since them) yet it was made to them for the behoof of the Church, and is verified in the Church Universal. 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 lie unrovealed in the infinite treasury of God's wisdom, wherewith the Church is not acquainted etc. so then, the truth itself 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 to the Apostles, & is verified in the universal Church, but by all truth is not understood simply all, but all appertaining 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? & consequently their preaching, and writing, were not infallible in points not fundamental? 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 fundamental; so may he restrain what other text soever that can be brought for the universal infallibility of the Apostles or Seriptures. So he may; and so he must, lest otherwise he receive this answer of his own from himseife, How many truths lie unrevealed in the infinite treasury of God's wisdom, wherewith the Church is not acquainted? And therefore to verify such general sayings, they must be understood of truths absolutely necessary to Salvation. Are not these fearful 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; & 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 falsehood. 14. All, that with any colour may be replied to this argument is; That if once we call any one Book, or parcel of Scripture in question; although for the matter it contain no fundamental error, yet it is of great importance and fundamental, by reason of the consequence; because if once we doubt of one Book received for Canonical, the whole Canon is made doubtful and uncertain, and therefore the Infallibility of Scripture must be universal, and not confined within compass of points fundamental. 15. I answer: For the thing itself it is very true, that if I doubt of any one parcel of Scripture received for such, I may doubt of all: And thence by the same parity I infer, that if we did doubt of the Church's Infallibility in some points, we could not believe her in any one, and consequently not in propounding Canonical Books, or any other points fundamental, or not fundamental; which thing being most absurd, and withal most impious, we must take away the ground thereof, & believe that she cannot err in any point great or small: and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intended to prove. Yet I add, that Protestants cannot make use of this reply, with any good coherence to this their distinction, and some other doctrines which they defend. For if D. Potter can tell what points in particular be fundamental (as in his 7. Sect. he pretendeth) than he may be sure, that whensoever he meets with such points in Scripture, in them it is infallibly true, although it might err in others: & not only true, but clear, because Protestants teach, that in matters necessary to Salvation, the Scripture is so clear, that all such necessary Truths are either manifestly contained therein, or may be clearly deduced from it. Which doctrines being put together, to wit: That Scriptures cannot err in points fundamental; that they clearly contain all such points; and that they can tell what points in particular be such, I mean fundamental; it is manifest, that it is sussicient for Salvation, that Scripture be infallible only in points fundamental. 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 less moment. Neither will they be able to avoid this impiety against holy Scripture, till they renounce their other doctrines: and in particular, till they believe that Christ's promises to his Church, are not limited to points fundamental. 16. Besides, from the fallibility of Christ's Catholic Church in some points, it followeth, that no true Protestant learned, or unlearned, doth or can with assurance believe the universal Church in any one point of doctrine. Not in points of lesser moment, which they call not fundamental; because they believe that in such points she may err. Not in fundamentals; because they must know what points be fundamental, before they go to learn of her, lest other wise they be rather deluded, then instructed; in regard that her certain, and infallible direction extends only to points fundamental. Now, if before they address themselves to the Church, they must know what points are fundamental, they learn not of her, but will be be as fit to teach, as to be taught by her: How then are all Christians so often, so seriously, upon so dreadful menaces, by Fathers, Scriptures, and our blessed Saviour himself, counselled and commanded to seek, to hear, to obey the Church? S. Augustine was of a very different mind from Protestants: If (saith he) the (s) Epist. 118. Church through the whole world practise any of these things, to dispute whether that aught to be so done, is a most insolent madness. And in another place he saith. That which (t) lib. 4. de Bapt. c. 24. the whole Church holds, and is not ordained by Counsels, but hath always been kept, is most rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolical authority. The same holy Father teacheth, that the custom of baptising children cannot be proved by Scripture alone, and yet that it is to be believed, as derived from the Apostles. The custom of our Mother the (u) lib. 10. de Genesi ad litter. cap. 23. Church (saith he) in baptising infants is in no wise to be contemned, nor to be accounted superfluous, nor is it at all to be believed, unless it were an Apostolical Tradition. And elsewhere. Christ (w) Serm. 54. de verbis Apost. c. 18. is of profit to Children baptised; Is he therefore of profit to persons not believing? But God forbidden, that I should say Infants do not believe. I have already said, he believes in another, who sinned in another. It is said, he believes, & it is of force, and he is reckoned among the faithful that are baptised. This the authority of our Mother the Church hath; against this strength, against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shallbe crushed in pieces. To this argument the Protestants in the Conference at Ratisbon, gave this round answer: Nos ab Augustino (x) See protocol. Monac. edit. 2. pag. 367. hac in parte liberè dissentimus. In this we plainly disagree from Augustine. Now if this doctrine of baptising Infants be not fundamental in D. Potter's sense, then according to S. Augustine, the infallibility of the Church extends to points not fundamental. But if on the other side it be a fundamental point; then according to the same holy Doctor, we must rely on the authority of the Church, for some fundamental point, not contained in Scripture, but delivered by Tradition. The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not rebaptising of those who were baptised by Heretics, whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner. We follow (y) lib. 1. cont. Crescon. cap. 32. & 33. indeed in this matter even the most certain authority of Canonical Scriptures. But how? Consider his words: Although verily there be brought no example for this point out of the Canonical Scriptures, yet even in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by us, while we do that, which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend, that so, because the holy Scripture cannot deceive us, whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the obscurity of this question, must have 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 observe, that according to this holy Father, when we prove some points not particularly contained in Scripture, by the authority of the Church, even in that case we ought not to be said to believe such points without Scripture, because Scripture itself recommends the Church; and therefore relying on her we rely on Scripture, without danger of being deceived by the obscurity of any question defined by the Church. And else where he saith: this is (z) De unit. Eccles. c. 19 written in no Scripture, we must believe the testimony of the Church, which Christ declareth to speak the truth. But it seems D. Potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not rebaptising such as were baptised by Heretics, is no necessary point of faith, nor the contrary an heresy: wherein he contradicteth S. Augustine, from whom we have now heard, that what the Church teacheth, is truly said to be taught by Scripture; and consequently to deny this particular point, delivered by the Church, is to oppose Scripture itself. Yet if he will needs hold, that this point is not fundamental, we must conclude out of S. Augustine, (as we did concerning the baptising of Children) that the infallibility of the Church reacheth to points not fundamental. The same Father in another place, concerning this very question of the validity of Baptism conferred by Heretics, saith: The (a) De Bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. Apostles indeed have prescribed nothing of this, but this Custom ought to be believed to be originally taken from their tradition, as there are many things that the universal Church observeth which are therefore with good reason believed to have been commanded by the Apostles, although they be not written. No less clear is S. Chrysostome for the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church. For treating these words (2. Thess. 2. Stand, and hold the Traditions which you have learned whether by speech or by our Epistle) saith: Hence it is (b) Hom. 4. manifest that they delivered not all things by letter, but many things also without writing, & these also are worthy of belief. Let us therefore account the tradition of the Church to be worthy of belief. It is a Tradition: Seek no more. Which words are so plain against Protestants, that Whitaker is as plain with S. Chrysostome, saying: I answer (c) De Sacra Script. pag. 678. that this is an inconsiderate speech, and unworthy so great a Father. But let us conclude with S. Augustine, that the Church cannot approve any error against faith, or good manners. The Church (saith he) being (d) Ep. 119. placed betwixt much chaffe & cockle, doth tolerate many things; but yet she doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor do those things which are against faith, or good life. 17. And as I have proved that Protestants, according to their grounds, cannot yield infallible assent to the Church in any one point: so by the same reason I prove, that they cannot rely upon Scripture itself in any one point of saith. Not in points of lesser moment (or not fundamental,) because in such points the Catholic Church, (according to D. Potter) and much more any Protestant may err, & think it is contained in Scripture, when it is not. Not in points fundamental, because they must first know what points be fundamental, before they can be assured, that they cannot err in understanding the Scripture, and consequently independantly of Scripture, they must foreknow all fundamental points of faith: and therefore they do not indeed rely upon Scripture, either for fundamental, or not fundamental points. 18. Besides, I mainly urge D. Potter, and other Protestants, that they tell us of certain points which they call fundamental, and we cannot wrest from them a list in particular of such points, without which no man can tell whether or no he err in points fundamental, and be capable of salvation. And which is most lamentable, instead of giving us such a Catalogue, they fall to wrangle among themselves about the making of it. 19 Caluin holds the (e) Instit. l. 4. çap. 2. Pope's Primacy. Invocation of Saints, Freewill, and such like, to be fundamental errors overthrowing the Gospel. Others are not of his mind, as Melancthon who saith, in (f) Cent. Ep. Theolog. cp. 74. the opinion of himself, and other his Brethren, That the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is of use, or profit to this end, that Consent of Doctrine may be retained. An agreement therefore may easily be established in this Article of the Pope's Primacy, if other Articles could be agreed upon. If the Pope's Primacy be a means, that consent of Doctrine may be retained, first submit to it, and other articles willbe easily agreed upon. Luther also saith of the Pope's Primacy, it may be borne (g) In Assertionibus art. 36. with●●. And why then, O Luther, did you not bear with it? And how can you, and your followers be excused from damnable Schism, who chose rather to divide God's Church, then to bear with that, which you confess may be borne withal? But let us go forward. That the doctrine of freewill, Prayer for the dead, worshipping of Images, Worship and Invocation of Saints, Real presence, Transubstantiation, Receiving under one kind, Satisfaction, and Merit of works, and the Mass, be not fundamental Errors, is taught (respectiuè) by diverse Protestants, carefully alleged in the Protestants (h) Tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 14. after F. Apology &c. as namely by Perkins, Cartwright, Frith, Fulke, Henry Spark, Goad, Luther, Reynolds, Whitaker, tindal, Francis Fohnson, with others. Contrary to these, is the Confession of the Christian faith, so called by Protestant's, which I mentioned (i) Cap. 1. n. 4. heretofore, wherein we are damned unto unquenchable fire, for the doctrine of Mass, Prayer to Saints, and for the dead, Freewill, Presence at idol-service, Man's merit, with such like. justification by saith alone is by some Protestants affirmed to be the soul of the (k) Chark. in the Tower disputation the 4. days conference. Church: The only principal origen of (l) Fox Act. Monn. pag. 402. Salvation: of all other points of (m) The Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 253. doctrine the chiefest and weightiest. Which yet, as we have seen, is contrary to other Protestants, who teach that merit of good works is not a fundamental Error; yea, diverse Protestants defend merit of good works, as may be seen in (n) Tract. 3. Sect. 7. under nt. n. 15. Brereley. One would think that the King's Supremacy, for which some blessed men lost their lives was once among Protestants held for a Capital point; but now D. Andrew's late of Winchester in his book against Bellarmine tells us, that it is sufficient to reckon it among true doctrines. And Wotton denies that Protestants (o) In his answer to a Popish pamphlet. p. 68 Hold the King's Supremacy to be an essential point of faith. O freedom of the new Gospel? Hold with Catholics, the Pope; or with Protestants, the King; or with Puritans, neither Pope, nor King, to be Head of the Church, all is one, you may be saved. Some, as Castalio, (p) Vid. Gul. Reginald. Caln. Turcism. lib. 2. çap. 6. and the whole Sect of the Academical Protestants, hold, that doctrines about the Supper, Baptism, the state and office of Christ, how he is one with his Father, the Trinity, Predestination, and diverse other such questions are not necessary to Salvation. And (that you may observe how ungrounded, and partial their Assertions be) Perkins teacheth, that the Real presence of our Saviour's Body in the Sacrament as it is believed by Catholics, is a fundamental error; and yet affirmeth the Consubstantiation of Lutherans not to be such, notwithstanding that diverse chief Lutherans, to their Consubstantiation join the prodigious Heresy of Vbiquitation. D. Vshher in his Sermon of the Unity of the Catholic faith, grants Salvation to the Aethiopians, who yet with Christian Baptism join Circuncision D. Potter (q) Pag. 113.114. cities the doctrine of some whom he termeth men of great learning and judgement: that, all who profess to love and honour JESUS-CHRIST are in the visible Christian Church, and by Catholics to be reputed Brethren. One of these men of great learning and judgement, is Thomas Morton by D. Potter cited in his Margin, whose love & honour to jesus-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, because they do hold the foundation of the Gospel, Morton in his Treatise of the King doom of Israel. pag. 94. which is Faith in jesus-christ the Son of God, and Saviour of the world. And, which is more, it seemeth by these charitable men, that for being a member of the Church it is not necessary to believe one only God. For D. Potter (r) pag. 121. among the arguments to prove hooker's, & Mortons' opinion, brings this: The people of the ten Tribes after their defection, notwithstanding their gross corruptions, and Idolatry, remained still a true Church. We may also, as it seemeth by these men's reasoning, deny the Resurrection, and yet be members of the true Church. For a learned man (saith D. Potter (s) pag. 122. in behalf of hooker's, and Mortons' opinion) was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholic Church, though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our bodies. Dear Sautour! What times do we behold? If one may be a member of the true Church, and yet deny the Trinity of Persons, the God head of our Saviour, the necessity of Baptism, if we may use Circumcision, and with the worship of God join Idolatry, wherein do we differ from Turks, and jews? or rather are we not worse, then either of them? If they who deny our Saviour's divinity might be accounted the Church of God, how will they deny that favour to those ancient Heretics, who denied our Saviour's true humanity? and so the total deny all of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church. S. Huary (t) Comment. in Matt. c. 16. maketh it of equal necessity for Salvation, that we believe our Saviour to be true God, and true Man, saying: This manner of Confession we are to hold, that we remember him to be the Son of God, and the Son of Man, because the one without the other, can give no hope of Salvation. And yet D. Potter saith of the aforesaid doctrine of Hooker and Morton: The (u) pag. 123. Reader may be pleased to approve, or reject it, as he shall find cause. And in another place (w) pag. 253. he showeth so much good liking of this doctrine, that he explicateth and proveth the Church's perpetual Visibility by it. And in the second Edition of his book, he is careful to declare, and illustrate it more at large then he had done before: howsoever, this sufficiently showeth, that they have no certainty, what points be fundamental. As for the Arians in particular, the Author whom D. Potter cities for a moderate Catholic, but is indeed a plain Heretic, or rather Atheist, Lucianlike resting at all Religion, placeth Arianisme among fundamental errors: But (x) A moderate examination etc. ç. 1. paulo post initiu●●. contrarily an English Protestant Divine masked under the name of Irenaeus Philalethes, in a little Book in Latin entitled, Dissertatio de pace & concordiae Ecclesiae, endeavoureth to prove, that even the denial of the blessed Trinity may stand with salvation. divers Protestants have taught, that the Roman Church, erreth in fundamental points: But D. Potter, and others teach the contrary, which could not happen if they could agree what be fundamental points. You brand the Donatists with the note of an Error, in the matter (y) pag. 126 and nature of it properly heretical; because they taught that the Church remained only with them, in the part of Donatus: And yet many Protestants are so far from holding that Doctrine to be a fundamental error, that themselves go further, and say; that for diverse ages before Luther there was no true visible Church at all. It is then too too apparent, that you have no agreement in specifying, what be fundamental points; neither have you any means to determine what they be; for if you have any such means, why do you not agree? You tell us, the Creed contains all points fundamental, which although it were true, yet you see it serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge, and agreement in such points. And no wonder. For (besides what I have said already in the beginning of this Chapter, & am to deliver more at large in the next) after so much labour and paperspent to prove that the Creed contains all fundamental points, you conclude: It remains (a) pag. 241. very probable, that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundament all truths, whereof consists the Unity of faith, and of the Catholic Church. Very probable? Then, according to all good Logic, the contrary may remain very probable, and so all remain as full of uncertainty, as before. The whole Rule, say you, & the fol judge of your faith, must be Scripture. Scripture doth indeed deliver divine Truths, but feldome doth qualify them, or declare whether they be, or be not, absolutely necessary to salvation. You fall (b) pag. 215 heavy upon Charity Mistaken, because he demands a particular Catalogue of fundamental points, which yet you are obliged in conscience to do, if you be able. For without such a Catalogue, no man can be assured whether or no, he have faith sufficient to Salvation. And therefore take it not in ill part, if we again and again demand such a Catalogue. And that you may see we proceed fairly, I will perform, on our behalf, what we request of you, & do here deliver a Catalogue, wherein are comprised all points by us taught to be necessary to Salvation, in these words: We are obliged, under pain of damnation, to believe whatsoever the Catholic visible Church of Christ proposeth, as renealed by Almighty God. If any be of another mind, all Catholics denounce him to be no Catholic. But enough of this. And I go forward with the Infallibility of the Church in all points. 20. For, even out of your own doctrine that the Church cannot err in points necessary to salvation, any wise man will infer, that it behoves all, who have care of their souls, not to forsake her in any one point. 1. Because they are assured, that although her doctrine proved not to be true in some point, yet even according to D. Potter, the error cannot be fundamental, nor destructive of faith, and salvation: neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring (if it were possible) with the universal Church. Secondly, since she is, under pain of eternal damnation, to be believed, and obeyed in some things, wherein confessedly she is endued with infallibility; I cannot in wisdom suspect her credit in matters of less moment. For who would trust another in matters of highest consequence, and be afraid to rely on him in things of less moment? Thirdly, since (as I said) we are undoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest, or fundamental points, and that there is no Rule to know precisely what, and how many those fundamental points be; I cannot without hazard of my soul, leave her in any one point, lest perhaps that point or points wherein I forsake her, prove indeed to be fundamental, and necessary to salvation. Fourthly, that visible Church which can not err in points fundamental, doth without distinction, propound all her Definitions concerning matters of faith to be believed under anathemas or Curses, esteeming all those who resist, to be deservedly cast out of her Communion, and holding it as a point necessary to salvation, that we believe she cannot err: wherein if she speak true, then to deny any one point in particular, which she defineth, or to affirm in general, that she may err, puts a man into state of damnation. Whereas to believe her in such points as are not necessary to salvation, can not endanger salvation; as likewise to remain in her Communion, can bring no great harm, because she cannot maintain any damnable error, or practise: but to be divided from her (she being Christ's Catholic Church) is most certainly damnable. Fifthly, the true Church, being in lawful, and certain possession of Superiority and Power, to command & require Obedience, from all Christians in some things; I cannot without grievous sin withdraw my obedience in any one, unless I evidently know, that the thing commanded comes not within the compass of those things to which her Power extendeth. And who can better inform me, how far God's Church can proceed, than God's Church herself? Or to what Doctor can the Children, and Schoollers, 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 in cleaving to any particular Sect, or Person, teaching, or applying Scriptures against her doctrine, or interpretation. Sixtly, the fearful examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the Church upon pretence of her errors, have failed, even in fundamental points, and suffered ship wrack of their Salvation ought to deter all Christians, from opposing her in any one doctrine, or practise: as (to omit other, both ancient and modern heresies) we see that diverse chief Protestants, pretending to reform the corruptions of the Church, are come to affirm, that for many Ages, she erred to death, and wholly perished; which D. Potter, cannot deny to be a fundamental Error against that Article of our Creed, I believe the Catholic Church, as he affirmeth it of the Donatists, because they confined the universal Church within Afirica, or some other small tract of soil. Lest therefore I may fall into some fundamental error, it is most safe for me to believe all the Decrees of that Church, which cannot err fundamentally: especially if we add; That according to the Doctrine of Catholic Divines, one error in faith, whether it be for the matter if self, great or small, destroys faith, as is hewed in Charity Mistaken; and consequently to accuse the Church of any one Error, is to affirm, that the lost all faith, and erred damnably: which very saying is damnable, because at leaves Christ no visible Church on earth. 21. To all these arguments I add this demonstration: D. Potter teacheth, that there neither was (c) pag. 75. nor can be any just cause to departed from the Church of Christ, no more then from Christ himself. But if the Church of Christ can err in some points of faith, men not only may, but must forsake her in those, (unless D. Potter will have them to believe one thing, and profess another:) and if such errors, and corruptions should fall out to be about the Church's Liturgy, public Service, administration of Sacraments, & the like; they who perceive such errors, must of necessity leave her external Communion. And therefore if once we grant the Church may err, it followeth that men may, and aught to forsake her (which is against D. Potter's own words,) or else they are inexcusable who left the Communion of the Roman Church, under pretence of Errors, which they grant, not to be fundamental. And if D. Potter think good to answer this argument, he must remember his own doctrine to be, that even the Catholic Church may err in points not fundamental. 22. An other argument for the universal infallibility of the Church, I take out of D. Potter's own words. If (saith he) we (d) pag. 97. did not descent in some opinions from the present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church truly Catholic. These words cannot be true, unless he presuppose that the Church truly Catholic, cannot err in points not fundamental. For if she may err in such points, the Roman Church which he affirmeth to err only in points not fundamental, may agree with the Church truly Catholic, if she likewise may err in points not fundamental. Therefore either he must acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words, or else must grant, that the Church truly Catholic cannot err in points not fundamental, which is what we intended to prove. 23. If Words cannot persuade you, that in all Controversies you must rely upon the infallibility of the Church; at least yield your assent to Deeds. Hither to I have produced Arguments drawn, as it were, ex naturâ rei, from the Wisdom, and Goodness of God, who cannot fail to have left some infallible means to determine Controversies, which, as we have proved, can be no other, except a Visible Church, infallible in all her Definitions. But because both Catholics and Protestants, receive holy Scripture, we may thence also prove the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concern Faith and Religion. Our Saviour speaketh clearly: The gates of Hell (e) Matt. 16. shall not prevail against her. And, I will ask my (f) joan. 14. Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth. And, But when he, the Spirit of (g) joan. 16. truth cometh, he shall teach you all truth. The Apostle saith, that the Church is, the Pillar, and ground (h) 1. Tim. cap. 3. of Truth. And, He gave, 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 Ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ: until we meet all into the unity of faith, and knowledge of the Son of God, into a perfect man, into the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ: that now we be not Children wavering, and carried about with every wind of doctrine in the wiekednes of men, in craftiness, to the circumvention (i) Ephes. 4. of Error. All which words seem clearly enough to prove, that the Church is universally infallible, without which, Unity of faith could not be conserved against every wind of Doctrine: And yet Doctor Potter (k) pag. 151.153. limits these promises & privileges to fundamental points, in which he grants the Church cannot err. I urge the words of Scripture, which are universal, and do not mention any such restraint. I allege that most reasonable, and received Rule, that Scripture is to be understood literally, as it soundeth, unless some manifest absurdity force us to the contrary. But all will not serve, to accord our different interpretations. In the mean time diverse of Doctor Potter's Brethren step in, and reject his limitation, as over large, and some what 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, & finally; and other men have as much right as these, to interpose their opinion, & interpretation. Behold we are three at debate about the self same words of Scripture: We confer diverse places and Text: We consult the Originals: We examine Translations: We endeavour to pray heartily: We profess to speak sincerely; To seek nothing but truth and salvation of our own souls, & that of our Neighbours; and finally we use all those means, which by Protestants themselves are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture: Nevertheless we neither do, or have any possible means to agree, as long as we are left to ourselves; and when we should chance to be agreed, the doubt would still remain whether the thing itself be a fundamental point or no: And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God, the Lover of souls, hath left no certain infallible means, to decide both this, and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture, or upon any other occasion. Our remedy therefore in these contentions must be, to consult, and hear God's Visible Church, with submissive acknowledgement 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 (l) De util. pred. oap. 8. thou seem to be sufficiently tossed, and hast a desire to put an end to thy pains, follow the way of the Catholic Discipline, which from Christ himself by the Apostles hath come down even to us, and from us shall descend to all posterity. And though I conceive that the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental hath now been sufficiently confuted; yet that no shadow of difficulty may remain, I will particularly refel a common saying of Protestants, that it is sufficient for salvation, to believe the Apostles Creed, which they hold to be a Summary of all fundamental points of Faith. CHAP. FOUR To say, that the Creed contains all points necessarily to be believed, is neither pertinent to the Question in hand, nor in itself true. ISAY, neither pertinent, nor true. Not pertinent: Because our Question is not, what points are necessary to be explicitly believed; but what points may be lawfully disbelieved, or rejected after sufficient Proposition that they are divine Truths. You say, the Creed contains all points necessary to be believed. Be it so. But doth it likewise contain all points not to be disbelieved? Certainly it doth nor. For how many truths are there in holy Scripture not contained in the Creed, which we are not obliged distinctly, and particularly to know & 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? And we having already showed, that whatsoever is proposed by God's Church as a point of faith, is infallibly a truth revealed by God; it followeth that whosoever denyeth any such point, opposeth Gods sacred testimony, whether that point be contained in the Creed, or no. In vain then was your care employed to prove that all points of faith necessary to be explicitly 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 denial whereof destroys Salvation; whereas the denial of other points not fundamental, 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 Proposal, and not of the Matter fundamentull, or not fundamental. This Catalogue only, can show how fare Protestants may disagree without breach of Unity 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 assign any one point so great, or fundamental, that the denial thereof will make a man an Heretic, if it be not sufficiently propounded, as a divine Truth: Nor can you assign any one point so small, that it can without heresy 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 fundamental, as I shown (a) Chap. 3. n. 3. before: And yet it is damnable to deny any one point contained in the Creed. So that it is clear, that to make an error damnable, it is not necessary that the matter be of itself fundamental. 3. Moreover you cannot ground any certainty upon the Creed itself, unless first you presuppose that the authority of the Church is universally infallible, and consequently that it is damnable to oppose her declarations, whether they concern matters great, or small, contained, or not contained in the Creed. This is clear. Because we must receive the Creed itself 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 contains all fundamental points, are grounded upon supposition, that the Creed was made either by the Apostles themselves, or by the (b) pag. 216 Church of their times from them: which thing we could not certainly know, if the succeeding and still continued Church, may err in her Traditions: neither can we be assured, whether all fundamental 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, unless we undoubtedly know that the Apostles composed the Creed; and that they intended to contract all fundamental 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; & that the Church of their times, did intent that the Creed should contain all fundamental points. For if the Church may err in points not fundamental, may she not also err in the particulars which I have specified? Can you show it to be a fundamental point of faith, that the Apostles intended to comprise all points of faith necessary to Salvation in the Creed? Yourself say no more than that it is very (d) pag. 241. probable; which is fare from reaching to a fundamental point of faith. Your probability is grounded upon the judgement of Antiquity, and even of the Roman Doctors, as you say in the same place. But if the Catholic Church may err, what certainty can you expect from Antiquity, or Doctors? Scripture is your total 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 contain all fundamental points of faith. Which being impossible to be done, you must for the Creed itself rely upon the infallibility of the Church. 4. Moreover, the Creed consisteth not so much in the words, as in their sense and meaning. All such as pretend to the name of Christians, recite the Creed, & 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 contains all fundamental points, without specifying, both in what sense the Articles of the Creed be true, and also in what true sense, they be fundamental. For, both these tasks, you are to perform, who teach that all truth is not fundamental: & you do but delude the ignorant, when you say, that the Creed, taken in a Catholic (e) pag. 216. sense, comprehendeth all points fundamental; because with you, all Catholic sense is not fundamental: for so it were necessary to salvation that all Christians should know the whole Scripture, wherein every least point hath a Catholic sense. Or if by Catholic sense, you understand that sense which is so universally to be known, and believed by all, that whosoever fails therein cannot be saved, you trifle and say no more than this: All points of the Creed in a sense necessary to salvation, are necessary to salvation. Or: All points fundamental, are fundamental. After this manner it were an easy thing to make many true Prognostications, by saying it will certainly rain, when it raineth. You say the Creed (f) pag. 216. was opened and explained, in some parts in the Creeds of Nice etc. but how shall we understand the other parts, not explained in those Creeds? 5. For what Article in the Creed is more fundamental, or may seem more clear, then that, wherein we believe JESUS-CHRIST to be the Mediator, Redeemer, and Saviour of mankind, and the founder, and foundation of a Catholic Church expressed in the Creed? And yet about this Article, how many different doctrines are there, not only of old Heretics, as Arius, Nestorius, Eutiches etc. but also of Protestants, partly against Catholics, and partly against one another? For the said main Article of Christ's being the only Saviour of the world etc. according to different senses of disagreeing Sects, doth involve these, and many other such questions; That Faith in JESUS-CHRIST doth justify alone; That Sacraments have no efficiency in justification; That Baptism doth not avail Infants for salvation; unless they have an Act of faith; That there is no Sacerdotal Absolution from sins; That good works proceeding from God's grace are not meritorious; That there can be no Satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to sin after the guilt, or offence is pardoned; No, Purgatory; No Prayers for the dead; No Sacrifice of the Mass; No Invocation; No Mediation, or intercession of Saints; No inherent justice: No supreme Pastor, yea no Bishop by divine Ordinance; No Real presence, no Transubstantiation, with diverse others. And why? Because (forsooth) these Doctrines derogate from the Titles of Mediator, Redeemer, Advocate, Foundation etc. Yea and are against the truth of our Saviour's humane nature, if we believe diverse Protestants, writing against Transubstantiation. Let then any judicious man consider, whether Doctor Potter, or others do really satisfy, when they send men to the Creed for a perfect Catalogue, to distinguish points fundamental, from those which they say are not fundamental. If he will speak indeed to some purpose, let him say: This Article is understood in this sense: and in this sense it is fundamental. That other is to be under stood in such a meaning; yet according to that meaning, it is not so fundamental, but that men may disagree, and deny it without damnation. But it were no policy for any Protestant to deal so plainly. 6. But to what end should we use many arguments? Even yourself are forced to limit your own Doctrine, and come to say, that the Creed is a perfect Catalogue of fundamental points, taken as it was further opened and explained in some parts (by occasion of emergent Horisies) in the other Catholic Creeds of Nice, Constantinople, (g) pag. 216. Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Athanasius. But this explication, or restriction overthroweth your Assertion. For as the Apostles Creed was not to us a sufficient Catalogue, till it was explained by the first Council, nor then till it was declared by another etc. 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 itself alone, a particular Catalogue, sufficient to distinguish betwixt fundamental, and not fundamental points. 7. I come to the second part: That the Creed doth not contain all main and principal points of faith. And to the end we may not strive about things either granted by us both, or nothing 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, inspired by God, meant that it should serve, and in that manner as they did intent it, which was, not to comprehend all particular points of faith, but such general heads, as were most befitting, and requisite for preaching the faith of Christ to jews, and Gentiles, and might be briefly, and compendiously set down, and easily learned, and remembered. And therefore, in respect of Gentiles, the Creed doth mention God, as Creator of all things; and for both jews and Gentiles, the Trinity, the Messiah, and Saviour, his birth, life, death, resurrection, and glory, from whom they were to hope remission of sins, & 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 (h) 2.2. g. 1. art. 8. doth distinguish all the Articles of the Creed into these general heads: That some belong to the Majesty of the Godhead; others to the Mystery of our Saviour Christ's Humane nature: Which two general objects of faith, the holy Ghost doth express, and conjoin joan. 17. Haec est vita aterna etc. This is life everlasting, that they know thee true GOD, and whom thou hast sent JESUS CHRIST. But it was not their meaning to give us as it were a course of Divinity, or a Catechism, or a particular Expression of all points of Faith, leaving those things to be performed, as occasion should require, by their own word or writing, for their time, and afterwards by their Successors in the Catholic Church. Our question then is not, whether the Creed be perfect, as far as the end for which it was composed, did require; For we believe & are ready to give our lives for this: but only we deny, that the Apostles did intent to comprise therein all particular points of belief, necessary to salvation, as even by D. Potter's own (i) pag. 235.215. confession, it doth not comprehend agenda, or things belonging to practise, as Sacraments, Commandments, the Acts of Hope, and duties of Charity, which we are obliged not only to practise, but also to beliene by divine infallible faith. Will he therefore infer that the Creed is not perfect, because it contains not all those necessary, and fundamental Objects of faith? He will answer. No: because the Apostles intended only to express 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 belief which were intended to be set down, as we explicated before. 9 The second observation is, that to satisfy our question what points in particular been fundamental, it will not be sufficient to allege the Creed, unless it contain all such points either expressly & immediately; or else in such manner, that by evident, and necessary consequence they may be deduced from Articles both clearly, and particularly contained therein. For if the deduction be doubtful, we shall not be sure, that such Conclusions be fundamental: or if the Articles themselves which are said to be fundamental, be not distinctly, and particularly expressed, they will not serve us to know, and distinguish all points fundamental, from those which they call, not fundamental. We do not deny, but that all points of faith, both fundamental, and not fundamental, may be said to be contained in the Creed in some sense; as for example, implicitly, generally, or in some such involved manner. For when we explicitly believe the Catholic Church, we do implicitly believe whatsoever she proposeth as belonging to faith. Or else by way of reduction, that is, when we are once instructed in the belief 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 more of those Articles which are explicitly contained in the Symbol. Thus S. Thomas the Cherubin among Divines teacheth (l) 2. 23 q. ●● art. 8. ad 6. that the miraculous existence of our Blessed Saviour's body in the Eucharist, as likewise all his other miracles, are reduced to God's Omnipotency, expressed in the Creed. And Doctor Potter saith: The Eucharist (m) pag. 2●●. being a seal of that holy Union 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 fare from being sufficient to infer out of the Articles of God's Omnipotency, or of the Communion of Saints, that our Saviour's body is in the Eucharist, and much less whether it be only in figure, or else in reality; by Transubstantiation, or Consubstantiation etc. and least of all, whether or no these points be fundamental. And you hyperbolise, 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, we may refer it to some of those heads expressed in the Creed, and yet so, as S. Thomas refers it to one Article, and D. Potter to another; and in respect of different analogies or effects, it may be referred to several Articles. The like I say of other points of faith, which may in some sort be reduced to the Creed, but nothing to D. Potter's purpose: But contrarily it showeth, that your affirming such and such points to be fundamental or not fundamental, is merely arbitrary, to serve your turn, as necessity, and your occasions may require. Which was an old custom amongst Heretics, as we read in (n) De peccat. Orig. count. Pelag. l. 2. cap. 22. S. Augustine. Pelagius and Celestius, desiring fraudulently to avoid the hateful name of Heresies, affirmed that the question of Original Sin may be disputed without danger of faith. But this holy Father affirms that it belongs to the foundation of faith. We may (saith he) endure a disputant who errs in other questions not yet diligently examined, not yet diligently established by the whole authority of the Church, their error may be borne with: but it must not pass so far as to attempt to shake the foundation of the Church. We see S. Augustine places the being of a point fundamental or not fundamental, in that it hath been examined, and established by the Church, although the point of which he speaketh, namely Original Sin, be not contained in the Creed. 10. Out of that which hath been said, I infer, that Doctor Potter's pains in alleging Catholic Doctors, the ancient Fathers, and the Council of Trent, to prove that the Creed contains all points of faith, was needless, since we grant it in manner aforesaid. But Doctor Potter, can not in his conscience believe, that Catholic Divines, or the Council of Trent, and the holy Fathers did intent, that all points in particular which we are obliged to believe, are contained explicitly in the Creed; he knowing well enough, that all Catholics hold themselves obliged, to believe all those points which the said Council defines to be believed under an Anathema, and that all Christians believe the commandments, Sacraments etc. which are not expressed in the Creed. 11. Neither must this seem strange. For who is ignorant, that Summaries, Epitom'es, & the like brief Abstracts, are not intended to specify all particulars of that Science, or Subject to which they belong. For as the Creed is said to contain all points of Faith; so the Decalogue comprehends all Articles, (as I may term them) which concern Charity, and good life: and yet this cannot be so understood, as if we were disobliged from performance of any duty, or the eschewing of any vice, unless it be expressed in the ten Commandments. For, (to omit the precepts of receiving Sacraments, which belong to practise, or manners, and yet are not contained in the Decalogue) there are many sins, even against the Law of nature, and light of reason, which are not contained in the ten Commandments, except only by similitude, analogy, reduction, or some such way. For example, we find not expressed in the Decalogue, either diverse sins, as Gluttony, Drunkenness, Pride, Sloth, Covetousness in desiring either things superfluous, or with too much greediness; or diverse of our chief obligations, as Obedience to Princes, and all Superiors, not only Ecclesiastical but also Civil, whose Laws Luther, Melancthon, Caluin, and some other Protestants do dangerously affirm not to oblige in conscience, and yet these men think they know the ten Commandments: as likewise diverse Protestants defend Usury, to be lawful; and the many Treatises of Civilians, Canonists, and Casuists, are witnesses, that diverse sins against the light of reason, and Law of nature are not distinctly expressed in the ten Commandments; although when by other diligences they are found to be unlawful, they may be reduced to some of the Commandments, and yet not so evidently, and particularly, but that diverse do it in diverse manners. 12. My third Observation is: That our present question being, whether or no the Creed contain so fully all fundamental points of faith, that whosoever do not agree in all, and every one of those fundamental 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 which if too do not agree, both of them cannot expect to be saved, I shall have performed as much as I intent; and D. Potter must seek out some other Catalogue for points fundamental, than the Creed. Neither is it material to the said purpose, whether such fundamental points rest only in knowledge, and speculation or belief, or else be further referred to work and practise. For the Habit, or Virtue of Faith, which inclineth and enableth us to believe both speculative, and practical verities, is of one and the self 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 Formal Object, or motive, for which I yield assent to those different sorts of material objects, is the same in both, to wit, the revelation, or word of God. Where by the way I note, that if the Unity, 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 himself will admit. 13. Hence it followeth, that whosoever denieth any one main practical revealed truth, is no less an Heretic, then if he should deny a point resting in belief alone. So that when D. Potter, (to avoid our argument, that all fundamental 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 & essential to constitute a Church) answereth, that the Sacraments are to be (p) pag. 235. reckoned, rather among the Agenda of the Church, than the Credenda; they are rather divine rites & ceremonies, than Doctrines, he either grants what we affirm, or in effect says; Of two kinds of revealed truths, which are necessary to be believed, the Creed contains one sort only, ergo, it contains 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 practice, 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 less contentions concerning practical, then speculative truths: as Sacraments, obtaining remission of sin, Invocation of Saints, Prayers for dead, Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament, & many other: all which do so much the more import, as on them, beside right belief, doth also depend our practice, and the ordering of our life. Though D. Potter could therefore give us (as he will never be able to do) 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 fundamental, which not, that so every man might know whether he be not in some Damnable Error, for some Article of faith, which further 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, & believed. And, to omit that in general it doth not tell us, what points be fundamental, or not fundamental, which in the way of Protestants, is most necessary to be known; in particular, there is no mention of the greatest Evils, from which man's calamity proceeded, I mean, the sin of the Angels, of Auam, and of Original sin in us: not 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 general head (Oportet accedentem etc. It behoves (q) Heb. 11.6. him that comes to God, to believe that he is, and is a remunerator,) is questioned, by the denial of Merit, which makes God, a Giver, but not a Rewarder. It is not expressed whether the Article of Remission of sins be understood by faith alone, or else may admit the efficiency of Sacraments. There is no mention of Ecclesiastical, Apostolical, Divine Traditions, one way or other; or of holy Scriptures in general, and much less of every book in particular; nor of the Name, Nature, Number, Effects, Matter, Form, Minister, Intention, Necessity of Sacraments, and yet the due administration of Sacraments, is with Protestants an essential Note of the Church. There is nothing for Baptism of Children, nor against Rebaptisation. There is no mention in favour, or against the Sacrifice of the Mass, of Power in the Church to institute Rites, Holy days etc. and to inflict Excommunication, or other Censures: of Priesthood, Bishops, and the whole Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which are very fundamental points; of S. Peter's Primacy, which to Caluin seemeth a fundamental error; nor of the possibility, or impossibility to keep God's commandments; of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Son; of Purgatory, or Prayer for the dead, in any sense: And yet D. Potter doth not deny, but that Aerius was esteemed an Heretic, for denying (r) pag. 35. all sort of Commemoration for the dead. Nothing of the Church's Visibility or Inuisibility, Fallibility or Infallibility; nor of other points controverted betwixt Protestants themselves, and between protestants and Catholics, which to D. Potter seem so heinous corruptions, that they cannot without damnation join 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 world's beginning now, & for all future times, there have been, are, and may be innumerable, gross, damnable, Heresies, whose contrary truths are not contained in the Creed. For, every fundamental Error must have a contrary fundamental 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 Bl. 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 frightful, because life is sweet; and according to Philosophy, the Privation is measured by the Form to which it is repugnant. If therefore the Creed contain in particular all fundamental points of faith, it must explicitly, or by clear consequence, comprehend all truths opposite to innumerable Heresies of all Ages past, present, and to come, which no man in his wits will affirm it to do. 16. And here I cannot omit to signify how you (s) pag. 255. applaud the saying of D. Usher. That in those Propositions which without all controversy are universally received in the whole Christian world, so much Truth is contained, as being joined 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 knows, that the Mystery of the B. Trinity is not universally received in the whole Christian world, as appears in very many Heretics, in Polony, Hungary, and Transiluania, and therefore according to this Rule of D. Usher, approved by D. Potter, the denial 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. Usher, by you recited, and so much applauded. For he supposeth, that a man agrees with other Churches in belief, which joined 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 Truth's necessary to salvation? Can there be any damnable heresy, unless it contradict some necessary truth, which cannot happen in one who is supposed to believe all necessary Truths? Besides if one believing all fundamental Articles in the Creed, may superinduce damnable heresies; it followeth that the fundamental truths contrary to those damnable heresies, are not contained in the Creed. 18. According to this Model of D. Potter's foundation, consisting in the agreement of scarcely one 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 Ox, the foot of a Lion etc. I wrong them not herein. For in good Philosophy there is greater repugnancy between assent and descent, affirmation and negation, est est, non non (especially when all these contrradictories pretend to rely upon one and the self same Motive, the ininfallible Truth of Almighty God) then between the integral parts, as head, neck, etc. of a man, horse, lion, etc. And thus Protestant's are fare more bold to disagree even in matters of faith, than Catholic Divines in questions merely Philosophical, or not determined by the Church. And while thus they stand only upon fundamental Articles, they do 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, than 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 than Church, do give unavoidable occasion of desperation to poor souls. Let some one who is desirous to save his soul repair to D. Potter, who maintains these grounds, to know upon whom he may rely, in a matter of so great consequence; I suppose the Doctors answer will be: Upon the truly Catholic Church. She cannot err danably. What understand you by the Catholic Church? Cannot general Counsels, which are the Church representative, err? Yes, they may weakly, or (t) pag. 167. wilfully misapply, or misunderstand, or neglect Scripture, and so err damnably. To whom then shall I go for my particular instruction? I cannot confer with the united body of the whole Church about my particular difficulties, as yourself affirms, that the Catholic Church cannot be told (u) pag. 27. of private injuries. Must I then consult with every particular person of the Catholic Church? So it seems, by what you writ in these words: The whole (w) pag. 150.151. militant Church (that is all the members of it) cannot possibly err, either in the whole faith, or any necessary Article of it. You say, M. Doctor, I cannot for my instruction acquaint the universal Church with my particular scruples: You say, the Prelates of God's Church meeting in a lawful general Council may err damnably: It remains then, that for my necessary instruction, I must repair to every particular member of the universal Church spread over the face of the earth: & yet you teach that the promises (x) 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 Catholic, with which (as I said) it is impossible for me to confer. Alas, O most uncomfortable Ghostly Father, you drive me to desperation. How shall I confer with every Christian soul, man and woman, by sea and by land, close prisoner, or at liberty & c.? Yet upon supposal 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? Procure (will you say) to know whether he believe all fundamental points of faith. For if he do, his faith, for point of belief, is sufficient for salvation, though he err in a hundred things of less moment. But how shall I know whether he hold all fundamental points or no? For till you tell me this, I cannot know whether or no his belief be sound in all fundamental points. Can you say the Creed? Yes. And so can many damnable Heretics. But why do you ask me this question? Because the Creed contains all fundamental points of faith. Are you sure of that? not sure: I hold it very probable (y) pag. 241. . Shall I hazard my soul on probabilities, or even wagers? This yields a new cause of despair. But what? doth the Creed contain all points necessary to be believed, whether they rest in the understanding, or else do further extend to practise? No. It was composed to deliver Credenda, not Agenda to us; Faith, not Practice. How then shall I know what points of belief, which direct my practice, be necessary to salvation? Still you chalk out new paths for Desperation. Well, are all Articles of the Creed, for their nature and matter, fundamental? I cannot say so. How then, shall I know which in particular be, and which be not fundamental? Read my Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet entitled Charity Mistaken etc. there you shall find, that fundamental doctrines are such Catholic Verities, as principally, and essentially pertain (z) 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 capital doctrines which make up our Faith in Christ; that is, that common faith which is alike precious in all, being one & the same in the highest Apostle, & the meanest believer, which the Apostle elsewhere calls the first principles of the oracles of God, and the form of sound words. But how shall I apply these general definitions, or descriptions, or (to say the truth) these only varied words, and phrases (for I understand the word, fundamental, as well as the words, principal, essential, grand, and capital doctrines &c.) to the particular Articles of the Creed, in such sort, as that I may be able precisely, exactly, particularly to distinguish fundamental Articles, from points of less moment? You labour to tell us what fundamental points be, but not which they be: and yet unless you do this, your Doctrine serves only, either to make men despair, or else to have recourse to those whom you call Papists, and who give one certain Rule, that all points defined by Christ's visible Church belong to the foundation of Faith, in such sense, as that to deny any one cannot stand with salvation. And seeing yourself acknowledges that these men do not err in points fundamental, I cannot but hold it most safe for me to loin with them, for the securing of my soul, and the avoiding of desperation, into which this your doctrine must cast all them who understand, and believe it. For the whole discourse, and inferences which here I have made, are either your own direct Assertions, or evident consequences clearly deduced from them. 20. But now let us answer some few Objections of D. Potter's, against that which we have 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 (a) pag. 234. necessary Doctrines as are delivered in Scripture, or collected out of it; and therefore needs not express the authority of that which it supposes. 21. This answer makes for us. For by giving a reason why it was needles that Scripture should be expressed in the Creed, you grant as much as we desire, namely that the Apostles judged it needles to express 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 Canonical Scripture at all; and much less that such Books in particular be Canonical: Yea the Creed might have 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 Gospel of S. Matthew. 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. Potter's arguments have, while he tells us, that the Creed (b) pag. 234. is an Abstract of such necessary doctrines as are delivered in Scripture, or collected out of it, and therefore needs not express the authority of that which it supposes; it doth not follow: The Articles of 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, unless 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 needles that the Creed should express Scripture, whose Authority it supposes, he comes at length to say, that the Nicene Fathers in their Creed confessing that the holy Ghost spoke by the Prophets, doth thereby sufficiently avow the divine Authority of all Canonical 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 needles to express Scripture, whose authority it supposes? Besides we do not only believe in general, that Canonical Scripture is of divine authority, but we are also bound under pain of damnation to believe, that such and such particular Books, not mentioned in the Nicene Creed, are Canonical. 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 spoke by the Prophets) are no ways 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 have more in his Creed then the (c) pag. 221. Apostles had, and the Church of their times? I answer; You trifle, not distinguish between the Apostles belief, and that abridgement of some Articles of faith, which we call the Apostles Creed; and withal you beg the question, by supposing that the Apostles believed no more, then is contained in their Creed, which every unlearned person knows and believes: and I hope you will not deny but the Apostles were endued with greater knowledge then ordinary persons. 24. Your pretended proof out of the Acts, that the Apostles revealed to the Church the whole Counsel of God, keeping (d) Act. 20.27. back nothing, with your gloss (needful for our salvation) is no proof unless you still beg the question, and do suppose, that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church, is contained in the Creed. And I wonder you do not reflect that those words were by S. Paul particularly directed to Pastors, and Governors of the Church, as is clear by the other words; He called the Ancients of the Church. And afterward: Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, to rule the Church. And yourself say, that more knowledge is (e) pag. 244 necessary in Bishops, and Priests, to whom is committed the government of the Church, and the care of souls, then in vulgar Laickes. Do you think that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed? Said they nothing of the Sacraments, Commandments, Duties of Hope, Charity & c? 25. Upon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other objection: To say the whole faith of those times (f) pag. 222.223. is not contained in the Apoles' 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. Matthew, and S. john believe their writings to be Canonical Scripture? and yet their writings are not mentioned in the Creed. It is therefore more than clear, that the Faith of the Apostles is of a larger extent, than the Apostles Creed. 26. To your demand, why amongst many things of equal necessity to be believed, the Apostles should (g) pag. 225. so distinctly set down some, and be altogether silent of others? I answer: That you must answer your own demand. For in the Creed there be diverse points in their nature, not fundamental, or necessary to be explicitly and distinctly believed, as above we shown; why are these points which are not fundamental expressed, rather than other of the same quality? Why our Saviour's descent to Hell, & Burial expressed, and not his Circumcision, his manifestation to the three Kings, working of Miracles & c? Why did they not express Scriptures, Sacraments, and all fundamental points of Faith tending to practise, as well as those which rest in belief? Their intention was, particularly to deliver such Articles as were fittest for those times, concerning the Deity, Trinity, and Messiah (as heretofore I have declared) leaving many things to be taught by the Catholic Church, which in the Creed we all profess to believe. Neither doth it follow, as you infer, That as well, nay better, they might have given no Article, but that (of the Church) and sent us to the Church for all the rest. For in setting down others besides that, and not all, they make us believe we have all, when (h) pag. 223. we have not all. For by this kind of arguing, what may not be deduced? One might, quite contrary to your inference, say: If the Apostles Creed contain all points necessary to salvation, what need we any Church to teach us? and consequently what need of the Article concerning the Church? What need we the Creeds of Nice, Constantinople etc. Superfluous are your Catechisms, wherein beside the Articles of the Creed, you add diverse other particulars. These would be poor consequences, and so is yours. But shall I tell you news? 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, & 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 have besides it, holy Scripture; we have unwritten, divine, Apostolical Ecclesiastical Traditions. It were a childish argument: The Creed contains not all things which are necessary to be believed: Ergo, it is not profitable. Or; The Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient means: Ergo, she must teach us without all means, without Creeds, without Counsels, without Scripture etc. If the Apostles had expressed no Article, but that of the Catholic Church, she must have taught us the other Articles in particular, by Creeds, or other means, as in fact we have even the Apostles Creed from the Tradition of the Church. 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 own error, whereby you will needs believe, that the Creed must contain all. For neither the Apostles, nor the Church, nor the Creed itself tell you any such matter; and what necessity is there, that one means of instruction, must involve whatsoever is contained in all the rest? We are not to recite the Creed with anticipated persuasion, that it must contain what we imagine it ought, for better maintaining some opinions of our own; but we ought to say, and believe that it contains what we find in it; of which one Article is to believe the Catholic Church, surely to be taught by her, which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the Creed: and in particular we may learn of her, what points be contained in the Creed, what otherwise; and so we shall not be deceived, by believing we have all in the Creed, when we have not all: and you may in the same manner say: As well, nay better, the Apostles might have given us no Articles at all, as have left out Articles tending to practise. For in setting down one sort of articles, & not the other, they make us believe we have all, when we have not all. 27 To our argument, that Baptism is not contained in the Creed; D. Potter, besides his answer, that Sacraments belong rather to practise then faith, (which I have already confuted, and which indeed maketh against himself, and serveth only to show that the Apostles intended not to comprise all points in the Creed which we are bound to believe) adds, that the Creed of (i) pag. 237. Nice expressed Baptism by name; confess one Baptism for the remission of Sin Which answer is directly against himself, and manifestly proves that Baptism is an Article of faith, and yet is not contained in the Apostles Creed, neither explicitly, nor by any necessary consequence from other Articles expressed therein. If to make it an Article of faith be sufficient that it is contained in in the Nicene Council; he will find that Protestants maintain many errors against faith, as being repugnant to definitions of General Counsels: as in particular, that the very Council of Nice (which saith M. Whitgift, (k) In his defence pag. 330. is of all wise and learned men reverenced, esteemed & embraced, next unto the Scriptures themselves) decreed that, to those who were chosen to the Ministry unmarried, it was not lawful to take any wife afterward, is affirmed by Protestants. And your grand Reformer Luther (lib. de Concilijs part. prima) saith, that he understands not the Holy Ghost in that Council. For in one Canon it saith that those who have gelded themselves are not fit to be made Priests; in another it forbids them to have wives. Hath (saith he) the Holy Ghost nothing to do in Counsels, but to bind, and load his Ministers which impossblie, dangerous, and unnecessary laws? I forbear to show that this very Article I confess one Baptism for the remission of sins, willbe understood by Protestants in a fare different sense from Catholics, yea Protestants among themselves do not agree, how Baptism forgives sins, nor what grace it confers. Only concerning the Unity of Baptism against rebaptisation of such as were once baptised (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 (m) lib. de Haeres. in 69. to rebaptize Catholics, wherein they show themselves to be the greater Heretics, since it hath pleased the universal Catholic Church not to make Baptism void even in the very Heretics themselues. In which few words this holy Father delivereth against the Donatists these points which do also make against Protestants; That to make an Heresy, or an Heretic, known for such, it is sufficient, to oppose the definition of God's Church; That a proposition may be Heretical though it be not repugnant to any Texts of Scripture. For S. Augustine teacheth that the doctrine of rebaptisation, is heretical, and yet acknowledgeth it cannot be convinced for such out of Scripture. And that neither the Heresy of rebaptisation of those who were baptised by Heretics, nor the contrary Catholic 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 believe the Creed is not sufficient for Unity of faith, and Spirit in the same Church, unless there be also a total agreement both in belief of other points of faith, and in external profession, and Communion also (whereof we are to speak in the next Chapter) according to the saying of S. Augustine: You are (n) Aug. ep. 48. with us in Baptism, and in the Creed; but in the Spirit of Unity, and bond of peace, and lastly in the Catholic Church you are not with us. CHAP. V That Luther, Caluin, their associates, and all who began, or continue the separation from the external Communion of the Roman Church, are guilty of the proper, and formal sin of Schism. THE Searcher of all Hearts, is witness with how unwilling minds, we Catholics are drawn to fasten the denomination of Schismatics, or Heretics, on them, for whoses souls, if they employed their best blood, they would judge that it could not be better spent If we rejoice, that they are contristated at such titles, our joy riseth not from their trouble or grief, but, as that of the Apostles did, from the fountain of Charity, because they are contristated to repentance; that so after unpartial examination, they finding themselves to be what we say, may by God's holy grace, begin to dislike, what themselves are. For our part, we must remember that our obligation is, to keep within the mean, betwixt uncharitable bitterness, & pernicious flattery; not yielding to worldly respects, nor offending Christian Modesty, but uttering the substance of truth in so Caritable manner, that not so much we, as Truth, and Charity may seem to speak, according to the wholesome advice of S. Gregory Nazianzen in these divine words: We do not affect peace with (a) Orat. 32. prejudice of the true doctrine, that so we may get a name of being gentle, and mild: & yet we seek to conserve peace, fight in a lawful manner, and containing ourselves within our compass, and the rule of Spirit. And of these things my judgement is, and for my part I prescribe the same Law to all that deal with souls, and treat of true doctrine, that neither they exasperated men's minds by harshness, nor make them haughty or insolent, by submission; but that in the cause of faith they behave themselves prudently, and advisedly, and do not in either of these things exceed the mean. With whom agreeth S. Leo saying: It be hoveth us in such causes to be (b) Epist. 8. most careful, that without noise of contentions, both Charity be conserved, and Truth maintained. 2. For better Method, we will handle these points in order. First we will set down the nature, and essence, or as I may call it, the Quality of Schism. In the second place, the greatness & grievousness, or (so to term it) the Quantity thereof. For the Nature, or Quality will tell us, who may without injury be judged Schismatics: and by the greatness, or quantity, such as find themselves guilty thereof, will remain acquainted with the true state of their soul, and whether they may conceive any hope of salvation or no. And because Schism will be found to be a division from the Church, which could not happen, unless there were always 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 been such a Visible Congregation of Faithful People. Fourthly, we will demonstrate, that Luther, Caluin, and the rest, did separate themselves from the Communion of that always visible Church of Christ, and therefore were guilty of Schism. 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, & consequently that both they, and all others who persist in the same division, are Schismatics by reason of their separation from the Church of Rome. 3. For the first point touching the Nature, 1. Point. or Quality of Schism: as the natural perfection of man consists in his being the image of God his Creator, by the powers of his soul; so his supernatural perfection is placed in similitude with God, as his last End and Felicity; The nature of Schism. and by having the said spiritual faculties, his Understanding and Will linked to him. His Understanding is united to God by Faith; his Will, by Charity. The former relies upon his infallible Truth: The latter carrieth us to his infinite Goodness. Faith hath a deadly opposite, Heresy. Contrary to the Union, or Unity 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 Separation 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 principal reference and Union of one man with another: because the chiefest Unity is that of the Whole, to which the particular Unity of Parts is subordinate. This Unity, or Oneness (if so I may call it) is effected by Charity uniting all the members of the Church in one Mystical Body; contrrary to which, is Schism, from the Greek word signifying Scissure, or Division. Wherefore upon the whole matter, we find that Schism, as the Angelical Doctor S. Thomas defines it, is; A voluntary separation (c) 2. 2. q. 39 art. in corp. & add 3. from the Unity of that Charity, whereby all the members of the Church are united. From hence he deduceth, that Schism is a special and particular vice, distinct from Heresy, because they are opposite to two different Virtues: Heresy, to Faith: Schism, to Charity. To which purpose he fitly allegeth S. Hierome upon these words, (Tit. 3.) A man that is an Heretic after the first and second admonition avoid, saying: I conceive that there is this difference betwixt Schism and Heresy, that Heresy iavolues some perverse assertion: Schism for Episcopal dissension doth separate men from the Church. The same doctrine is delivered by S. Augustine in these words: Heretics (d) lib. 1. de fid. & Symb. cap. 10. and Schismatics call their Congregations, Churches: but Heretics corrupt the Faith by believing of God false things: but Schismatics by wicked divisions break from fraternal Charity, although they believe what we believe. Therefore the Heretic belongs not to the Church, because she love's God: nor the schismatic, because she love's her Neighbour. And in another place he saith It is wont to be demanded (e) Quest. Euangel ex Matt. q. 11. How Schismatics be distinguished from He retiques: and this difference is found, that not a diverse faith, but the divided Society of Communion doth make Schismatics. It is then evident that Schism is different from Heresy. Nevertheless (saith Saint Thomas (f) ubi supra as he who is deprived of faith must needs want Charity: so every Heretic is a schismatic, but not conversively every Schismatique is an Heretic; 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 shipwreck in their faith) Schism speedily degenerates to Heresy, as S. Hierome after the rehearsed words teacheth, saying: Though Schism in the beginning may in some sort be understood different from Heresy; yet there is no Schism which doth not feign some heresy to itself, that so it may seem to have departed from the Church upon good reason. Nevertheless when Schism proceeds originally from Heresy, Heresy as being in that case the predominant quality in these two peccant humours, giveth the denomination of an Heretic; as on the other side we are wont, especially in the beginning, or for a while, to call Schismatics, those men who first began with only Schism, though in process of time they fell into some Heresy, and by that means are indeed both Schismatics and Heretics. 4. The reason why both Heresy and Schism are repugnant to the being of a good Catholic, is: Because the Catholic, or Universal Church signifies One Congregation, or Company of Faithful people, and therefore implies not only Faith, to make them Faithful believers, but also Communion, or Common Union, to make them One in Charity, which excludes Separation, and Division: and therefore in the Apostles Creed, Communion of Saints is immediately joined to the Catholic Church. 5. From this definition of Schism may be inferred, that the guilt thereof is contracted, not only by division from the Universal Church; but also, by a Separation from a particular Church or Diocese which agrees with the Universal. In this manner Meletius was a schismatic, but not an Heretic, because as we read in S. Epiphanus, (h) Haeres. 68 he was of the right Faith: for his faith was not altered at any time from the holy Catholic Church etc. He made a Sect, but departed not from Faith. Yet because he made to himself a particular Congregation against S. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria his lawful Superior, and by that means brought in a division in that particular Church, we 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 ancient Churches of those who succeeded Peter, was inscribed, The Catholic 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 etc. yet the Novelty showeth that it is not the Catholic, nor a true Church. And that Schism may be committed by division from a particular Church, we read in Optatus Milevitanus (i) Lib. 1. cont. Parmen. these remarkable words, (which do well declare who be Schismatics) brought by him to prove that not Caecilianus but Parmenianus was a schismatic: For Caecilianus went not out from Maiorinus thy Grandfather (he means his next predecessor but one, in the Bishopric,) but Maiorinus from Caecilianus: neither did Caecilianus departed from the Chair of Peter, or of Cyprian (who was but a particular Bishop,) but Maiorinus, in whose Chair thou sittest which had no beginning before Maiorinus himself. it is manifestly known, that these things were so done, it evidently appeareth, that you are heirs both of traditors (that is, of those who delivered up the holy Bible to be burned) and of Schismatics. And it seemeth that this kind of Schism must principally be admitted by Protestants, who acknowledge no one visible Head of the whole Church, but hold that every particular Diocese, Church, or Country is governed by itself independantly of any one Person, or General Council, to which all Christians have obligation to submit their judgements, and wills. 6. 2. Point. As for the grievousness or quantity of Schism (which was the second point proposed) S. Thomas teacheth, that amongst sins against our Neighbour, The grievousness of Schism. Schism (l) Supra art. 2. ad 3. is the most grievous; because it is against the spiritual good of the multitude, or Community. And therefore as in a Kingdom or Commonwealth, there is as great difference between the crime of rebellion or sedition, and debates among private men, as there is inequality betwixt one man, & a whole kingdom; so in the Church, Schism is as much more grievous than Sedition in a Kingdom, as the spiritual good of souls surpasseth the civil and political weal. And S. Thomas adds further, that they lose the spiritual Power of jurisdiction; and if they go about to absolve from sins, or to excommunicate, their actions are invalid; which he proves out of the Canon Novatianus. Causa 7. quaest. 1. which saith: He that keepeth neither the Unity of spirit, nor the peace of agreement, and separates himself from the bond of the Church, and the College of Priests, can neither have the Power, nor dignity of a Bishop. The Power also of Order (for example to consecrate the Eucharist, to ordain Priests &c.) they cannot lawfully exercise. 7. In the judgement of the holy Fathers, Schism is a most grievous offence. S. Chrysostome (m) Hom. 11. in ep. ad Ephes. compares these Schismatical deviders of Christ's mystical body, to those who sacrilegiously pierced his natural 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 less than they who tore his (natural) body. For that was done to the gain of the whole world, although not with that intention: but this hath no profit at all, but there ariseth from it most great harm. These things are spoken, not only to those who bear office, but also to those who are governed by them. Behold how neither a moral good life (which conceit deceiveth many) nor authority of Magistrates, nor any necessity of Obeying Superiors can excuse Schism from being a most heinous offence. Optatus Milevitanus (o) lib. count. Parmen. calls Schism, Ingens flagitium: a huge crime. And speaking to the Donatists, saith; that Schism is evil in the highest degree, even you are not able to deny. No less pathetical is S. Augustine upon this subject. He reckons Schismatics among Pagans, Heretics, and jews, saying: Religion is to be sought, neither in the confusion of Pagans, nor (p) lib. de vera Relig. cap. 6. in the filth of Heretics, nor in the languishing of Schismatics, nor in the Age of the jews; but among those alone who are called Christian Catholics, or Orthodox, that is, lovers of Unity in the whole body, and followers of truth. Nay he esteems them worse than Infidels and Idolaters, saying: Those whom the Donatists (q) Cont. Donatist. l. 1. cap. 8. heal from the wound of Infidelity and Idolatry, they hurt more grieously with the wound of Schism. Let here those men who are pleased untruly to call us Idolaters, reflect upon themselves, and consider, that this holy Father judgeth Schismatics (as they are) to be worse than Idolaters, which they absurdly call us: and this he proveth by the example of Core, Dathan, and Abiron and other rebellious Schismatics of the Old Testament, who were conveyed alive down into Hell, and punished more openly than Idolaters. No doubt (saith this holy Father) but (r) Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 6. that was committed most wickedly, which was punished most severely. In another place he yoaketh Schism with Heresy, saying upon the Eight Beatitude: Many (s) De serm. Dom. in moute ●. 5. Heretics, under the name of Christians, deceiving men's souls, do 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 justice. But where there is not sound faith, there cannot be justice. Neither can Schismatics 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 (t) Epist. 204 the Church, and divided from the heap of Unity, and the bond of Charity, thou shouldest be punished with eternal death, though thou shouldest be burned alive for the name of Christ. And in another place, he hath these words: If he hear not the Church let him be to (v) count. adverse. leg. & prophet lib, 2. cap. 17. thee, as an Heathen or Publican; which is more grievous than if he were smitten with the sword, consumed with flames, or cast to wild beasts. And else where: Out of the Catholic Church (saith he) one (w) de gest. cum Emerit. may have Faith, Sacraments, Orders, and in sum, all things except Salvation. With S. Augustine, his Country man and second self in sympathy of spirit, S. Fulgentius agreeth, saying: Believe this (x) de fide ad Pet. steadfastly without doubting, that every Heretic, or schismatic, baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, if before the end of his life, he be not reconciled to the Catholic Church, what Alms soever he give, yea though he should shed his blood for the name of Christ, he cannot obtain Salvation. Mark again how no moral honesty of life, no good deeds, no Martyrdom, can without repentance avail any Schismatique for salvation. Let us also add that D. Potter saith, Schism is no less (y) pag. 42. damnable, than Heresy. 8. But o you Holy, Learned, Zealous Fathers, and Doctors of God's Church; out of these premises, of the grievousness of Schism, & 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 (z) Cont. Parm. lib. 2. cap. ●2. no just necessity to divide Unity. S. Ireneus concludeth: They cannot (a) count. haeres. lib. 4. c. 62. make any so important reformation, as the evil of the Schism is pernicious. S. Denis of Alexandria saith: Certainly (b) Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 6. all things should rather be endured, then to consent to the division of the Church of God: these Martyrs being no less glorious, that expose themselves to hinder the dismembering of the Church: then those that suffer rather than they will effer sacrifice to 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 thus much of the second Point. 9 1. Point. We have just and necessary occasion, eternally to bless Almighty God, who hath vouchsafed to make us members of the Catholic Roman Church, Perpetual visibility of the Church from which while men fall, they precipitate themselves into so vast absurdities, or rather sacrilegious blasphemies, as is employed in the doctrine of the total deficiency of the visible Church, which yet is maintained by diverse chief Protestants, as may at large be seen in Brereley, and others; out of whom I will here name jewel saying: The truth was unknown (c) Apolog. part. 4. cap. 4. diuis. 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 Gospel. Perkins saith: We say, that (d) In his exposition upon the Creed pag. 400. before the days of Luther for the space of many hundred years an universal Apostasy overspread the whole face of the earth, and that our (Protestant) Church was not then visible, to the world. Napier upon the Revelations teacheth, that from the year of (e) Propost 37. pag. 68 Christ three hundred and sixteen, the Antichristian and papistical reign hath begun, reigning universally, and without any debatable contradiction one thousand two hundred sixty years (that is, till Luther's time:) And that, from the year of (f) Ibid. in cap. 12. pag. 161. col. 3. Christ three bundred and sixteen, God hath withdrawn his visible Church from open Assemblies, to the hearts of particular godly men etc. during the space of one thousand two hundred threescore years: And that, the (g) Ibid. in cap. 11. pag 145. Pope and Clergy have possessed the outward visible Church of Christians, even one thousand two hundred threescore years. And that, the (h) Ibid. pag. 191. true Church abode latent, and invisible. And Brocard (i) fol. 110. & 123. upon the Revelations, professeth to join in opinion with Napier. Fulke affirmeth, that in the (k) Answer to a counterfeit Cath. pag. 16. time of Boniface the third, which was the year 607. the Church was invisible, and fled into the wilernes, there to remain a long season. Luther saith: Primò solus eram: At the first (l) In praefat. operum suorum. I was alone. jacob Hailbronerus one of the Disputants for the Protestant party in the Conference at Ratisbone, affirmeth (m) In suo Acacatholico volume. a. 15. cap. 9 p. 479. that the true Church was interrupted by Apostasy from the true Faith. Caluin saith: It is absurd in the very (n) Ep. 141. beginning to break one from another, after we have been forced to make a separation from the whole world. It were overlong to allege the words of joannes 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 acknowledge the Roman Church to be Christ's true Church, & yet being convinced by all manner of evidence, for that diverse Ages before Luther there was no other Congregation of Christians, which could be the Church of Christ; there was no remedy but to affirm, that upon earth Christ had no visible Church: which they would never have avouched, if they had known how to avoid the foresaid inconvenience (as they apprehended it) of submitting themselves to the Roman Church. 10. Against these exterminating spirits, D. Potter, and other more moderate Protestants, profess, that Christ always had, and always will have upon earth a visible Church: othertherwise (saith he) our Lords (o) pag. 154 promise of her stable (p) Matt. 16 1ST edification should be of no value. And in another place, having affirmed that Protestants have not left the Church of Rome, but her corruptions, and acknowledging her still to be a member of Christ's body, he seeketh to clear himself and others from Schism, because (saith he) the property (q) pag. 76. of Schism is (witness the Donatists and Luciferians) to cut off from the Body of Christ, & the hope of salvation, the Church from which it separates. And if any Zelotes amongst us have proceeded to he avier censures, their zeal may be excused, but their Charity and wisdom cannot be justified. And elsewhere he acknowledgeth, that the Roman Church hath those main, and (r) Pag. 83. essential truths, which give her the name and essence of a Church. 11. It being therefore granted by D. Potter, and the chiefest and best learned English Protestants, that Christ's visible Church cannot perish, it will be needles for me in this occasion to prove it. S. Augustine doubted not to say: The Prophets (s) In Psalm. 30. Com. 2. spoke more obscurely of Christ, then of the Church: because, as I think, 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 & more openly prophesied about which greater contentions were to rise, that it might turn to the condemnation of them, who have seen it, and yet gone forth. And in another place he saith: How do we confide (t) epist. 48. to have received manifestly Christ himself from holy Scriptures, if we have also manifestly received the Church from them? And indeed to what Congregation shall a man have recourse for the affairs of his soul, if upon earth there be no visible Church of Christ? Besides, to imagine a company of men believing one thing in their hart, and with their mouth professing the contrary, (as they must be supposed to do; for if they had professed what they believed, they would have become visible) is to dream of a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants, but not to conceive a right notion of the Church of Christ our Lord. And therefore S. Augustine saith: We cannot be saved, unless labouring also for the (u) S. Aug. de fide & Symbolo c. 1. salvation of others, we profess with our mouths, the same faith which we bear in our hearts. And if any man hold it lawful to dissemble, & deny matters of faith, we cannot be assured, but that they actually dissemble, and hide Anabaptisme, Arianisme, yea Turkism, & even Atheism, or any other false belief, under the outward profession of Caluinisme. Do not Protestants teach that, preaching of the word, and administration of Sacraments (which cannot but make a Church visible) are inseparable notes of the true Church? And therefore they must either grant a visible Church, or none at all. No wonder then if S. Augustine account this Heresy so gross, that he saith against those who in his time defended the like error: But this Church which (w) In Psal. 101. hath been of all Nations is no more, she hath perished; so say they that are not in her. O impudent speech! And afterward. This voice so abominable, so detestable, so full of presumption and falsehood, which is sustained with no truth, enlightened with no wisdom, seasoned with no salt, vain, rash, heady, pernicious, the Holy Ghost fore saw etc. And, Peradventure some (x) De ovib. cap. 1. one may say, there are other Sheep I know not where, with which I am not acquainted, yet God hath care of them. But he is too absurd in humane sense, that can imagine such things. And these men do not consider, that while they deny the perpetuity of a visible Church, they destroy their own present Church, according to the argument which S. Augustine urged against the Donatists in these words: (y) De Bapt. cont. Donat. If the Church were lost in Cyprians (we may say in Gregory's) time, from whence did Donatus (Luther) appear? 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 vaunt (z) Lib. 3. cont. Parm. to have any Church. if she have ceased ever since those times? And all Divines by defining Schism to be a division from the true Church, suppose, that there must be a known Church, from which it is possible for men departed. But enough of this in these few words. 12. Let us now come to the fourth, 4. Point. and chiefest Point, which was, to examine whether Luther, Caluin, Luther and all that follow him are Schismatics. and the rest did not departed from the external Communion of Christ's visible Church, and by that separation became guilty of Schism. And that they are properly Schismatics clearly followeth from the grounds which we have laid, concerning the nature of Schism, which consists in leaving the external Cummunion of the visible Church of Christ our Lord: and it is clear by evidence of fact, that Luther and his followers forsook the Communion of that Ancient Church. For they did not so much as pretend to join with any Congregation which had a being before their time; for they would needs conceive that no visible Company was free from errors in doctrine, and corruption in practice: And therefore they opposed the doctrine; they withdrew their obedience from the Prelates; they left participation in Sacraments; they changed the Liturgy of public service of whatsoever Church then extant. And these things they pretended to do out of a persuasion, that they were bound (forsooth) in conscience so to do, unless they would participate with errors, corruptions, & superstitions. We dare not (saith D. Potter) communicate (a) pag. 68 with Rome either in her public Liturgy, which is manifestly polluted with gross superstition etc. or in those corrupt and ungrounded opinions, which she hath added to the Faith of Catholics. But now let D. Potter tell me with what visible Church extant before Luther, he would have adventured to communicate in her public Liturgy and Doctrine, since he durst not communicate with Rome? He will not be able to assign 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, which soever it was, whether that of Rome, or any other; of which Point I do not for the present dispute. Yea this the Lutherans do not only acknowledge, but prove, and brag of If (saith a learned Lutheran) there had been right (b) Georgius Minus in Augustan. Confess. art. 7. de Eccles. pag. 137. believers 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 (c) Benedict. Morgenstern. 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 impudence to say, that many learned men (d) Conrade. Schlusselb. in Theolog. Caluinist. lib. 2. Jol. 130. in Gormany before Luther, did hold the Doctrine of the Gospel. And I add: That far greater impudence, it were to affirm that Germany did not agree with the rest of Europe, and other Christian Catholic Nations, and consequently, that it is the greatest impudence to deny, that he departed from the Communion of the visible Catholic Church, spread over the whole world. We have heard Caluin saying of Protestants in general; We were, even, forced (e) Ep. 141. to make a separation from the whole world. And, Luther of himself in particular: In the beginning (f) In praefar. operum suorum. I was alone. Ergo (say I, by your good leave) you were at least a schismatic, divided from the Ancient Church, and a member of no new Church. For no sole man can constitute a Church; & though he could, yet such a Church could not be that glorious company, of whose number, greatness, and amplitude, so much hath been spoken both in the old Testament, & in the New. 13. D. Potter endeavours to avoid this evident Argument by diverse evasions; but by the confutation thereof I will (with God's holy assistance) take occasion, even out of his own Answers and grounds, to bring unanswerable reasons to convince them of Schism. 14. His chief Answer is: That they have not left the Church, but her Corruptions. 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 calm Protestants, who affirm that those errors did not destroy the being, but only deform 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 (g) Lib. 2. cont. epist. Gaudent. c. ●. Church at that time when you say she entertained those who were guilty of all crimes, by the contagion of those sinful persons, perished, or perished not? Answer; whether the Church perished, or perished not? Make choice of what you think. If then she perished, what Church brought forth Donatus? (we may say Luther.) But if she could not perish, because so many were incorporated into her (without Baptism (that is, without a second baptism, or rebaptisation, & I may say, without Luther's reformation) answer me I pray you, what madness did move the Sect of Donatus to separate themselves from her upon pretence to avoid the Communion of bad men? I beseech the Reader to ponder every one of S. Augustine words: & to consider whether anything could have been spoken more directly against Luther, & his followers of what sort soever. 16. And now to answer more in particular; I say to those who teach, that the visible Church of Christ perished for many Ages, that I can easily afford them the courtesy, to free them from mere Schism: but all men touched with any spark of zeal to vindicate the wisdom, and Goodness of our Saviour from blasphemous injury, cannot choose but believe and proclaim them to be superlative Arch-heretiques. Nevertheless, if they will needs have the honour of Singularity, and desire to be both formal Heretics, & properly Schismatics, I will tell them, that while they dream of an invisible Church of men, which agreed with them in Faith, they will upon due reflection find themselves to be Schismatics, from those corporeal Angels, or invisible men, because they held external Communion with the visible Church of those times, the outward Communion of which visible Church these modern hotspurs forsaking, were thereby divided from the outward Communion of their hidden Brethren, & so are Separatists from the external Communion of them, with whom they agree in faith, which is Schism in the most formal, and proper signification thereof. Moreover according to D. Potter, these boisterous Creatures are properly Schismatics For, the reason why he thinks himself, and such as he is, to be cleared from Schism, notwithstanding their division from the Roman Church, is because (according to his Divinity) the property of (h) Pag. 76. Schism, is (witness the Donatists and Luciferians) to cut off from the Body of Christ, and the hope of Salvation, the Church from which it separats: But those Protestants of whom we now speak, cut of from the Body of Christ, and the hope of Salvation, the Church from which they separated themselves; and they do it directly as the Donatists (in whom you exemplify) did by affirming that the true Church had perished: and therefore they cannot be cleared from Schism, if you may be their judge Consider, I pray you, how many prime Protestants both domestical and foreign, you have at one blow struck off from hope of Salvation, and condemned to the lowest pit, for the grievous sin of Schism. And withal it imports you to consider, that you also involve yourself, and other moderate Protestants in the self same crime and punishment, while you communicate with those, who, according to your own principles, are properly, and formally Schismatics. For if you held yourself obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church, by reason of her Errors and Corruptions, which yet you confess were not fundamental; shall it not be much more damnable for you, to live in Communion and Confraternity, with those who defend an error of the failing of the Church, which in the Donatists you confess (i) pag. 12●. to have been properly heretical against the Article of our Creed; I believe the Church? And I desire the Reader, here to apply an authority of S. Cyprian (ep. 76.) which he shall find alleged in the next number. And this may suffice for confutation of the aforesaid Answer, as it might have relation to the rigid Caluinists. 17. For Confutation of those Protestants, who hold that the Church of Christ had always a being, and cannot err in points fundamental, and yet teach, that she may err in matters of less moment, wherein if they forsake her, they would be accounted not to leave the Church, but only her corruptions; I must say, that they change the state of our present Question, not distinguishing between internal Faith, and external Communion, nor between Schism, and Heresy. This I demonstrate out of D. Potter himself, who in express words teacheth, that the promises which our Lord hath made (k) pa. 151. unto his Church for his assistance, are intended, not to any particular Persons or Churches, but only to the Church Catholic: and they are to be extended not to every parcel, or particularity of truth, but only to points of Faith, or fundamental. And afterwards speaking of the Universal Church, he saith: It's comfort (l) pag. 155. enough for the Church, that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers, and conserve her on earth against all enemies; but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error, till she be in heau●n. Out of which words I observe, that, according to D. Potter, the self same Church, which is the Universal Church, remaining the universal 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 external communion with the Catholic Church; since the Church Catholic, and the Church so corrupted is the self same one Church, or company of men. And the contrary imagination talks in a dream, as if the errors and infections of the Catholic 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 themselves. For men cannot be said to live, in, or out of the Communion of any dead creature, but with Persons, endued with life and reason; and much less 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 herself, seeing the corruptions of the Church were inherent in the Church. All this is made more clear, if we consider, that when Luther appeared, there were not two distinct visible true Catholic Churches, holding contrary Doctrines, and divided in external Communion; one of the which two Churches did triumph over all error, and corruption in doctrine and practice; but the other was stained with both. For to feign this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of histories, which are silent of any such matter. It is against D. Potter's own grounds, that the Church may err in points not fundamental, which were not true, if you will imagine a certain visible Catholic Church free from error even in points not fundamental. It contradicteth the words in which he said, the Church may not hope to triumph over all error, till she be in heaven. It evacuateth the brag of Protestants, that Luther reform the whole Church: and lastly it maketh Luther a schismatic, 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 Schism. We must therefore truly affirm, that since there was but one visible Church of Christ, which was truly Catholic, and yet was (according to Protestants) stained with corruption; when Luther left the external Communion of that corrupted Church, he could not remain in the Communion of the Catholic Church, no more than it is possible to keep company with Christopher Potter, and not keep company with the Provost of Queen's College in Oxford, if D. Potter and the Provost be one, and the self same man: For so one should be, and not be with him at the same time. This very argument drawn from the Unity of God's Church, S. Cyprian v rgeth to convince, that Novatianus was cut off from the Church in these words: The Church is (m) Epist. 16. ad Mag. One, which being One cannot be both within and without. If she be with Novatianus, she was not with Cornelius. But if she were with cornelius, who succeeded Fabianus, by lawful ordination, Novatianus is not in the Church. I purposely here speak only of external Communion with the Catholic Church. For in this point there is great difference between internal acts of our Understanding, and will; and of external deeds. Our Understanding 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 conjoined. But real external deeds do take things in gross as they find them, not separating things which in reality are joined together. Thus, one may consider and love a sinner as he is a man, friend, benefactor, or the like; and at the same time not consider him, nor love him as he is a sinner; because these are acts of our Understanding and Will, which may respect their objects under some one formality, or consideration, without reference to other things contained in the self same objects. But if one should strike, or kill a sinful man, he will not be excused, by alleging, that he killed him, not as a man, but as a sinner; because the self same person being a man, and the sinner, the external act of murder fell jointly upon the man, & 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, and many of them affectedly, mistaken. For one may in some points believe as the Church believeth, and disagree from her in other. One may love the truth which she holds, and detest her (pretended) corruptions. But it is impossible that a man should really separate himself from her external Communion, as she is corrupted, and be really within the same external Communion as she is sound; because she is the self same Church which is supposed to be sound in some things, and to err in others. Now, our question for the present doth concern only this point of external Communion: because Schism, as it is distinguished from Heresy is committed when one divides himself from the Externall Communion of that Church with which he agrees in Faith; Whereas Heresy doth necessarily imply a difference in matter of Faith, and belief: and therefore to say, that they left not the visible Church, but her errors, can only excuse them from Heresy (which shall be tried in the next Chapter) but not from Schism, as long as they are really druided from the Externall Communion of the self same visible Church; which, notwithstanding those errors wherein they do in judgement descent from her, doth still remain the true Catholic Church of Christ; and therefore while they forsake the corrupted Church, they forsake the Catholic Church. Thus than it remaineth clear, that their chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the Question; confoundeth internal acts of the Understanding with external Deeds; doth not distinguish between Schism and Heresy; and leaves this demonstrated against them: That they divided themselves from the Communion of the visible Catholic Church, because they conceived that she needed Reformation. But whether this pretence of Reformation will acquit them of Schism, I refer to the unpartial judges, heretofore (n) Num. 8. alleged; as to S. Irenaeus who plainly saith: They cannot make any so important REFORMATION, as the Evil of the Schism is pernicious. To S. Denis of Alexandria, saying: Certainly all things should be endured rather than to consent to the division of the Church of God: those Martyrs being no less glorious that expose themselves to hinder the dismembering of the Church, than those that suffer rather than they will offer sacrifice to Idols. To S. Augustine, who tells us: That not to hear the Church, is a more grievous thing then if he were stricken with the sword, consumed with flames, exposed to wild beasts. And to conclude all in few words, he giveth this general prescription: There is no just necessity, to divide Unity. And D. Potter may remember his own words: There neither was (s) pag. 75. nor can be any just cause to departed from the Church of Christ; no more than from Christ himself. But I have showed 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 do as they did; and therefore they must be contented to be held for Schismatics. 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 yields no sufficient cause to leave the Church, otherwise men must go not only out of the Church, but out of the world, as the Apostle (t) 1. Cor. 5.10. saith. Our blessed Saviour foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choice corn, & sinners with just men. If then Protestants wax zealous, with the Servants to pluck up the weeds, let them first hearken to the wisdom of the Master: Let both grow up. And they ought to imitate them, who as S. Augustine saith: tolerate for the (u) Ep. 162. good of Unity, that which they detest for the good of equity. And to whom the more frequent, and foul such scandals are; by so much the more is the merit of their perseverance in the Communion of the Church, and the Martyrdom of their patience, as the same Saint calls it. If they were offended with the life of some Ecclesiastical persons, must they therefore deny obedience to their Pastors, and finally break with God's Church? The Pastor of Pastors, teacheth us another lesson: Upon the Chair of Moses (w) Mat. 33. have sitten the Scribes & Pharises. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe ye, & do ye: but according to their works do ye not. Must people except against laws, and revolt from Magistrates, because some are negligent, or corrupt in the execution of the same laws, 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 austerity of penance, condemning the vows of Chastity, poverty, obedience, breaking fasts, etc. And no less unfit were the Men, than the Means. I love not recrimination. But it is well known to how great crimes, Luther, Caluin, Zwinglius, Beza., and other of the prime Reformers were notorioussy obnoxious; as might be easily demonstrated by the only transcribing of what others have delivered upon that subject; whereby it would appear, that they were very fare from being any such Apostolical men as God is wont to use in so great a work. And whereas they were wont, especially in the beginning of their revolt, maliciously to exaggerate the faults of some Clergy men, Erasmus said well (Epist ad fratres inferioris Germaniae,) Let the riot, lust, ambition, avarice of Priests, and whatsoever other crimes be gathered together, Heresy alone doth exceed all this filthy lake of vices. Besides, nothing at all was omitted by the sacred Council of Trent which might tend to reformation of manners. And finally the vices of others are not hurtful to any but such as imitate, and consent to them; according to the saying of S. Augustine: We conserve (y) De unit, Eccles. c. 2● innocency, not by knowing the ill deeds of men, but by not yielding 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 yield sufficient cause to leave the Church; I reply with S. Augustine; That the Church doth (as the pretended Reformers ought to have done) tolerate or bear with scandals and corruptions, but neither doth, nor can approve them. The Church (saith he) being placed (z) Ep. 116. betwixt much chaff and cockle, doth bear with many things; but doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor act those things which are against faith, and good life. But because to approve corruption in manners as lawful, were an error 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 departed from that visible Church, which was extant when Luther rose, I demonstrate out of D. Potter's own confession; that the Catholic Church neither hath, nor can err in points fundamental, as we shown out of his own express words, which he also of set purpose delivereth in diverse other places; and all they are obliged to maintain the same who teach that Christ had always a visible Church upon earth: because any one fundamental error overthrows 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 err 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 fundamental Article of Faith, the belief thereof cannot be damnable. But D. Potter teacheth, that the Catholic Church cannot, and that the Roman Church hath not erred against any fundamental Article of Faith Therefore, it cannot be damnable to remain in her Communion; and so the pretended corruptions in her doctrine could not induce any obligation to departed from her Communion, nor could excuse them from Schism, who upon pretence of necessity in point of conscience, forsook her. And D. Potter will never be able to salve a manifest contradiction in these his words: To departed from the Church (a) Pag. 75. of Rome in some Doctrine, and practices, there might be necessary cause, though she wanted nothing necessary to salvation. For if, notwithstanding these doctrines and practices, she wanted nothing necessary to salvation; how could it be necessary to salvation to forsake her? And therefore we must still con clude that to forsake her, was properly an act of Schism. 20. From the self same ground of the infallibility of the Church in all fundamental 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 belief, she performeth the duty which she oweth 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 do. But (even according to D Potters Assertions) the Church performeth all these things, as long as she erreth not in points fundamental, although she were supposed to err in other points not fundamental. 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 Mayor, or first Proposition of itself is evident. The Minor, or second Proposition doth necessarily fellow out of D. Potter's own doctrine above rehearsed, That, the promises of our Lord made to his Church for his assistance, are to be (b) Pag. 151. extended only to points of Faith, or fundamental: (Let me note here by the way that by his (Or,) he seems to exclude from Faith all points which are not fundamental, & so we may deny innumerable Texts of Scripture:) That, It is (c) pag. 155. comfort enough for the Church, that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers etc. but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error, till she be in heaven. For it is evident, that the Church (for as much as concerns the truth of her doctrines and belief) 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 do more than God doth assist her to do; which assistance is promised only for points fundamental; and consequently as long as she teacheth no fundamental 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: (d) pag. 221. May the Church of after. Ages make the narrow way to heaven, narrowier then our Saviour left it & c? since he himself obligeth men under pain of damnation to forsake the Church, by reason of errors against which our Saviour thought it needles to promise his assistance, and for which he neither denieth his grace in this life, or glory in the next. Will D. Potter oblige the Church to do more than she may even hope for? or to perform on earth that which is proper to heaven alone? 21. And as from your own doctrine concerning the infallibility of the Church in fundamental points, we have proved that it was a grievous sin to forsake her: so do we take a strong argument from the fallibility of any who dare pretend to reform the Church, which any man in his wits will believe to be endued with at last as much infallibility as private men can challenge: and D. Potter expressly affirmeth that Christ's promises of his assistance are not intended (e) Pag. 1●1. to any particular persons or Churches: and therefore to leave the Church by reason of errors, was at the best hand but to flit from one erring company to another, without any new hope of triumphing over errors, and without necessity, or utility to forsake that Communion of which S. Augustine saith, There is (f) Ep. con●. Parmen. lth. 2. çap. 11. no just necessity to divide Unity. 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 add a new increase of errors, arising from the innumerable disagreements of Sectaries, which must needs bring with it a mighty mass of falsehoods, because the truth is but one, & 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 err in points fundamental, in which any private Reformer may fail: 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 yourself affirms (Pag. 69.) where speaking of our Church and yours, you say: All the difference is from the weeds, which remain there, and beer 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 fundamental, as like wise those in the Roman Church are confessed to be not fundamental. What man of judgement willbe a Protestant, since that Church is confessedly a corrupt One? 22. I still proceed to impugn you expressly upon your grounds. You say: that it is comfort enough for the Church, that the Lord in merey will secure her from all capital dangers: but she may not hope to triumph over all sin, and error till she be in heaven. Now if it be comfort enough to be secured from all capital dangers, which can arise only from error in fundamental points: why were not your first Reformers content with Enough, but would needs dismember the Church, out of a pernicious greediness of more then Enough? For, this Enough, which according to you is attained by not erring in points not fundamental, was enjoyed before Luther's reformation, unless you will now against yourself affirm, that long before Luther there was no Church free from error in fundamental points. Moreover if (as you say) no Church may hope to triumph over all error till she be in heau●n; You must either grant that errors not fundamental cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the Church, or else you must affirm that all Communities may, & aught to be forsaken, & so there willbe no end of Schisms: or rather indeed there can be no such thing as Schism, because according to you, all Communities are subject to errors not fundamental, for which if they may be lawfully forsaken, it followeth clearly that it is not Schism to forsake them. Lastly, since it is not lawful 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 oner all sin and error; You must grant, that as she ought not to be left by reason of sin; so neither by reason of errors not fundamental, because both sin, & error are (according to you) impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven. 23. Furthermore, I ask whether it be the Quantity or Number; or Quality, and Greatness of doctrinal errors that may yield sufficient cause to relinquish the Church's Communion? I prove that neither. Not the Quality, which is supposed to be beneath the degree of points fundamental, or necessary to salvation. Not the Quantity or Number: For the foundation is strong enough to support all such unnecessary additions, as you term them. And if they once weighed so heavy as to overthrew the foundation, they should grow to fundamental errors, into which yourself teach the Church cannot fall. Hay and stubble (say you) and such (g) pag. 153. unprofitable stuff, laid on the roof, destroys not the house, whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation. And tell us, I pray you, the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated? I know you cannot do 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 seven times, that is, without limitation of quantity of time, or quality of trespasses; and why then dare you allege his command, that you must not pardon his Church for errors, acknowledged to be not fundamental? What excuse can you feign to yourselves, who for points not necessary to salvation, have been occasions, causes, and authors of so many mischiefs, as could not but unaucydably accompany so huge a breach in kingdoms, in Common wealths, in private persons, in public Magistrates, in body, in soul, in goods, in lise, in Church, in the state, by Schisms, by rebellions, by war, by famine, by plague, by bloodshed, by all sorts of imaginable calamities upon the whole face of the Earth, wherein as in a map of Desolation, the heaviness of your crime appears, 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 sin. For by this devise you sow seeds of endless Schisms, & put into the mouth of all Separatists, a ready answer how to avoid the note of Schism from your Protestant Church of England, or from any other Church whatsoever. They will, I say, answer, as you do prompt, that your Church may be forsaken, if she fall into errors, though they be not fundamental: 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 like wise prove, that for Errors not fundamental, the Church ought not to be forsaken. There neither was (saith he) nor can be (h) Pag. 5. any just cause to departed from the Church of Christ, no more then from Christ himself. To departed from a particular Church, & namely from the Church of Rome, in some doctrines and practices, there might be just and necessary cause, though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation. Mark his doctrine, that there can be no just cause to departed from the Church of Christ: and yet he teacheth that the Church of Christ may err in points not fundamental; Therefore (say I) we cannot forsake the Roman Church for points not fundamental, for than we might also forsake the Church of Christ, which yourself deny: and I pray you consider whether you do not plainly contradict yourself, while in the words above recited, you say there can be no just cause to forsake the Catholic Church; and yet that there may be necessary cause to departed from the Church of Rome, since you grant that the Church of Christ may err in points not fundamental; & 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 Schism, 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) clears us from (i) pag. 76. the imputation of Schism, whose property it is, to cut of from the Body of Christ, and the hope of salvation, the Church from which it separates. 27. This is an Answer 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 Schism: 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 judged, that she retained all means necessary to salvation. I say, because they so judged. For the very reason for which he acquitteth himself, and condemneth those others as Schismatics, is because he holdeth that the Church which both of them forsook, is not cut of from the Body of Christ, and the hope of salvation; whereas those other Zealots deny her to be a member of Christ's Body, or capable of salvation, wherein alone they disagree from D. Potter: for in the effect of separation they agree, only they do it upon a different motive or reason. Were it not a strange excuse if a man would think to cloak his rebellion, by alleging that he held the person against whom he rebelled to be his lawful Soveraygne? And D. Potter thinks himself free from Schism, 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 means to Salvation. But I will no further urge this most solemn foppery, and do much more willingly put all Catholics in mind, what an unspeakable comfort it is, that out Adversaries are forced to confess, that they cannot clear themselves from Schism, otherwise then by acknowledging that they do not, nor cannot cut off from the Hope of salvation our Church. Which is as much as if they should in plain terms say: They must be damned, unless we may be saved. Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemn your zealous Brethren of Heresy, for denying the Church's perpetuity, but doth not clear yourself from Schism, which consists in being divided from that true Church, with which a man agreeth in all points of faith, as you must profess yourself to agree with the Church of Rome in all fundamental Articles. For other wise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation, and so condemn yourself of Schism. And lastly even according to the your own definition of Schism, you cannot clear yourself from that crime, unless you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own Assertions. For if you do 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 (k) pag. 20. damnable? That to departed from the Church of Rome, there might be just and necessary (l) pag. 75. cause? That, they that have the understanding and means to discover their error, and neglect to use them (m) 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 Schism, to cut off from the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates: how will you clear yourself from Schism, who dare not flatter us with so easy a censure? and who affirm that a reconciliation with us is damnable? But the truth is, there is no constancy in your Assertions, by reason of difficulties which press you on all sides. For, you are loath to affirm clearly that we may be saved, lest 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 you affirm that our Church erred in points fundamental, or necessary to salvation, you know not how, nor where, nor among what Company of men, to find a perpetual visible Church of Christ before Luther: And the fore your best shift is to say, and unsay as your occasions command. I do not examine your Assertion that it is the property of Schism to cut of 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 formal and proper Heretics, and not Schismatics, as Schism is a vice distinct from Heresy. Besides, although the Donatists, & Luciferians (whom you also allege) had been mere Schismatics, yet it were against all good Logic, from a particular to infer a general Rule, to determine what is the property of Schism. 28. A third devise I find in D. Potier to clear his Brethren from Schism. There is (saith he) great difference between (n) Pag. 75. a Schism from them, and a Reformation of ourselves. 29. This I confess is a acquaint subtlety, by which all Schism, and Sin may be as well excused. For what devil incarnate could merely pretend a separation, and not rather some other motive of virtue, truth, profit, or pleasure? But now since their pretended Reformation consisted, as they gave out, in forsaking the corruptions of the Church, the Reformation of themselues, and their division from us, falls out to be one, and the self same thing. Nay, we see that although they infinitely disagree in the particulars of their reformation, yet they symbolise, and consent in the general point of forsaking our pretended corruptions: An evident sign, that the thing, upon which their thoughts first pitched, was not any particular Model, or Idea of Religion, but a settled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome. Wherefore this Metaphysical speculation, that they intended only to reform themselves, cannot possibly excuse them from Schism, unless first they be able to prove, that they were obliged to departed from us. Yet for as much as concerns the fact itself; it is clear, that Luther's revolt did not proceed from any zeal of Reformation: The motives which put him upon so wretched, and unfortunate a work, were Covetousness, 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 witness, that he fell into these troubles casually, and (o) 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 (p) Act. Ex mon. p. 404. happen. And he began to preach (against Indulgences) when he knew not what (q) Steidan lib. 16. fol. 232. the matter meant. For (saith he) I scarcely understood (r) Sleid. lib. 13. fol. 177. then what the name of Indulgences meant. In so much as afterwards Luther did much mislike of his own undertaken course, oftentimes (saith he) wishing (s) Luth. in colloq. mensal. that I had never begun that business. And Fox saith: It is apparent that (t) Act. mon. pag. 404. Luther promised Cardinal Caietan to keep silence, provided also his adversaries would do the like. M. Cowper reporteth further, that Luther by his letter submitted (u) Cowp. in his Chronicle. himself to the Pope, so that he might not be compelled to recant. With much more, which may be seen in (w) Tract. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 11. subd. 2. Brereley. But this is sufficient to show, that Luther was far enough from intending any Reformation. And if he judged a Reformation to be necessary, what a huge wickedness was it in him, to promise silence if his adversaries would do 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 from damnable. Schism? And this is the true manner of Luther's revolt, taken from his own acknowledgements, and the words of the more ancient Protestants themselves, whereby D. Potter's faltering, & mincing the matter is clearly discovered, and confuted. Upon what motives our Country was divided from the Roman Church by king Henry the Eight, and how the Schism was continued by Queen Elizabeth, I have no hart to rip up. The world knoweth, it was not upon any zeal of Reformation. 30. But you will prove your former evasion by a couple of similitudes: If a Monastery (x) pag. 81.80. should reform itself, and should reduce into practice, ancient good discipline, when others would not; in this case could it in reason be charged with Schism from others, or with Apostasy 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 truly accused for making a Schism from the Church, seeing all they did was to reform themselves. 31. I was very glad to find you in a Monastery, but sorry when I perceived that you were inventing ways how to forsake your Vocation, and to maintain the lawfulness of Schism from the Church, and Apostasy from a Religious Order. Yet before you make your final resolution hear a word of advice. Put case; That a Monastery did confessedly observe their substantial vows, and all principal Statutes, or Constitutions of the Order, though with some neglect of lesser Monastical Observances: And that a Reformation were undertaken, not by authority of lawful Superiors, but by some One, or very few in comparison of the rest: And those few known 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 busy-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 soon 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 than they did, or could do in their Monastery, which we suppose to be secured from all substantial corruptions, for the avoiding 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 reform itself etc. and tell me, if you could excuse such Reformers from Schism, Sedition, Rebellion, Apostasy, & c? What would you say of such Reformers in your College? or tumultuous persons in a kingdom? Remember now your own Tenets, and then reflect how fit a similitude you have picked out, to prove yourself a Schismatique. You teach that the Church may err in points not fundamental, but that for all fundamental points she is secured from error: You teach that no particular person, or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamental: You, and the whole world can witness that when Luther began, he being but only One, opposed himself to All, as well subjects as superiors; 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 confess the Antiquity of our doctrine and practice, and do in several, and many Controversies, acknowledge that the Ancient Fathers stood on our side: Consider I say these points, and see whether your similitude do not condemn your Progenitors of Schism from God's visible Church, yea and of Apostasy also from their Religious Orders, if they were vowed Regulars, as Luther, and diverse of them were. 32. From the Monastery you are fled into an Hospital of persons universally 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, than those for which you left them. But you are also upon the point to abandon these miserable needy persons, in whose behalf for Charity's sake, let me set before you these considerations. If the disease neither were, nor could be mortal, 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 eat poison 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 sencelenesse be excused by saying, that he sought to free himself from the common disease, but not forsooth to separate from the society? Now yourself compare the Church to a man deformed with (y) pag. 155. superfluous fingers and toes, but yet who hath not lost any vital part: you acknowledge that out of her society no man is secured from damnable error, and the world can bear witness what unspeakable mischiefs and calamities ensued Luther's revolt from the Church. Pronounce then concerning them, the same sentence which even now I have showed them to deserve who in the manner aforesaid should separate from persons universally infected with some disease. 33. But alas, to what pass hath Heresy brought men, who term themselues Christians, & yet blush not to compare the beloved Spouse of our Lord, the one Dove, the purchase of our Saviour's most precious blood, the holy Catholic 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 Giant in Gath much deformed with superfluous singers and toes; to a society of men universally infected with some disease? And yet all these comparisons, & much worse, are neither injurious, nor undeserved, if once it be granted, or can be proved, that the visible Church of Christ may err in any one point of Faith, although not fundamental. 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 Schismatics, 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 sin in leaving her. And you speak very strangely when you say: In a Society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselues from the Common disease, could not be therefore said to separate from the Society. For if they do not separate themselves from the Society of the infected persons; how do they free themselves & departed from the common disease? Do they at the same time remain in the company, and yet departed 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 own persons from the common disease, yet so, that they remain still in the Company infected, subject to the Superiors and Governors thereof, eating & drinking & keeping public 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 reform as they were: and if it refused, they did, when they had forces, drive them away, even their Superiors both spiritual and temporal, as is notorious. Or if they had not power to expel 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 external Communion, and Company of the Catholic Church, for which as yourself (z) Pag. 75. confess, There neither was nor can be any just cause, no more then to departed from Christ himself. We do therefore infer, that Luther and the rest who forsook that visible Church which they found upon earth, were truly, and properly Schismatics. 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 herself from him, before whose time she was, & in comparison of whom she was a Whole, and he but a part: therefore we must say, that he divided himself & went out of her; which is to be a schismatic, or Heretic, or both. By this argument, Optatus Melivitanus proveth, that not Caecilianus, but Parmenianus was a schismatic, saying: For, Caecilianus went (a) Lib. 1. cont. Parm. not out of Maiorinus thy Grandfather, but Maiorinus from Caecilianus: neither did Caecilianus departed from the Chair of Peter, or Cyprian, but Maiorinus, in whose Chair thou sittest, which had no beginning before Maiorinus. Since it manifestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manuer, it is clear that you are heirs both of the deliverers up (of the holy Bible to be burned) and also of Schismatics. 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 go out to be schismatic; but not those from whom they depart: That to forsake the Chair of Peter is Schism; yea, that it is Schism to erect a Chair which had no origen, or as it were predecessor, before itself: That to continue in a division begun by others, is to be Heirs of Schismatics: and lastly; that to departed from the Communion of a particular Church (as that of S. Cyprian was) is sufficient to make a man incur the guilt of Schism, and consequently, that although Protestants, who deny the Pope to be supreme Head of the Church, do think by that Heresy to clear Luther from Schism, in disobeying the Pope: Yet that will not serve to free him from Schism, as it importeth a division from the obedience, or Communion of the particular Bishop, Diocese, Church, & Country, where he lived. 36. But it is not the heresy of Protestants, or any other Sectaries, that can deprive S. Peter, and his Successors, 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 diverse most ancient holy Fathers is reproved by them, as may be seen at large in Brereley (b) Tract. 1. Sect. 3. subd. 10. exactly citing the places of such chief Protestants. And we must say with S. Cyprian: Heresies (c) Epist. 55. have sprung, and Schisms been bred from no other cause then for that the Priest of God is not obeyed, nor one Priest and judge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God. Which words do plainly condemn Luther, whether he will understand them as spoken of the Universal, or of every particular Church. For he withdrew himself both from the obedience of the Pope, and of all particular Bishops, and Churches. And no less clear is the said Optatus Melivitanus, saying: Thou caused not deny (d) Lib 2. cont. Parm. but that thou knowest, that in the City of Rome, there was first an Episcopal Chair placed for Peter, wherein Peter the head of all the Apost es sat, whereof also he was called Cephas; in which one Chair, Unity was to be kept by all, lest the other Apostles might attribute to themselves, each one his particular Chair; and that he should be a schismatic and sinner, who against that one single Chair should erect another. Many other Authorities of Fathers might be alleged 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 Schismatics, without examining (for as much as belongs to this point) whether or no the Church can err 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 (e) 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 err in any one point of doctrine, nor can approve any corruption in manners; they cannot with any colour avoid the just imputation of eminent Schism, according to the verdict of the same holy Father in these words: The most manifest (f) De Bapt. Lib. 5. ç. 1. sacrilege of Schism is eminent, when there was no cause of separation. 38. Lastly, I prove that Protestants cannot avoid the note of Schism, at least by reason of their mutual 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 Caluinists, 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 themselves from him, must be reputed Schismatics: & the like argument may proportionably be applied to their further divisions, and subdivisions. Which reason I yet urge more strongly out of D Potter, (g) pag. 20. who affirms, that to him & 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 fundamental points. Now, since among Protestants there is such diversity of belief, that one denieth what the other affirmeth, they must be convicted in conscience that one part is in error (at least not fundamental.) and, if D. Potter will speak consequently, that a reconciliation between them is impossible: and what greater division, or Schism can there be, then when one part must judge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible, and damnable? 39 Out of all which premises, this Conclusion follows: That, Luther & his followers were Schismatics; from the universal visible Church; from the Pope Christ's Vicar on earth, and Successor to S. Peter; from the particular Diocese in which they received Baptism; from the Country or Nation to which they belonged; from the Bishop under whom they lived; many of them from the Religious Order in which they were Professed; from one another; And lastly from a man's self (as much as is possible) because the self same Protestant to day is convicted in conscience, that his yesterday Opinion was an error (as D. Potter knows a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant) with whom therefore a reconciliation, according to D. Potter's grounds, is both impossible, and damnable. 40. It seems D. Potters last refuge to excuse himself and his Brethren from Schism, is because they proceeded according to their conscience, dictating an obligation under damnation to forsake the errors maintained by the Church of Rome. His words are: Although we confess the (h) Pag. 81. Church of Rome to be (in some sense) a true Church, and her errors to some men not damnable: yet for us who are convinced in conscience, that she errs in many things, a necessity lies upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors. 41. I answer: It is very strange, that you judge us extremely Uncharitable, in saying, Protestant's cannot be saved; while yourself avouch the same of all learned Catholics, whom ignorance cannot excuse. If this your pretence of conscience may serve, what Schismatique in the Church, what popular seditious brain in a kingdom, may not allege the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from Schism, or Sedition? No man wishes them to do any thing against their conscience, but we say, that they may, and aught to rectify, and depose such a conscience, which is easy for them to do, even according to your own affirmation; that we Catholics want no means necessary to salvation. Easy to do? Nay not to do so, to any man in his right wits must seem impossible. For how can these two apprehensions stand together: In the Roman Church I enjoy all means necessary to salvation, and yet I cannot hope to besaved in that Church? or, who can conjoin in one brain (not cracked) these assertions. After due examination I judge the Roman errors not to be in themselves fundamental, or damnable; and yet I judge that according to true reason, it is damnable to hold them? I say according to true reason. For if you grant your conscience to be erroneous, in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church, by reason of her errors; there is no other remedy, but that you must rectify your erring conscience, by your other judgement, that her errors are not fundamental, nor damnable. And this is no more Charity, than you daily afford to such other Protestants as you term Brethren, whom you cannot deny to be in some errors, (unless you will hold, That of contradictory propositions both may be true) & yet you do not judge it damnable to live in their Communion, because you hold their errors not to be fundamental. You ought to know, that according to the doctrine of all Divines, there is great difference betwixt a speculative persuasion, and a practical dictamen of conscience; and therefore although they had in speculation conceived the visible Church to err in some doctrines, of themselves not damnable; yet with that speculative judgement they might, & aught to have entertained this practical dictamen, that for points not substantial to faith, they neither were bound, nor lawfully could break the bond of Charity, by breaking unity in God's Church. You say that, hay & stubble (i) Pag. 155. and such unprofitable stuff (as are Corruptions in points not fundamental) laid on the roof, destroys not the house, whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation. And you would think him a madman who to be rid of such stuff, would set his house on fire, that so he might walk in the light, as you teach that Luther was obliged to forsake the house of God, for an unnecessary light, not without a combustion formidable to the whole Christian world; rather than bear with some errors, which did not destroy the foundation of faith. And as for others who entered in at the breach first made by Luther, they might, & aught to have guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis, delivered in these words. Indeed it is a matter of great (k) Adverse. hares. c. 27. moment, and both most profitable to be learned, & necessary to be remembered, & which we ought again and again to illustrate, and inculcate with weighty heaps of examples, that almost all Catholics may know, that they ought to receive the Doctors with the Church, and not forsake the faith of the Church with the Doctors: And much less should they forsake the faith of the Church to follow Luther, Caluin, and such other Novelists. Moreover though your first Reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true; yet they might, and aught to have doubted, whether they were certain: because yourself affirm, that infallibility was not promised to any particular Persons, or Churches. And since in cases of uncertainties, we are not to leave our Superior, nor cast off his obedience, or publicly oppose his decrees; your Reformers might easily have found a safe way to satisfy their zealous conscience, without a public 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, & Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy. I wish you would examine the works of your Brethren, by the words yourself sets down to free S. Cyprian from Schism: every syllable of which words convinceth Luther, and his Compartners to be guilty of that crime, and showeth in what manner they might with great ease, & quietness have rectified their conscience about the pretended errors of the Church S. Cyprian (say you) was a peaceable (l) Pag. 124. and modest man; dissented from others in his judgement, but without any breach of Charity; condemned no man (much less any Church) for the contrary opinion. He believed his own opinion to be true, but believed not, that it was necessary, and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others, but left them to their liberty. Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding? Did they censure no man, much less any Church? S. Cyprian believed his own Opinion to be true, but believed not that it was necessary, and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly, and peremptorily to censure others. You believe the points wherein Luther differs from us not to be fundamental, or necessary; and why do you not thence infer the like THEREFORE, he should not have proceeded to censure others? In a word, since their disagreement from us concerned only points which were not fundamental, they should have believed that they might have been deceived, as well as the whole visible Church, which you say may err in such points; and therefore their doctrines being not certainly true, and certainly not necessary, they could not give sufficient cause to departed from the Communion of the Church. 42. In other places you writ so much, as may serve us to prove that Luther, and his followers ought to have deposed, and rectified their consciences: As for example, when you say. When the Church (m) pag. 103. hath declared herself in any matter of opinion, or of Rites, her declaration obliges all her children to peace, and external obedience. Nor is it fit, or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgement to the public; (as Luther and his fellows did) He may offer his opinion to be considered of, so he do it with evidence, or great probability of Scripture, or reason, and very modestly, still containing himself within the dutiful respect which he oweth: but if he will factiously advance his own conceits (his own conceits? and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture) & despise the Church so fare as to cut of her Communion; he may be justly branded and condemned for a schismatic, yea and an Heretic also in some degree, & in foro exteriori, though his opinion were true, and much more if it be false. Can any man, even for a Fee, have spoken more home to condemn your Predecessors of Schism, or Heresy? Can they have stronger Motives to oppose the doctrine of the Church, and leave her Communion, than evidence of Scripture? And yet, according to your own words, they should have answered, and rectified their conscience, by your doctrine, that though their opinion were true, and grounded upon evidence of Scripture, or reason; yet it was not lawful for any private man to oppose his judgement to the public, which obligeth all Christians to peace and external obedience: and if they cast of the communion of the Church for maintaining their own Conceits, they may be branded for Schismatics, and Heretics in some degree, and in foro exteriori, that is; all other Christians ought so to esteem of them, (and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you?) and they also are obliged to behave themselves in the face of all Christian Churches, as if indeed they were not Reformers, but Schismatics, and Heretics, or as Pagans, and Publicans. I thank you for your ingenuous confession, in recompense whereof I will do a deed of Charity by putting you in mind, into what labyrinths you are brought, by teaching that the Church may err in some points of faith, and yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his 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 a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture? How much more coherently do Catholics proceed, who believe the universal infallibility of the Church, and from thence are assured that there can be no evidence of Scripture, or reason against her definitions, nor any just cause to forsake her Communion? M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man, yields as much as we have alleged out of you. The will of God is (saith he) to have (n) In his Preface to his books of Ecclesiastical policy. Sect. 6. pag. 28. them do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final docision shall determine, yea though it seem in their private opinion, to swerve utterly from that which is right. Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was, which he transgressing must of necessity be guilty of Schism? And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the universal infallibility of the Church, or else drive men into the perplexities and labyrinths of distembling against their conscience, whereof now I spoke? Not unlike to this, is your doctrine delivered elsewhere. Before the Nicene Council (say you) many (o) pag. 131. good Catholic Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists, that the Baptism of Heretics was ineffectual; and with the Novatians, that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners. These errors therefore (if they had gone no further) were not in themselves Heretical, especially in the proper, and most heavy, or bitter sense of that word; neither was it in the Church's intention (or in her power) to make them such by her declaration. Her intention was to silence all disputes, and to settle peace and Unity in her government: to which all wise and peaceable men submitted, whatsoever their opinion was. And those factious people, for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition, were very justly branded for Schismatics. For us, the Mistaker will never prove that we oppose any declaration of the Catholic Church etc. and therefore he doth unjustly charge us either with Schism, or Heresy. These words manifestly condemn your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her declarations, Doctrines, and Commands imposed upon them, for silencing all disputes, and settling peace and Unity in the government, and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient, are justly charged with Schism, and Heresy. And it is to be observed that you grant the Donatists to have been very justly branded for Schismatics, although their opposition against the Church did concern (as you hold) a point not fundamental to the Faith, and which according to S. Augustine cannot be proved out of Scripture alone; and therefore either doth evidently convince that the Church is universally infallible, even in points not fundamental, or else that it is Schism to oppose her declarations in those very things wherein she may err; and consequently that Luther, and his fellows were Schismatics, by opposing the visible Church for points not fundamental, though it were (untruly) supposed that she erred in such points. But by the way, how come you on the sudden to hold the determination of a General Council (of Nice) to be the declaration of the Catholic Church, seeing you teach, That General Counsels may err even fundamentally? And do you now say, with us, that to oppose the declaration of the Church is sufficient that one may be branded with Heresy, 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 aught to have rectified by means enough, if Pride, Ambition, Obstinacy etc. 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 love they bear to that sacred ransom of their souls, the Blood of our blessed Saviour, attentively to ponder, and unpartially to apply to their own Conscience, what this Man spoke concerning the feelings, and remorse of his. How often (saith he) did my trembling heart (p) Tom. 2. Germ Jen. fol. 9 & tom 2. Witt. of anno 1562 de abrong. Miss. prnat. fol. 244. beat within me, and reprehending me, object against me that most strong argument; Art thou only wise? Do so many worlds err? 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 (q) Tom. 5. Annot. breniss. account, take upon thee so great matters? What, if thou, being but one, offendest? If God permit such, so many, and all to err, why may he not permit thee to err? To this belong those arguments, the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers, the Counsels, the Customs, the multitudes and greatness of wise men: Whom do not these Mountains of arguments, these clouds, yea these seas of Examples overthrew? And these thoughts wrought so deep in his soul, that he often wished and desired that he had (r) Colloq. menfal. fol. 158. never begun this business: wishing yet further that his Writings were burned, and buried (s) Praefat. in tom. German. jen. in eternal oblivion. Behold what remorse Luther felt, and how he wanted no strength of malice to cross 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, hear an example or two for that purpose. Of Communion under both kinds, thus he saith: If the Council (t) De formula inissae. should in any case decree this, least of all would we then use both kinds, yea rather in despite of the Council, and that Decree, we would use either but one kind only, or neither, and in no case both. Was not Luther persuaded in Conscience, that to use neither kind was against our Saviour's command? Is this only to offer his opinion to be considered of, as you said all men ought to do? 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 (u) In parna Confess. the Elevation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall; yet nevertheless I did retain it in the Church at Wittemberge, to the end I might vex the devil Carolostadius. Was not this a conscience large and capacious enough, that could swallow Idolatry? Why would he not toleate Idolatry in the Church of Rome (as these men are wont to blaspheme) if he could retain it in his own Church at Wittemberge? If Carolostadius, Luther's of spring, was the Devil, who but himself must be his dam? Is Almighty God wont to send such furies to preach the Gospel? And yet further (which makes most directly to the point in hand) Luther in his Book of abrogaing the Private Mass, exhorts the Augustine's Friars of Wittenberg, who first abrogated the Mass, 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. Vid. Tan. tom. 2. disput. 1. q. 2. dub. 4. n. 108. And joannes Mathefias a Luther an Preacher saith Antonius Musa the Parish Priest (w) In orat. Germ. 12. as Lath. of Rocklitz, recounted to me that on a time he heartily moaned himself to the Doctor (he means Luther) that he himself could not believe what he preached to others: And that D. Luther answered; praise and thankes 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 Schism 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 sin; Because they were not the first Authors, but only are the continuers of the Schism, which was already begun. 45. But it is hard to believe, that any man of judgement, can think this excuse will subsist, when he shall come to give up his final account. For according to this reason, no Schism will be damnable, but only to the Beginners: Whereas contrarily, the longer it continues, the worse it grows to be, and at length degenerates to Heresy as wine by long keeping grows to be Vinegar, but not by continuance returns again to his former nature of wine. Thus S. Augustine saith, that Heresy is (x) Lib. 2. cont. Crese. c. 7. Schism inveterate. And in another place: We object to you only the (y) Ep. 164. crime of Schism, which you have also made to become H. resy by evil persevering therein. And S. Hierom saith: Though Schism (z) Upon these words ad Pit. 3. Haereticum hominem etc. in the beginning may be in some sort understood to be different from heresy; yet there is no Schism which doth not feign to itself some Heresy, that it may seem to have departed from the Church upon just cause. And so indeed it falleth out. For men may begin upon passion, but afterward by instinct of corrupt nature seeking to maintain their Schism as lawful, 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 lawful to continue a Schism unlawfully begun, is an error against the main principle of Christianity, that it is not lawful for any Christian to live our of God's 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 sear (a) Matt. 18. the Church, let him be to thee as a Pagan or Publican. And, He (b) Iue, 10.16. that despiseth you, despiseth me. We heard above Optatus Milevitanus saying to Parmenianus, that both he, and all those other who continued in the Schism begun by Maiorinus, did inherit their Forefathers Schism; and yet Parmenianus was the third Bishop after Maiorinus in his Sea, and did not begin, but only continue the Schism. For (saith this holy Father) Caecilianus (c) Lib. 2. cont. Parm. went not out of Maiorinus thy Grandfather, but Maiorinus from Caecilianus: neither did Caecilianus departed from the Chair of Peter, or Cyprian, but Maiorinus, in whose Chair thou sittest, which before Maiorinus (Luther) had no beginning. 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 clear that you be HEIRS both of the givers up of the Bible to be burned, and of SCHISMATIQVES. And the Regal Power, or example of Henry the Eight could not excuse his Subjects from Schism according to what we have heard out of S. Chrysostome saying: Nothing doth so much provoke (d) Home 11. In ep st. ad Ep●●s. the wrath of Almighty God, as that the Church should be divided. Although we should do innumerable good deeds, if we divide the full Ecclesiastical Congregation, we shall be punished no less, than they who did rend his (natural) Body; for that was done to the gain of the whole world, though not with that intention: but this hath no good in it at all, but that the greatest hurt riseth from it. These things are spoken not only to those who be are office, but to such also as are governed by them. Behold therefore, how liable both Subjects, and Superiors are to the sin of Schism, if they break the unity of God's Church. The words of S. Paul can in no occasion be verified more than in this of which we speak. They who do such things (e) Rom. 1.32. are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent with the doers. In things which are indifferent of their own nature, Custom 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 mature unlawful: and therefore division from Christ's my sticall Body, being of the number of those actions, which Divines teach to be intrinsece malas, evil of their own nature and essence, no difference of Persons or Time can ever make it lawful. D. Potter saith: There neither was, nor can be any cause to departed from the Church of Christ, no more then from Christ himself. And who dares say, that it is not damnable to continue a Separation from Christ? Prescription cannot in conscience run, 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 strays, that after a certain time of wand'ring from their right home, fall from their owner to the Lord of the Soil; but as long as they retain the indelible Character of Baptism, and live upon earth, they are obliged to acknowledge subjection to God's Church. Human Laws may come to nothing by discontinuance of Time, but the Law of God, commanding us to conserve Unity in his Church, doth still remain. The continued disobedience of Children cannot deprive Parents of their paternal right, nor can the Grandchild be undutiful to his Grand Father, because his Father was unnatural to his own Parent. The longer God's Church is disobeyed; the profession of her Doctrine denied her Sacraments neglected; her Liturgy condemned; her Unity violated; the more grievous the fault grows to be: as the longer a man withholds a due debt, or retains his Neighbour's goods, the greater injustice he commits. Constancy in evil doth not extenuate, but aggravate the same, which by extension of Time, receiveth increase of strength, & addition of greater malice. If these men's conceits were true, the Church might come to be wholly divided by wicked Schisms, and yet after some space of time, none could be accused of Schism, nor be obliged to return to the visible Church of Christ: and so there should remain no One true visible Church. Let therefore these men who pretend to honour, reverence, & believe the Doctrine, and practise of the visible Church, and to condemn their forefathers who fosooke her, and say they would not have done so, if they had lived in the days 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 (f) Matt. 23. ●. 29. etc. the Prophet's sepulchres, and garnish the monuments of just men, and say: If we had been in our Father's days, we had not been their fellows in the blood of the Prophets. Therefore you are a testimony to your own selves, that you are the sons 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 Schism by them begun, are guilty of Schism, 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, that so they may know to what Church in particular they ought to return: and then we shall have performed what was proposed to be handled in the fifth Point. 47. That the Roman Church (I speak not for the present, of the particular Diocese of Rome, 5 Point. but of all visible Churches dispersed throughout the whole world, agreeing in faith with the Chair of Peter, Luther & the rest departed from the Roman Church. 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 Catholic Church out of which Luther departed, is proved by your own Confession, who assign for notes of the Church, the true Preaching of God's Church, and due Administration of Sacraments, both which for the substance you cannot deny to the Roman Church, since you confess that she wanted nothing fundamental, or necessary to salvation; and for that very cause you think to clear yourself from Schism, whose property, as you say, is to cut off from the (g) pag. 78. Body of Christ and the Hope of Salvation, the Church from which it separates. Now that Luther and his fellows were borne and baptised 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, & Hope of Salvation, unless you will acknowledge yourself to deserve the just imputation of Schism. Neither can you deny her to be truly Catholic by reason of (pretended) corruptions, not fundamental. For yourself avouch, and endeavour to prove, that the true Catholic Church may err in such points. Moreover, I hope you will not so much as go about to prove, that when Luther rose, there was any other true visible Church, disagreeing from the Roman, & agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrines: and you cannot deny but that England in those days agreed with Rome, and other Nations with England: And therefore either Christ had no visible Church upon Earth, or else you must grant that it was the Church of Rome. A truth so manifest, that those Protestant's who affirm the Roman Church to have lost the Nature & being of a true Church, do by inevitable Consequence grant, that for diverse Ages Christ had no visible Church on Earth: from which error, because D. Potter, disclaimeth, he must of necessity maintain, that the Roman Church is free from fundamental, and damnable error, and that she is not cut of from the Body of Christ, and the Hope of Salvation: And if (saith he) any Zelots' amongst us have proceeded (h) Jhid. to heavier censures, their zeal may be excused, but their Charity and wisdom cannot be justified. 48. And to touch particulars which perhaps some may object. No man is ignorant that the Grecians, even the Schismatical Grecians, do in most points agree with Roman Catholics, & disagree from the Protestant Reformation. They teach Transubstantiation (which point D. Potter also (i) Pag. 229. confesseth;) Invocation of Saints, and Angels; veneration of Relics, and Images; Auricular Confession; enjoined Satisfaction; Confirmation with Chrism; Extremeunction; All the seven Sacraments; Prayer, Sacrifice, Alms 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 Deusnes of Wittenberg, entitled, Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium, & Icremiae Patriarchae Constantinop. de Augustana Confesaone etc. Wittembergae anno 1584. by the Protestant (k) De statu Eccles. pag. 233. Crispinus, & by Sir Edwin Sands in the Relation of the State of Religion of the West. And I wonder with what colour of truth (to say no worse) D. Potter could affirm that the Doctrines debated between the Protestats (l) pag. 22●. & Rome, are only the partial & particular fancies of the Roman Church; unless happily the opinion of Transubstantiation may be excepted, wherein the latter Grecians seen to agree with the Romanists. Beside the Protestant Authors already cited, Petrus Arcudius a Grecian and a learned Catholic 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 Son, I suppose that Protestants disavow them in that error, as we do. 49. D. Potter will not (I think) so much wrong his reputation, as to tell us, that the Waldenses, Wicctiffe, Husse, or the like were Protestants, because in some things they disagreed from Catholics. For he well knows that the example of such men is subject to these manifest exceptions. They were not of all Ages, nor in all Countries, but confined to certain places, and were interrupted in Time, against the notion and nature of the word Catholic. They had no Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, nor Succession of Bishops, Priests, and Pastors. They differed among themselves, and from Protestants also. They agreed in diverse things with us against Protestants. They held doctrines manifestly absurd and damnable heresies. 50. The Waldenses begun not before the year 1218. so far were they from Universality of all Ages. For their doctrine: first, they denied all judgements which extended to the drawing of blood, and the Sabbaoth, for which cause they were called In-sabbatists. Secondly, they taught that Lay men, and women might consecrate the Sacrament, and preach (no doubt but by this means to make their Master, Waldo, a mere 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 barn. 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, etc. to be done in Charity, and not against Continency. Eightly, that neither Priest, nor civil Magistrate, being guilty of mortal sin did enjoy their dignity, or were to be obeyed. Ninthly, they condemned Princes, and judges. Tenthly, they affirmed singing in the Church to be an hellish clamour. Eleaventhly, they taught that men might dissemble their Religion, and so accordingly they went to Catholic Churches, dissembling their Faith, and made Offertories, confessions, and communions after a dissembling manner. Waldo was so unlearned, that (saith (m) Act. Mon. pag. 628. Fox) he gave rewards to certain learned men to translate the holy Scripture for him, and being thus helped did (as the same Fox there reporteth) confer the form of religion in his time to the infallible word of God. A godly example, for such as must needs have the Scripture in English, to be read by every simple body, with such fruit of godly doctrine, as we have seen in the foresaid gross heresies of Waldo. The followers of Waldo, were like their Master, so unlearned, that some of them (saith (n) Ibid. Fox) expounded the words, joan. 1. Suieum non receperunt: Swine did not receive him. And to conclude, they agreed in diverse things with Catholics against Protestants, as may be seen in (o) Tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. subd. 3. Brereley. 51. Neither can it be pretended, that these are slanders, forged by Catholics. For, beside that the same things are testified by Protestant Writers, as Illyr●cus, Cowper, & others, our Authors cannot be suspected of partiality in disfavour of Protestants, unless you will say perhaps, that they were Prophets and some hundred years ago, did both foresee that there were to be Protestants in the world, and that such Protestants were to be like the Waldenses. Besides, from whence, but from our Histories are Protestants come to know, that there were any such men as the Waldenses? and that in some points they agreed with the Protestants, and disagreed from them in others? And upon what ground can they believe our Authors for that part wherein the Waldenses were like to Protestants, and imagine they lied in the rest? 52. Neither could Wicliffe continue a Church never interrupted from the time of the Waldenses, after whom he lived more than one hundred and fifty years to wit, the year 1371. He agreed with Catholics about the worshipping of Relics, and Images. and about the Intercession of our blessed Lady, the ever Immaculate Mother of God, he went so far as to say, It seems to me (p) In serm. de Assump. Marte. impossible, that we should be rewarded without the intercession of the Virgin Mary. He held seven Saciaments, Purgatory, and other points. And against both Catholics and Protestants he maintained sundry damnable doctrines, as diverse Protestant Writers relate. As first: If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sin, he doth not indeed either give Orders, Consecrate, or Baptise. Secondly, That Ecclesiastical Ministers ought not to have any temporal possessions, nor propriety in any thing, but should beg; and yet he himself broke into heresy because he had been deprived by the Archbishop of Canterbury of a certain Benefice; as all Schisms, & heresies begin upon passion, which they seek to cover with the cloak of Reformation. Thirdly he condemned lawful Oaths, like the Anabaptists. Fourthly, he taught that all things came to pass by absolute necessity. Fiftly, he defended human merits as the wicked Pelagians did, namely, as proceeding from natural forces, without the necessary help of God's grace. Sixtly, that no man is a Civil Magistrate, while he is in mortal sin; and that the people may at their pleasure correcnt Princes, when they offend: by which doctrine he proves himself both an Heretic, and a Traitor. 53. As for hus, his chiefest Doctrines were: That Lay people must receive in both kinds; and That Civil Lords Prelates, and Bishops lose all right, and authority, while they are in mortal sin For other things he wholly agreed with Catholics 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 civil 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 nowise to be permitted for avoiding of greater evil. By these particulars, it is apparent, that Husse agreed with Protestants against us, in one only point of both Kind's, which according to Luther is a thing indifferent; because he teacheth that Christ in this matter (q) In epist. ad Bohemos. commanded nothing as necessary. And he saith further: If thou come to a place (r) De utr a●● que specie Sacram. where one only kind is administered, use one kind only, as others do. Melancthon likewise holds it a thing (s) In Cent. epist. Theol. pag. 225. indifferent: and the same is the opinion of some other Protestants. All which considered, it is clear that Protestants cannot challenge the Waldenses, Wicclifse, and hus for members of their Church: & although they could, yet that would advantage them little towards the finding out a perpetual visible Church of theirs, for the reasons above (t) Num. 49. specified. 54. If D. Potter, would go so fare off, as to fetch the Muscovites, Armenians, Georgians, Aethiopians, or Abyssines into his Church, they would prove over dear bought: For they either hold the damnable heresy of Eutiches, or use Circumcision, or agree with the Greek, or Roman Church. And it is most certain that they have nothing to do with the doctrine of 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 follows 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 Catholic Church of Christ: And, that Luther and his followers departed from her, and consequently are guilty of Schism, by dividing themselves from the Communion of the Roman Church. Which is clearly convinced out of D. Potter himself, although the Roman Church were but a particular Church. For he saith: Whosever professes (u) Pag. 70. himself to forsake the Communion of any one member of the body of Christ, must confess himself consequently to forsake the whole. Since therefore in the same place he expressly acknowledges the Church of Rome to be a member of the Body of Christ, and that it is clear they have forsaken her; it evidently follows, that they have forsaken the whole, and therefore are most properly Schismatics. 56. And lastly, since the crime of Schism is so grievous, that according to the doctrine of holy Fathers rehearsed above, no multitude of good works, no moral 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 sin from damnation; I leave it to be considered, whether it be not true Charity to speak as we believe, and to believe as all Antiquity hath taught us, That whosoever either begins,, or continues a division for the Roman Church, which we have proved to be Christ's true Militant Church on earth, cannot without effectual repentance hope to be a member of his Triumphant Church in heaven. And so I conclude with these words of blessed Saint Augustine: It is common (w) Cont. Parm. lib. 2. ●ap. 3. to all Heretics 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 Unity whatsoever they work, though they seem to do it with great care and diligence, can no more avail them against the wrath of God, than the Spider's 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 Heresy. CHAP. VI That Luther, and the rest of Protestants, have added Heresy unto Schism. BECAUSE Vice is best known by the contrary Virtue, we cannot well determine what Heresy is, nor who be Heretics, but by the opposite virtue of Faith, whose Nature being once understood as fare as belongs to our present purpose, we shall pass on with ease to the definition of Heresy, and so be able to discern who be Heretics. And this I●ntend to do, not by entering into such particular Questions as are controverted between Catholics and Protestants, but only by applying some general grounds, either already proved, or else yielded to, on all sides. 2. Almighty God having ordained Man to a supernatural End of Beatitude by supernatural means; it was requisite that his Understanding should be enabled to apprehend that End, and Means by a supernatural knowledge. And because if such a knowledge were no more than probable, it could not be able sufficiently to overbear our Will, & encounter with human probabilities, being backed with the strength of flesh and blood; It was further necessary, that this supernatural knowledge should be most certain and infallible; and that Faith should believe nothing more certainly than that itself is a most certain Belief, and so be able to beat down all gay probabilities of humane Opinion. And because the aforesaid Means and End of Beatifical Vision, do fare exceed the reach of natural wit, the certainty of faith could not always be joined with such evidence of reason, as is wont to be found in the Principles, or Conclusions of humane natural Sciences; that so all flesh might not glory in the arm of flesh, but that he, who glories, should glory (a) 2. Cor. 10 in our Lord. Moreover, it was expedient that our belief, or assent to divine truths, should not only be unknown, or inevident by any humane discourse, but that absolutely also it should be obscure in itself, and (ordinarily speaking) be void even of supernatural evidence; that so we might have occasion to actuate, and testify the obedience which we own to our God, not only by submitting our Will to his Will and Commands, but by subiecting also our Understanding to his Wisdom & Words, captivating (as the Apostle speaks) the same Understanding (b) 2. Cor. 10 ● to the Obedience of Faith: Which occasion had been wanting, if Almighty God had made clear to us, the truths which now are certainly, but not evidently presented to our minds. For where Truth doth manifestly open itself; 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 man's power not only to abstain from believing, by sufpending our judgement, 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 bear witness. This obscurity of faith we learn from holy Scripture, according to those words of the Apostle. Faith is the (c) Heb. 11. substance of things to be hoped for, the argument of things not appearing. And, We see by a glass (d) 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. in a dark manner: but then face to face. And, accordingly S. Peter saith: Which you do well attending unto, as to (e) 2 Pet. 1. v. 19 a Candle shining in a dark place. 3. Faith being then obscure (whereby it differeth from natural Sciences) and yet being most certain and infallible (wherein it surpasseth humane Opinion) it must rely 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 formal 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 itself 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 itself, that the act of faith may remain 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 supernatural Truth, since God had been no less perfect than he is, although he had never revealed any of those objects which we now believe. 4. Nevertheless, because Almighty God out of his infinite wisdom and sweetness, doth concur with his Creatures in such sort as may befit the temper, and exigence of their natures; and because Man is a Creature endured with reason, God doth not exact of his Will or Understanding any other then, as the Apostle saith, rationabile (f) Kom. 12. &. 1. Obsequium, an Obedience, sweetened with good reason; which could not so appear, if our Understanding were summoved to believe with certainty, things no way represented as infallible and certain. And therefore Almighty God obliging us under pain of eternal damnation to believe with greatest certainty diverse verities, not known by the light of natural reason, cannot fail to furnish our Understanding, with such inducements, motives, and arguments as may sufficiently persuade any mind which is not partial or passionate, that the objects which we believe, proceed from an Authority so Wise, that it cannot be deceived, and so Good that it cannot deceive; according to the words of David: Thy Testimonies are made (g) Psal. 92. credible exceedingly. These inducements are by Divines, called argumenta credibilitatis, arguments of credibility, which though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they cuidently convince that in true wisdom, and prudence, the objects of faith deserve credit, and aught to be accepted as things revealed by God. For without such reasons & inducements our judgement of faith could not be conceived prudent, holy Scripture telling us, that, he who soon (h) Eccles. 19 believes, is light of hart. By these arguments and inducements our Understanding is both satisfied with evidence of credibility, and the objects of faith retain their obscurity: because it is a different thing to be evidently credible, and evidently true; as those who were present at the Miracles wrought by our blessed Saviour, & 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 embraced as truths revealed by God. 5. These evident Arguments of Credibility are in great abundance found in the Visible Church of Christ, perpetualy existing on earth. For, that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines, we have from our next Predecessors, and these from theirs upward, till we come to the Apostles, & our Blessed Saviour, which gradiation is known by evidence of sense, by reading books, 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 self same thing, if it had been but a fiction invented by themselves, as ancient Tertullian well saith: How is it likely that so many (i) Prescript. ●ap. 28. & so great Churches should err in one faith? Among many events there is not one issue, the error of the Churches must needs have varied. But that which amongmany is found to be One, is not mistaken, but delievered. Dare then any body say, that they erred who delivered it? With this never interrupted existence of the Church are joined 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 infernal spirits; and lastly, the perpetual 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 powerful ways, did communicate to their Doctrine, and to the Church of their times, together with the divine Certainty which they received from our Blessed Saviour himself, revealing to Mankind what he heard from his Father; and so we conclude with Tertullian: We receive it from the Churches, the Churches (k) 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 known by means of holy Tradition, we cannot conjoin the present Church, & doctrine, with the Church, and doctrine of the Apostles, but must invent some new means, 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 known but by Tradition, as is truly observed by Tertullian saying: I will prescribe, that (l) Praesc. 5.21. there is no means to prove what the Apostles preached, but by the same Churches which they founded. 6. Thus than we are to proceed: By evidence of manifest and incorrupt Tradition, I know that there hath always 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, Sanctity, Unity etc. and by all those ways whereby the Apostles, and our Blesseed Saviour himself confirmed their doctrine, we are assured that what the said never interrupted Church proposeth, doth deserve to be accepted & aknowledged 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 formal object of our Faith, is the infallible testimony of that supreme Verity, which neither can deceive, nor be deceived. 7. By this orderly deduction our Faith cometh to be endued with these qualities which we said were requisite thereto; namely Certainly, Obscurity, and Pruderce. Certaimy proceeds from the infallible Testimony of God propounded & conveied to our understanding by such a mean, as is infallible in itself, and to us is evidently known that it proposeth this point or that, and which can manifestly declare in what sense it proposeth them; which means we have proved to be only the visible Church of Christ. Obscurity from the manner in which God speaks to Mankind, which ordinarily is such, that it doth not manifestly show the person who speaks, nor the truth of the thing spoken. Prudence is not wanting, because our faith is accompanied with so many arguments of Credibility, that every well disposed Understanding, may & aught to judge, that the doctrines so confirmed deserve to be believed, as proceeding from 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 testified by God, & is sufficiently propounded to us for such: which proposal is ordinarily made by the visible Church of Christ. I say, Sufficiently proposed by the Church; not that I purpose to dispute whether the proposal of the Church enter into the formal Object, or motive of Faith: or whether an error be any heresy, formally and precisely, because it is against the proposition of the Church, as if such proposal were the formal Object of faith, which D. Potter to no purpose at all, labours so very hard to disprove: But I only affirm, that when the Church propounds any Truth, as revealed by God, we are assured that it is such indeed; & so it instantly grows, to be a fit Object for Christian faith, which onclines and enables us, to believe whatsoever is duly 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 lawful Superior, notifies his will, by the means, and as it were proposal of some faithful messenger, the subject of such a Superior in performing, or neglecting what is delivered by the messenger, is said to obey, or disobey his own lawful Superior. And therefore because the testimony of God is notified by the Church, we may, and we do most truly say, that not to believe 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. Irenaeus. We need not go (m) Lib. 3. cont. heres. cap. 4. 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 Heresy is, by taking the contrary terms, as Heresy is contrary to Faith, and saying: Heresy is a voluntary error against that which God hath reucaled, and the Church hath proposed for such. Neither doth it import, whether the error concern points in themselves great or small, fundamental or not fundamental. For more being required to an act of Virtue, then of Vice, if any truth though never so small may be believed by Faith as soon as we know it to be testified by divine rovelation; much more will it be a formal Heresy to deny any least point sufficiently propounded as a thing witnessed by God. 10. This divine Faith is divided into Actual, and Habitual. Actual faith, or faith actuated is when we are in act of consideration, and belief of some mystery of Faith; for example, that our Saviour Christ, is true God, and Man, etc. Habitual faith, is that from which we are denominated Faithful, or Believers, as by actual faith they are styled, Believing. This Habit of faith is a Quality, enabling us most firmly to believe Objects above human discourse, and it remaineth permanently in our Soul, even when we are sleeping, or not thinking of any Mystery of Faith. This is the first among the three Theological Virtues. For Charity unites us to God, as he is infinitely Good in himself; Hope ties us to him, as he is unspeakably Good to us. faith joins us to him, as he is the Supreme immoveable Verity. Charity relies on his Goodness; Hope on his Power; Faith on his divine Wisdom. From hence it followeth, that Faith being one of the Virtues which Divines term Infused (that is, which cannot be acquired by human wit, or industry, but are in their Nature & Essence, supernatural) it hath this property; that it is not destroyed by little and little, (contrarily to the Habits, called acquisiti, that is, gotten by human endeavour, which as they are successively produced, so also are they lost successively, 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 overthrown, and as it were demolished, and razed by every such act. Wherefore, as Charity or the Love of God is expelled from our soul by any one act of Hatred, or any other mortal sin 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 thereunto. I know that some sins which (as Divines speak) are ex genere suo, in in their kind, grievous and mortal, may be much lessened, and fall to be venial, ob levit atem materiae, because they may happen to be exercised in a matter of small consideration; as for example, to steal a penny, is venial, although theft in his kind be a deadly sin. But it is likewise true, that this Rule is not general for all sorts of sins; there being some so inexcusably wicked of their own nature, that no smallness of matter, nor paucity in number, can defend them from being deadly sins. For, to give an instance, what Blasphemy against God, or voluntary false Oath is not a deadly sin? Certainly, none at all, although the salvation of the whole world should depend upon swearing such a falsehood. The like happeneth in our present case of Heresy, the iniquity whereof redoundin to the injury of God's supreme wisdom & Goodness, is always great, & enormous. They were no precious stones which Danid (n) 1. Reg. 17. picked out of the water, to encounter Goliath; and yet if a man take from the number but one, and say they were but four, against the Scripture affirming them to have been five; he is instantly guilty of a damnable sin. Why? Because by this subtraction of One, he doth deprive God's word and Testimony of all credit and infallibility. For if either he could deceive, or be deceived in any one thing, it were but wisdom to suspect him in all. And seeing every Heresy opposeth some Truth revealed by God; it is no wonder that no one can be excused from deadly, and damnable sin. For if voluntary Blasphemy, and Perjury, which are opposite only to the infused Moral Virtue of Religion, can never be excused from mortal sin: much less can Heresy be excused, which opposeth the Theological Virtue of Faith. 11. If any object, that Schism may seem to be a greater sin than Heresy; because the Virtue of Charity (to which Schism is opposite) is greater than Faith, according to the Apostle, saying: Now there remain (o) 1. Cor. 13.13. Faith, Hope, Charity; but the greater of these is Charity. S. Thomas answers in these words: Charity hath two Objects: one principal, to wit, the Divine (p) 2.2. q. 39 ar. 2. in corp. & add 3. Goodness; & another secondary, namely the good of our Neighbour; But Schism and other sins which are committed against our Neighbour, are opposite to Charity in respect of this secondary good, which is less, than the object of Faith, which is God, as he is the Prime Verity, on which Faith doth rely; and therefore these sins are less than Infidelity. He takes Infidelity after a general manner, as it comprehends Heresy, 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 remembered: That the visible Catholic Church cannot err 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 & his followers cannot be excused from formal Heresy, I prove by these reasons. To oppose any truth propounded by the visible true Church as revealed by God, is formal Heresy, as we have showed out of the definition of Heresy: But Luther, Caluin, and the rest did oppose diverse truths propounded by the visible Church as revealed by God; yea they did therefore oppose her, because she propounded as divine revealed truths, things which they judged either to be false, or human inventions: Therefore they committed formal Heresy. 14. Moreover, every Error against any doctrine revealed by God, is damnable Heresy, whether the matter in itself be great or small, as I proved before: and therefore either the Protestants, or the Roman Church must be guilty of form all Heresy, because one of them must err against the word & testimony of God: but you grant (perforce) that the Roman Church doth not err damnably; & I add that she cannot err damnably, because she is the truly Catholic Church, which you confess cannot err damnably: Therefore Protestants must be guilty of formal Heresy. 15. Besides, we have showed that the visible Church, is judge of Controversies & 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. Again, If Luther were an Heretic for those points wherein he disagreed from the Roman Church; All they who agree with him in those very points, must likewise be Heretics. Now, that Luther was a formal Heretic I demonstrate in this manner. To say, that God's visible true Church is not universal, but confined to one only place or corner of the world, is according to your own express words (q) Tag. 126. properly Heresy, against that Article of the Creed, wherein we orofesse to believe the holy Catholic Church: And you brand Donatus with heresy, because he limited the universal Church to Africa. But it is manifest, and acknowledged by Luther himself, and other chief Protestants that Luther's Reformation when it first began (and much more for diverse Ages before) was not Universal. nor spread over the world, but was confined to that compass of ground which did contain Luther's body. Therefore his Reformation cannot be excused from formal Heresy. If S. Augustine in those times said to the Donatists, There are innumerable testimonies (r) 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 do 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 can. not be confined to the City of Wittenberg, or to the place where Luther's feet stood, but must be spread over the whole world. It is therefore must impudent vanity, and dotage to limit her to Luther's Reformation. In another place also this holy Father writes no less effectually against Luther then against the Donatists. For having out of those words, In thy seed all Nations shall be blessed, proved that God's Church must be universal, he saith: Why (s) De Vnit. Eccles. cap. 6. do you superadd, by saying that Christ remains heir in no part of the earth, except where he may have Donatus for his Coheyre. Give me this (Universal) Church if it be among you: show yourselves to all Nations, which we already show 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 he said, At the beginning I was alone, give us an universal 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 universal Church: She hath this (t) Cont. lit. Petil. lib. 1. cap. 104. most certain mark, that she cannot be hidden: She is then known to all Nations. The Sect of Donatus is unknown to many Nations; therefore that cannot be she. The Sect of Luther (at least when he began, and much more before his beginning) was unknown to many Nations, therefore that cannot be she. 17. And that it may yet further appear how perfectly Luther agreed with the Donatists: It is to be noted, that they never taught, that the Catholic Church ought not to extend itself further than 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 profaned, by communicating with Caecilianus, whom they falsely affirmed to have been ordained Bishop by those who were Traditours, or givers 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 their Brethren in that City, but indeed as Baronius (u) Anno 321. nu. 2. Spond. observeth, that the world might account them Catholics, by communicating with the Bishop of Rome, to communicate with whom was even taken by the Ancient Fathers as an assured sign of being a true Catholic. They had also, as S. Augustine witnesseth, a pretended (w) De Vni. Eccles. c. 3. Church in the house and territory of a Spanish Lady called Lucilla, who went flying out of the Catholic Church, because she had been justly checked by Caectlianus. And the same Saint speaking of the conference he had with Fortunius the Donatist, saith: Hear did he first (x) Ep. 163. attempt to affirm that his Communion was spread over the whole Earth etc. but because the thing was evidently false, they got out of this discourse by confusion of language: whereby nevertheless they sufficiently declared, that they did not hold, that the true Church ought necessarily to be confined to one place, but only by mere 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, than he who should affirm that Luther's reformation in the very beginning was speed over the whole Earth; being at that time by many degrees not so far diffused as the Sect of the Donatists. I have no desire to prosecute the similitude of Protestants with Donatists, by remembering that the Sect of these men was began and promoted by the passion of Lucilla; and who is ignorant what influence two women, the Mother and Daughter, ministered to Protestancy in England? Nor will I stand to observe their very likeness of phrase with the Donatists, who called the Chair of Rome, the Chair of pestilence, and the Roman Church an Harlot, which is D. Potter's own phrase, wherein he is less excusable than they, because he maintaineth her to be a true Church of Christ: & therefore let him duly ponder these words of S. Augustine against the Donatists. If I persecute him justly who detracts (y) Conc. super gest. cust Emeri● 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 Parmenianus likewise a Donatist, who blasphemed, that the Church of Christ had perished (as you do even in this your Book write against some of your Protestant Brethren, or as you call them Zelots' among you, who hold the very same or rather a worse Heresy) 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 universal: For which very cause S. Augustin complains of Ticonius, that although he wrote against the Donatists, yet he was of an hart (z) De doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 30. so extremely absurd, as not to forsake them alto gether. And speaking of the same thing in another place he observes, that although Ticonius did manifestly confute them who affirmed that the Church had perished; yet, he saw not (saith this holy Father) that which in good consequence (a) Cont. Parm. l. 1. cap. 1. he should have seen, that those Christians of Africa belonged to the Church spread over the whole world, who remained united, not with them who were divided from the communion and unity 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 Ticonius maintained, then by yielding thereto, to be overcome by those Churches in Africa, which enjoyed the communion of that unity which Ticonius defended, from which they had divided themselves. How fitly these words agree to Catholics in England in respect of the Protestants, I desire the Reader to consider. But these and the like resemblances of Protestants to the Donatists, I willingly let pass, and only urge the main point: That since Luther's Reformed Church was not in being for diverse Centuries before Luther, and yet was (because so forsooth they will needs have it) in the Apostles time, they must of necessity affirm heretically with the Donatists, that the true and unspotted Church of Christ perished; & that she which remained on earth was (O blasphemy!) an Harlot. Moreover the same heresy follows out of the doctrine of D. Potter, and other Protestants, that the Church may err in points not fundamental; because we have showed that every error against any one revealed truth, is Heresy and damnable, whether the matter be otherwise of itself, great or small. And how can the Church more truly be said to perish, then when she is permitted to maintain a damnable Heresy? Besides, we will hereafter prove, that by any act of Heresy all divine faith is lost; & to imagine a true Church of faithful persons without any faith, is as much as to fancy a living man without life. It is therefore clear, that Donatist-like they hold that the Church of Christ perished: yea they are worse than the Donatists, who said, that the Church remained at least in Africa; whereas Protestants must of necessity be forced to grant, that for a long space before Luther, she was no where at all. But let us go forward to other reasons. 18. The holy Scripture, and Ancient Fathers do assign Separation from the Visible Church as a mark of Heresy; according to that of S. john: They went out (b) 2. joan, 19 from us. And, Some who (c) Act. 15.24. went out from us. And, Our of you shall (d) Act. 203.30. arise men speaking perverse things. And accordingly Vincentius Lyrinensis saith: Who ever (e) Lib. ad. versus haer, cap. 34. began heresies, who did not first separate himself from the Universality, Antiquity, and Consent of the Catholic Church? But it is manifest, that when Luther appeared, there was no visible Church distinct from the Roman, out of which she could departed, as it is likewise well known that Luther, & his followers departed out of her: Therefore she is no way liable to this Mark of Heresy, but Protestants cannot possibly avoid it. To this purpose S. Prosper hath these pithy words: A Christian communicating (f) Dimid. temp. cap. 5. with the universal Church is a Catholic, and he who is divided from her, is an Heretic, and Antichrist. But Luther in his first Reformation could not communicate with the visible Catholic 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 Heretic etc. Which likewise is no less clearly proved out of S. Cyprian, saying: Not we (g) Lib. de Vnit. Ecles. departed from them, but they from us, and since Heresies and Schisms are bred afterwards, while they make to themselves diverse Conventicles, they have forsaken the head and origen of Truth. 19, And that we might not remain doubtful what separation it is, which is the mark 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 & writ 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 Catholic Church. S. Hierome writing to Pope Damasus saith: I am in the Communion (h) Ep. 57 add Damas'. of the Chair of Peter; I know that the Church is built upon that Rock. Whosever shall eat the Lamb out of this house he is profane. If any shall not be in the Ark of No, 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 else where's Which doth he (i) Lib. 1. Apolog. call his faith? That of the Roman Church? Or that which is contained in the Books of Origen; If he answer, the Roman, than we are Catholics, who have translated nothing of the error of Origen. And yet further: Know thou, that the (k) Ibid. lib. 3. Roman faith commended by the voice of the Apostle doth not receive these delusions, though an Angel should denounce otherwise, than it hath once been preached. S. Ambrose recounting how his Brother Satyrus enquiring for a Church wherein to give thanks for his delivery from Shipwreck, saith: he called unto him (l) De obitu Satyris fratri. the Bishop, neither did he esteem any favour to be true, except that of the true faith, and he asked of him whether he agreed with the Catholic Bishops; that is, with the Roman Church. And having understood that he was a schismatic, that is, separated from the Roman Church, he abstained from communicating with him. Where we see the privilege 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 Rights (m) lib. 1. ep. 4. ad Jmperatores. of Venerable Communion do flow to all. S. Cyprian saith: They are bold (n) Epist. 55. ad Cornel. to sail to the Chair of Peter, and to the principal Church, from whence Priestly Unity hath sprung. Neither do they consider, that they are Romans, whose Faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle, to whom falsehood cannot have access. Where we see this holy Father joins together the principal Church, and the Chair of Peter; and affirmeth that falsehood not only hath not had, but cannot have access to that Sea. And else where: Thou wrotest that I should send (o) Epist. 52. a Copy of the same letters to Cornelius our Colleague, that laying aside all solicitude, he might now be assured that thou didst Communicate with him, that is, with the Catholic 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 & Pope of Rome, and to communicate with the Catholic Church? S. Irenaeus saith: Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches, (p) Lib. 3. çont. haer. c. 3. we declaring the Tradition (and faith preached to men, and coming to us by Tradition) of the most great, most ancient, and most known Church, founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul; which Tradition it hath from the Apostles, coming to us by succession of Bishops; We confound all those who any way either by evil complacence of themselves, or vain glory, or by blindness, or ill Opinion do gather otherwise then they ought. For to this Church for a more powerful Principality, it is necessary that all Church's resort, that is, all faithful people of what place soever: in which (Roman Church) the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath always been conserved from those who are every where. S. Augustin saith: It gri●●ues us (q) In psal. count. part●●n Donati. to see you so to lie cut off. Number the Priest even from the Sea of Peter; and consider in that order of Fathers who succeeded to whom. She is the Rook which the proud Gates of Hell do not overcome. And in another place, speaking of Cacilianu he saith: He might contemn the conspiring (r) Ep. 162. multitude of his Enemies, because he knew himself to be united, by Communicatory letters both to the Roman Church in which the Principality of the Sea Apostolic did always flourish; and to other Countries from whence the Gospel came first into Africa. Ancient Tertullian saith: If thou be near Italy, thou hast Rome whose (s) Praeser. cap. 36. Authority is near at hand to us: a happy Church, into which the Apostles have poured all Doctrine, together with their blood. S. Basill in a letter to the Bishop of Rome saith. In very deed that which was given (t) Epist. ad Pont. Rom. by our Lord to thy Piety, is worthy of that most excellent voice which proclaimed thee Blessed, to wit, that thou mayst discern betwixt that which is counterfeit, and that which is lawful and pure, and without any diminution mayest preach the Faith of our Ancestors. Maximianus Bishop of Constantinople about twelve hundred years ago, said: All the bounds of the earth who have sincerely acknowledged our Lord, and Catholics through the whole world professing the true Faith, look upon the power of the Bishop of Rome, as upon the sun etc. For the Creator of the world, amongst all men of the world elected him, (he speaks of S. Peter) to whom he granted the Chair of Doctor to be principally possessed by a perpetual right of Privilege; that whosoever is desirous to know any divine and profound thing, may have recourse to the Oracle, and Doctrine of this instruction. john Patriarch of Constantinople, more than eleven hundred years ago in an Epistle to Pope Hormisda, writeth thus: Because (u) Epist. ad Hormis. PP. the beginning of salvation is to conserve the rule of right Faith, & in no wise to swerve from the tradition of our forefathers'; because the words of our Lord cannot fail, saying: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church; the proofs of deeds have made good those words, because in the Sea Apostolical the Catholic Religion is always 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 Catholic Church, that is to say, who consent not fully with the Sea Apostolic. Many other Authorities of the ancient Fathers might be produced to this purpose, but these may serve to show, that both the Latin. & Greek Fathers held for a Note of being a Catholic, or an Heretic, to have been united, or divided from the Sea of Rome. And I have purposely alleged only such Authorities of Fathers, as speak of the privileges of the Sea of Rome, as of things permament, and depending on our Saviour's promise to S. Peter, from which a general rule, and ground ought to be taken for all Ages, because Heaven and Earth shall (w) Matt. 24.35. pass, 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 themselves from the Sea of Rome, they bear the inseparable Mark of Heresy. 20. And though my meaning be not to treat the point of Ordination, or Succession in the Protestants Church, because the Father's alleged in the last reason, assign 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 personal 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 means whatsoever; and endued also with jurisdiction and Authority to teach, to preach, to govern the Church by laws, precepts, censures, etc. Protestant's 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, & consequently must affirm that when their pretended Bishops or Priests are deprived of jurisdiction, or degraded, they remain mere lay Persons as before their Ordination; fulfilling what Tert●●●lian objects as a mark of Heresy: To day a Priest, to morrow (x) Praeser. çap. 41. a Layman. For if there be no immoveable Character, their power of Order must consist only in jurisdiction, and authority, or in a kind of moral 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 jurisdiction. For all the Authority, or jurisdiction 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 give them Authority. But according to their own doctrine, they believe that the Pope neither hath, or aught to have any jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre-eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical, or Spiritual within this Realm, which they swear even when they are ordained Bishops, Priests, and Deacons: How then can the Pope give jurisdiction where they swear he neither hath, nor AUGHT to have any? Or if yet he had, how could they without Schism withdraw themselves from his obedience? Besides, the Roman Church never gave 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 gave Authority to their pretended Successors? The Primate of England? But from whom had he such Authority? And after his decease, who shall confer Authority upon his Successors? The temporal Magistrate? King Henry, neither a Catholic, nor a Protestant? King Edward, a Child? Queen Elizabeth, a Woman? An Infant of one hours' Age, is true King in case of his Predecessors decease: But shall your Church lie fallow till that Infant-King, and green Head of the Church come to years of discretion? Do your Bishops, your Hierarchy, your Succession, your Sacraments, your being or not being Heretics for want of Succession, depend on this newfound Supremacy-doctrine brought in by such a man merely upon base occasions, and for shameful ends; impugned by Caluin, and his followers; derided by the Christian world; & even by chief Protestants as D. Andrew's, Wotton etc. not held for any necessary point of faith? And from whom I pray you, had Bishops their Authority, when there were no Christian Kings? Must the Greek Patriarches receive spiritual jurisdiction from the Greek Turk. Did the Pope, by the Baptism of Princes, lose the spiritual Power he formerly had of conferring spiritual jurisdiction upon Bishops? Hath the temporal Magistrate authority to preach, to assoil from sins, to inflict excommunications, and other Censures? Why hath he not Power to excommunicate, as well as to dispense in Irregularity, as our late Sovereign Lord King james, either dispensed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury, or else gave commission to some Bishops to do ●t? and since they were subject to their Primate, and not he to them, it is clear, that they had no Power to dispense with him, but that power must proceed from the Prince, as Superior to them all, and head of the Protestants Church in England. If he have no such authority, how can he give to others what himself hath not? Your Ordination, or Consecration of Bishops and Priests imprinting no Character, can only consist in giving a Power, Authority, jurisdiction, or (as I said before) some kind of Deputation to exercise Episcopal, or Priestly functions: If then, the temporal Magistrate confers this Power etc. he can, nay he cannot choose but Ordain, and consecrate Bishops, and Priests, as often as he confers Authority or Jurisdiction: and your Bishops as soon as they are designed and confirmed by the King, must ipso faclo be Ordained and Consecrated by him without intervention of Bishops, or Matter and Form of Ordination: Which absurdities you will be more unwilling to grant, than 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 receive any Spiritual jurisdiction from any Temporal Prince, and therefore if jurisdiction must be derived from Princes, he hath none at all: and yet either you must acknowledge, that he hath true spiritual jurisdiction, or that yourselves can receive none from him. 21. Moreover, this new Reformation, or Reformed Church of Protestants, will by them be pretended to be Catholic, or Universal, 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 etc. In which number, they of Germany, Holland, and France, are not governed by Bishops, nor regard any personal Succession, unless of such fat-beneficed Bishops as Nicolaus Amsfordius, who was consecrated by Luther, (though Luther himself was never Bishop) as witnesseth (y) In 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 kingdom with personal 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 Protestant's of England, and the true Catholic Church: And by this want of a continued personal Succession of Bishops, they retain the note of Schism, & Heresy. So that the Church of Protestants, must either not be universal, as being confined to England; Or if you will needs comprehend all those Churches which want Succession, you must confess, that your Church doth not only communicate with Schismatical and Heretical Churches, but is also compounded of such Churches; & yourselves cannot avoid the note of Schismatics, or Heretics, if it were but for participating with such heretical Churches. For it is impossible to retain Communion with the true Catholic Church, and yet agree with them who are divided from her by Schism, or Heresy; because that were to affirm, that for the self same time, they could be within, and without the Catholic Church, as proportionably I discoursed in the next precedent Chapter, concerning the Communicating of moderate Protestants with those who maintain that Heresy of the Latency and Inuisibility of God's Church, where I brought a place of S. Cyprian to this purpose, which the Reader may be pleased to review in the Fifth Chapter, and 17. Number. 22. But besides this defect in the personal Succession of Protestant Bishops, there is another of great moment; which is, that they want the right Form of ordaining Bishops, and Priests, because the manner which they use is so much different from that of the Roman Church (at least according to the common opinion of Divines) that it cannot be sufficient for the Essence of Ordination; as I could demonstrate if this were the proper place of such a Treatise, and will not fail to do if D. Potter give me occasion. In the mean time the Reader may be pleased to read the Author (z) See Adamum Tamnerum tom. 4. disp. 7. quaest. 2. dub. 3. & 4. cited here in the margin, & then compare the form of our Ordination with that of Protestants; and to remember that if the form which they use either in Consecrating Bishops, or in Ordaining Priests be at least doubtful, they can neither have undoubted Priests, nor Bishops. For Priests cannot be ordained but by true Bishops, nor can any be a true Bishop, unless he first be Priest. I say, their Ordination is at least doubtful; because that sufficeth for my present purpose. For Bishops and Priests, whose Ordination is notoriously known to be but doubtful, are not to be esteemed Bishops, or Priests: and no man without Sacrilege can receive Sacraments from them; all which they administer unlawfully: And (if we except Baptism, with manifest danger of invalidity, and with obligation to be at least conditionally repeated) so Protestant's must remain doubtful of Remission of sins, of their Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and may not pretend to be a true Church, which cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops, and Priests, nor without due administration of Sacraments, which (according to Protestants) is an essential note of the true Church. And it is a world to observe the proceeding of English Protestants in this point of their Ordinations. For first, Ann. 3. Edw. 6. cap. 2. when he was a Child about twelve years of age, It was enacted, that such (a) Dyer fol, 234. term. Mich. 6. & 7. Eliz. form of making, and consecrating of Bishops and Priests, as by six Prelates, and six other to be appointed by the King, should be devised (mark this word, devised) and set forth under the great Seal; should be used, and none other. But after, this Act was repealed 1. Mar. Sess. 2. in so much as that when afterward An. 6. & 7. Reg. Eliz. Bishop Bonner being indicted upon a certifitate made by D. Horn a Protestant Bishop of Winchester, for his refusal of the Oath of Supremacy; and he excepting against the endictment because D. Horn was no Bishop; all the judges resolved that his exception was good, if indeed D. Horn was not Bishop; and they were all at a stand, till An. 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 means of any certificate by any Bishop or Archbishop made before this last Act. Whereby it is clear, that they made some doubt of their own ordination; and that there is nothing but uncertainty in the whole business of their Ordination, which (forsooth) must depend upon six Prelates, the great Seal, Acts of Parliaments being contrary one to another, and the like. 23. But though they want Personal Succession; yet at least they have Succession of doctrine as they say, & pretend to prove, because they believe as the Apostles believed. This is to beg the Question, and to take what they may be sure, will never be granted. For if they want Personal Succession, and slight Ecclesiastical Tradition, how will they persuade any man, that they agree with the doctrine of the Apostles? We have heard Tertullian saying: I will prescribe (b) Sup. 〈…〉 against all Heretics) that there is no means to prove what the Apostles preached, but by the same Churches which they founded. And S. Irenaeus tells us that, We may (c) L. 3. 〈…〉 behold the Tradition of the Apostles in every Church, if men be desirous to bear the truth; and we can number them who were made Bishops by the Apostles in Churches, and their Successors, even to us. And the same Father in another place saith: We ought to obey (d) L. 4. 〈◊〉 43. those Priests who are in the Church, who have Succession from the Apostles, and who together with Succession in their Bishoprickes have received the certain gift of truth. S. Augustin saith: I am kept in the Church (e) Contr. epist. Fundam. cap. 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 wholesome Rule (happy, if himself had followed the same) in these excellent words: Since there be many who think (f) Praef. ad lib. Peri●●●chon. they believe the things which are of Christ, and some are of different opinion from those who went before them; let the preaching of the Church be kept, which is delivered by the Apostles by order of Succession, and remains in the Church to this very day; that only is to be believed for truth, which in nothing disagrees from the Tradition of the Church. In vain then do these men brag of the doctrine of the Apostles, unless first they can demonstrate that they enjoy a continued Succession of Bishops from the Apostles, and can show us a Church which according to S. Augustin is deduced by undoubted SUCCESSION from the Sea (g) Cont. Faust. cap. 2, of the Apostles, even to the present Bishops. 23. But yet nevertheless, 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 days of those persons who challenge such a Succession. And so S. Augustine saith: We are to believe that Gospel which from the time of the Apostles, the (h) Lib. 28. cout. Faust. ●. 2. Church hath brought down to our days by a never-interrupted course of times, and by undoubted succession of connection. Now, that the Reformation begun by Luther, was interrupted for diverse 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 sought to revive, and reduce to the knowledge, and practise 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 infer, 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 amiss to note, that although the Waldenses, Wicliffe etc. had agreed with Protestants in all points of doctrine; yet they could not brag 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 Universality of Time, which is inseparable from the Catholic Church; so likewise the disagreeing Sects which are dispersed throughout diverse Countries, and Nations, cannot help towards that Vniacrsality of Place, wherewith the true Church must be endued: but rather such local multiplication, doth more and more lay open their division, and want of Succession in Doctrine. For the excellent Observation of S. Augustine doth punctually agree with all modern Heretics; wherein this holy Father having cited these words out of the Prophet Ezechiel, (i) Cap. 24. My flocks are dispersed upon the whole face of the Earth; he adds this remarkable sentence: Not all Heretics (k) Lib. de Pastorib. c. 8. are spread over the face of the Earth, and yet there are Heretics 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 diverse places they are diverse: one Mother Pride hath begot them all, as our one Mother the Catholic Church hath brought forth all faithful people dispersed throughout the whole world. No wonder then, if Pride breed Dissension, and Charity Union. And in another place, applying to Heretics those words of the Canticles: If thou know not (l) Cant. 1. thyself, go forth, and follow after the steps of the flocks, and feed thy kids, he saith: If thou know not thyself, go (m) Ep. 48. thou forth, I do not cast thee out, but go thou out, that it may be said of thee: They went from us, but they were not of us. Go thou out in the steps of the flocks; not in my steps, but in the steps of the flocks, nor of one flock, but of diverse and wand'ring flocks; And feed thy Kids, not as Peter, to whom is said, Feed my sheep: but feed 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 Marks of Heresy to wit, going out from the Church, and Want of Unity among themselves, which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme Visible Pastor and Head under Christ. And so it being proved that Protestants having neither succession of Persons, nor Doctrine, nor Universality 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 embrace any one error, contrary to any truth sufficiently propounded, as testified or revealed by Almighty God. Which were enough to make good, that among Persons who disagree in any one point of faith, one part only can be saved: Yet we will now prove that whosoever erreth in any one point, doth also break the Affirmative Precept of Faith, whereby we are obliged positively, to believe some revealed truth with an infallible, and supernatural Faith, which is necessary to salvation, even necessitate finis, or medij, 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 (n) Hebr. 11.6. it is impossible to please God. 26. In the beginning of this Chapter I shown, that to Christian Catholic faith are required Certainty, Obscurity, Prudence, and Supernaturality: All which Conditions we will prove to be wanting in the belief of Protestants, even in those points which are true in themselves, and to which they yield assent, as happeneth in all those particulars, wherein they agree with us; from whence it will follow, that they wanting true Divine Faith, want means absolutely necessary to salvation. 27. And first, The faith of Protestants wanteth Certainty. that their belief wanteth Certainty, I prove, because they denying the Universal infallibility of the Church, can have no certain ground to know what Objects are revealed, or testified by God. Holy Scripture is in itself most true and infallible, but-without the direction & declaration of the Church, we can neither have certain means to know what Scripture is Canonical; nor what Translations be faithful; nor what is the true meaning of Scripture. Every Protestant, as I suppose, is persuaded 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 diverse Texts etc. and yet their disagreements show that some of them are deceived: And therefore it is clear that they have no one certain ground whereon to rely for understanding of Scripture. And seeing they hold all the Articles of Faith, even concerning fundamental points, upon the self same ground of Scripture, interpreted, not by the Church's Authority, but according to some other Rules, which as experience of their contradictions teach, do sometimes fail; it is clear that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all. And albeit sometime it chance to hit on the truth, yet it is likewise apt to lead them to error: As all Arch-heretiques believing some truths, and withal diverse errors upon the same ground and motive, have indeed no true divine infallible faith, but only a fallible humane opinion, and persuasion. For if the ground upon which they rely were certain, it could never produce any error. 28. Another cause of Uncertainty in the faith of Protestants, must rise from their distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental. For since they acknowledge, that every error in fundamental points destroyeth the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points be fundamental: it followeth that they must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamental error, & so want the substance of faith, without which there can be no hope of Salvation. 24. And that he who erreth against any one revealed truth (as certainly some Protestants must do, because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true) doth lose all Divine faith; is a very true doctrine delivered by Catholic Divines, with so general a consent, that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious. The Angelical Doctor S. Thomas proposeth this Question: Whether (o) 2.2. q. 3. ar. 3. in ●orp. he who denyeth one Article of faith, may retain faith of other Articles? and resolveth that he cannot: which he proveth, (Argumenta sed contra) because; As deadly sin is opposite 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 denial of any one Article of faith. Whereof he gives this further reason: Because (saith he) the nature of every habit doth depend upon the formal Motive & Object thereof, which Motive being taken away the nature of the habit cannot remain. But the formal Object 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 Scriptures) as upon an infallible Rule, he hath not the habit of faith, but believes those things which belong to faith, by some other means then by faith: as if one ●hould remember some Conclusion, and not know the reason of that demonstration, it is clear that he hath not certain knowledge, but only Opinion. Now it is manifest, that he who relies on the doctrine of the Church, as upon an infallible Rule, will yield his assent to all, that the Church teacheth. For if among those things, which she teacheth, he hold what he will, and doth not hold what he will not, he doth not rely upon the doctrine of the Church, as upon an infallible Rule, but only upon his own will. And so it is clear that an Heretic, 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 Heretic in any one Article of faith, concerning other Articles, hath not faith, but a kind of Opinion, or his own will. Thus far S. Thomas. And afterward: A man doth believe (q) Ad 2. all the Articles of faith for one and the self same reason, to wit, for the Prime Verity proposed to us in the Scripture, understood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church: and therefore whosoever falls from this reason or motive, is totally deprived of faith. From this true doctrine we 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 God's divine Testimony, which is involved in every least error against Faith. And since some Protestants must needs err, and that they have no certain Rule to know, why rather one then another; it manifestly follows that none of them have any Certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point. Moreover D. Potter, being forced to confess that the Roman Church wants not the substance of faith; it follows that she doth not err in any one point against faith, because as we have seen out of S. Thomas, every such error destroys the substance of faith. Now if the Roman Church did not err in any one point of faith, it is manifest that Protestants err in all those points wherein they are contrary to her. And this may suffice to prove that the faith of Protestants wants Infallibility. 30. And now for the second Condition of faith, I say: If Protestants have Certainty, They want the second Condition of Faith, Obscurity. 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 Protestants, is settled on these two Principles: These particular Books are Canonical Scripture: And, the sense and meaning of these Canonical Scriptures, is clear and evident, at least in all points necessary to Salvation. Now, these Principles being once supposed, it clearly followeth, that what Protestants believe as necessary to Salvation, is evidently known by them to be true, by this argument: It is certain and evident, that whatsoever is contained in the word of God, is true. But it is certain and evident, that these Books in particular are the word of God: Therefore it is certain and evident, that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true. Which Conclusion I take for a Mayor in a second Argument, and say thus: It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true: but it is certain and evident, that such particular Articles (for example, the Trinity, Incarnation, Original sin etc.) 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 natural discourse, but only to the eye of reason cleared by grace, as you speak. For supernatural evidence, no less (yea rather more) draws and excludes obscurity, then natural evidence doth: neither can the party so enlightened be said voluntarily to captivated his understanding to that light, but rather his understanding is by a necessity made captive, and forced not to disbelieved, 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. 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 wisdom was it, to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient, and besides which, there could be demonstrated no other visible Church of Christ upon earth? A Church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation; endued with Succession of Bishops, with Visibility and Universality of Time and Place; A Church which if it be not the true Church, her enemies cannot pretend to have any Church, Ordination, Scriptures, Succession, etc. and are forced for their own sake, to maintain her perpetual Existence, and Being? To leave, I say, such a Church, & frame a Community, without either Unity, or means to procure it; a Church which at Luther's first revolt had no larger extent than where his body was; A Church without Universality of place or Time; A Church which can pretend no Visibility, or Being, except only in that former Church which it opposeth; A Church void of Succession of Persons or Doctrine? What wisdom was it to follow such men as Luther, in an opposition against the visible Church of Christ, begun upon mere passion? What wisdom is it to receive from Us, a Church, Ordination, Scriptures, Personal Succession, and not Succession of Doctrine? Is not this to verify the name of Heresy, which signifieth Election or Choice? Whereby they cannot avoid that note of Imprudency, (or as S. Augustine calls it) Foolishness, set down by him against the Manichees, and by me recited before. I would not (saith he) believe (r) Cont. ep. Fund. ç. 5. the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Church did move me. Those therefore whom I obeyed, saying, Believe the Gospel, why should I not obey the same men saying to me, Do not believe Manichaeus (Luther, Caluin, etc.) Choose what thou pleasest: If thou say, Believe the Catholics; they warn me, not to believe thee. Wherefore if I believe them, I cannot believe thee. If thou say, Do not believe the Catholics; thou shalt not do well, in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus, because by the Preaching of Catholics, I believed the Gospel itself. If thou say; you did well to believe them (Catholics) commending the Gospel, 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? Nay this holy Father is not content to call it Foolishness, but mere Madness, in these words: Why should I not most diligently inquire (s) Lib. de util. Cred. ç. 14. what Christ commanded of those 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 me? This therefore I believed by fame, strengthened with Celebrity, Consent, Antiquity. But every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing which deserves Authority. What MADNESS is this? Believe them (Catholics) that we ought to believe Christ; but learn of us, what Christ said. Why I beseech thee? Surely if they (Catholics) were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, I would more easily persuade myself, that I were not to believe Christ, than I should learn any thing concerning him from any other than those, by whom I believed him. Lastly, I ask what wisdom it could be to leave all visible Churches, and consequently the true Catholic Church of Christ, which you confess cannot err in points necessary to salvation, and the Roman Church which you grant doth not err in fundamentals, and follow private men who may err even in points necessary to salvation? Especially if we add, that when Luther rose there was no visible true Catholic Church besides that of Rome, and them who agreed with her; in which sense, she was, & 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 coming to dispute against other Heretics, he is forced to give the Lie both to his own words and deeds, in saying: We freely confess (t) In epist. count. Anab. ad duos Paerochos. to. 2, Germ. Witt. fol. 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 confess, that in the Papacy there is true Scripture, true Baptism, the true Sacrament of the Altar, the true keys for remission of sins, the true Office of Preaching, true Catechism, as our Lord's Prayer, Ten Commandments, Articles of faith etc. And afterward: I avouch, that under the Papacy there is true Christianity, yea the Kernel and Marrow of Christianity, and many pious and great Saints. And again he affirmeth, that the Church of Rome hath the true Spirit, Gospels, Faith, Baptism, Sacraments, the Keys, the Office of Preaching, Prayer, Holy Scripture, and whatsoever Christianity ought to have. And a little before: I hear and see that they bring in Anabaptisme only to this end, that they may spite the Pope, as men that will receive nothing from Antichrist; no otherwise then the Sacramentaries do, who therefore believe only Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament, merely in hatred against the Bishop of Rome; and they think that by this means they shall overcome the Papacy. Verily these men rely upon a weak ground, for by this means they must deny the whole Scripture, and the Office of Preaching. For we have all these things from the Pope; otherwise we must go make a new Scripture. O Truth, more forcible (as S. Augustine says) to wring out (x) Contra Donat. post collat. cap. 24. Confession, then is any rack, or torment! And so we may truly say with Moses: Inimici nostri sunt judices: Our very Enemies give (y) Deut. c. 32. 31. sentence for us. 32. Lastly, since your faith wanteth Certainty, and Prudence, it is easy to infer that it wants the fourth Condition, Supernaturality. Their faith wants Supernaturality. For being but an Humane persuasion, or Opinion, it is not in nature, or Essence Supernatural. And being imprudent, and rash, it cannot proceed from divine Motion and Grace; and therefore it is neither supernatural in itself, or in the Cause from which it proceedeth. 33. Since therefore we have proved, that whosoever errs against any one point of faith, looseth all divine faith, even concerning those other Articles wherein he doth not err; and that although he could still retain true faith for some points, yet any one error in whatsoever other matter concerning faith, is a grievous sin; it clearly follows, 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 Catholics be charged with Want of Charity, and Modesty, and be accused of rashness, 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 error overthrows all faith, and whosoever is guilty thereof, is in the Church, like one, who in the Commonwealth forgeth false Coin: Let them hear (saith this holy Father) what S. Paul saith: Namely, that they who brought in some small error (z) Galat. ●. 7. had overthrown the Gospel. For, to show how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole, he said, that the Gospel was subveried. For as he who eclipse a little of the stamp from the King's money, makes the whole piece of no value: so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound faith, is wholly corrupted, always going from that beginning to worse things. Where then are they, who condemn us as contentious persons, because we cannot agree with Heretics, and do often say, that there is no difference betwixt us and them, but that our disagreement proceeds from Ambition to domineer? And thus having showed that Protestants want true Faith, it remaineth that, according to my first design, I examine whether they do not also want Charity, as it respects a man's self. CHAP. VII. In regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones self, Protestants are in state of Sin, as long as they remain separated from the Roman Church. THAT, due Order is to be observed in the Theological Virtue of Charity, whereby we are directed to prefer some Objects before others; is a truth taught by all Divines, and declared in these words of holy Scripture: He hath ordered (a) Cant. 2. ● Charity in me. The reason whereof is: because the infinite Goodness of God, which is the formal Object, or Motive of Charity, & for which all other things are loved, is differently participated by different Objects; and therefore the love we bear to them for God's sake, must accordingly be unequal. In the virtue of Faith, the case is fare otherwise; because all the Objects, or points which we believe, do equally participate the divine Testimony, or Revelation, for which we believe a like all things propounded for such. For it is as impossible for God, to speak 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 error against Faith, is injurious to God, and destructive of Salvation. 2. This order in Charity may be considered; Towards God; Our own soul; The soul of our Neighbour; Our own life, or Goods; and the life or goods of our Neighbour. God is to be beloved above all things, both obiective (as the Divines speak) 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 etc. and also appretiatiuè, that is, we must sooner lose what good soever, then leave, and abandon Him. In the other Objects of Charity, of which I spoke, this Order is to be kept. We may, but are not bound, to prefer the life and goods of our Neighbour before our own: we are bound to prefer the soul of our Neighbour before our own temporal goods or life, if he happen to be in extreme spiritual necessity, and that we by our assistance can secure him, according to the saying of S. john: In this we have known (b) 1. joan. 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 (c) De meudac. cap. 6. to lose his own temporal life, for the eternal life of his Neighbour. Lastly we are to prefer the spiritual good of our own soul, before both the spiritual and temporal good of our Neighbour; because as Charity doth of its own Nature, chief incline the person in whom it resides, to love God, and to be united with him: so of itself it inclines him, to procure those things whereby the said Union with God is effected, rather to himself then to others. And from hence it follows, that in things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case, or in any respect whatsoever, to prefer the spiritual good, either of any particular person, or of the whole world before his own soul; according to those words of our Blessed Saviour: What doth it (d) Matt. 6. avail a man, if he gain the whole world, and sustain the damage of his own soul? 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 ourselves, which Divines call Charitas propria, to adventure either the omitting of any means necessary to salvation, or the committing of any thing repugnant to it, for whatsoever respect; & consequently, if by living out of the Roman Church we put ourselves in hazard, either to want some thing necessarily required to salvation, or else to perform some act against it, we commit a most grievous sin, against the virtue of Charity, as it respects our selves, and so cannot hope for salvation, without repentance. 3. Now, of things necessary to salvation, there are two sorrs, according to the doctrine of all Divines. Some things (say they) are necessary to salvation, necessitate praecepti, necessary only because they are commanded; For: If thou wilt (e) Matt. ●●. 17. enter into life, keep the Commandments. In which kind of things, as probable ignorance of the Law, or of the Commandment 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 Means appointed by God to attain our End of eternal salvation, in so strict a manner, that it were presumption to hope for Salvation without them. And as the former means are said to be necessary, because they are commanded; so the later are commonly said to be commanded, because they are necessary, that is: Although there were no other special precept concerning them; yet supposing they be once appointed as means absolutely necessary to salvation, there cannot but rise an obligation of procuring to have them, in virtue of that universal precept of Charity, which obligeth every man to procure the salvation of his own soul. In this sort divine infallible Faith is necessary to salvation; as likewise repentance of every deadly sin, and in the doctrine of Catholics, Baptism in re, that is, in act to Children, and for those who are come to the use of reason, in voto, or hearty desire, when they cannot have it in act. And as Baptism is necessary for remission of Original, and actual sin committed before it: so the Sacrament of Confession, or Penance is necessary in re, or in vote, in act, or desire, for the remission of mortal sins, committed after Baptism. The Minister of which Sacrament of Penance being necessarily a true Priest, true Ordination is necessary in the Church of God for remission of sins 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 departed this world without repenting himself of all deadly sins, although he die suddenly, or unexpectedly fall out of his wits, and so commit no new sin by omission of repentance; yet he shall be eternally punished for his former sins committed, and never repent. If an Infant dye without Baptism, he cannot be saved, not by reason of any actual sin committed by him in omitting Baptism, but for Original sin, not forgiven by the means which God hath ordained to that purpose. Which doctrine, all, or most Protestant's will (for aught I know) grant to be true, in the Children of Infidels, yea not only Lutherans, but also some other Protestants as M. Bilson late of Winchester (f) In his true difference etc. part. 4 pag. 368. & 369. and others hold it to be true, even in the Children of the faithful. And if Protestants in general disagree from Catholics in this point, it cannot be denied but that our disagreement is in a point very fundamental. And the like I say of the Sacrament of Penance, which they deny to be necessary to salvation, either in act, or in desire; which error is likewise fundamental, because it concerns (as I said) a thing necessary to salvation: And for the same reason, if their Priesthood and Ordination be doubtful, as certainly it is, they are in danger to want a means without which they cannot be saved. Neither ought this rigour to seem strange, or unjust: For Almighty God having of his own Goodness, without our merit, first ordained Man to a supernatural end of eternal 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 means which in his infinite Wisdom he thinks most fit; who can say, why dost thou so? Or who can hope for that End, without such means? Blessed be his divine Majesty, for vouchsafing to ordain us, base creatures, to so sublime an End, by any means 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 avoydnng sin, that we proceed prudently, and by the conduct of some probable opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men of virtue, learning, & wisdom. Neither are we always obliged to follow the most strict, and severe, or secure part, as long as the doctrine which we 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 affairs, and discourse, evidence and certainty cannot be always expected. But when we treat not precisely of avoiding sin, but moreover of procuring some thing without which I can not be saved; I am obliged by the Law, & Order of Charity to procure as great certainty as morally I am able; and am not to follow every 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 incur a new sin against the Virtue of Charity towards myself, which obligeth every one not to expose his soul to the hazard of eternal perdition, when it is in his power, with the assistance of God's grace, to make the matter sure. From this very ground it is, that although some Divines be of opinion, that it is not a sin to use some Matter, or Form of Sacraments, only probable, if we respect precisely the reverence or respect which is due to Sacraments, as they belong to the Moral infused Virtue of Religion; yet when they are such Sacraments, as the invalidity thereof may endanger the salvation of souls, all do with one consent agree, that it is a grievous offence to use a doubtful, or only probable Matter or Form, when it is in our power to procure certainty. If therefore it may appear, that though it were not certain that Protestancy unrepented destroys Salvation (as we have proved to be very certain) yet at least that is probable, & with all, that there is a way more safe; it will follow out of the grounds already laid, that they are obliged by the law of Charity to embrace that safe way. 5. Now, that Protestants have reason at least to doubt in what case they stand, is deduced from what we have said, and proved about the universal infallibility of the Church, and of her being judge of Controversies, to whom all Christians ought to submit their judgement (as even some Protestants grant,) and whom to oppose in any one of her definitions, is a grievous sin: As also from what we have said of the Unity, Universality, 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 fundamental and not fundamental, (the cofutation whereof proveth that Heretics disagreeing among themselves in any least point, cannot have the same faith, nor be of the same Church:) Of Schism; 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 error, & it is certain that some of them must be in error, and want the substance of true faith; and since all pretend the like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all, but that they want true faith, which is a means most absolutely necessary to Salvation. Moreover, as I said heretofore, since it is granted that every Error in fundamental points is damnable, & that they cannot tell in particular, what points be fundamental; it follows that none of them knows whether he, or his Brethren do not err damnably, it being certain that amongst so many disagreeing persons some must err. Upon the same ground of not being able to assign what points be fundamental, I say, they cannot be sure whether the difference among them be fundamental or no, and consequently whether they agree in the substance of faith and hope of Salvation. I omit to add that you want the Sacrament of Penance, instituted for remission of sins, or at least you must confess that you hold it not necessary; and yet your own Brethren, for example, the Century Writers do (g) Cent. 3. cap. 6. col. 127. acknowledge, that in the times of Cyprian, and Tertulian, 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 doubtful, & consequently all that depends thereon. 6. On the other side, that the Roman Church is the safer way to Heaven (not to repeat what hath been already said upon diverse occasions) I will again put you in mind, that unless the Roman Church was the true Church, there was no visible true Church upon Earth. A thing so manifest, that Protestants themselves confess that more than one thousand years the Roman Church possessed the whole world, as we have showed heretofore, out of their own (h) Chap. 5. num. 9 words: from whence it follows, that unless Ours be the true Church, you cannot pretend to any perpetual visible Church of your Own; but Ours doth not depend on yours, before which it was. And here I wish you to consider with fear and trembling; how all Roman Catholics, not one excepted; that is, those very men whom you must hold not to err damnably in their belief, unless you will destroy your own Church, and salvation, do with unanimous consent believe, and profess that Protestancy unrepented, destroys Salvation; and then tell me, as you will answer at the last day, whether it be not more safe, to live & die in that Church, which even yourselves are forced to acknowledge not to be cut off from hope of salvation (which are your own words) then to live in a Church, which the said confessedly true Church doth firmly believe, and constantly profess not to be capable of salvation. And therefore I conclude that by the most strict obligation of Charity towards your own soul, you are bound to place it in safety, by returning to that Church, from which your Progenitors Schismatically departed; lest too late you find that saying of the holy Ghost verified in yourselves: He that love's (i) Eccles. ●. 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 yourself. It is taken from the words of the Donatists, speaking to Catholics in this manner: Yourselves confess (k) pag. 112. our Baptism, Sacraments, and Faith (here you put an Explication of your own, and faith, 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 join with us. 8. By your leave our Argument is not (as you say) for simple people alone, but for all them who have care to save their souls. Neither is it grounded upon your Charitable judgement (as you (l) Pag. 81. speak) but upon an inevitable necessity for you, either to grant salvation to our Church, or to entail certain damnation upon your own: because yours can have no being till Luther, unless ours be supposed to have been the true Church of Christ. And since you term this Argument a Charm, take heed you be none of those, who according to the Prophet David, do not hear the voice of him (m) Psal. v. 6. who charmeth wisely. But to come to the purpose: Catholics never granted that the Donatists had a true Church, or might be saved: And therefore you having cited out of S. Augustin, the words of the Catholics, that the Donatists had true Baptism, when you come to the contrary words of the Donatists, you add, No Church, No Salvation; making the Argument to have quinque terminos; without which Addition you did see, it made nothing against us: For, as I said, the Catholics never yielded, that among the Donatists there was a true Church, or hope of salvation. And yourself a few leaves after acknowledge that the Donatists maintained an error, which, was in the Matter and Nature of it properly heretical, against that Article of the Creed, wherein we profess to believe the holy (n) pag. 125. Catholic Church: and consequently, you cannot allow salvation to them, as you do, and must do to us. And thenrfore the Donatists could not make the like argument against Catholics, as Catholics make against you, who grant us Salvation, which we deny to you. But at least (you will say) this Argument for the Certainty of their Baptism, was like to Ours touching the Security and Certainty of our salvation; & therefore that Catholics should have esteemed the Baptism of the Donatists, more Certain than their own, and so have allowed Rebaptisation of such as were baptised by Heretics, or sinners, as the Donatists esteemed all Catholics to be. I answer, no. Because it being a matter of faith, that Baptism administered by Heretics, observing due Matter, Form etc. is valide; to rebaptize any so baptised, had been both a sacrilege in reitering a Sacrament not reiterable, and a profession also of a damnable Heresy, and therefore had not been more safe, but certainly damnable. But you confess that in the 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 profess as we do, cannot exclude Salvation, as Rebaptisation must have done. But if the Donatists could have affirmed with truth, that in the opinion both of Catholics and themselves their Baptism was good, yea and good in such sort as that unless theirs was good, that of the Catholics could not be such: but the●●s might be good, though that of the Catholics were not and further that it was no damnable error to believe, that Baptism administered by the Catholics was not good, nor that it was any Sacrilege to reiterate the same Baptism of Catholics: If, I say, they could have truly affirmed these things, they had said somewhat, which at least had seemed to the purpose. But these things they could not say with any colour of truth, and therefore their argument was fond, and impious. But we with truth say to Protestants: You cannot but confess that our doctrine contains no damnable error, and that our Church is so certainly a true Church, that unless ours be true you cannot pretend any; Yea you grant, that you should be guilty of Schism, if you did cut off our Church from the Body of Christ, and the hope of salvation: But we neither do, 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 join with us. And now against whom hath your Objection greatest force? 9 But I wonder not a little, and so I think will every body else, what the reason may be, that you do not so much as go about to answer the argument of the Donatists, which you say is all one with Ours, but refer us to S. Augustin 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 soul, to take the safest way, by incorporating himself in our Church. But we may easily imagine the true reason of your silence. For the answer which S. Augustine gives to the Donatists, is directly against yourself, and the same which I have given: Namely, that Catholics (o) Ad lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 108. approve the Baptism of Donatists, but abhor their heresy of Rebaptization. And that as gold is good (which is the similitude used by (p) Contrae Cresc lib. 1. cap. 21. S. Augustin) yet not to be sought in company of thiefs; so though Baptism 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 embraced in whatsoever Company it is found, or rather that Company is to be embraced before all other, in which all sides agree, that salvation may be found. We therefore must infer, that it is safest for you to seek salvation among us. You had good reason to conceal S. Augustins answer to the Donatists. 10. You frame another argument in our behalf, & make us speak thus: If Protestants believe the (q) pag. 79. Religion of Catholics, to be a safe way to Heaven, why do they not follow it? Which wise argument of your own, you answer at large, and confirm your answer by this instance: The jesuits and Dominicans hold different Opinions touching Predetermination, and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin: Yet so, that the jesuits hold the Dominicans way safe, that is, his error not damnable, and the Dominicans hold the same of the jesuits. Yet neither of them with good Consequence can press the other to believe his opinion, because by his own Confession it is no damnable error. 11. But what Catholic maketh such a wise demand, as you put into our mouths? If our Religion be a safe way to heaven, that is, not damnable; why do you not follow it? As if every thing that is good, must be of necessity embraced by every body But what think you of the Argument framed thus? Our Religion is safe, even by your Confession, therefore you ought to grant that all may embrace it. And yet further, thus: Among different Religions and contrary ways 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 aught to embrace ours. This is our Argument. And if the Dominicans and jesuits 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 fortune to be beaten with your own weapon. 12. It remaineth then that both in regard of Faith, and Charity, Protestants are obliged to unite themselves with the Church of Rome. And I may add also, in regard of the Theological Virtue of Hope, without which none can hope to be saved, and which you want, either by excess of Confidence, or defect by Despair, not unlike to your Faith, which I shown to be either deficient in Certainty, or excessive in Evidence; as likewise according to the rigid Caluinists, it is either so strong, that once had, it can never be lost; or so more than weak, and so much nothing; that it can never be gotten. For the true Theological Hope of Christians, is a Hope which keeps a mean between Presumption, and Desperation; which moves us to work our salvation with fear, and trembling; which conducts us to make sure our salvation by good works, as holy Scripture adviseth But contrarily, Protestants do either exclude Hope by Despair, with the Doctrine that our Saviour died not for all, and that such want grace sufficient to salvation; or else by vain Presumption grounded upon a fantastical persuasion, that they are Predestinate, which Faith must exclude all fear, and trembling. Neither can they make their Calling certain by good works, who do certainly believe that before any good works they are justified, and justified even by Faith alone, and by that Faith whereby they certainly believe that they are justified. Which points some Protestants do expressly affirm to be the soul of the Church; the principal 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 do now relent from the rigour of the aforesaid doctrine, we must affirm, that at least some of them want the Theological Virtue of Hope; yea that none of them can have true Hope, while they hope to be saved in the Communion of those, who defend such doctrines, as do directly overthrew all true Christian Hope. And for as much as concerns Faith, we must also infer, that they want Unity therein (and consequently have none at all) by their disagreement about the soul of the Church; the principal Origen of salvation; of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest. And if you want true Faith, you must by consequence want Hope; or if you hold that this point is not to be so indivisible on either side, but that it hath latitude sufficient to embrace all parties, without prejudice to their salvation; notwithstanding that your Brethren hold it to be the soul of the Church etc. I must repeat what I have said heretofore, that, even by this Example, it is clear, you cannot agree what points be fundamental: And so (to whatsoever answer you fly) I press you in the same manner, and say, that you have no Certainty whether you agree in fundamental points, or Unity and substance of Faith, which cannot stand with difference in fundamental. And so upon the whole matter, I leave it to be considered, whether, Want of Charity can be justly charged on us, because we affirm, that they cannot (without repentance) be saved, who want of all other the most necessary means to salvation, which are, the three Theological Virtues, FAITH, HOPE, and CHARITY. 13. And now I end this first Part, having as I conceive, complied with my first design (in that measure, which Time, Commodity, scarcity of Books, and my own small Abilities could afford) which was to show, that Amongst men of different Religions, one side only can be saved. For since there must be some infallible Means to decide all Controversies concerning Religion, and to propound truth revealed by Almighty God; and this Means can be no other, but the Visible Church of Christ, which at the time of Luther's appearance was only the Church of Rome, and such as agreed with her: We must conclude, that whosoever opposeth himself to her definitions, or forsaketh her Communion, doth resist God himself, whose spouse she is, and whose divine truth she propounds; and therefore becomes guilty of Schism, and Heresy, which since Luther, his Associates, and Protestants, have done, and still continue to do; it is not Want of Charity, but abundance of evident cause, that forceth us to declare this necessary Truth, PROTESTANCY UNREPENTED DESTROYS SALVATION. The End of the first Part. THE SECOND PART. THE PREAMBLE. SINCE I have handled the substance of our present Controversy, & answered the chief grounds of D. Potter in the First Part; I may well in this Second be more brief, referring the Reader to those several places, wherein his reasons are confuted, and his objections answered. And because in every Section, he handleth so many different points, that they cannot be ranged under one Title, or Argument; my Chapters must accordingly have no particular Title as they had in the First Part; but the Reader may be pleased to conceive, and yet do me no more than justice therein, that the Argument of every one of my seven Chapters, is an Answer to his Seven Sections, as they lie in order. But let us now address our speech to D. Potter. CHAP. I. YOU pretend, and profess in your Preface to the Reader, that you have not omitted without Answer any one thing of moment in all the Discourse of Charity Mistaken: and yet you omit that, which very much imported to the Question in hand, namely the moderate Explication of our doctrine, that Protestancy unrepented destroys Salvation; and that you must say the same of us, if you believe your own Religion to be true, and Ours to be false: which points are prudently delivered by Charity Mistaken in his second Chapter; which together with his First, you undertake to answer in this your First Section. And whereas he shown by diverse arguments that it is improbable that the Church should want Charity, your Answer to that point is superficial, and untrue in some things, and none at all in others, as will easily appear to any that shall read Charity Mistaken in his first Chapter. 2. You tell us in very confident manner, that hardly (a) Pag. 33. any Age in former times may compare with this of Ours (since this Church was happily purged from Popery) for public expressions of Charity; but you do it in so general terms, as if you were afraid of being confuted. For I beseech you, D. Potter, are the Churches which Protestants have built, any thing comparable to them which have been erected by Catholics? Do your Hospitals so much deserve as to be named? Have you any thing of that kind in effect of particular note, saving the fow mean Nurseries of idle beggars and debauched people, except perhaps Suitons' Hospital, which (as I have been informed) was to take no profit at all till he was dead? He who (as I have also understood) died so without any Children, or Brothers, or Sisters, or known kindred, as that peradventure it might have eschetead to the King? He who lived a wretched and penurious life, and drew that mass of wealth together by Usury, in which case according to good conscience, his estate without ask him leave, was by the Law of God obnoxious to restitution, and aught to have been applied to pious uses? Whereas both anciently in this Country, and at all times, and specially in this last age, men see abundance of heroical actions of this kind performed in foreign parts. And if it were not for fear of noting many other great Cities, as if there were any want of most munificent Hospitals in them, wherein they abound; I could tell you of one called the Annunciata in the City of Naples, which spends three hundred thousand Crowns per annum, which comes to about fourscore thousand pounds sterling by the year, which ever feeds, and cures a thousand sick persons, and pays for the nursing and entertaining of three thousand sucking children of poor people, and hath fourteen other distinct Hospitals under it, where the persons of those poor creatures are kept, and where they are defrayed of all their necessary charges every week. I could also tell you of an Hospital in Rome called S. Spirito of huge revenues, but it is not my meaning to enter into particulars, which would prove endless. In the mean time it is pretty entertainment for you to believe no more than you see, which is not much, and to talk in general terms, by comparing that which comes in your way, with those which are in other Countries, whereof you seem to know very little. And where I pray you can you verify that which Charity Mistaken saith of our Church in these words. (pag. 7.) Persons sick of all diseases are served and attended (after the example of Christ our Lord) by the own hands of great Princes and Prelates, and of choice and delicate Ladies and Queens, in the Communion of the holy Catholic Church? Would to God the first Head of your Church had not destroyed those innumerable glorious monuments of Charity which he found! But because our present question about the Saveablenes of Protestants belongeth rather to Faith then Charity, out of your own hyperbolical affirmation. I will infer: That seeing the Monuments of Charitable works performed by Catholics, do incomparably exceed those of yours; and yet, that time for time your Charity (as you affirm) surpasseth ours; it follows very clearly, that our Faith and Church is far more ancient than yours, and consequently that yours cannot be Catholic for all Ages. So that by exaggeration of your Charity, you have overthrown your Faith and Charity also, which cannot subsist without true Catholic Faith. 3. But yet you are so ingenuous, that you do not so much as pretend to compare your Charity in converting souls, to that of the Catholics: nor do you so much as once venture to insinuate that the Protestant Ministers leave their Country and Commodities, and the houses of rich and loving friends, to transport themselves into barbarous Nations, with the sufferance of all cruel inconveniences, and very many times of death itself, for the conversion of souls to Christ our Lord. For of this you were expressly told, and consequently how improbable it was, that Catholics should sear the dangerous state of Protestants, through mere want of Charity; whereas yet for the only exercise of that virtue, they were content with so much courage and joy to cast away their lives, & that therefore when we made that judgement of you, it was rather through our zeal and cordial desire of your good, and fear of your loss, then for want of charity, or compassion. But of this, as I was saying, you were so wise as not to speak a word. For that glorious mark of the Dilatation and Amplitude of God's Church, by the Conversion of Nations, Kings, and Kingdoms, so manifestly foretold by the holy Prophets, and ordained in the Gospel, when our Saviour bid the Apostles preach to all Nations, and yet never performed by Protestants, by evidence of fact, and by the confession of our Adversaries, doth shine most bright in the Church of Rome. 4. But I cannot say, that you omitted to rail against the jesuites, whom I will not dishonour so much, as to defend them against that which you offer so impertinently, vulgarly, and meanly against them, and particularly because in defence of a common cause I will not be diverted by the consideration of particular persons, though by reason of the Eminency of the person of Cardinal D●ossat, I cannot for bear to tell you, that you falsify him, when you make him say in his eight Epistle, that he collected from their wicked doctrine and practices, that they believe neither in jesus Christ, nor the Pope. For the Cardinal speaks not those words of any doctrine or practices of the jesuites: And in the funeral Oration which was pronounced at the Exequyes of the said Cardinal, and is prefixed before the Book which you allege, it is affirmed, that he of his own accord, and without being dealt with to that purpose, did negociate the read mission of the jesuites into France. So far was he from collecting from their doctrine & practices, that they believe neither in jesus Christ, nor in the Pope. And as for our doctrine, which concerns the incompatibility of Protestancy with salvation, as proper to the jesuites, it is an idle speech, void of all colour of truth. For it is so far from being proper to them, that it is common to all Roman Catholics in the world, and you shall never be able to show me any one of an entire fame, who holds the contrary. 5. And whereas you ask: Why may not a Protestant be saved since he believes entirely the Scriptures, the Catholic Creeds, and whatsoever the Catholic Church in all ages hath believed as necessary to salvation? You may take the answer out of my First Part, where I have showed, that he neither keeps the Commaundments, nor believes all things necessary to salvation, yea and believes not any one point with divine and supernatural faith, who disobeyes, and disagrees from the visible Church of Christ, in any one thing, propounded by her as a Divine truth. 6. You tell us, that you are no further departed from the present Roman Church, than she is departed from herself. But no wise man will believe this, till you can inform him, what visible Church at, or before Luther's appearance remained pure, out of which the Roman Church had formerly departed; or else you must confess that the whole Church of Christ was corrupted. Which because you will never be able to do, with truth you must be forced to confess, that she still kept her integrity, without any spot of erroneous doctrine, and therefore that your departure out of her, cannot be excused from Schism, and Heresy. 7. You say truly, That it is merely impossible (b) Pag. 10. the Catholic Church should want Charity, because the good spirit of Truth and Love ever assists and animates that great Body. But you speak not consequently to your own Assertion, that the Catholic Church may err in points of faith not fundamental. For if the good spirit of Truth, may fail to assist her faith: why may not the good Spirit of Love, fail to direct her Charity? Nay if we observe it well, the Want of Charity which you impute to us, is resolved into this doctrinal point, Protestancy unrepented destroys salvation: Which Doctrine and Assertion, if you hold to be a fundamental error, you deprive us, of salvation, and become as uncharitable to us as you say we are to you. If it be not a fundamental point, than (according to your principles) the Church may err therein, and so want Charity, by judging that Protestants cannot be saved. 8. What we understand by the Roman Catholic Church, I have explained heretofore, to wit, all Christians united with the Church of Rome, as it is the sea of Peter. In which sense it is not a part, but comprehendeth all the Catholic Church (which heretofore I proved out of the Fathers;) as, in some proportion, we do not understand the Tribe of juoa alone by the jewish Church, though the other Tribes were called by the name of the jewish People and Church, from that principal Tribe of juda. So that your marginal quotations to prove that the Church of Rome is a particular Church, are emplored to prove that which no man denies, if we speak of the particular Diocese of Rome, and not as it is the Sea of Peter, to which all Christian Catholics dispersed throughout the whole world are united: Which Sea of Peter settled in Rome, being the Root, the Centre, the Fountain, the Idea of all Ecclesiastical Union in all Christian Churches, giveth them the denomination of Roman Catholics; which doth no more limit the whole Catholic Church, than the name of jewish Church, did limit the whole Synagogue to the Tribe of juda alone. And therefore your threadbare Objection, that Catholic Roman (c) Pag. 11. are terms repugnant, signifying universal particular, vanisheth utterly away by this different acception of the Roman Church, and serves only to convince by your own objection, that D. Potter, or the Church of England cannot style themselves Catholic, because Catholic signifieth Universal, and D. Potter and the Church of England, are things particular. And I would gladly know what your Brethren mean, when they affirm the Roman Church, for diverse Ages to have possessed the whole world? Do they think that the particular Diocese of Rome was lifted over the Alps? Or when your Prelate's demand, whether we be Roman Catholics, do they demand whether we dwell in the City, or Diocese of Rome? And here I note in a word, what now cometh to my mind, that I wonder D. Andrew's, a man so highly esteemed among Protestants, would tell us that the Roman Church is individuum (d) In Rest. ad Apolog. Card. Bollar. ad ca 5. as the Logicians call it, and that Catholic is Genus, or a general kind. For to omit that the thing itself is ridiculous, it maketh directly for us; because every individuum contains in itself the Genus, as Peter (for example) is a substance, a sensible creature etc. and so if the Roman Church be individuum, it must contain Catholic in itself; and so the Roman Church must of necessity be affirmed to be a Catholic Church. Before I leave this point I must tell you, that you corrupt Innocentius Tertius. to prove (e) Pag. 12. that the Roman Church was anciently esteemed a Topical, or particular Church distinct from others, and in, & under the universal, in these words: It is called the Universal Church which consists of all Churches: where you put an etc. and then add, Ecclesia Romana sic non est vo●uersalis Ecclesia, sed pars universalis Ecclesiae: The Roman Church is not thus the universal Church, but part of the universal Church, where you break off. But Innocentius his words are these: The Universal Church is said to be that which consists of all Churches, which of the Greek word is called Catholic: and according to this acception of the Word, the Roman Church is not the Universal Church, but part of the Universal Church: Yet the first and chief part, as the head in the body; because in her, fullness of power doth exist, but only a part of fullness is derived to others. And that One Church, which contains under itself all Churches, is said to be the Universal Church. And according to this signification of the Word, only the Roman Church is called the Universal Church, because she alone is preferred before the rest by privilege of singular dignity. As God is called the universal Lord, not because he is divided into species etc. but because all things are contained under his Dominion: For there is One general Church of which Truth itself said to Peter; Thou art Peter and upon this Rock etc. And the many particular Churches, of which the Apostle saith, Instantia mea etc. One doth consist of all, as the general of particulars, & One hath the preeminence before all, because seeing there is one Body of the Church, of which the Apostle saith; We are all one Body in Christ: she excels the rest, as the Head excels the other members of the body. Thus far Innocentius; who as you see teacheth that the Roman Church is the Head of all others: That although the Roman Church in one sense be a particular Church, yet in another sense it both is, and aught to be called the Universal Church; and finally that your Objection about the repugnance betwixt the term Universal and particular is frivolous, as he explicates very well by the example of Almighty God, who is said to be an Universal Cause, and yet had neither genus, nor species, and besides whom there are other particular Causes. Is this to affirm, as you say, that the Roman Church is a topycall, or particular Church in, and under the Universal? Or that she is only Topical, or particular, as you would make the Reader believe? 9 Your preaching, rather than proving the Charity of your Church, Administration of Sacraments etc. must rely upon a voluntary begging of the Question, that your Religion is true; otherwise the good deeds you mention are not expressions of Charity, but professions of Heresy; The learned Cardinal Hosius saying: Whosoever believes (f) Hosiu: in Confess Petricon. çap. 14. the Article of the Catholic Church, believes all things necessary to Salvation, says no more than you will say, that whosoever believes the whole Canon of Scripture, believes all things necessary to Salvation. And you cannot but speak against your own conscience, when you say of the Roman Church, (pag. 16.) She tells them it is Creed enough for them to believe only in the Catholic Church: For yourself (pag. 198.) affirm, that the best advised of Catholic Divines yield there are some points necessary to be known of all sorts, necessitate medi●, in which points implicit faith doth not suffice, & you cite some of our Authors to this purpose (Chap. 71. & 241.) and refer us to a great many more. What conscionable dealing is this? I will not stand to note, that Hosius even as he is cited by you in Latin, doth not say, that we believe in the Church, as you make him speak in your text, but that, we believe the Church. But enough of this. 10. In your First Edition, I find these words: Never did (g) Pag. 13. any Church afford more plentifully the means of grace, nor more abound with all helps and advantages of Piety, than this of ours. But in your second Edition you say: No Church of this Age doth afford etc. Whereby you acknowledge that at first you did overlash, & so do you now. But it comes to you by kind. Beza makes bold to say: When I compare, even the times which were next to the Apostles (h) In epist. Theol. epist. 1. pag. 5. with ours, I am wont to say, and in my opinion not without cause, that they had more conscience and less knowledge; and contrarily we have more knowledge and less conscience. And M. Whitgift, your once Archbishop of Canterbury saith: The doctrine taught and professed (i) In his defence of the answer etc. pag. 472. & 473. by our Bishops at this day, is more perfect and sounder then commonly was in any Age after the Apostles etc. How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek Church, and Latins also for the most part, spotted with doctrines of Free will, of Merits, of Invocation of Saints, and such like. Surely you are not able to reckon in any Age, since the Apostles times, any Company of Bishops, that taught and held so sound and perfect doctrine in all points, as the Bishops of England do at this day. And will not the Puritans say, that they are more pure than Protestants, and Anabaptists account themselves more unspotted then Puritans & c? In the mean time your own Archbishop grants that, Almost all the Bishops & learned Writers of the Greek Church, and Latins also, were for the most part spotted with doctrines, which now you call Popish Superstitions. 11. The rest of this Section contains nothing but railing, and untruths, continually uttered by every Minister, and often answered by our Writers. In Catholic Countries there may be good reason for not mentioning the needle's praises of condemned Heretics, lest the estimation of their moral parts, which they abuse against God's Church, breed a liking, and add authority to their pestiferous errors. If D. Stapleton, or any other speaking of Heretics in general, compare them to Magicians &c. (as Tertullian also doth) what is that to you, unless you be resolved to proclaim yourself an Heretic? Such sayings are not directed to their Persons, which we love; but fall upon their sin: which considered in itself, cannot, I hope, be overwronged by ill language. S. Policarpe called an Heretic the first begotten of the Devil. S. Paul gives them the name of (k) Philip. 3.2. Dogs. S. john * Ep. 2.7. terms them Antichrists, as your Ministers are wont to call the Pope. Charity Mistaken compares you not with jews, or Turks for impossibility to be saved. Every deadly sin excludes salvation; yet some are more grievous, and further from pardon than others. 12. I hope the Mistaker (l) Pag. 19 would not wish us converted from our Creed. No: But we wish you converted, from Erroneous Interpretations thereof, to the Catholic Church, which we profess in our Creed. In the mean time these are learned arguments which may serve both sides. Protestants believe the Creed, Ergo, they need not be cowerted. Catholics believe the Creed, Ergo they need not be converted. You tell us of a Censure of the Creed, written by some Catholic. And in your first Edition you put, Censura Symboli Apostolici, ad instar Censurae Parisiensis. But in your second Edition, being as it seems, sorry for your former sincerity, you say absolutely, Censura Symboli Apostolici, with an etc. which helps you in diverse occasions, both to deceive the Reader, and yet to save yourself when you shall be told of corrupting the sentence by leaving out words, as in this particular the Reader will conceive, that it was an absolute Censure of the Apostles Creed; whereas contrarily, it supposeth that the Creed, as a thing most sacred, cannot be censured, and out of that supposition, taxeth a certain Censure framed, as he thinks, in such manner that the Creed it self could not be free from men's Censure, if such a form of Censure might pass for currant. This I say, is the drift of that Censure, and not to censure the Creed: which thing I touch, but to answer you, who infer that some Catholics seem very meanly to esteem the Creed. But my intention is not to meddle any way with that Censure of the Creed, (whose Author in very deed is unknown to me) or with any Books, or Censures in that kind, wholly leaving those affairs to the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of S. Peter; which is a great happiness proper to Catholics, who though they may disagree as men, yet as Catholics, they have means to end all Controversies, by recourse and submission to one supreme Authority. CHAP. II. YOUR Second Section treats principally of two points: The Unity of the Church, wherein it consists; and; The Communion of the Church, how fare necessary. Both these points have been handled in the first Part; where I proved that Difference in any one point of faith destroyeth the Being and Unity of Faith, and of the Church. And; That, Communion with the true Visible Church is so far necessary, that all voluntary error against her definitions, as Heresy is, and all division from her outward Society, which is Schism, excludes salvation. By these Rules, we can certainly know what is damnable Schism, and Heresy; whereas you, placing the Unity of Faith, and truth of a Church in the belief of points, which you call fundamental, although it be joined with difference in a thousand other points, and yet not knowing what Articles in particular be fundamental, must give this final resolution: The Unity of faith, and of the Church consists in, We know not what. Moreover, if you measure the Nature, and Unity of faith, not by the formal motive, for which we believe, to wit, the Word, or Revelation of God, but by the weight of the particular objects which are believed, you will not be able to show, that he who erreth in some one, or more fundamental points, doth lose divine infallible faith in respect of those other truths which he believes: and by this means, Persons disagreeing, even in Fundamental points, may retain the same substance or essence of faith, and be of the self same true Church; which is most absurd, & makes a fair way to affirm, that jews, and Turks are of the same Church with Christians, because they all agree in the belief of one God. And thus we have answered the substance of your Section. Yet because you interpose many other unnecessary points we must follow your wander, lest else you may be thought to have said somewhat to us which is unanswerable. 2. After an unprofitable ostentation of Erudition (which yet required no deeper learning, then to read some of our Catholic Interpreters) about the place Deut. 17. you come in the end to grant, that the High Priest in cases of moment had an absolutely infallible direction etc. And will you give greater privilege of infallibility to the Type, then to the Thing signified, to wit, the true Church of Christ, of which the Synagogue was but a figure? You cite some Catholic Authors, as affirming that by the judge is meant the Civil Magistrate, and by the Priest, not the High Priest alone. Of which Catholic Authors, I have at the present only the Dowists (as you are pleased to call them) in their Marginal Note on the 2. Chro. 19 Vers. 1. whom I find you to falsify. For their words are only these: A most plaien distinction of spiritual and temporal authority and offices, not instituied by josaphat, nor any other King, but by God himself. And upon the words of Deut. 17. Vers. 9 Thou shalt come to the Priest of the Leviticall Stock, and to the judge that shall be at that time; they say: In the Council of Priests one supreme judge, which was the High Priest. verse. 12. And further they say: There were not many Precedents at once, but in Succession, one after another. Is this to affirm, that by the Priest, is meant not the high Priest alone? Do they not say the quite contrary? And as for your Objections against our Argument drawn from the Synagogue, to prove the infallibility of the Church, I have answered them (m) 1. Part. Chap. 2. n. 23. heretofore. 3. That Core, Dathan, and Abiron, with all their Company descended alive into the pit of Hell; you say, is rashly, and (n) Pag. 29. uncharitably said by Charity Mistaken. But you falsify his words which are: The ground (o) Pag. 16. opened itself and swallowed them alive, with all their goods into the profound pit of Hell. Are (goods) and (company) two words of one signification? And yet in your second Edition, you cite (with all their company etc.) in a different letter, as the words of your Adversary. But suppose he had said, as you allege him (with all their company etc.) what great crime had he committed? The holy Scripture saith of them, and their Complices, without limitation or distinction: The Earth (p) Num. 16. ●. 31.32.33. broke in sunder under their feet; and opening her mouth, devoured them with their Tabernacles, and all their substance, and they went down into Hell quick, covered with the ground, and perished out of the midst of the multitude. You see the Scripture speaks indefinitely, and so doth Charity Mistaken, without adding any Universal particle, as All, Every one, or the like, except when he saith, with all their Goods, which are the very words of Scripture. Nay since the Scripture saith: They went down into Hell quick, and perished out of the midst of the multitude; by what authority will you affirm, that all perished out of the midst of the multitude, but not all went down into Hell quick? 4. Though it were granted that those words Math. 18.17. If thy Brother offend thee, tell the Church, are meant of private wrongs: yet it is clear, that from thence is inferred à fortiori, that all Christians are obliged to obey the Catholic Church in her decrees. And no man is so ignorant as not to know, that the holy Fathers do every where apply those words against Schismatics and Heretics, as appeareth by S. Augustine whom heretofore (p) 1. part. cap. 5. num. 7. I cited, and S. Cyprian (q) Lib. 1. epist. 3. & Ibid. ep. 6. and others. And I pray you, if one utter some Heresy, in presence of his brother; doth he not in a very high degree offend his Brother? and consequently, is he not comprehended in those words of our Saviour, If thy Brother offend thee & c.? Now, if the Church were fallible, how could we be obliged under pain of being reckoned Pagans and Publicans, to obey her Decrees and Declarations concerning matters of faith, which is a Virtue, that necessarily involues infallibility? But when did you ever hear any Catholic say what you impose upon Charity Mistaken, that absolute obedience is due unto the Church, no appeal being allowed, no not (r) pag. 28. to Scriptures though expounded in a Catholic sense, and consonantly to the judgement of the most ancient and famous members of the Church? With what face can you utter such stuff? You know we believe, that the Church cannot oppose Scripture. 5. As for those corruptions of the Text of S. Cyprian in his Book de unitate Ecclesiae, which you charge Pamelius to have committed in favour of S. Peter's Primacy; it is but an old objection borrowed of others, and purposely answered by Pamelius in his notes upon that Book: where, for his justification he cities diverse ancient Copies, and one more than nine hundred years old. And as for the phrase & main point itself, that Christ built the Church upon Peter, it is expressly affirmed by S. Cyprian in many other places, which I quote in the (s) De exhort. Mart. c. 11. ep. 55.69.73. which last is cited by S. Augustin de Bapt. lib. 3. c. 17. as he cities the like words out of epist. 71. ad Quint. Margin: whereby it manifestly appeareth what S. Cyprian believed about the Authority of Saint Peter: and how much his Book de Vnitate Ecclesiae maketh for the Roman Church: neither can you in all S. Cyprians works, or in this place in particular, show any thing to the contrary, as you are pleased to (t) Pag. 30. affirm. To prove that our unworthy fashion is, to alter & raze many records and Monuments of Antiquity, you cite a modern English Writer, & Sixtus Senensis. But both of them are alleged after your fashion: for the first speaks only of Books written in favour of the Pope's Power in temporal things, wherein nevertheless we can in no wise allow of his saying, nor is he in this point a competent witness; and the second directly falsifyed. For you say, he highly commends (u) Epist. dedie. ad Pium 5. Pope Pius the fifth for the care which he had to extinguish all dangerous Books; and, to purge the writings of all Catholic Authors, especially of the Ancient Fathers, from the silth and poison of Heresy; & there you end the sentence. But Sixtus Senensis hath faecibus haereticorum aetatis nostrae: from the dregs of the Heretics of our times, understanding nothing else, but that the said holy Pope cause the false Annotations Glosses, Marginal notes etc. of Erasmus, and modern Heretics to be blotted, or taken out of the Books of the holy Fathers. Is not this plain falsification? And so much less excusable, because it could not be done but wittingly, and willingly; for that in the Margin you cite the Latin, & when you come to those words, especially of the ancient Fathers, you break off with an etc. leaving out that which did directly overthrew the purpose for which you alleged those words. For want of better matter, you tell us of an Edition of Isidorus Pelusiotes his Greek Epistles approved, because they contained nothing contrary to the Catholic Roman Religion: wherein what great harm is there? If the Approbator had left out Roman, would you have made this objection? To us, Catholic and Roman are all one, as heretofore I explicated. But it seems (say you) that they had not passed, but upon that Condition. This is but a poor Consequence in Logic: For, one effect may be produced by some cause, yet in such manner, as that the effect would follow, though that cause were taken away; & accordingly you grant that the aforesaid clause of Approbation is left out in another Edition. Neither can you be ignorant that Catholics do print, and reprint the writings of ancient Authors, although they contain Heresies; as the works of Tertullian, Origen &c And therefore you are less excusable both for making this Objection in general, and also for falsifying Sixtus Senensis in particular. 6. The places alleged by you out of S. Augustin against the Donatists, come far short of proving, that (u) pag. 32. Scripture alone is the judge, or rather (as you correct yourself) Rule of Controversies: & your bringing them to that purpose is directly against S. Augustins words & meaning, as will appear by what now I am about to say. Two Questions were debated between the Catholics, & Donatists: the one concerning the Church, whether or no she were confined to that corner of the world, where the faction of Donatus did reside: The other, whether such as were baptised by Heretics ought to be rebaptised. We grant that S. Augustine in the former Question, pressed the Donatists with manifest Scripture to prove the exeternall apparent Notes, or Marks of the Church, as Visibility, Perpetuity, Amplitude, Universality etc. And no wonder that he appealed to Scripture. For that very Question being, whether the Catholics, or Donatists, were the true Church; to suppose the Catholics to be the true Church, and upon that supposition to allege their Authority against the Donatists, had been but to beg the Question: as if there were Controversy, whether some particular Book were Canonical Scripture, or no, it were an idle thing to allege that very writing in question, to prove itself Canonical: and on the other side, both the Catholics and Donatists did acknowledge & believe the same Scriptures, which as S. Augustine is wont to say, speak more clearly of the Church, then of Christ himself: and therefore he had good reason to try that Question concerning the Church by clear, & not doubtful Testimonies of holy Writ; whereas the Donatists had recourse either to obscure Texts, as that of the Canticles, Show me where thou feedest, where thou liest in the mid day, to prove that the Church was confined to Africa; or else to humane Testimonies as Acts of Notaries or Scriveners, to prove that the Catholics had been Traditores, that is had given up the holy Bible to be burned; Or that they had sacrificed to Idols; Or had been cause of persecution against Christians; and that either for these crimes, or for communicating with such as had committed them, the Church had perished from among Catholics: Or else they produced their own bare affirmation, or mock-Miracles, & false Counsels of THEIR OWN: All which proofs being very partial, insufficient, and impertinent, S. Augustin had reason to say: Let these fictions (w) De unïe. Eccles. cap. 19 of lying men, or fantastical wonders of deceitful Spirits, be removed. And: Let us (x) cap. 3. not hear; These things I say; These things thou sayest; but let us hear; These things our Lord saith. And: What are our words (y) cap. 2. wherein we must not seek her etc. All that we object one against another of the giving up of the holy Books, of the Sacrificing to Idols, and of the persecution, are our words. (these words you fraudulently conceal, although you cite other in the self same Chapter, because they plainly show what S. Augustin understands by Humane Testimonies, & they answer all your Objections:) And: The Question between us (z) cap. 2. is, where the Body of Christ, that is, the Church is? What then are we to do? Shall we seek her in our words, or in the words of our Lord jesus-chrisnt her head? Surely we ought rather to seek her in his words who is Truth, and best knows his own Body. And: Let this Head (a) cap. 4. of which we agree, show us his Body, of which we disagree, that our dissensions may by his words be ended. Which words plainly declare the reason why he appealed to Scriptures, because both parts agreed about them, but disagreed concerning the Church. And: That we are in the (b) cap. 19 True Church of Christ, and that this Church is universally spread over the earth, we prove not by OUR Doctors, or Counsels, or Miracles, but by the divine Scriptures. The Scriptures are the only (this word only put by you in a different letter, as if it were S. Augustine's, is your own addition:) Document, and foundation of our cause. These are the places by you alleged so unfaithfully. And will you in good earnest infer from them, that we must reject all Counsels, never so lawful; all Doctors, never so Orthodox; all Miracles, never so authentical, even those which were wrought in the Primitive Church, & particularly in S. Augustine's time, which he himself published (c) De civet. Det lib. 22. çap. 8. approved, and admired? And above all, will you infer, that after we have found out the true Church by Marks set down in Scripture, her voice for other particular points of doctrine is not to be heard, but to be esteemed a mere humane testimony of Notaries etc. as S. Augustine understood humane Testimony when he writ against the Donatists? Or will you infer that we must learn from Scripture all that which we are obliged to believe? This you pretend, but with such success as you are wont; that is, to plead for your Adversary against yourself. Which is manifestly proved by the other Question of Rebaptisation, controverted with the Donatists, for which they were properly and formally Heretics: and yet S. Augustine confesseth that for this point of belief, he could not produce Scripture, as appears by his words, which I cited in the first (d) Chap. ●. num. 16. Part, and desire the Reader to save me the labour of repeating them here: and then he will easily see, that there is great difference betwixt the general question of the Church, and Questions concerning particular Doctrines delivered by the Church; in which this holy Father saith not we must have recourse to Scripture alone, but that we ought to believe the Church, which is recommended to us by Scripture And this he teacheth in that very book De unitate Ecclesiae, out of which you brought the aforesaid places, to prove that all Controversies must be decided by Scripture. With what modesty then do you say, The Mistaker was ill advised to send us to this (e) pag. 33. Treatise, which both in the general aim, and in the quality of the Arguments and proofs is so contrary to his pretensions? 7. You leave (f) pag. 33. a passage taken out of S. Augustine to Charity Mistaken to ruminate upon: Whosoever (g) S. Aug. de unit. Eççles. çap. 4. will believe aright in Christ the Head, but yet doth so descent from his Body the Church, that their Communion is not with the whole wheresoever diffused, but with themselves several in some part; it is manifest that such are not in the Catholic Church. Well; suppose all were done as you desire; what other thing could be concluded, than this? But when Luther appeared, Protestantisme was not with the whole wheresoever diffused, but with himself alone: What will follow from hence, you have so much Logic that you cannot Mistake. Wherefore at this day, and for ever, we must say of the Catholic Church, as Saint Augustine said: Every one of those (he speaks of Heretics) is not (g) De Vnit Eççles. ç. 3. to be found where she is to be found; but she who is over All, is to be found in the self same places, where the others are. 8. You made an ill choice of S. Epiphanius, to prove by his example that the Fathers were wont to confute Heresies by the only Evidence of Scripture. For he not only approves Traditions as necessary, but also proves them out of Scripture. We ought (saith he) to use also (h) Haeres. 61. Tradition, for all things cannot be taken from the holy Scripture: the holy Apostles therefore delivered some things in writing, and some things by Tradition, as the holy Apostle saith: As I delivered to you. And in another place: So I teach, and so I delivered in the Churches. And the same Father, as we shall see anon, doth most clearly approve Traditions, yea and confutes Aenrius by Tradition alone without any Scripture. It is then no wonder, if you corrupt S. Epiphanius to make men believe that he speaks of Heresies in general, whereas his words concern some few in particular, as the Samosatenians, Arians &c. His words as you translate them are these: The Divine (k) Haeres. 65. Goodness hath forewarned us against Heresies by his Truth, for God foreseeing the Madness, Impiety, & Fraud of the Samosatenians, Arians, Manichees, and other Heretics, hath secured us by his divine Word against all their subtleties. But the true Translation of S. Epiphanius is this: Therefore the holy Scripture doth make us secure of every word: That is hath secured us how we are to speak, or what words to use against the deceits of the Samosatenians, Arians, and of other Heresies concerning the blessed Trinity, as it is clear by these words immediately following (which you thought fittest to conceal:) For he doth not say the Father is the Only-begotten. For how can he be the Only begotten, who is not Begotten? But he calls the Son the only begotten, that the Son may not be thought to be the Father etc. Where you see he speaks of Words, or manner of speaking, and concerning particular Heresies, which yet is made more clear by the words immediately precedent to the sentence by you cited, which words you also thought good to leave out. For he first proves out of Scripture that the Word is begotten of the Father, but that the Father is not Begotten, and therefore the Only-Begotten is the Son. And then he comes to the words by you cited, and teacheth, that holy Scripture hath warned us, what words and manner of speech, or phrase we ought to use in speaking of the Person, of the Blessed Trinity, which School Divines call Proprietates Personarum. Yet that your Corruption might not be void of art (or rather a double fraud) in your Margin you put in Greek S. Epiphanius his words, that so to such as understood not Greek, nor perceive your mistranssation, your fraud might pass for honest dealing, and deceive your Reader; and to others, you might answer, if need were, that in your Margin, S. Epiphanius was rightly alleged. 9 These words of Charity Mistaken (I must needs observe, that (m) he (that is, S. Augustin) recounts diverse Heresies, which are held by the Protestant Church at this day, and particularly that of denying Prayers, and Sacrifices for the dead) you corruptly compendiate when you say: The Mistake● must needs observe, that the Protestants hold diverse ancient Heresies, and particularly (n) Pag. 3●. that of denying Prayers for the dead. Where you omit the words (Saint Augustine recounts diverse Heresies, and in particular, that &c. (to make men believe that it was but a bare affirmation of Charity Mistaken, and not collected out of S. Augustine: As likewise you conceal) Sacrifices) lest the world might believe S. Augustine was a Papist; who nevertheless both in this Treatise de haeresibus ad Quod-vult-Deum, haer. 35. cited by Charity Mistaken, and elsewhere, teacheth that the dead are helped by the holy (o) De ver●● Apost. serm. 34. Sacrifice. After this you say: He is very much (p) Pag. 35. mistaken in his Observation. The Commemoration of the deceased in the ancient Church, which Aenrius without reason disallowed, was a thing much differing from those Prayers for the dead, which are now in use in the Church of Rome. Thus having substituted Commemoration of the deceased, instead of Prayers and Sacrifices for the dead, you add, with your wont sincerity: Our Roman Catholics believe (at least they say so) that some souls of the faithful after their departure hence, are detained in a certain fire bordering upon Hell till they be throughly purged: and their Prayers for them are, that they may be released, or eased of those torments. But you are still like yourself. You may read in (q) De Purg. lib. 2. cap. 6. Bellarmine, that concerning the Question, Vbisit Purgatorium, Where Purgatory is, the Church hath defined nothing. And to the other point: Whether in Purgatory there be true corporeal sire, he answers; (r) Ib. c. 11. That it is the common Opinion of Divines that properly there is true fire, & of the same nature with our fire. Which Doctrine is not indeed a matter of faith, because it is no where defined by the Church, yea in the Council of Florence the Grecians openly professed, that they did not hold there was fire in Purgatory; nevertheless in the definition which was made in the last Sess. it was defined that there is a Purgatory, without making any mention of fire: Nevertheless it is a most probable Opinion, by reason of the agreement of the Schoole-devines, which cannot be rejected without rashness. Thus Bellarmine. 10. Now for the main point: That Aërius was put in the list of Heretics, for denying Prayers for the Dead, which are offered to release, or ease them of their pain, I prove out of Aërius his own words; Out of S. Epiphanius whom you seem to allege in your behalf; Out of the ancient Fathers, Greek, and Latin; & out of Protestants themselves; both in regard that they confess the Doctrine of Purgatory and Prayer for the dead, even as Catholics believe them, to have been believed by the Ancient Fathers; and also in regard, they directly acknowledge, that Aërius was condemned by the Fathers for denying Prayer for the Dead, as we believe, and practise it. 11. Hear then your Progenitor Aërius testifying with his own mouth the practice of Catholics in those ancient days. How (saith he to Catholics) do you (*) Apud Epiph. haeres. 75. after Death name, the names of the dead? For if the living pray etc. what will it profit the dead? Or if the prayers of them who are here, be for those who are there, then let no man be virtuous, nor let him do any good work, but let him get friends by what means he will, either by money, or leaving that charge to his friends at his death, & let them pray for him that he may not SUFFER any thing there: and that, irremediable sins committed by him may not be laid to his charge. Is it not clear enough by these words, that this Heretic taxeth Prayers offered for the dead, to release or lessen their pains after this life, & not only for a bare Commemoration, or Thanksgiving, or the like? And that any man may yet further consider, especially if he continue to be of as Puritanical a Spirit, as he was who most resembles the spirit of this Aërius; let us, by the way, add these words of his: Neither ought (s) Ibid. there to be any appointed fast, for these things are judaical, and under the yoke of servitude. For there is no law appointed for the just man, but for Murderers of their Fathers and Mothers, and such like. But if I be resolved to fast, I will choose myself any day, and I will fast with freedom. 12. Let us now see what S. Epiphanius in the same place saith for your Commemoration of the deceased: As for pronouncing the names of the Dead (saith he) what can be more profitable, good, and admirable? Because the living believe that the deceased live, and are not extinct, but have a being, and live with our Lord: And, that I may utter a most pious doctrine, that there is hope in those who pray for their Brethren, as for those who are travailed to another Country. These words you recite out of S. Epiphanius, but leave out those words which immediately follow, and are directly against the doctrine which you will prove out of him in that very place. For thus he saith: But the Prayers which are made for them do profit them, although they do not release the whole sin; in regard as long as we are in this world, we fail, and err both voluntarily and against our will, to the end that, that also may be mentioned which is more perfect, we remember both the lust, & Sinners: For Sinners, imploring the mercy of God: But for the Just, Fathers, patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, Bishops, and Anchorites etc. that we may put a difference betwixt our Lord jesus Christ, and all Orders of men, by that honour which we give to him, and that to him we may give adoration. You see that S. Epiphanius speaks of forgiveness of sins, & that he makes a difference between Prayers offered for deceased Sinners, and the Commemoration of Saints, who by way of Thanksgiving, are remembered as holy men; whereas to our Saviour Christ highest adoration is exhibited as to God; Or (as Bellarmine (t) De Purg. lib. 1. cap. 9 saith,) we distinguish Saints from Christ, because we offer Sacrifice of Thanksgiving for Saints, but we do not offer Sacrifice for Christ, but to him, together with the Father, and the holy Ghost. You likewise falsify S. Epiphanius, while you say out of him; That the living have hope for the deceased, as for those which be from home in another Country, and that, at length they shall attain the state which is more perfect. Which last words are not in S. Epiphanius, who never taught, that we offer Prayers for Saints, that they may attain a state which is more perfect. And when S. Epiphanius saith, that those who pray for their Brethren have hope of them as of those who are in another Country; you leave out Praying, and only put in Hope. And that you may be assured how contrary S. Epiphanius is to you; not only in the doctrine of Prayer for the dead, but also in the ground and reason, for which he bel●●ues it, namely Tradition; mark his words. The Church (saith he in the same place) doth necessarily practise this by Tradition received from our Ancestors. And who can break the Ordination of his Mother, and the Law of his Father? as Salomo● saith: Hear O Son the words of thy Father, and retect not the Ordination of thy Mother: Showing by this, that God the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost have taught both by writing, and without writing, (behold divine Traditions) and our Mother the Church, hath also in herself Ordinances inviolable which cannot be broken: (behold Ecclesiastical Traditions.) Since therefore there be Ordinances set down in the Church, and that all be right, and admirable, this Seducer (Aërius) remains confuted. And together with him all those that follow his heresy And let us yet hear S. Epiphanius speaking a little before of another point, thus: But who knows most of these things? Whether this deluded fellow (Aërius) who is yet aliu●● etc. or those who before us have yielded Testimony and have had the Tradition of the Church, which also was delivered from their Forefathers; as they likewise learned of those who were before them, in which manner the Church doth still conserve the true Faith received from their Forefathers, and also Traditions? Consider now with what reason you alleged S. Epiphanius, as one who saith that all Heresy is to be confuted by evidence of Scripture; whereas he doth clearly avouch Tradition in general, and doth in particular confute the Heresy of Aerius, without alleging so much as one Text of Scripture. 13. And though S. Epiphanius alone, might suffice both to assure us what was the Heresy of Aërius in whose time he lived; and also to witness for all the rest of the Greek Fathers, yea & for the whole Church, (because he avouched Prayer for the dead to come from the Tradition of God's Church) yet I will add some more of the Greek Church, as S. Dionysius Areopagita, who saith: Then the Venerable (u) Eccles. Hierarch, cap. 1. Bishop doth pray over the dead party, that the divine Goodness would pardon all his sins committed by humane frailty, and transfer him to light, and the Country of the living. I wonder then how in your Text your could tell us, that (w) Pag. 37. conformably to your Opinion; The ancient Church in her Liturgy remembered all those that slept in hope of the Resurrection of everlasting life, and particularly the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs &c. beseeching God to give them rest, and to bring them (you put in a parenthesis at the Resurrection) to the place where the light of his countenance should shine upon them for evermore. And in your Margin, you cite S. Dionysius as favouring you, who nevertheless in the very Chapter which you cite for your Opinion, is directly against you in the words even now alleged. The like fincerity you show in the very same Margin in citing S. Cyril, who doth clearly affirm, that in the Sacrifice we remember some that they would pray for us, and others that they may be relieved by our Prayers and Sacrifices, in these words: When we offer this Sacrifice (x) Catech. 5. we make mention of those who are deceased, of Patriarches etc. that God would receive our prayers by their intercession. And: we pray for all who are deceased, believing that it is a most great help to those for whom the obsecration of that holy and dreadful Sacrifice is offered, S. Gregory Nyssen saith: He cannot after his departure (y) In Orat. pro mortuis. from the body be made partaker of the Divinity, unless the purging fire shall cleanse the stains of his soul. 14. Among the Latin Fathers, Protestants pretend to esteem none more than S. Augustine, and yet none can speak more plainly against them in this point than he doth, who besides that he ranks Aenrius among the Heretics, in another place, he saith: Purge me (z) In Psal. 37. in this life, in such sort, as that I may not need the correcting, or amending fire. And afterward: It is said he shall be saved as if it were by fire, and because it is said, he shall be saved, that fire grows to be contemned. But so it is; though he shall be saved, yet the pain of that fire is more grievous, than whatsoever a man can suffer in this life. And elsw where; Some suffer (a) De civet. lib. 21. c. 13. temporal punishments, only in this life, others after death, others both now and then. Of which place, Fulke is enforced to say: Augustine concludes very clearly, (b) Consut. of Purg. pag. 110. that some suffer Temporal pains after this life, this may not be denied. And in another place, S. Augustine saith: We ought not (c) De verbis Apost. serm. 34. to doubt, but that the dead are helped by the Prayers of the holy Church, and by the wholesome Sacrifice, and by Ailrnes given for their souls, that our Lord would avale with them more mercifully than their sins have deserved. For the whole Church observes this, as delivered from our Fathers. Neither can you avoid these Authorities by flying to the Requests of God's mercy that they may have their (d) Pag. 39 serfect Consummation in body and soul, in the kingdom of God at the last judgement, as you speak. For (besides that all they who depart this life in God's favour are most assured of a perfect Consummation independantly of our Almsdeeds, Prayers &c.) S. Augustine as you have heard speaks of a Purging fire, of Temporal Punlishments, after this life etc. And doth elsewhere write as if he had purposely intended to prevent this your Evasion, saying: At the Altar (e) Tract. 84. in Joan. we do not remember Martyrs, as we do other deceased who rest in peace, by praying for them; but rather that they would pray for us. Which difference between Martyrs and other deceased, cannot stand with your mere Commemoration of Thanksgiving, or your Request for a perfect Consummation, both which according to your doctrine concern Martyrs, no less than others. The same difference is expressed by S. Cyprian, saying: It is one thing to be purged, (f) Lib. 4. ep. 2. alias epist. 52. after long torment for ones sins, and to be long cleansed with the fire, and another thing to have wiped away all the sins by suffering. S. Hierome saith: If Origen affirm that (g) Lib. 1. cont. Pelagianos. all Creatures endued with reason, are not to be lost, and granteth repentance to the Devil; what belongs that to us, who affirm that the Devil, and all his Officers, and all sinful and wicked men do eternally perish; and that Christians, if they be taken away in sin, are to be saved after punishments? More Fathers may be seen in Bellarmine and other Catholic Writers. These may suffice to show, what was that Belief & Practice of the Church, which Aërius opposed in his time, as you do at this day. 15. Lastly, your own Brethren bear witness thus against you. Caluin saith: More than a thousand three hundred (h) Instit. l. 3. c. 5. Sect. ●●. years ago, it was a Custom to pray for the dead: But I confess they were all driven into Error. Bucer his words are: Because (i) In his enarrat. in sacra quatuor Euang. printed Basil. 1536. in Matt. ●. 12. almost from the beginning of the Church, Prayers and Almsdeeds were offered for the dead, that opinion which S. Augustine sets down in his Enchiridio cap. 110. crept in by little & little: Neither ought we to deny, that souls are released by the piety of their living friends, when the Sacrifice of our Mediator is offered for them etc. Therefore I doubt not, but that from hence arose that duty of Praying, and offering Sacrifice for them. Fulke speaketh plainly: Aërius taught, that Prayer for the dead (k) In his answer to a counterfeit Cath. pag. 44. was unprofitable, as witnesseth both Epiphanius, and Augustine, which they count for an Error. He likewise acknowledgeth, that Ambrose, Chrysostome, & Augustine allowed Prayer for the dead: That, Tertullian, Augustine, Cyprian, Hierome, and a great many more do witness, that Prayer for the dead is the Tradition of the Apostles. And that Fulke understands these Fathers in the sense of satisfying for Temporal pains after this life, I hope you will not deny. For it is clear by what we said out of him above; Nay, even in the Communion Book allowed, and established by Act of Parliament in the second year of Edward the Sixth. and printed in London by Edward Whitchurch Anno ●549. there is Prayer for the dead: and in the year 1547. the first year of Edward the Sixth his reign, Stow recounts, that on the 19 of june a Dirige was sung in every parish Church in London for the French King late deceased; and a Dirige was also sung in the Church of S. Paul in the same City, & on the next morrow the Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted of eight Bishops, all in rich mitres, & other their Pontificals, did sing a Mass of Requiem. And (to say this by the way) there is in the same Communion Book offering up of our Prayers by Angels: as likewise in the first year of that King's reign, Communion in One Kind, in time of Necessity, is approved, as also in the Collection in English of Statutes etc. the reason hereof is added, because at that time the opinion of the Real presence (as the Collector saith) was not removed from us. Which ingenuous confession supposes that Communion in one kind cannot be disallowed, if we believe the real presence, because indeed the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ is both under the species of bread, and under the species of wine. 16. You say, the Ancient Church (n) Pag. 37. in her Liturgies remembered all those that slept in hope of the Resurrection of ever lasting life, and particularly the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles etc. beseeching God to give unto them rest, and to bring them, (at the Resurrection, as you add) to the place where the light of his countenance should shine upon them for evermore. 17. But read (o) De Purg. lib. 1. cap. 9 Bellarmine, and you shall find a fare different thing in the Greek Liturgy, of which S. Epiphanius makes mention, whom you also cite in your Margin: We offer Sacrifice to thee, O Lord, for all the Patriarches, Apostles, Martyrs, and especially for the most Blessed Mother of God. And that the Sacrifice was offered for those Saints only in Thanksgiving, the words following do show: By whose Prayers O God, look upon us. But for other faithful deceased, the speech is altered, thus: And be mindful of all the faithful deceased who have slept in hope of the Resurrection, and grant them to rest where the light of thy Countenance is seen. Which last words you untruly applied to patriarchs etc. and added at the Resurrection; whereas they are referred only to other faithful people, for whom Sacrifice is offered, that they may come to see the light of God's Countenance, even before the Resurrection; that is, as soon as they have satisfied for their sins. And now how many ways is the Greek Liturgy repugnant to you? It speaks of Sacrifice, which you turn to Remembrance; It speaks of some persons whom we entreat to pray for us, & others for whom we pray: It teacheth Prayers to Saints: It teacheth that Saints do already enjoy the Beatifical Vision, and therefore that Sacrifice only of Thanksgiving is offered for them And as for the latter Schismatical, and Heretical Crecians, although their Authority weigh not much; yet even they professed in the Council of Florence, that they believed a Purgatory, & only denied that the souls were there tormented by fire; teaching nevertheless that it was a dark place, and full of pain. and your own (q) Vid. Apol. Prot. tract. 1. Sect. 7. subd. 12. at 11. Brethren Spark, Osiander, and Crispinus affirm; that about Prayer for the dead they conformed themselves to Rome. And Sr. Edwin (r) In his relation etc. Sands saith; that the Greek Church doth concur with Rome in the opinion of Transubstantiation, in Praying to Saints, in offering Sacrifices, and Prayer for the dead, Purgatory, etc. And a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines of Wittemberge Anno 1584. entitled Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium etc. affirmeth that the Greek Church at this day believes Invocation of Saints, and Prayer for the dead, as heretofore I noted. All which considered, with what Modesty can you say: The general opinion of (t) Pag. 36. the Ancient Doctors Greeke and Latin, down almost to these last Ages, was (and is the opinion of the Greek Church at this day) that all the spirits of the Righteous deceased, are in Abraham's bosom, or in some outward Court of heaven etc. And to mend the matter you allege in your Margin, for what you say about the Greek Church at this day, the Council of (u) Graeeï in Conc. Flor. ante Sess. 1. in Quaest. de Purgat. Florence; whereas indeed it is affirmed in the Council, that Declaratum fuit etc. It was at length declared, that the Saints have both attained, and not attained Perfect Beatitude; that is, that the souls as Souls have attained perfect Beatitude, yet that they shall receive some perfection with their bodies, when they shall shine as the sun. And it is to be noted that before this declaration was made, the Greek Emperor came into the Council, and so it was done with the common consent of the Grecians. 18. And here let me put you in mind, that if the Heresy of Aërius, (whether you take it in our, or your own sense) were not fundamental, than you may learn that to make an Heresy, or Heretic it is sufficient that the error consist in any point, though the same be not fundamental. If you hold it to be fundamental; than it follows, that Tradition, and Custom of the Church extends itself even to fundamental points in such sort, as to oppose such Tradition is a fundamental error. For as we have seen before, S. Epiphanius, and S. Augustine prove Prayer for the dead by Tradition, though I grant we want not Scripture for it: but you who both deny the Maccabees, and also turn Prayer for the Dead, into a bare Commemoration etc. will find no Scripture, whereby to refute Aërius. Moreover whereas you are wont to impugn a third place distinct from Heaven and Hell, by those words of Scripture: If the Tree shall fall to the South (w) Ecclesiast. cap. 11.3. or the North, in what place soever it shall fall, there shall it be: and such like Arguments; how come you now to admit a third Temporary place, and so be forced to solve your own objections? 19 Now, I wish you to consider, that either the Grecians did believe that the Saints enjoy the Beatifical Vision, & are not (as you teach) in some outward Court; or else they thought that Invocation of Saints may well be defended, though they do not see the face of God; which two points you (x) Pag. 36. deny, can stand together. For you have heard both out of the Greek Liturgy, and your Protestant Writers, that the Grecians believe Invocation of Saints. True it is, if Saints do not enjoy the Beatifical Vision, they cannot hear, or see our Prayers in verbo, or in the Divine Essence, but yet they may behold us and our Prayers by particular Revelation, as some Catholic Divines teach de facto, of the blessed souls, and Angels. 20. Yet if you will needs suppose that Invocation of Saints cannot be defended, unless they enjoy the Beatifical Vision; you should not in true reason deny Invocation because they are not Blessed; but contrarily you ought to believe that they are in Bliss, because it hath always been the practice of the Ancient Church to invocate them. Nor ought Protestant's in general, to deny prayers to Saints, because they cannot hear us; but they ought on the other side to believe that they can hear us, because the Church both Greek, and Latin hath always practised, and allowed Prayers to them. M. Whitgift, as I said already, confesseth; that almost all the Bishops and Writers (y) In his defence of the answer. pag. 473. of the Greek Church and Latin also, for the most part, were spotted with the doctrines of Freewill, of Merit, of Invocation of Saints, and such like. In particular, the Saints, Ambrose, Augustine, Hierome, Nazianzen, Basill, Nyssen, Chrysostome, are taxed by your Brethren for holding Invocation of Saints. And your Conturists not only charge ancient Origen for praying for himself to holy job: but they also say, that there are manifest steps of Invocation of Saints in the Doctors of that ancient (z) Vid. Apol Prot. tract. 1. Sect. 3. subd. 7 Age. And D. Covel affirmeth that diverse both of the Greek (a) In his Examination etc. pag. 120. and Latin Church, were spotted with errors about Freewill, Merits, Invocation of Saints etc. That Vigilantius was condemned as an Heretic for denying Prayers to Saints, may be seen in (b) Cont. Vigilant. c. 2. & 3. S. Hierome, and is confessed by (c) In his answer to a counterfeit Cath. pag. 46. Fulke. Thus than we see what the Ancient Church held concerning Innocation of Saints, & consequently they believed that they hear our Prayers. 21. Your saying, that we invocate Saints as Commissioners (d) pag. 36. under God, to whom he hath delegated the power of conferring sundry benefias, deposited in their hands, & to be bestowed at their pleasure; I let pass as a very vulgar slander, unworthy of a particular answer. For (as the sacred Council of Trent speaketh) we implore (e) Sess. 22. cap. 3. their assistance, that they would vouchsafe to pray for us in heaven, whose memory we keep on earth. Which words are also in the Mass. 22. But how solidly Bellarmine (f) De Sanctorum Beatitud lib. 1. cap. 2.3.4. ●. 6. proves that the Saints enjoy the sight of God, may be seen by weighing his Arguments drawn from Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, both Greek and Latin, and Reasons grounded on Scripture: And your affirming, that, It may be (g) pag. 35. thought he spoke against his knowledge, & conscience, comes very unseasonably, besides the gross untruth, and great folly of it, in a Treatise wherein you tax others for want of Charity. But I remember that S. Thomas among the causes of suspicion, putteth the first of them to proceed from this: That a man is (h) 2.2. q. 60. art. 3. in corp ill himself, and therefore being conscious of his own sin, he easily conceives ill of others; according to that Eccle s. 10. The foolish man walking by the way, he himself being foolish, doth account all to be Fools. Did your prime Brethren speak against their conscience, who affirm so many Ancient Fathers to have been spotted with the Invocation of Saints, which you say cannot stand with their want of Beatitude? 23. You say; The Roman Writers utterly condemn the (i) pag. 3● former doctrine, and practise of Antiquity. One of them fears not to censure it as absurd and impious: for which last words you cite in your (k) Azor. Instit. Moral. tom. 1. cap. 20. lib. 8. § Neque vero. Margin, Azor. But it is an egregious untruth, and falsification. For we do both admitland practise Thanksgiving for the happiness of Saints. And your further Requests of God's mercy that they may have their perfect Consummation both in body and soul in the kingdom of God at the last judgement, are wholly needles at , because without any dependence, or reference to our Prayers, they are most assured thereof by the immutable decree of God. And you might in the same manner make Requests, that they may not lose their happiness in body & soul, when they shall once have attained it, after the general Resurrection, which were a Request savouring of Infidelity, as if the Saints could be deprived of Beatitude once enjoyed. Now as for Azor, he proves in the place cited by you, that the Grecians do not altogether take away some kind of Purging fire, but only seem to deny a certain determinate punishment of corporal fire, Because (saith he) they do truly offer Sacrifice and Prayers to God for the dead, surely not for the Blessed, nor for those which be damned in Hell, which were plainly absurd and impious: it must therefore be for them, who are deceased with faith and Piety, but have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins. Is this to condemn the doctrine of Antiquity as absurd, and impious? Did Antiquity offer Sacrifice, and Prayers for the damned Ghosts, or for the Saints to satisfy for the pain due to their sins, as Azor means & speaks, and therefore doth truly say, it were absurd and impious? Is not this to corrupt Authors? 24. Wherefore upon the whole matter we must conclude, that Aërius was condemned by the Church, and was reckoned among Heretics, and particularly by S. Epiphanius, and S. Augustine, for the self same Error which you maintain. To which Mayor Proposition, if we add this Minor, (which Charity Mistaken expressly notes (m) Pag. 27. and you conceal:) But S. Augustine saith, Whosoever should hold any one of the Heresies by him recounted, (whereof this of Aërius is one) were not a Christian Catholic; The Conclusion will follow of itself. 25. Would to God, yourself, and all Protestants did seriously consider, what account will be exacted at the last day, of those who by their erroneous doctrine, and opposition to the visible Church of Christ, deprive the souls of faithful people deceased, of the many Prayers, Sacrifices, and other good deeds, which in all rigour of justice are due to them by Title of founding Colleges. Chanonryes', Chantries, Hospitals &c. Less cruelty had it been to rob them of their Temporal goods, or to bereave them of their corporal lives, then to have abandoned them to the Torment of a fire, which although as S. Augustine saith (n) In Psal. 37. is slighted by worldly men, yet indeed is more grievous than whatsoever can be endured in this world. Consider I say, whether this manifest Injustice, though it did not proceed (as it doth) from heretical persuasion, were not alone sufficient to exclude salvation. And so much of this point concerning Prayer for the dead. 26. The words of S. Thomas, whom you cite (pag. 40.) to strengthen your distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, do directly overthrew that sense, and purpose for which you make use of them. For as much (saith he) as belongs to the prime (o) 2.2. q. 2. art. 5. in corpor. Objects of Belief, which are the Articles of Faith, a man bound explicitly to believe them, as he is bound to have Faith. But as for other Objects of faith, a man is not bound to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or in readiness of mind, for as much as he is ready to believe whatsoever the holy Scripture contains: But he is bound to believe them explicitly, only when it appears to him that it is contained in the doctrine of faith. Now our Question is not about nescience, or ignorance of some points of faith, but of disagreeing concerning them, one denying what another affirms: in which case, according to the aforesaid doctrine of S. Thomas, there is neither explicit, nor implicit Belief of such points, but positive & direct error in them: and therefore such disagreement cannot stand with Unity of faith. It is strange Divinity, to confound, as you do, points secundary or not fundamental, with probable points. For how many millions of Truths are there contained in Scripture, which are not of their own nature prime Articles? Will you therefore infer that they are but probable? Primary, and secundary respect the matter which we believe: Probable, and certain are derived from the formal reason, or motive for which we believe. Let two disagree in some points even fundamental, yet not sufficiently propounded as revealed Truths, they still retain the same faith; and contrarily, put case that two agree in all fundamental points, if they disagree in any secundary point sufficiently applied to their understanding as a revealed truth, than the one must be an Heretic, and differ from the other, in the very nature, and substance of faith. For as in a Musical Consort (say you) a discord (p) pag. 40. now and then (so it be in the Descant, and depart not from the ground) sweetens the Harmony: so say I (retorting your own sweet similitude) because every least error opposing a revealed Truth is not in the Descant, but departs from the ground of faith, which is the attestation of God, it doth not sweeten the Harmony, but destroys the substance of Faith. And hereafter it shallbe showed, that you wrong Stapleton, no less (q) Infra chap. 5. num. 17. than you do S. Thomas. 27. That, Variety of Opinions or Rites in parts of the Church doth rather commend then prejudice the Unity of the whole, you pretend to prove out of (s) Epist. 75. apud Cypr. Farmilianus in an Epistle to S. Cyprian; which doctrine though it be true in some sense, yet according to your application, it is pernicious: as if it were sufficient to Unity of Faith, that men agree in certain fundamental points, though they vary in other matters concerning faith. And you should have observed, that Firmilianus (who wrote that Epistle in favour of S. Cyprians error about Rebaptisation) speaks in that place of the Custom of keeping Easter: which point after it was once defined, remained no more indifferent, but grew to be a necessary Object of Belief, in so much that the Heretics called Quartadecimani were for that point condemned, and anathematised by the Universal Church in the Counsels of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus. Whereby it is evident that though some point be not in itself fundamental; yet if it be once defined by the Church, the Error degenerates into Heresy. Your Charity is always Mistaken, advantaging your Adversary by your own Arguments. 28. I said already that to be separate from the Church for Heresy, or Schism destroys Salvation, because persons liable to those crimes are in the Church neither in re, nor in voto; neither in fact, nor in effectual desire; as Cathecumen are, and as Excommunicate persons may be, if repenting their former Obstinacy, they cannot by reason of some extrinsecall impediment, obtain Absolution from the Censure. 29. You extend your Charity so far to Infidels, as to forget fidelity in relating what Catholic Divines teach concerning them, not telling whether they require some supernatural faith at jest, for some Object; and quoting Authors with so great affected confusion, that a man would think them to maintain the opinion which they expressly condemn as erroneous, or in the next degree to Heresy. But because it were a vanity to muster a number of Writers in a question impertinent to our present design, which is only against Heresy or Schism, both which exclude invincible ignorance; I hold it best to pass them over in silence. 30. Your saying, that A man may be a true visible membër (t) Pag. 47. of the holy Catholic Church, who is not actually (otherwise then in vow) a member of any true visible Church; destroys itself. For in the same manner and degree, neither more nor less, a man is a visible member in act, or in desire of the visible Church, as he is a member of the true Catholic Church, which is visible. And Bellarmine, whom you cite for yourself, is directly against you. For he teacheth that a man may (u) de Eccles. milit. cap. 6. Respondeo. be in the Church in desire, which is sufficient for Salvation (when he is involuntarily hindered from being actually of the Church) and yet not in the Church by external Comunion, which properly maketh him to be of the visible Church; which is directly to deny what you affirmed. I might reflect what a pretty connection you make in saying: who is not actually otherwise then in vow etc. you might as well have said, who is not actually, otherwise than not in act etc. But such small matters as these I willingly dissemble. The poor man in the Gospel was cast out of the Synagogue by notorious injustice, and therefore still remained a member of the jewish Church, not only in desire, but also in act. You say, Athanasius stood single in defence of divine Truth, all his Brethren the other Patriarches (not he of Rome excepted) having subscribed to Arianisme, and cast him out of their Communion. And you refer us to Baronius cited in your Margin, to what purpose I know not, except to display your own bad proceeding. For Baronius in the place by you alleged (w) Anno 357. num. 44. apud Spond. doth (not incidently, or only by the way, but) industriously, and of set purpose clear Pope Libertu● from having ever subscribed to Arianisme. He subscribed indeed to the condemnation of S. Athanasius, which was not for matter of faith but of fact, to wit, for certain crimes objected against him, as Bellarmine (x) De Rom. Port lib. 4. cap. 9 affirmeth, which being false, S. Athanasius did not therefore cease to be a member of the Catholic Church. If the errors of Tertullian were in themselves so small, as you would make them, it may serve for an example, that not so much the matter, as the manner, and obstinacy is that which makes an Heretic; which overthrows your distinction of points fundamental etc. 31. The proofs which you bring from the Africans, and others, that Communion with the Roman Church was not always held necessary to Salvation, have been a thousand times answered by Catholic Writers; and they are such as you could not have chosen any more disaduantagious to your cause. Heretofore I shown, that Communion with the Roman Church, was by Antiquity judged to be the mark of a true Believer. And indeed seeing you speak of those times wherein Rome stood in her purity (as you say) how could any be divided from her faith, and yet believe aright? Do not yourself say: Whosoever professeth himself to forsake (y) Pag. 76. the Communion of any one member of the Body of Christ, must confess himself consequently to forsake the whole? How then could any divide themselves from the Roman Church while she was in her purity? Even S. Cyprian, whose example you allege, faith: They (z) Ad Cornel. ep. 33. presume to sail to the Roman Church, which is the Chair of Peter, and to the principal Chair, from whence Priestly Unity hath sprung. Neither do they consider that they are Romans, whose faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle, to whom falsehood cannot have access. Optatus Milevitanus, also an African, saith: At Rome hath been constituted to Peter (a) 〈◊〉 Parm. lib. 2. the Episcopal Chair, that in this only Chair, the Unity of all might be preserved. And S. Augustine, like wise an African, affirmeth, that Cacilianus might despise (b) Epist. 62 the conspiring multitude of his enemies, (that is, of seaventy Bishops of Africa assembled in Numidia) because he saw himself united by letters Communicatory with the Roman Church, in which the Principality of the Sea Apostolic had always flourished. And after Pelagius had been judged in the East by the Bishops of Palestine, and Celestius his Disciple had been excommunicated for the same cause in Asrica by the African Bishops; the Milevitan Council referred them finally to the Pope, saying: We hope by the (c) Ep. Conc. Mileu. ad Innocent. inter epist. Aug. epist. 92 mercy of our Lord jesus-christ, who vouchsafe to govern thee consulting with him, and to hear thee praying to him, that those who hold these Doctrines so perverse and pernicious, will more easily yield to the authority of thy Holiness, drawn out of the holy Scriptures. Behold the Pope's prerogative drawn out of the holy Scriptures. And it is very strange that you will allege the Authority of S. Cyprian, and other Bishops of Africa, against Pope Stephen, who opposed himself to them in the Question of Rebaptisation, wherein they agreed with the Heresy of the Donatists, which was condemned not only by the Pope, but by the whole Church, yea by those very Bishops who once adhered to S. Cyprian, as S. Hierome witnesseth, saying: Finally they who had been (d) Coutra Luçifer. of the same opinion, set forth a new decree, saying: What shall we do? So hath it been delivered to them by their Ancestors and ours. And Vincentius Lyrinensis speaking of Stephen his opposing S. Cyprian, saith: Then (e) In Com. part. 1. the blessed Stephen resisted, together with, but yet before his Colleagues; judging it as I conceive to be a thing worthy of him, to excel them as much in Faith, as he did in the authority of his place. 32. Neither are you more fortunate in the example of Pope Victor, then in the other of Stephen. For although Eusebius (whom S. Hierome (f) Contra Ruff. Apol. 1. styles the Ensign-bearer of the Arian Sect, and who was a professed Enemy of the Roman Church) doth relate that S. Irenaeus (g) Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. c. 24. reprehended Victor, for having excommunicated the Churches of Asia, for the question about keeping Easter: yet even he dare not say, that Irenaeus blamed the Pope for want of Power, but for misapplying it; which supposeth a Power to do it, if the cause had been sufficient. And the success shown, that even in the use of his Power, Pope Victor was in the right. For after his death, the Counsels of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus (which you receive as lawful General Counsels) excommunicated those who held the same Custom with the Provinces which Victor had excommunicated: and so they came to be ranked among Heretics under the name of Quartadecimam. You may know what opinion S. Irenaeus had of Popes by these words: Every Church ought to have recourse (h) Adverse. Haeres. lib. 3. cap. 3. to Rome, by reason of her more powerful Principality. And even in this your instance, Eusebius doth only say, that Irenaeus did fitly exhort Pope Victor, that he should not cut off all the Churches of God, which held this ancient Tradition. Which exhortation doth necessarily imply, that Pope Victor had Power to do it, as I said already. And now I pray you, reflect upon your precipitation in saying of Vactor and Stephen. Their Censures (i) Pag. 50. were much slighted, and their Pride and Schism in troubling the peace of the Church much condemned. For they did nothing which was not approved by the universal Church of God; and the Doctrines which they condemned were no less than heretical. And therefore (to answer also to what you object pag. 52.) If the British and Scotish Bishops did adhere to the Churches of Asta in their Celebration of Easter, after the matter was known to be defined by the Church, their example can only be approved by such, as yourself; nor can it either impeach the Authority, or darken the proceeding of the Pope. You cite Baronius (l) Aun. 604. in the Margin, who directly against you relates out of Bede; that when our Apostle S. Augustine, could neither by Arguments, nor by Miracles wrought in their presence, bow their stiffness, he prophefied that they should perish by the English, as afterwards it happened. But you are a fit Champion for such men, and they no less fit examples to be alleged against the Authority of the Roman Church. 33. Your other example, that S. Augustine and diverse other Bishops of Africa, and their Successors for one hundred years together were senered from the Roman Communion. is manifestly untrue in S. Augustine, and some other chief Bishops. For when king Thrasimundus had banished into Sardinia almost all the Bishops, to wit, two hundred and twenty, Pope Symmachus maintained them at his own charges, as persons belonging to his Communion. To the Epistle of Boniface the second to Eulalius Bishop of Alexandria, and the Epistle of Eulalius to the same Boniface, recited by you, out of which it is gathered, that after the sixth Council of Carthage for the space of one hundred years, the Bishops of Carthage were separated from the Communion of the Roman Church, & that in the end they were reconciled to her, Eulalius submitting himself to the Apostolic Sea, and anathematising his Predecessors; Bellarmine (m) de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 25. answereth, that these Epistles may justly be suspected to be Apocryphal for diverse reasons which he allegeth, and it seemeth also by your own words that you do doubt of them: For you say, If their own Records (n) Pag. 50: be true. Yet if they be authentical, their meaning cannot be, that all the Predecessors of Eulalius were for so long space divided from the Roman Church; the contrary being most manifest not only in S. Augustine, who kept most strict amity with Zozimus, Innocentius, and Celestinus Popes, but also in S. Fulgentius and others: but it must be understood only of some Bishops of Carthage, and in particular of Eulalius, himself, till he being informed of the truth, submitted himself to the Roman Church. And you ought rather to have alleged his submission, and condemnation of his Predecessors to prove the Pope's Authority over the African Church; then to object against it the example of some of his Predecessors, & of himself who afterward repent, and condemned his own fact. You do well, only to mention the Protensions and forgeries of the sea of Rome in the matter of Appeals. For you may know that Bellarmine (o) Vbisup. doth so fully answer that point, as nothing can be more effectual to prove the Pope's Supremacy in Africa, than the right of Appeals from Africa to Rome, in causes of greater moment. 34. Your last instance about three Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon, condemned by the fifth General Council, the Bishop of Rome at length consenting, for which diverse Bishops of Italy, and also the Bishops of Ireland did jointly departed from the Church of Rome, is like to your former Objections. For Baronius whom you cite in your Margin hath these words as contrary to your purpose as may be. Hence was it, that the (q) Ann. 553. num. 14. apud Spond. Bishops of Venice & the adicyning Regions did gath●● together a Council at Aquileia against the Fifth Synod; and the divisions at length went as fare as ●reland: for all these relying on the Decree of Vigilius Pope, persuaded themselves that they might do it. Is this to departed from the Pope, or the Roman Church; to oppose that which he is thought to oppose, & formally, because he is thought to oppose it? Now, as for the thing itself, when Vigilius had afterward condemned the three Chapters, which at the first he refused to do, and had confirmed the fifth Council which had condemned them, whosoever opposed that Condemnation, were accounted Schismatics by the whole Catholic Church: which plainly shows the Pope's Authority, and therefore whatsoever Bishops had opposed Vigilius, their example could prove no more, than the faction of rebellious persons can prejudice the right of a lawful King. And in fine, all this Controversy did nothing concern any matter of faith, but only in fact; and not doctrine, but persons, as may be seen at large in Baronius: Neither was it betwixt Catholics and Heretics, but among Catholics themselves. The rest of your Section needs no answer at all: Only whereas you say; Whosoever wilfully opposeth (r) Pag. 57 any Catholic Verity maintained by the Catholic Visible Church, as do Heretics; or perversely divides himself from the Catholic Communion, as do Schismatics; the Condition of both them is damnable: What understand you by Catholic verities of the Catholic Church? Are not all Verityes maintained by the Catholic Church, Catholic Verities? or how do you now distinguish Heresy, and Schism from the Catholic Communion? You tells us, (pag. 76.) that it is the property of Schism to cut off from the Body of Christ, and the hope of Salvation, the Church from which it separats: and is it not an Heresy to cut off from the Body of Christ & hope of Salvation, the Catholic Church? How then can one (according to your principles) be a schismatic from the Catholic Church, & not be jointly an Heretic? CHAP. III. THE Protestants (a) Pag. 59 never intended to erect a new Church, but to purge the Old; The Reformation did not change the substance of Religion, but only cleansed it from corrupt, and impure Qualities. Therefore (say we) the visible Church extant before those your cleansing days, had & still hath the substance of Religion; and so according to your own ground we are safe, if you can possibly be saved. But we have no such dependence upon you. Nay, the same Confession which acquits us, condemns yourselves. For while you confess a Reformation of the Old Church, and neither do, nor can specify any Visible Church, which in your opinion needed no Reformation; you must affirm, that the Church which you intended to reform, was indeed the Visible Catholic Church; if so, than you cannot deny but that you departed from the Catholic Church, & are guilty of Schism, yea and of Heresy. For if the Catholic Church was infected with erroneous doctrine which needed Reformation; it follows, that the errors were Universal, and that the Reformation conming after those errors, must want Universality of Place and Time, and therefore be branded with the mark of Heresy. For in true Divinity a new, and no Church are all one. Moreover, the very Nature, & Essence of the Church requiring true faith, it is impossible to alter any point of faith, without changing the substance of the Church, and Religion; and therefore to reform the Church in matters of faith, is as if you should reform a man by depriving him of a reasonable Soul, whereby he is a man; And a Reformed Catholic are terms no less repugnant, than a reasonable unreasonable creature, or a destroyed existing thing. Wherefore to say, the Reformation did not change the substance of Religion, but only cleansed it from corrupt and impure qualities, are mere words to deceive simple souls. And it is a lamentable case, that you can never be brought from such ridiculous similitudes, as here you bring of Naaman, who was still the same man before and after he was cured of his leprosy; Of a field overgrown with weeds, thistles &c. (and your Brethren are full of twenty such childish pretended illustrations:) whereas every body knows that leprosy is accidental to a man, and weeds to a field, but Faith is essential to the Church; and that Affirmation, or Negation of any one revealed Truth whatsoever, are differences no less essential in faith, then reasonable and unreasonable in living Creatures. And Faith itself being an accident and quality consisting in Affirmation, or Negation; to cleanse it from the corrupt and impure quality of affirming, or denying; is to cleanse it from its own Nature, and Essence; which is not to reform, but to destroy it. Lastly, from this your forced Confession, not to erect a new Church, but to purge the Old, we must infer that the Roman Church, which you sought to purge, was the Old Church, and the Catholic Church of Christ. For if you found any other Old visible Catholic Church, which needed no Reformation, than you neither intended to erect a new Church, nor to purge the Old. 2. You say, the things which Protestants (b) Pag. 61. believe on their part, and wherein they judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprised, are most, if not all of them, so evidently and indisputably true, that their Adversaries themselves do avow, and receive them as well as they. If this be true, and that the said Verities make up the faith of Protestants (as you speak) than what needed you a Reformation to teach men the faith of Protestants, which they believed before Protestants appeared? Or how can you be excused from Schism, who divided yourselves from that visible Church, which believed those verities which make up your faith? You say, If all other Christians could be content (c) pag. 61.62. to keep within these general bounds, the woeful Schisms and ruptures of Christendom might be more easily healed. O words most powerful to condemn yourselves, who were not content to keep within those general bounds, which you confess we believed, but would attempt new Reformations, although with so woeful Schisms and Ruptures of Christendom, as you hold worthy to be lamented with tears of blood! If our errors were not fundamental, your Reformation could not be necessary to salvation; as when the wound or disease is known not to be deadly, the cure cannot be necessary to the conservation of life. 3. The Reformation which zealous Catholics did desire, and with whose words you vainly load your Margin, were not in faith but manners. For which if it be lawful to forsake a Church, no Church shall remain unforsaken. But of this I have spoken in the First Part. Luther was justly cut of by Excommunication, as a pernicious member: which yet was not done, till the Pope had used all means to reclaim him. Provincial or Nationall Synods may seek to reform abuses in manners, and endeavour that the faith already established be conserved: but if they go about to reform the Catholic Church in any one point, they deserve the name of Conventicles, and not of Counsels. 4. What mean you when you say; that you left the (e) pag. 67. Church of Rome in nothing she holds of Christ, or of Apostolic Tradition? Do you admit Traditions? Are they fallible or infallible? For if they be infallible, then may they be part of the Rule of faith. If fallible, they are not Apostolic. 5. You go then about to prove, that our doctrines are, First, doubtful and perplexed opinions. 2. Doctrines unnecessary, and foreign to the faith: and 3. Novelties unknown to Antiquity. 6. You pretend they are doubtful, and say: The Roman Doctors do not fully and absolutely agree in any one point among themselves, but only in such points wherein they agree with us. If a manifest untruth be a good proof, your Argument convinceth. If you think, that disagreement in matters not defined by the Church, argues difference in matters of faith, you show small reading in our Divines, who even in all those Articles wherein you agree with us, have many different, and contrary Opinions concerning points not defined: as about some speculative questions concerning the Deity, the Blessed Trinity, Incarnation; yea there are more disputes about those high Mysteries wherein you agree with us, then in others wherein we disagree: and yet you grant, that such disputes do not argue those main points to be doubtful. And so you must answer your own instance, by which you might as well prove, that Philosophers do not agree whether there be such things as Time, Motion, Quantity, Heavens, Elements, etc. because in many particulars concerning those things, they cannot agree. 7. In the second place you affirm our doctrines to be unnecessary and superfluous: because a very small measure of explicit knowledge is of absolute necessity. But this is very clearly nothing at all to the purpose. For our Question is not what every one is obliged explicitly to believe, but whether every one be not obliged, not to disbelieve, or deny any one point sufficiently propounded by the Church, as a divine Truth. Neither do we treat of ignorance of some points, but of plain opposition, and contradiction both between you and us, and also among your selves. You cite Bellarmine, saying: The Apostles never used (g) De verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. to preach openly to the people, other things, than the Articles of the Apostles Creed, the Ten Commaundments, and some of the Sacraments, because these are simply necessary, and profitable for all men: the rest beside, such as a man may be saved without them. Hear you stop, leaving out the words immediately following, which are directly against you. So that (saith Bellarmine) he have (h) Ibid. a will ready to embrace and believe them, whensoever they shall be sufficiently propounded to him by the Church. Besides, you falsify Bellarmine when you make him say, that the Apostles never used to preach to the people other things than the Articles of the Apostles Creed, the commandments, and some of the Sacraments, because these are simply necessary, and profitable for all men; But he saith directly the contrary, namely; that the Apostles preached to all, some things which were not necessary, but only profitable to all (and therefore not superfluous as you say;) whereas yet he expressly affirms the knowledge of the Creed, commandments, and some sacraments to be necessary to all. I wonder what pleasure you can take in corrupting Authors, to your own discredit? Now since we must have, as Bellarmine rightly teacheth, a will ready to embrace whatsoever is propounded by the Church; it followeth, that notwithstanding your Confidence to the contrary, we cannot but except against your public Service, or Liturgy. I have neither will nor leisure to examine particulars: but Exceptions enough offer themselves to any man's first Consideration. The very occasion and end for which it was framed, proceeded out of an Heretical spirit, to oppose the true Visible Church: It was turned into English upon an heretical persuasion, and a popular insinuation, and a crafty affectation to inveigle the humour of the people, that public Prayers were unlawful in an unknown tongue. It leaveth out Prayers both for deceased sinners, and to glorious Saints, blotting diverse of them out of their Calendar; and hath abrogated their festival days: and the like they have done concerning fasts, except those few which they vouchsafe to like: It abolisheth all memory of S. Peter's Successor: It treateth only of two Sacraments, excluding the rest; and in the one it omitteth most of our Ceremonies, as superstitious: in the other it professeth not to give any thing but the substance of Bread and wine. It administereth to Lay people both kinds, as necessary by the institution of Christ our Lord: Mass, or Sacrifice it hath none: It reads and believes Scripture heretically translated: It mentioneth no Relics of Saints: And in a word, it is both in the whole Body, and design, and in every point a profession of a Church, and faith contrary to Catholics, and implies a condemnation of our Liturgy as superstitious, & yourself boldly say: We cannot, we (i) Pag. 68 dare not communicate with Rome in her public Liturgy, which is manifestly polluted with gross superstitions; and therefore wee Catholics also can no more approve your practice and Liturgy, than we can embrace your Doctrine, and faith. I said that I had no desire to examine the particulars of your Liturgy, neither is it needful. For we may judge of the rest, by the very first words, or Introite of your Service, beginning with a Text, for which you cite Ezech. 18. At what time soever a sinner doth repent him of his sins from the bottom of his heart, I will put all his wickedness out of my remembrance, saith the Lord. But there is no such sentence in Ezechiel, whose words are these, even in the Bible of the Protestants: But if the wicked will turn from all his sins which he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die: All his Transgressions which he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in the righteousness which he hath done, he shall live. Your first Reformers, the soul of whose Church was solifidian justification, were loath to hear of possibility to keep all the Commandments, of working Righteousness, or living in the Righteousness which he hath wrought; as also they were unwilling to particularise with the Prophet, what is required to true Repentance, knowing full well, the different opinions of their first Progenitors about this point of Repentance, and therefore they thought best to corrupt this Text. And which is more strange, in your service-book translated into Latin, and printed in London, Per assignationem Francisci Florae, the sentence is cited at large as it is in the Prophet, and therefore the corruption still remaining in the English to deceive the Unlearned, is more inexcusable. Neither (in the same Introite) is the allegation of joel. 2. much more truly made: Rend your hearts, & not your garments, and turn to the Lord your God etc. Out of which place, you know men are wont to declaim against our corporal Penance of Fasting, Watching, haircloth, Disciplines etc. but, even according to your own Translation, the words are: Turn you even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning; And rend your hearts, and not your garments etc. where I believe you will confess that your omission was not used to no purpose. 8. You speak among other things of Images, & we grant that God may be worshipped without an Image. But we say, that he cannot be truly worshipped by any one, who denieth worship of Images, because true worship of God cannot stand with any one Heresy. It is highly good, & lawful, and a most holy thing to pray to God; but yet if one should believe, that we may not also pray to living men, yourself would I think condemn him for an Heretic, because all Christians entreat their Brethren to pray for them: By which example all your instances (pag. 72.) may be answered. Your saying out of Bellarminine that the worship, and Invocation of Saints was brought into the Church, rather by custom then any Precept, is answered hereafter n. 12. And I would gladly know by what authority your Church can enjoin secret Confession in some case, as (here pag. 72.) you say she doth, if Christ have left it free? Can a humane law oblige men to reveal their secret sins, in Confession? especially since they know not whether your Ministers will not think themselves obliged to acquaint some Officer therewith, in case the Penitent disclose any crime punishable by the Laws of the Realm. To which propose I could tell you strange and true stories: as contrarily because Catholics believe the Sacrament of Confession to have been instituted by our Saviour Christ, as necessary to Salvation, they consequently teach, that the Seal and Secret thereof is so sacred and inviolable, that the Pope himself cannot dispense therein, though it were to save his own life. And now, to follow your wanderings, you may know that we do not hinder, but give free leave to unlearned persons to say their prayers in a known language: but the Church doth celebrate public Service in one of the learned Tongues, for weighty reasons, which have been learnedly set down by our Catholic Writers. And if nothing must be read but what the People, yea learned men understand, you must give over reading in public, even in English, diverse Psalms of David, the Prophets, the Apocalyps, and other parts of Scriptures, the sense and meaning whereof the people understand no more, then if they were read in Hebrew. Nay, to understand the words, and not the sense, is not free from danger, because they may by them conceive some error, as we daily see by the example of Sectaries, & in that ungracious creature, who lately out of Scripture, as he thought, murdered his Mother, and Brother, for being cause of his Idolatry in kneeling at the Communion. Happy had it been both for him, and a thousand more, if the sacred Scriptures in English were not so common among them, but were read with due circumspection, and not without approbation of such as can judge better of them, than themselves. And in very truth it seems strange, & not only not safe but even shameful, that, for example, the Books of Leviticus, and the Canticles, besides many passages in other Books, should he promiscuously made subject to the vulgar eyes of sensual, and unmortifyed people, who morally will be sure to make no other use thereof, then to hurt themselves, together with the abusing & profaning so holy a thing, as every word of holy Scripture is in itself. 9 Now, to come to your other particulars; we acknowledge and profess all Merits to be the gift of God, and therefore they cannot withdraw us from relying on him. You cite Bellarmine, saying: It is safest, not to trust (m) Pag. 73. to a man's own Merits, but wholly and solely to cast himself on the mercy of jesus-christ. But doth Bellarmine say, that it is safest to rely on God's Mercy alone, and to deny all Merits, as Protestants do? This indeed were to your purpose. But let us hear Bellarmine rightly cited: It is (saith he) most safe to place (n) De Justificat. lib. 5. c. 7. § Sittertia propositio. all our trust in the sole mercy & Benignity of God. Hear you stay. But Bellarmine goes on, and saith: I explicate my said Proposition: for it is not to be so understood as if a man with all his forces ought not to attend to good works: Or that we ought not to confide in them, as if they were not true justice, or could not undergo the judgement of God (for no wonder if Gods own gifts, as all our merits are, may endure his examination.) but we only say, that it is more safe, as it were to forget our former Merits, and to look only upon the mercy of God; Both because no man can without a revelation certainly know that he hath true merits, or that he is to persevere in them to the end: And also, because in this place of Temptation nothing is more easy then to conceive Pride by the consideration of our good works. I leave it therefore to any man's consideration, what sincerity you have used in alleging Bellarmine. 10 In the last place you affirm, that our doctrines are confessed (o) Pag. 13. Novelties, and you go about to prove it by a few instances; all which being either nothing to the purpose, or plainly mistaken, or manifestly untrue, do excellently prove against yourself, how ancient our Religion is. Your instance about the Pope's infallibility, is not to the purpose of proving that the Roman Church teacheth any Novelty. For Bellarmine, out of whom you cite a few Authors who teach that the Pope's Decrees without a Council are not infallible, saith: That, that Doctrine (p) De Rom. Pont. l. 4. ç. 1. is yet tolerated by the Church, though he affirm it to be erroneous, and the next degree to Heresy. The same Answer serves for your other example concerning the Pope's Authority above that of a General Council, of which Bellarmine saith: They are not properly Heretics who hold the contrary; but (q) De Concil. l. 2. cap. 17. Denique Lateranense. they cannot be excused from great temerity. And you are not ignorant, but that even those who defend these doctrines do unanimously consent against you, that the Pope is Head of the Church. But I pray you, what Consequence is it? Some Authors deny, or doubt of the Pope's Infallibility, or his Authority over a General Council: Ergo, these doctrines are Novelties? May not private men be mikaken, even in doctrines which of themselves are most ancient; as is known by experience in many Truths, which both you and we maintain? For how many Books of Scripture were once doubted of by some, which now yourselves receive as Canonical? Are you therefore Novelists? You overlash then, when you say: Above a thousand (r) Pag. 72. Edit. 1. years after Christ, the Pope's judgement was not esteemed infallible, nor his authority above that of a general Council: and especially when you cite Bellarmine to make good your sayings. And your affirming out of Bellarmine (the Indulg. l. 2. c. 17.) that Eugenius the 3. (who began his Papacy 1145.) was (s) Pag. 72. Edit. 1. the first that granted Indulgences, is a huge untruth, and falsification of Bellarmine, who in that very place, directly, expressly, purposely, proves that other Popes before Eugenius granted Indulgences, & names them in particular. Whereas you say that the Counsels of Constance and Basil, decreed the Council to be above the Pope; you might have seen the Answer in Bellarmine in the same Book which you (t) De Concil. l 2. ç. 19 cite; that these two Counsels at that time were not lawful Counsels, or sufficient to define any matters of Faith. 11. You say, Many of them (meaning Catholic Doctors) yield also, that Papal Indulgences are things unknown to all Antiquity. And to prove this, you allege Bellarmine, (u) De Indulg. l. 2. ç. 27. who cities Durand, S. Antoninus, and Roffensis. Neither do these three, which you by I know not what figure call many, say as you do, that Indulgences are things unknown to all Antiquity; but only for the first five hundred years, as Bellarmine saith in the place by you cited, & therefore you take to yourself a strange privilege to multiply persons, and enlarge times: and yet these Authors do not deny Indulgences. And as Bellarmine answers: We ought not to say that Indulgences are not indeed Ancient, because two or three Catholics have not read of them in Ancient Authors. And you may, with greater show, deny diverse Books of Scripture, which more than three Writers did not only say, they were not received by Antiquity; but did expressly reject them. As for the thing itself, Bellarmine showeth, that Indulgences are no less ancient than the (y) Vbi supra. ç. 3. beginning of the Church of Christ: & that your own Protestants confess, that it is hard to know when they began, which is a sign of Antiquity, not of Novelty. But we can tell you, when, and who, first began to oppose Indulgences, namely the Waldenses, who appeared about the year 1170. And therefore the mark of Novelty, & Heresy must fall not upon the defenders, but the impugners of Indulgences. 12. You say out of Bellarmine, that Leo the Third was the first that ever Canonised any Saint, as before (pag. 72.) you alleged out of him, that the worship of Saints, was brought into the Church rather by Custom then by any Precept; and in your Margin you cite him in Latin saying: Saints began to be (z) De Saitctorum beat, lib. 1. cap. 8. § v●●. worshipped in the universal Church rather by Custom then by Precept. But Bellarmine doth not there treat in general of worship of Saints, but only handling the Question, Cuius sit etc. To whom doth it belong to Canonize Saints, and proving that it belongs to the Pope to Canonize them for the whole Church, and not for some particular Diocese alone; in answer to an Objection, that there are many worshipped for Saints, who were not Canonised by the Pope, he hath these words: I answer, that the Ancient Saints began to be worshipped in the Universal Church, not so much by any Law, as by Custom: Where you break off. But Bellarmine goeth forward, and saith: But as other Customs have the force of a Law by the Consent of the Prince, without which they are of no force etc. So the Worship of any Saint generally introduced by the Custom of the Churches, hath force from the , or express Approbation of the Pope. First then, you conceal the Question of which Bellarmine treated. Secondly, you leave out (Veteres) Ancient Saints, and say only Saints, and yet (Ancient) showeth he spoke not of all Saints, but of some who were not expressly Canonised, or Commanded to be held for Saints, whereas diverse others have been Canonised by direct command to believe that they are happy. Thirdly, in your Translation, you leave out Universal, & only put Church; whereas Bellarmine § Primo modo, expressly teacheth: That in ancient time every Bishop might Canonize Saints for his particular Diocese, and de facto, they did command some Feasts to be kept, as Bellarmine proves; which shows, that the worship of Saints was held both to be lawful, and was to some particular persons commanded. Fourthly, you leave out Bellarmine's words; That the Worship of some Saint generally introduced by the custom of the Churches, grows to have the force of a Law, or Precept, by the , or express Approbation of the Pope; which is contrary to that, which you cited out of Bellarmine; The worship and Invocation of Saints was brought into the Church, rather by Custom, than any Precpt. And now to come to your former Objection out of Bellarmine, what is it to your purpose if he affirm that Leo the third was the first that ever Canonised any Saint? Doth he affirm that Leo was the first that taught Worship, and Invocation of Saints? Or that such worship was not practised by Custom, yea & by Precept before his Time, as we have seem out of his words it was? Bellarmine speaks only of such form and solemnity of Canonization as afterwards was used: Which makes nothing for your purpose, to prove that our doctrine of Worship, or Invocation of Saints, is a Novelty. If one should affirm that the solemnity of Crowning Kings, was not used in all places, or times alike; should he therefore deny the Antiquity of Kings, or that Obedience is due to them? You may see not only the error, but the danger also of such discourse. 13. When one reads in your Book these words in a different letter; Not any one ancient Writer (b) Pag. 78. reckons precisely seven Sacraments; the first Author that mentions that number is Peter Lombard, and the first Council, that of Florence: and in your Margin, the names of Valentia, and Bellarmine; Who would not think that in the opinion of these Authors no ancient Writer before Lombard believed that there were seven Sacraments, neither more nor fewer? Which is most untrue, and against their formal words, & express intentions. For thus saith Valentia in the very same place which you (c) Tom. 4. disp 3. q. 6. p. 2. § Tertie probatur. cite: The same Assertion, (that there are seven Sacraments) is proved by the Authority of Fathers. For although the more ancient Writers do not number seven Sacraments, all together in one place: yet it may be easily showed, especially by the testimony of S. Augustine that they did acknowledge every one of these Ceremonies to be a Sacrament. Thus Valentia in general, and then he proves every one of the seven Sacraments, out of particular places of S. Augustine, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, Innocentius the first, Chrysostome, Bode, and Dionysius Areopagita. Now tell me, whether Valentia say: Not any one Ancient Writer reckons precisely seven Sacraments? Doth he not prove out of S. Augustine every one of the seven Sacraments in particular, as you could not but see in the very place cited by you? Is it all one to say: Not any one Ancient Writer reckons precisely seven Sacraments, as you corrupt these Authors, and to say; The Ancient Writers do not number seven Sacraments all together in one place? Neither is your falsifying of Bellarmine less remarkable, who having said that the number of seven Sacraments is proved out of Scriptures, and ancient Fathers, premiseth this Observation: That, Our Adversaries ought not to require of us, that (d) Bellarm. de Sacram. lib. 2. ç. 25. we show in Scriptures and Fathers the NAME of seven Sacraments: For neither can they show the Name of two, or three, or four: for the Scriptures and Fathers did not write a Catechism, as now we do, by reason of the multitude of Heresies, but only delivered the things themselves in diverse places: Neither is this proper to Sacraments, but common to many other things. For the Scripture reckons the miracles of our Saviour, but never reckons how many there be: It delivers the Articles of Faith, but never saith how many they be: The Apostles afterward published the Creed of twelve Articles for some particular causes. In like manner they cannot know out of Scripture, how many Canonical break there be: But Counsels afterward set down the Canon, and the particular number, which they had learned by Tradition. And afterward he notes: That it is sufficient if we can show out of Fathers and Scriptures, that the Definition of a Sacrament doth agree neither to more nor fewer Rites, than seven. By which words it is clear, that when Bellarmine saith, Lombard was the first that named the number of seven Sacraments, he only meaneth, as he explicates himself, of the name of Seven; as Protestants will not find in all Antiquity the name of two Sacraments. So that from the words of Valentia and Bellarmine, as they are indeed, nothing can be gathered, except your very unconscionable Dealing. 14. What you cite out of Bellarmine, that (e) De Enchar. lib. 3. çap. 23. Scotus teacheth Transubstantiation to have been neither named, nor made an Article of faith before the Council of Lateran, doth not prove it to be a Novelty, but only that Scotus did think it was not so expressly declared before that Council; which (saith Bellarmine) he affirmed because he had not read the Council of Rome under Gregory the Seaventh, nor had observed the consent of Fathers. It is a fond thing to say, that every Truth is a Novelty, which the Church as occasion serveth doth declare more expressly than before. And if all Truths must be declared alike at all times, under pain of being accounted Novelties; what will become of Luther's Reformation, whereby he pretended to teach the world so many things which he falsely, & impiously blasphemed to have been for solong time buried in oblivion, and overwhelmed with corruption? 15. You cite Peter Lombard and S. Thomas, as if they affirmed Sacrifice in the (f) Pag. 74. Eucharist to be no other, but the image or Commemoration of our Saviour's Sacrifice upon the Cross. But your conscience cannot but tell you, that these Authors never doubted whether the Mass be a true Sacrifice or no, and therefore the Question which they propounded is, Whether Christ in the Mass be immolated, or (g) S. Thom. 3. p. q. 83 a. 1. in corp. killed? and according to this sense they answer, that he is immolated in figure, because the unbloody Oblation of the Eucharist, is a representation of our Saviour's bloody Oblation, or Immolation on the Cross. And that this is so, you might have seen in S. Thomas in that very place which you (h) Ad 3. cite, where he teacheth that in this manner of being killed, or immolated in figure, Christ might have been said to have been immolated in the figures of the Old Testament, which did prefigure his death; and yet you will not acknowledge yourself so perfectly Zwinglianized, that you will from hence infer, that there is no more in the Eucharist then in the empty figures of the Old Law: and though you did, yet it would not serve your turn, for even diverse of those figures were truly & properly Sacrifices; and therefore though the Eucharist were but a Commemoration, yet it might be a true Sacrifice withal. 16. You allege Lindanus, that (i) Panopl. lib. 4. part. 2. çap. 56. § Hunc igitur. in former Ages, for 1200. years, the holy Cup was administered to the Laity. But you deceive your Reader; for Lindanus plainly saith; That both kinds were given to the Laity almost every where, but yet not every where. Which is sufficient against you, who say, it is against the institution of Christ not to give both kinds to the Laity. And I shown before, that in the reign of King Edward the Sixth, Communion in one kind was permitted; and that Melancthon & Luther held it as a thing indifferent. 17. That divine Sacrifice was celebrated for diverse Ages in a known & vulgar Tongue, you would prove out of (k) In 1. corp. çap. 14. Lyra. But what is this to prove our doctrine to be a Novelty? Do we teach, that there is any divine Law, either forbidding, or commanding public Service in a vulgar Tongue? And Lyra in that place teacheth that in these times it is more convenient that it be not celebrated in a known language. 18. That the Fathers generally condemned the worship of Images for fear of Idolatry, and allowed, yea exhorted the people with diligence, to read the Scriptures; You seek (l) Pag. 74. to prove the former part out of Polydore Virgil, and the latter out of Azor; but still with your wont sincerity. For how often have you been told that Polydore (m) De Innent. lib. 6. çap. 13. speaks not of the Ancient Fathers of the New Testament, but of those of the Old, naming Moses, David, and Ezechias, and he proveth at large, that in the New Law, Images are worthily placed in Churches, and worshipped; and concludes, demanding what man is so dissolute, and so brazen faced, that will, or can doubt, or dream of the contrary? Azor grants, that in the (n) Moral. Instit. lib. 8. çap. 26. part. 1. §. Respondeo. times of S. Chrysostome, Laymen were conversant in Scripture, because than they understood Greek or Latin, in which language the Scriptures were written; whereas now the common people for the most part understand not the Latin Tongue; but such Lay people as understand Greek or Latin, do with good reason read the Scripture. Who would ever imagine, that in so short a compass you could have corrupted so many Authors? 19 What you say in this your Section, to excuse your Brethren from Schism, we have answered in the First Part, and have confuted all your evasions & similitudes. And whereas you say, that (o) Pag. 77. although our errors be not damnable to him, who in simplicity of heart believeth and professeth them; yet that he, that against faith and conscience shall go along with the stream, to profess and practise them, because they are but little ones; his case is dangerous, and without repentance desperate. I answer, that if our errors be not fundamental, how can they be damnable: and if they be but little ones, that is, not fundamental or damnable, how is it damnable to embrace them, because they are little ones, that is, because they are, as indeed they are? If they were indeed little ones, & yet by an erroneous conscience were esteemed great ones, to such a man they should indeed be damnable; but to one that knows them to be little ones, and with such a knowledge, or conscience, for some humane respect, of itself not damnable, doth yet embrace them, they are not damnable. For still we suppose that he would not embrace them, if his Conscience told him, that they were great ones. And who can without smiling read these your words: It is the (p) Pag. 77. Doctrine of the Roman School, that venial sins to him that commits them, not of subreption, or of a sudden motion, but of presumption that the matter is not of moment, change their kind and become mortal? I pray you what School man teacheth that to commit a venial sin, knowing it to be such, makes it become mortal? For in this sense you must allege this doctrine, if it be to your purpose: and in this sense it being a false doctrine, doth indeed overthrew that for which you allege it; and proves that to embrace errors not fundamental, knowing them to be such, cannot be damnable; as it is not a mortal sin, to do that which one knows to be but venial In the mean time you do not reflect, that if your doctrine might pass for true, it would be impossible for both Catholics, and Protestants, Lutherans, and Caluinists to be saved. For all these differ at lest in points not fundamental, and so you grant unawares that which chief we intent, that of two differing in Religion, both cannot be saved, whether their differences be great, or small. 20. I have told you already, that the Author of the Moderate Examination etc. is no Catholic. That other Treatise entitled, Syllabus aliquot Synodorum etc. I have not seen, but if the Author pretend, as you say, that both Huguenots, and Catholics may be saved, he can be no Catholic. 21. You would fain avoid the note of Heretics, which is to be named by Modern names, derived for the most part from their first Sect-Maisters. You renounce the names of Lutherans, Zwinglians, or Caluinists, and to that purpose you make half a Sermon; But words will not serve your turn. For they are no injurious Nicknames as you say, but names imposed by mere necessity, to distinguish you from those from whom you really differ, and to express the variety of your late Reformation. If we speak of Christians, or Catholics without some addition, no man will dream of you, but will think of us, who had that Name before Luther appeared, and therefore it cannot express the latter Reformation. If you willbe called the Reformed Church; still the doubt remains, whether you mean those who follow Luther, or Caluin, or Zwinglius etc. Neither will the Reformed Church (if she be in her wits) make herself liable to all errors of Lutherans, Caluinists, Anabaptists, Puritans etc. And in this, your prime man D. Field is more ingenious, while he acknowledgeth a necessity of the name of Lutherans, in these words: Neither was it possible (q) Of the Church lib. 2. cap. 9 p. 59 that so great an alteration should be effected, and not carry some remembrance of them, by whom it was procured. And Whitaker saith: For distinctions sake we are enforced to use the (r) In his answer to Reynolds Preface. pag. 44. name of Protestants. And Graverus giveth a reason why those of the same Sect with him be called Lutherans, saying: The only reason (s) In his Absurda Absurdorun etc. in Praefat. of it is, that we may be distinguished from Caluinists & Papists, from whom we cannot be distinguished by the general name either of Christians, or of Orthed ox, or of Catholics. And Hospinianus likewise saith: I abhor the Schismatical names (t) In his Prologomena. of Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Caluinist; (mark, the shismatical names) yet for distinction sake I will use these names in this History. The vulgar Objection which you bring, that amongst us also there are Franciscans, dominicans, Scotistes Loyalists etc. is pertinent only to convince you of manifest Novelty: For those Names are not imposed to signify difference in faith, as the Names of Lutherans, Caluinists, are; but either diverse Institutes of Religion, as Dominicans, Franciscans etc. or else diversity of opinions concerning some points not defined by the Church, as Thomists, Scotists etc. And for as much as these Names be arguments of new and particular Institutes, and are derived from particular men, they likewise prove that the names of Lutherans, Caluinists &c. being given upon diversity in faith, must argue a new beginning, & a new Sect, and Sect-Maisters concerning Faith. D. Field is full to our purpose, saying: We must observe that they who profess the faith of Christ (u) Vbi sup. pag. 58. have been sometimes in these latter ages of the Church called after the special names of such men as were the Authors, Beginners, and Devisers of such courses of Monastical Profession, as they made choice to follow, as Benedictins, and such like. And in his other words following, he answers your objection of the Scotists, and Thomists, affirming their differences to have been in the Controversies of Religion, not yet determined by consent of the Universal Church. What can be more clear, that our differences concern not matters of Faith, and that the names which you mention of franciscans, Dominicans etc. signify a Means of that for which they are imposed, and which they are appointed to signify, and therefore prove that the names of Lutherans &c. must signify a Nouclty in faith? 22. But you say, that the jars and divisions between (w) pag. 87. the Lntherans, and Caluinists do little concern the Church of England, which followeth none but Christ. And do not Lutherans and Caluinists pretend to follow Christ as well as you? Who shall be judge among you? But you may easily be well assured, that as long as you follow him by contrary ways, you can never come where he is. And yet indeed, do these ●arres little concern the Church of England? Have you in your Church none of those who are commonly called Lutherans, Zwinglians, Caluinists, Puritans etc. Doth it not behoove you to consider, whether your Congregation can be One true Church of Christ, while you are in Communion with so many disagreeing Sects? Doth it little concern you, whether your first Reformers Lutherans, Caluinists, Zwinglians, Puritans be Heretics, or no? How can it be, but that the divisions of Lutherans, and Caluinists must concern the Church of England? For, your Church cannot agree with them all; & if you side with one part, you must jar with the other. Or if you agree with none of them, you disagree with all, & so make a greater division. 23. And therefore, being really distrustful of this Answer, you come at length to your main refuge, namely; that their dissensions (x) Pag. 87. are neither many, nor so material, as to shake, or touch the foundation. But till you can once tell us what points will shake the foundation, you cannot be sure whether their dissensions be not such. You say, their (y) Pag. 90. difference about Consubstantiation, and ubiquity is not fundamental, because both agree, that Christ is really, and truly exhibited to each faithful Communicant, and that in his whole Person he is every where. In this manner you may reconcile all heresies, and say, the Arians or Nestorians believed Christ to be truly God; that is, by real, and true affection of Charity, as many among you say, Christ is really in the Sacrament, that is, by a real figure, or by a real act of faith, as the Nestorians said of a real act of Charity: That even according to them who deny the Trinity, there is truly a Father, Son, and holy Ghost, as in God there is truly Power, Understanding, and Will; but whether those Persons be really distinct or no, that is (as you say of Consubstantiation and ubiquity) a nicecity inscrutable to the wit of man: and so a man may go discoursing of all other Heresies, which have been condemned by the Church. Is there not a main difference of receiving our Saviour's body in real substance, and in figure alone? Or betwixt the immensity of our Saviour's Deity, and the ubiquity of his Humanity, which destroys the Mysteries of his Nativity Ascension, &c for who can ascend to the place where he is already? You specify only the said difference betwixt Lutherans, and Caluinists, whereas you know there are many more, as about the Canon of Scripture etc. as also between Protestants and Puritans etc. And I could put you in mind of your Brethren, who teach that for diverse Ages the visible Church perished; and yet S. Augustine teacheth, that there is nothing more evident in Scripture, than the Universality of the Church: as also who deny that Bishops are by divine Institution; who oppose your whole Hierarchy as Antichristian; who differ from you in the form of Ordination of Ministers; all which are fundamental points. But I will refer the Reader to the most exact Brereley, who (z) Tract. 3. Sect. 7. under ●. reckons no fewer than seaventy seven differences among you, punctually citing the Books, and pages where you may find them. And yet for the present I will set down some words of Doctor Willet, testifying your differences. From this fountain (saith he) have sprung (a) In his meditation upon the 122. Psa. pag. 91. forth these and such like whirlepoints, and bubbles of new doctrine: as for example, that the Scriptures are not means concerning God of all that profitably we know: That, they are not alone complete to everlasting felicity: That, the word of God cannot possibly assure us what is the word of God: That, there are works of Supererogation: That, the Church of Rome, as it now standeth, is the family of Christ: That, Idolaters and wicked Heretics are members of the visible Church: (let D. Potter here remember what himself saith of the Roman Church, and what he relateth about the opinion of M. Hooker and M. Morton, that among Heretics there may be a true Church:) That, there is in Ordination given a indelible Character: That, they have power to make Christ's body: That, Sacraments are necessary in their place, and no less required than belief itself: That, the souls of Infants dying without Baptism are damned etc. Do you think, that the necessity of Baptism, and other Sacraments, the sufficiency of sole Scripture, which your English Clergy professeth at their Ordination, and those other points are but small matters? But besides these, and many more, there are two other main, general, & transcendent differences among you. The one, whether you do not differ in main points, which though you deny, yet others affirm: The other, what be main or fundamental points. Upon which two differences, i● will necessarily follow, that you cannot know, whether you have the same substance of faith, and hope of salvation, or no. But though your differences were all reduced to one, and that how small soever; that one were sufficient to exclude Unity of faith among you, as I have often said, and proved. I have no mind to spend time in telling you how unschollerlike you say: Two brothers (b) Pag. 87. in their choler may renounce each other, and disclaim their amity; yet that heat cannot dissolve their inward, and essential relation. For when a man's Brother dies, doth he lose any essential relation? I always thought that essential relations were inseparable from the essence to which they belong, and the essence from them; and a man who still remains a man, may yet cease to be a Brother: It is therefore no essential relation. 24. I grant that Differences in Ceremonies, or discipline, do not always infer diversity of faith; yet when one part condemns the Rites and discipline of the other as Antichristian, or repugnant to God's word (as it happeneth among Protestants,) than differences in Ceremontes redound to a diversity in faith. 25. Luther tempered by (c) Pag. 93. mild Melancthon (that honour of Germany) did much relent and remit of his rigour against Zwinglius, and began to approve the good Counsels of peace. If inconstancy concerning matters of Faith be Mildness, Melancton was, I grant, extremely mild, in which respect he was noted even by Protestant's, & was disliked by Luther. How much Luther relented of his rigour against Zwinglius, let himself declare in these words, which you could not but read in Charity-Mistaken. I having now one of my feet (d) Pag. 53. in the grave, will carry this testimony and glory to the Tribunal of God; That I will with all my heart condemn, and eschew Carolostadius, Zwinglius, Oecolampadius, and their disciples; nor will I have familiarity with any of them either by letter, writing, words, nor deeds, accordingly as the Lord hath commanded. If in Polonia the followers of Luther, and Caluin have long lived together in concord, as you would have us believe, the thing being really not true; they must thank the good Catholic King under whom they live, who is able, and apt to punish when there is great excess. But if they had the raynes in their own hand, what greater concord could be hoped for amongst them in that Kingdom, then is found in other places, where they have more power? In Polonia there are many Arians, and Trinitarians, who live in outward concord with the rest; But will you acknowledge them for Brethren to Lutherans, Caluinists, and yourself? The answer will be hardly made, if you stick to your own grounds, and I may well pass on to the rest. CHAP. FOUR YOUR very beginning promiseth small sincerity in that which follows. For you make Charity-Mistaken say, that Protestants be Heretics at the jest, if not Infidels; whereas he only saith, & substantially proveth, that whosoever doth disbelieve any one Article of faith, doth not assent to all the rest, by divine infallible faith, but by an humane persuasion; which is a point of great consideration, and of which it seems you are very loath to speak. 2. You take much pains to prove what we do not deny. For it maketh nothing to the purpose, whether or no the Proposition of the Church belong to the formal Object of faith, as heretofore I have told you. Nor do we deny Scripture to contain all mats of faith, if it be rightly understood; because Scripture, among other Verities, doth also recommend unto us the Church & divine Traditions, though they be unwritten. And you egregiously falsify (a) Pag. 99 Edit. 1. Bellarmine, as if he excluded the Authority of the Church, whereas in the place by you cited (de verb. Dei lib. 1. c. 2.) he only speaks against the private spirit, and even there proves out of S. Augustine, that God will have us learn of other men. We likewise teach that though Church doth not make any new Articles of faith, but only propounds, and declares to us the old. Only I would have you here consider that whether or no Scripture be the sole Rule of faith: or whether faith be resolved into divine Revelation alone, or else partly into the Proposition of the Church; all is one, for the main Question, whether persons of diverse Religions can be saved. For this remaineth undoubted, that it cannot be but damnable to oppose any truth, sufficiently declared to be contained in Scripture, or revealed by God. 3. No less impertinent is your other discourse concerning the difficulty to know what is Heresy. For we grant, that it is not always easy to determine in particular occasions, whether this or that doctrine be such: Because it may be doubtful, whether it be against any Scripture, or divine Tradition, or Definition of the Church; and much more, whether the person be an Heretic, which requireth certain conditions (as Capacity, Pertinacy, sufficient Proposition etc.) which are not always so easily explicated, and discerned: and for these respects S. Augustine in the place cited (b) Pag. 102. by you, had good reason to say: That it is hard to know what makes an Heretic. But it is strange that you should hold it to be so hard a matter, to give a general definition of Heresy or Heretic, since in this very Section you dispatch it quickly, saying: He is justly (c) Pag. 98. esteemed an Heretic, who yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded. Or (as you say else where,) It is fundamental (d) Pag. 250. 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. Nay, if you will speak with coherence to your own grounds; it is easy for you to define in all particular cases what is damnable Heresy: for you (I say) who measure all Heresy by opposition to Scripture; and further affirm, that Scripture is clear in all fundamental points. For by this means it will be easy for you to discern what error opposeth those fundamental Truths, which are clearly contained in Scripture. 4. In your discourse concerning the Controversy between Pope Stephen, and S. Cyprian, you show a great deal of passion against the Roman Church, which you impugn out of an Epistle of Firmilianus, who at that time was a party against the Pope, and who in particular did afterward recant together with the other Bishops who once joined with S. Cyprian, as we have already showed out of S. Hierome, & may be also seen in an Epistle of Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Eusch. hist. l. 6. c. 7. wherein Firmilianus in particular is named (& therefore you are inexcusable, who say they persisted in their opinion;) whereas the proceeding of S. Stephen was necessary to prevent a pernicious error of rebaptising of such as had been baptised by Heretics, which afterward was condemned by the whole Church. And as for S. Cyprians mild proceeding, which you so much commend out of your ill will to S. Stephen, because he was Pope; S. Augustine saith: The things which (e) De Bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 5. cap. 25. Cyprian in anger hath spread against Stephen, I will not suffer to pass under my pen. Wherefore you could not have picked out an example more in favour of Popes than this. And you must give us leave not to credit what you say, That both Stephen and Cyprian erred in some sense. For Stephen only affirmed, that Baptism was not invalide precisely because it is given by Heretics, as S. Cyprian affirmed it to be; but yet if the Heretics erred either in the Matter or Form of Baptism, Stephen never affirmed such Baptism to be valid, which had been more than he granted, even to the Baptism of Catholics. 5. Your Argument to prove, that (f) Pag. 112. concerning our greater safety, we dispute against you as the Donatists did against Catholics, I have answered (g) Cap. 7. num. 7. in the First Part. You would make men believe that we are like the Donatists, who washed Church wall, and vestments of Catholics, broke their Chalices, scraped their Altars etc. But I pray you consider, whether Chalices, Vestments, Palls, or Corporals, and Altars do express the Protestant Church of England, Scotland, Geneva, Holland etc. or the Church of Rome? 6. You spend diverse pages in propounding Arguments for the opinion of M. Hooker, and M. Morton: That wheresoever a company of men (h) Pag. 113. do jointly profess the substance of Christian Religion, which is faith in jesus Christ the Son of God and Saviour of the world, with submission to his doctrine in mind and will; there is a Church wherein Salvation may be had, notwithstanding any corruption in ludgment or practice: yea although it be of that nature that it seem to fight with the very foundation, and so heinous as that in respect thereof the people stained with this corruption, are worthy to be abhorred of all men, and unworthy to be called the Church of God. But because these and such monstruous Assertions proceed from other errors which I have already both clearly, and at large confuted; to wit, the Fallibility of the Church, the Distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental etc. I refer you to those places: and here only observe into what precipices they fall, who deny the universal Infallibility of the Church. And it is strange that you yourself did not see the manifest contradictions involved in this wicked doctrine. For how can it be a Church wherein Salvation may be had, and yet be unworthy to be called the Church of God? How can that man have faith in jesus Christ, with submission to his doctrine in mind and will, who is supposed to join with his belief in jesus Christ, other errors sufficiently propounded to be repugnant against God's word, or Revelation? Can submission in mind or will, or observation of his Commandments stand with actual voluntary error against his word? Is it not a prime Commandment to believe God's word? Do not yourself affirm, that it is Infidelity to deny whatsoever is revealed in Scripture? How then can a Church be said to have means for salvation and life, wherein is wanting Faith the first ground of salvation? The Fathers sometimes called the Donatists, Brethren, by reason of their true Baptism, not for their possibility to be saved, according as S. Augustine said to them: The Sacraments of Christ (i) Epist. 48. do not make thee an Heretic, but thy wicked disagreement. And Optatus saith: You cannot (k) Lib. 4● but be our brethren, whom the same Mother the Church hath begotten in the same bowels of Sacraments, whom God our Father hath in the same manner received as adopted Children; namely, on his behalf, and for as much as concerns the virtue of Baptism. The Conclusion of your discourse may well beseem the doctrine for which you bring it: A learned man (l) Pag. 122. anciently was made a Bishop of the Catholic Church, although he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our bodies. You might have added, that he would not believe that the world should ever have an end; and further absolutely refused to be baptised: And that he would not, as the History recounteth, live a single life as other Priests, but that he would live with a wife. For Synesius, who is the man you mean, publicly protested all these things; and you are wise enough to take only what might seem to serve your turn, as this, concerning the single lives of Priests did not, because it showeth that in those ancient times, Priests could not live with wives. And now I ask, whether in good earnest you believe, that one may be made a Bishop, who will not believe the Resurrection, nor willbe baptised, or whether he may be baptised against his will? The Answer therefore may be seen in Baronius, who (m) Anno 410. n. 6. Spond. demonstrates out of the Epistles of Synesius himself, that he did these things, not to be made a Bishop, wishing (as he affirmeth) rather to dye, then to endure so great a burden; wherein saith Baronius he seems only to have done in words, that which S. Ambrose pretended in deeds, which was to be esteemed incontinent, and unmerciful, so to hinder his being made Bishop. But these extraordinary proceed may be admired, but ought not to be imitated. To say, that the ten Tribes, notwithstanding their Idolatries, remained still a true Church; cannot but make any Christian soul tremble, to consider to what damnable absurdities, and impieties they fall who leave the Roman Church. You falfify Magallanus (n) In Tit. 3.11. as if he with M. Hooker affirmed, that, If an Infidel (o) Pag. 117. should pursue to death an Heretic, only for Christian professions sake, the honour of Martyrdom could not be denied to him: which is contrary to the words and meaning of Magallanus. For he expressly teacheth, that they do not participate of the grace of the Church, but are dead parts, and consequently not capable of salvation: Only he saith, that they may be called members of the Church, because the Church can judge and punish them. It is impossible that any Catholic Author should teach, that an Heretic, remaining an Heretic, (that is, actually and voluntarily, denying a revealed Truth sufficiently propounded for such) can be a Martyr. But such as you are may affirm what you please. The words of Saluianus (p) De Gnbern. lib. ●. which you cite, and say, that they are very remarkable, do only signify by way of doubt, whether some of the Heretics of whom he spoke, and who in simplicity followed their Teachers (as he expressly saith) may not be excused by ignorance. And since you affirm, that he speaks of Arians, I would know, whether you do not think Arianisme to be a damnable Heresy, unless accidentally ignorance excuse some particular persons. 7. You say, that (q) Pag. 131. the Errors of the Donatists concerning the invalidity of the Baptism given by Heretics, and of the Novatians, that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners, were not in themselves heretical etc. Neither was it in the Church's intention (or in her power) to make them such by her declaration. If these errors neither in themselves, nor by the declaration of the Church be heretical, I pray you, how are they heretical? May a man in these times hold them without note of Heresy? So you must say, unless you grant the definitions of God's Church to be infallible. For S. Augustine professeth, that this point concerning rebaptisation cannot be determined out of Scripture alone, as hath been said before. Or if you say, this Error may be confuted out of Scripture, than you must grant that it is in itself heretical, which you deny. But no wonder if by denying the infallibility of the Church, you be brought to such straits. I go on now to the next. CHAP. V. IN this Section, you handle three points. First, that the Church is infallible only in fundamental points. Secondly, that the General Counsels; and, Thirdly, that the Pope may err in points fundamental. Concerning the first, I have spoken in the first Part; the second and third, are particular disputes, from which you ought to have abstained, if you had meant to have touched indeed the point of our Controversy. But since you will needs fill you Book with such particulars, I must also go out of the way, to answer your objections. 2. If I took pleasure, as you do, to fill my Margin with quotations of Authors, I could easily show how you mistake and wrong our Schoolmen; as if they held that something which in itself is not infinite, but really distinct from the divine Authority, were the chief Motive of faith, the first and furthest principle into which it resolves: whereas their difference is only in explicating under what precise and formal consideration, God is the formal object of faith: some assigning the Divinity itself; others, the authority of God commanding; others, which is the common opinion, teaching, that it is resolved into the divine, or Prime Verity: and lastly even those whom it seems you call unwise, and unwarry Writers against Luther, do not teach that the Authority of the Church is the chiefest, first, and furthest principle into which faith resolves; but at the most, that her Proposition is necessary to an Act of divine faith; either because they conceive that matter of faith ought to concern the common good of Religion, and so require a public Authority or Propounder; or else because they hold that her Proposition in some sort enters into the formal object of faith in respect of us; Neither are the Authors of this opinion only Writers against Luther, as you say, but diverse other Schoole-devines. 3. Whereas you say, that there is no question but that Faith is supernatural, in regard of the Efsicient Cause, and of the Object, both which ought to be supernatural; it seems you are willing to dissemble the doctrine of your great Reformer Zwinglius, who (a) Tom. 2. exposit. fidei Christianae fol. 159. out of his excessive Charity, placed in heaven, Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides &c. (who had no supernatural Faith, nor belief of God) as also the Children of the Heathens dying without (b) Tom. 2. fol. 540. Baptism. Were not such Charitable men, very fit to reform the Church? 4. You fall again upon the sufficiency of Scripture, which point I have already answered, & shown in what sense all points of faith may be contained in Scripture; to wit, in as much as the Scripture doth recommend to us the Church, and divine unwritten Traditions. Neither can you allege any one Catholic Author, ancient or modern, who speaking of the sufficiency of Scripture, excludes Tradition, by which even Scripture itself is delivered to us. And as for S. Augustine, and S. Basill whom you allege for the sufficiency of Scripture, they be so clearly for Tradition, that they have been taxed by some Protestants for that cause; as likewise for the same reason some chief Protestants have blamed Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Hierome, Maximus, Theophilus, Damascene, Chrysostome, Tertullian, Cyprian, Leo, Eusebius, and others, as may be seen in (c) Tract. 1. Sect. 3. Subd. 22. Brereley. But though Scripture alone did particularly contain all points necessary to saluarion; doth it follow, think you, from thence, that the Church is not infallible? May not both Scripture, and Church be infallible in what they deliver? Doth not yourself grant, that the Church is infallible for points fundamental; and for the same points the Scripture is also sufficient, and clear? Which cuidently showeth, that you cannot deny, but that the Infallibility of the Church, may well stand with the sufficiency of Scripture, & consequently to oppose either the Scripture or Church, is sufficient to make one an Heretic: and this is sufficient for our purpose. Yea, since you cannot deny, but that it is Heresy, to oppose the Scripture, and that you also grant that the Scripture affirms the Church to be infallible in fundamental points, it follows, that even according to you, every one who opposeth the Church in such points is an Heretic, even because he opposeth the Church; although the further reason hereof be, because he opposeth the Scripture, which recommends the Church. So that all which you have said about the sufficiency of Scripture alone, is in diverse respects nothing to the purpose. 5. You affirm, that (d) Pag. 136 Eckius, Pighius, Hosius, Turrianus, Costerus, do every where in their writings speak wickedly, and contumeliously of the holy Scriptures. And because this is a common slander of Protestants against Catholic Writers; I do here challenge you to produce but one, I say, but one only place, either out of any one of these whom you name, or any other Catholic Doctor, who speaks wickedly or contumeliously against holy Scriptures. But be sure you do not confound speaking against Scripture itself, with speaking against the abuse thereof, or against the letter of Scripture wrested to some heretical sense; against which our Authors speak, and cannot speak too much. And S. Hierome with other Father do the same. 6. You proceed, and say: The Testimony (e) Pag. 139. of the present Church works very powerfully & probably, first upon Infidels to win them to a Reverend opinion of Faith and Scriptures etc. Secondly, upon Novices, weaklings, and doubters in the faith, to instruct & confirm them, till they may acquaint themselves with, and understand the. Scriptures, which the Church delivers as the word of God. Thirdly, upon all within the Church, to prepare, induce, and persuade the Mind as an outward means to embrace the faith, to read, and believe the Scriptures. But the faith of a Christian finds not in all this, any sure ground whereon finally to rest, or settle itself: Because, divine Faith requires a Testimony absolutely divine, and yet, our Adversaries yield that the Testimony of the present Church is not absolutely divine, (to which purpose you cite in your Margin some of our Authors) and therefore it cannot rely upon the Church. 7. This your discourse is neither pertinent, nor true. For the Question is not, as I have often told you, whether or no, our faith be resolved into the Authority of the Church: but whether we may not truly infer, that whosoever resisteth the Church in those points which she doth infallibly propose as revealed by God (which infallibility you yield to her for all fundamental points) be not an Heretic, because at lest by resisting the Church, he consequently comes to oppose the Testimony or Reuclation of God, which is the formal object of Faith. Besides, if the Testimony of the Church work but probably upon Infidels, and Novices, who by you are taught to believe that she may err (unless you will circumvent them, by dissembling her fallibility) they will have wit enough to tell themselves, that since she may err, and speaks but probably, she cannot work so powerfully upon them, but that they may still doubt whether she do not actually err, and deceive them. And how can the Church work upon all within her, to prepare, induce, and persuade the mind to embrace the faith, to read and believe Scriptures? Are they within the Church before they have embraced the Faith? Or must they want faith till they read, and believe the Scriptures? Or rather (since according to your Principles all faith depends on Scripture) must they not believe the Scripture, before they embrace the faith, and consequently before they be in the Church? How then doth the Church prepare, induce, and persuade them that are within her, to embrace the faith, and to read, and believe the Scriptures? If our faith must rest and settle only upon the Written Word of God, how doth S. Irenaeus (f) Lib. 3. cap. 4. affirm, that many Nations have been converted to Christ without Scriptures? Were they converted only to an humane faith? 8. And whereas you say, that the Authority of the Church is not absolutely divine, and therefore cannot be the last, and formal Object of faith, it is but an Equivocation, and you infer that which we do not deny. Coninck whom you cite in your Margin, and translated by halves, answers your Objection in the very words which you allege. Although (saith he) the Church (g) Disp. 9 dub. 5. conel. 2. be directed by the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost, and in that sense her Testimony do in some sort rely upon the divine Authority, and receive from it strength (all which words you do not translate) yet it is not truly, or properly the Testimony or word, and revelation of God, but properly it is a humane Testimony. You see then, that the Testimony of the Church in some sense is Divine, that is, infallibly directed by the holy Ghost; which is enough for our purpose, although it be not Divine in another sense, that is, her words are not the immediate voice of God, as Scriptures are, because she doth not propose any new Revelations, made immediately to her, but only infallibly declares what Revelations have been made to Prophets, Apostles, etc. Yourself affirm, that the Church is infallible in Fundamental points, and consequently her Testimony is not merely humane and fallible, and yet it is not absolutely divine; and so you must answer your own Argument: and you must grant that the Church being infallible in some points, may be to us a ground sufficient for our infallible assent, or belief for such Articles. And if you will tell us that faith must be resolved into some Authority which is absolutely Divine, as Divine signifies that which is distinct from all things created, you will find yourself gone too far. For Scripture itself, being a thing created, and not a God, is not Divine in that sense. And the Apostles, who received immediate Revelations from God, when afterwards they did preach, and declare them to others; those Declarations, (which supposed the Revelations already made) were not in the opinion of many Divines, the testimony or word of God, but of men infallibly assisted by God: And yet I hope you will not hence infer, that it had not been Heresy to oppose the Declarations of the Apostles, although they did not preach new Revelations, but only declare, and propound such as had been already made to them. 9 Your words (which are indeed but words) That Scripture (h) Pag. 141. is of divine Authority, the Believer sees by that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture, I confuted heretofore. And what greater confutation can there be then by your own words, the Believer sees. For if he see, how doth he believe? Or if he believes, how doth he see? Especially since you say he believes, and sees, upon the same formal object, or motive. Yet that Scripture is known by itself, you prove out of Bellarmine, who saych: That the Scriptures (i) De verb. Deilib. 1. çap. 2. which are contained in the Prophetical and Apostolical Writings be most certain and divine, Scripture itself witnesseth. But these words will prove to be against yourself. For Bellarmine in that place disputing against the Swenckfeldian Heretics, who denied all Scriptures, saith: That, he doth not allege (k) Ibid. Testimonies of Scripture as if he thought that his Adversaries made any great account of them, but lest the Scriptures, the Authority whereof his Adversaries did sometimes abuse against us who reverence them, may be thought to favour their doctrine. Is this to affirm that Scripture is certainly, and evidently known by Scripture? Or rather contrarily to say, that it must first be believed, before it be powerful to persuade? And therefore immediately after the words by you cited which are, The Scripture self witnesseth; he adds these (which you as you are wont, leave out) whose predictions of things to come if they were true, as the event afterward did manifest, why should not the Testimonies of things present be true? Where you see, that he proves not the Scripture by that beam of light which evidenly shines in Scripture, but by predictions, which we grant to be a good inducement, or, as Divines speak, an Argument of credibility, and yet no infallible ground of faith to believe that Scriptures are divine; and much less a beam of light clearly convincing us, that Scripture is Scripture. For one may be inspired to prophecy, or speak truth in some point, and for others be left to humane discourse, or error, as it happened in Balam, and the friends of job. And therefore Bellarmine in that very place, brings other extrinsecall Arguments, as Miracles, exemplar, and visible strange punishments of such as presumed to abuse holy Scripture etc. Which evidently shows, that he intended to bring Arguments of Credibility, and not infallible grounds of faith, whereby we believe that Scripture is Scripture, which we must take from the infallible Testimony of the Church by means of Tradition, whereof Bellarmine saith: This so necessary a point, to wit, that (m) Deverb. Dei nonseripro lib. 4. c. 4. there is some divine Scripture, cannot be had from Scripture itself. Whereby it is manifest that you plainly corrupt Bellarmine's meaning, when you go about to prove out of him, that Scripture can be proved by Scripture alone, the contrary whereof he affirms, and proves at large against the Heretics of these times. The place which you cite of Origen, only proves that those who already believe the Canonical Books of Scripture may prove out of them, that Scripture is divinely inspired, as S. Peter (n) Epist. 2. vers. 21. saith. Neither doth the Authority of Saluianus prove any thing else. 10. Your saying, that we yield to the Church, an absolute (o) Pag. 144.145. unlimited Authority to propound what she pleaseth, and an unlimited power to supply the defects of Scripture; I let pass as mere slanders. As also, that the Authority of the Church is absolute, not (p) Pag. 144. depending on Scripture, but on which the Scripture itself depends. And you cannot be ignorant of that, which hath been so often inculcated by Catholic Writers, that the Scriptures in themselves do not depend on the Church, but only in respect of us, who learno from her what Books be Canonical Scripture, which is to say, not the Scriptures, but our weak understanding, and knowledge of Scripture relies on the Church, which our Saviour Christ commands us to hear. And yourself grant, that the Church (q) Pag. 142.143. is the ordinary outward means to present, and propound divine verities to our Faith. You will not deny that your knowledge of the Trinity, Incarnation etc. depends on Scripture, will you thence in far that the Blessed Trinity, Incarnation etc. in themselves depend on Scripture? as if God had not been God, unless Scripture had been written. Besides, to such as believe Scripture we may prove the Church herself by Scripture, and she in all her definitions doth consult, examine, and submit herself to Scripture, against which she never did, nor ever can define any thing; & in this sense also she depends on Scripture. But to make good your slander, you (r) Pag. 144. cite Bellarmine, after your wont fashion. If we take away (s) De effect. Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 25. § Tertium testimonium the Authority of the present Church of Rome, (this of Rome is your addition) and of the Trent-Councell, the decrees of all other Ancient Counsels, and the whole Christian faith may be questioned as doubtful, for the strength of all doctrines, and of all Counsels depends upon the Authority of the present Church. Would not one think by these words that the strength of all doctrines depends on the Church? whereas Bellarmine only saith, that we could not infallibly know, that there were such General Counsels, and that they were law full Counsels, and that they defined this or that; but because the present Church which cannot err doth so believe, and teach us. Which words demonstrate, that Bellarmine doth not speak of faith, or doctrines in themselves, but in respect of us. And do not you yourself teach that it is the Church, which directs us to Scripture, and that she likewise is the ordinary outward means to present, and propound divine Verities, without which Propesition no object can be conveyed to our (t) Pag. 142.143. faith? And what is this, but to acknowledge, that in the ordinary way, without the guidance, direction, and Proposition of the Church we have no faith at all. 11. You likewise cite these words out of (u) De Eccles. mil. lib. 3. cap. 10 §. Ad haec necesse est. Bellarmine: The Scriptures, Traditions, and all doctrines whatsoever depend on the Testimony of the Church (he means say you, that of Rome) without which all are wholly uncertain. But Bellarmine's words are these: Since the Scriptures, Traditions, and all doctrines whatsoever depend upon the Testimony of the Church, all things willbe uncertaync, unless we be most assured which is the true Church. You see Bellarmine speaks not of the particular Church of Rome, as you in your Parenthesis would make him seem to speak. And as for the Universal true Church, what principle of Atheis. me is it, (as you very exorbitantly (w) pag. 145 affirm) to say, that if we did not know which were the true Church, we could have no certainty of Scriptures, Traditions, or any thing else? Do you think that it were safe to take the Scriptures upon the credit of a false Church? As well might you take them upon the credit of Turks, or Infidels. And therefore, not the Assertion of Bellarmine, but the contrary to it, is a plain principle of Atheism. Do not you prove the necessity of a perpetual visible true Church, because other wise men should want that ordinary means which God hath appointed for our instruction, Direction, & Salvation? Now, if we might have Scriptures, and true Faith from a false Church, your more zealous Brethren, who deny a perpetual visible true Church, might easily answer all your Arguments, and tell you, that a true Church is not necessery for faith, and Salvation. And beside, is it not in effect all one to say (for as much as concerns our instruction) Christ hath no visible Church; & to say, that we cannot know which is the true visible Church of Christ? All the infallibility which we ascribe to the Church, is acknowledged to proceed from the assistance of God; how can he be said not to believe a God, who believes the Church, because she is assisted by God? Remember that even now I told you, that according to your own affirmation, the Church is the ordinary means whereby Divine Truth is conveyed to the understanding: and yet you think yourself free from Atheism. The Apostles of themselves, were but mortal, frail, & subject to error, and yet I hope, you will not think it a Principle of Atheism to say, that all our faith depends on them. 12. You tax us for teaching, that much of the Matter, or Object of faith is not contained in Scripture any way. But I have already more than once said, that we believe nothing but what is contained in Scripture in some sort, either in itself, or from some Principle from which it may be certainly deduced, or in those places of Scripture which recommend the Church, & unwritten Traditions to us; as if one should in his last Testament express diverse particulars, and should in the same Testament refer the rest to some third person, whom be had fully instructed concerning his further will, & meaning; whatsoever things were performed according to the direction of that third person, might truly be said to be contained in the Testament; although they might also be say not to be contained therein, because they are not mentioned in particular. And according to this explication, Canus, and Stapleton whom you cite, and other Catholics are to be understood, when they teach, that we believe diverse things not comprehended in Scripture. 13. But you ask, with what ingenuity (y) Pag. 146. or conscience do they pretend Scripture in each Controversy against us, since by their own Confession many of their Assertions are mere unwritten Traditions, leaning only on the Authority of their Church? I answer, that some points of faith are expressly contained in Scripture, yet not so enforcingly as they might not be colourably eluded, if we took away the declaration of the Church. Some others, are not contained in Scripture, any other way then in the general principles of the Church's authority, and divine Traditions; as, for example, that such Books in particular are Canonical writings. Some others ar● comprehended in Scripture, only probably. Others are contained so clearly, that they may seem sufficiently evident to a man not perverse; and according to these diversities we do more or less allege Scripture. If one were disposed to use such Arguments as you bring, I might ask on the other side, to what purpose do you allege Counsels, Fathers, & Reasons, if out of Scripture alone you can convince all errors against your doctrine? May not divers arguments be rightly alleged to prove the self same Conclusion? 14. Once again, you return to the sufficiency of only Scripture (that is, you return to speak nothing which concerns the Question in hand) which you prove out of Bellarmine, though herein (say you) as not seldom (z) 〈◊〉 14. contradicting both himseife, and his fellows. How consonant the writings of Bellarmine are, both to themselves, and to the common doctrine of other Catholic Authors, this may serve for a sufficient proof, that all his Adversaries could never show yet in all his works any one contradiction, but such as themselves had first forged, and then objected. And although in this general cause I do not willingly meddle with personal things: yet that you may learn hereafter to speak with more circumspection, but chief for the merit of a person, so eminent in learning and dignity, and yet more eminent in sanctity, I will not forbear to assure the world and you, that when some years since, a perion of high authority in the world, had made himself beneve that he had discovered many contradictions in Bellarmine, D. Dunne in a conference that he had with a person of Honour & Worth, from whom I received it, though I hold it not fit here to give his name, declared that there was no ground for this, but that all his works were so consonant and coherent to one another, as if he had been able to write them all in one hours' space. And if you, D. Potter, be of another opinion, you shall do well to produce some instance to the contrary, which may show a real contradiction between some passage, and some other of his works, wherein it is odds that you will be answered, and he be defended. Let us see also for the present what you bring to make good your asseveration. The Cardinal (say you) grants (a) Bellarm. deverb. Dei interpret. cap. 10. ad arg. 1●. that a Proposition is not the fide, unless it be concluded in this Syllogism: Whatsoever God (b) pag. 145. revealed in the Scripture is true: but this or that, God hath revealed in Scripture: ergo, it is true. If matters of faith must be revealed in Scripture, as this reason supposes, than the Proposal of the Church cannot make any unwritten Verity to become matter of faith: yet to salve the sovereign power of his Church, he makes all the strength, and truth in this Syllogism to depend on the Testimony of the Church, and by consequence the truth of the Conclusion, which ever resembles the weaker premisse. So as if this be true, there is no truth in the Scriptures, or in our Religion, without the attestation of the Church. But now how many corruptions, sleights, and untruths are couched in these lines? Let us examine them a little. Bellarmine having taught, and proved at large, that the interpretation of holy Scripture belongs not to private persons, but to the Church of God, which, in respect of us, is to judge of Scripture, and of all other Controversies in Religion: and having made this Objection against himself; If our faith depend (c) Vbi supra upon the judgement of the Church, than it depends upon the word of men, and therefore doth rely upon a most weak foundation; he gives this answer: The word of the Church, that is, of the Council or Pope, when he teacheth as out of his Chair, is not merely the word of man; that is, a word subject to error, but in some sort the word of God; that is, uttered by the assistance, and direction of the holy Ghost: nay I say, that the Heretics are those who indeed lean on a rotten staff: And then he comes to the words which you cited: For we must know that a Proposition of Faith is concluded in this Syllogism: Whatsoever God hath revealed in Scripture is true: God hath revealed this in Scripture: ergo it is true. Of the premises in this Syllogism, the first is most certain among all; the second is most firm, or certain among Catholics, for it relies on the Testimony of the Church, Council, or Pope (here you break off, but Bellarmine adds) of which we have in holy Scripture manifest promises that they cannot err. Act. 15. It hath seemed to the Holy Ghost, & to us: And Luke 22. I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail. But amongst Heretics it doth rely only upon conjectures, or the judgement of ones own spirit, which for the most part seemeth good, and is ill; and since the Conclusion follows the weaker part, it necessarily follows, that the whole faith of Heretics, is but conjectural, and uncertain. Thus fare Bellarmine. And now wherein I pray you consists his contradicting both himself, and his fellows? Perhaps you mean, because here he teacheth that every Proposition of faith must be revealed in Scripture; and therefore contradicts his other doctrine, that besides Scripture there are unwritten Traditions. But the vanity of this objection will by and by appear among your other corruptions, which now I set down. First, you see Bellarmine's speaks not of faith in general, but only of matters of faith contained in Scripture, his whole question being about the Interpretation thereof, that is. Whether we are to rely on the private spirit, or humane industry of conferring places etc. or else upon the Church. And therefore; Secondly, he saith not, as you cite him in a different letter, by way of an universal negation, that a Proposition is not de fide, or not belonging to faith, unless it be concluded in this Syllogism: Whatsoever God hath revealed in the Scripture is true: but this, or that God hath revealed in Scripture &c. (from whence it would follow that nothing at all could be believed which is not contained in Scripture) but he only saith that a Proposition of faith is concluded in this Syllogism; which includes no universal negation, but is meant only of those Propositions of faith which depend on the interpretation of Scripture, which was the subject of his discourse. And therefore I wonder why you should say in general; this reason supposes that matters of faith must be revealed in Scripture. For, to teach that some matters of faith are in Scripture, doth not suppose that all matters of faith must be contained in Scripture, and yet all the contradiction that here you find in Bellarmine must be this: Such Propositions of faith as are contained in Scripture, are concluded in this Syllogism: Whatsoever God hath revealed in the Scripture etc. Ergo all Propositions of faith must be concluded in this Syllogism; Ergo there are no unwritten Traditions. A goodly contradiction! Thirdly, where did Bellarmine ever teach that the Proposal of the Church can make any unwritten Verity to become matter of faith, as you speak? The Church doth not make Verities to be matter of faith, but only declares them to be such. Fourthly, you leave out the words which clearly explicate in what sense the Testimony of the Church may be said to be humane, or divine; by which your Argument to prove that the declaration of the Church cannot be a sufficient ground of faith, had been answered, and your fallacy discovered. Fifihly, Bellarmine never affirmed, as you say he did, that the strength and truth of the Minor in the said Syllogism depends on the Testimony of the Church, but only that it is most certain among Catholics by the Testimony of the Church, because, as I have often said, the Church cannot make any one Article to be true, but only by her declaration can make it certain to all Catholics, as Bellarmine said. Sixtly, you leave out Bellarmine's words, whereby he proves the infallibility of Church and Pope out of Scripture; and accordingly in the Scaventh place, that which he expressly saith of the uncertain conjectural ground of Heretics, which can produce only a conjectural and uncertain Faith, because the Conclusion follows the weaker part you make him apply to the Testimony of the Church as if it were uncertain, which contrarily in the words by you omitted he proves to be most certain & infallible; and therefore the Conclusion which relies upon a Proposition delivered by her, is not subject to error. Eighthly, you return to the slander, that if Bellarmine's doctrine be true, there is no truth in the Scriptures, or in our Religion, without the attestation of the Church: as if Bellarmine had taught, that the truth of Scripture, and of all Christian Religion depends on the attestation of the Church which could not in you proceed from ignorance, but from a purpose to deceive your Reader. For Bellarmine in that very place which you cite, declares himself so fully and clearly that you cannot be excused from wilful slander. I will put down the place at large, that hereafter you, and your Brethren may either cease to make the same Objection, or else endeavour to confute the Cardinal's answer. Bellarmine then, makes this objection against himself: If the Pope judge of Scriptures, it follows that the Pope or Council is above the Scripture: and if the meaning of Scripture without the Pope or Council be not authentical, it follows that the word of God takes his force and strength from the word of men: And then he gives this Answer: I answer, that this Argument of which Heretics make greatest account, consists in a mere Equivocation. For it may be understood two manner of ways that the Church doth judge of Scriptures: the one, That she should judge whether that which the Scripture teaches be true, or false: The other, That putting for a most certain ground, that the words of Scripture are most true, she should judge what is the true interpretation of them. Now, if the Church did judge according to the former way, she should indeed be above the Scripture, but this we do not say, though we be calumniated by the Heretics as if we did, who every where cry out, that we put the Scripture under the Pope's Feet. But that the Church or Pope doth judge of Scriptures in the latter sense, which we affirm, is not to say, that the Church is above Scripture, but above the sudgment of private persons. For the Church doth not judge of the Truth of Scripture, but of the understanding of thee, and me, and others. Neither doth the word of God receive strength thereby, but only my understanding receives it. For the Scripture is not more true or certain, because it is so expounded by the Church; but my Opinion is truer, when it is confirmed by the Church. What say you now? Doth Bellarmine teach, that the Truth, or certainty of Scripture, or of the Minor in the foresaid Syllogism, depends on the Church? But in the mean time how many corruptions have you committed in this one Citation? 15. You cite (g) pag. 149. Wald●●si to prove that the (h) Walden. lib. 2. Doct. fid. art. 2. cap. 19 §. 1. infallibility of the Church is planted only in the Church universal or the Catholic Body of Christ on earth, comprehending all his members. But though we cannot allow of Waldensis his doctrine in some points, wherein he contradicts the consent of other Catholics; yet he doth not teach what you affirm, but only that the infallibility of the Church consists in the succession of Doctors in the Church, which is against your assertion (Pag. 150.) that the whole Militant Church (that is, all the members of it) cannot possibly err etc. And therefore the doctrine of Waldensis is sufficient for our main Question against you, that whosoever erreth in any one point delivered by Doctors and Pastors succeeding one another in the visible Church, is an Heretic, and without repentance cannot be saved, whether the point be of itself fundamental, or not fundamental. For Waldensis maketh no such distinction, as you do: Nay, which is directly against your present Assertion here, and your doctrine else where, this Author (doctrinal. fidei tom. 1. Art. 2. cap. 47.) having prefixed this Title before that Chapter; That the Pope hath infringible power to determine verities of faith, and to overcome and cancel all heretical falsities; doth in the whole Chapter itself prosecute and prove the said Title out of the Fathers. And to the next Chapter 48. having also given this Title: Of the Prerogative of the perpetual immunity, and purity of the Roman Church from all contagion of Heresy; he proves it in like manner through the whole Chapter. You must therefore be well advised how you cite Authors out of one place, without considering, or enquiring what they say in another. 16. Together with Waldensis, you cite Sylvester, saying: The Church which is (i) Summa verb. Ecclesia çap. 1. §. 4. affirmed not to be capable of error, is not the Pope, but the Congregation of the faithful. But this is a plain falsification. For in that very place he teacheth; That the Pope using the Council of Cardinals, or his members, cannot err, but may err as he is a particular person. And then adds: In this manner is to be understood the Gloss, Caus. 24. q. 1. can. à recta. which saith the Church which cannot err is not the Pope, but the Congregation of the faithful. So as you see that these are not the words of Sylvester, as you affirm, but of another, which yet he interprets plainly against you. And that you may be wholly inexcusable, he doth here refer himself to another place, namely, Verb. Concilium. §. 3. where he expressly proves, that a Council cannot err, no more than the Church, because if the Council could err, the whole Church might err. For the Church doth not meet together, but only the Council, or the Pope. Adding further, that the doctrine of the Church upon which S. Thomas saith we are to rely as upon an infallible Rule, is no other than that of the Council. And as for the Pope, he saith, that we must not stand to the Pope's declaration, because he hath better reasons than can be alleged to the contrary; but because he is Head of the Church, whose office is to determine doubts in faith. And a little after he expressy saith: That the Pope cannot err when recourse is made to him in doubtful matters as to the Head of the Church, because (saith he) this error would redound to the error of the whole Church. And likewise in this very place of Sylvester which you cite, he also refers himself too Verb. fides. §. 2. where at large he proves the Pope's infallibility, saying: That it belongeth to faith, that we rely upon the Pope's determination in things belonging to faith or manners, because the Church cannot err in such things, and consequently he, as head of the Church, that is, as he is Pope cannot err, although he determined without advice of the Cardinals. With what conscience then, do you cite this Author against his words, meaning, and design and ascribe to him words which he citeth out of another, and, as I said, explicates against you? And with the like fidelity, after Sylvester, you do strangely allege the Gloss Caus. 24 can. à recta with an, Et, as if the words which you cited out of Sylvester (The Church which cannot err is not the Pope etc.) had been different from that Gloss, whereas they are nothing but that Gloss, and not the words of Sylvester. 17. They (you mean Catholic Doctors) grant, that the infallibility of the Church reacheth not (k) pag. 14●. to all questions and points in Religion that may arise, but only to such Articles as may belong to the substance of faith, such as are matters essential and fundamental, simply necessary for the Church to know and believe. To omit others D. Stapleton is full (l) Princip. Doctr. lib 8. contr. 4. çap. 15. and punctual to this purpose. He distinguisheth Controversies of Religion into two sorts. Some, saith he, are about those doctrines of faith which necessarily pertain to the public faith of the Church; others about such matters as do not necessarily belong to the faith, but may be variously held, & disputed without hurt or prejudice of faith. Here is such a Chaos of words, and corruptions, as I scarce know where to begin to unfold them. Stapleton in the place by you alleged hath this Assertion. The infallibility of teaching in matters of faith, granted to the Church, hath place only in defining infallibly, and proposing faithfully those doctrines of faith, which either are called in question, or otherwise belong necessarily to the public faith of the Church. And afterward he affirmeth, that those things belong necessarily to faith, and public doctrine of the Church which all men are bound explicitly to believe, or else are publicly practised by the Church, or else which the Pastors are bound to believe explicitly, and the people implicitly in the faith of their Pastors. By which words it is clear that Stapleton saith not, that the infallibility of the Church reacheth only to such Articles as are matters essential, and fundamental, and simply necessary for the Church, to know and believe, as you affirm; but to all points which are called in question, or which are publicly practised by the Church, whether they be fundamental, or not fundamental: and therefore you do misalledge him when you say, that, he distinguisheth Controversies of Religion into two sorts: Some are about those doctrines of faith, which necessarily pertain to the public faith of the Church etc. For Stapleton explicates himself, as you have heard, that whatsoever is called in question, or practised by the Church, is the Object of her infallibility, which is the thing we intent to prove against Protestants; that to oppose, or question any one doctrine, or practise of the Church is to resist an infallible Authority, and consequently to be an Heretic. And that Stapleton never dreamt of your imaginary restraining the infallibility of the Church to points fundamental, is clear by another place which you (m) Pag. 40 cite as out of S. Thomas and him, in this manner: Some are primitive Articles, of the substance of Religion, essential in the object of faith. Others are secundary, probable, accidental, or obscure points. For Stapleton in that place saith, that certain doctrines (n) Staplet. Rel. controu. 1. q. 3. art. 6. are either primary Principles of faith, or else, though not primary, yet defined by the Church, and so, as if they were primary. Others are Conclusions deduced from those principles, but yet not defined. Of the first kind are the Articles of faith, and whatsoever is defined in Counsels against Heretics etc. Of the second, are questions, which either belong to the hidden works of God, or to certain most obscure places of Scripture, which are beside the faith, and of which we may be ignorant without loss of faith, yet they may be modestly, and fruitfully disputed of. And afterward he teaches, that whatsoever the Church doth universally hold, either in doctrine or manners, belongs to the foundation of faith: and proves it out of S. Augustine (o) Serm. 14. de verbis Domini. ep. 28.89.96. who calls the Custom of the Church, Ecclesiae morem fundatissimum & sidem fundatissimam, consu●●udinem Ecclesiae fundatissiman, authoritatem sta bilissimā fundatissimae ecclesiae. Can any thing be more clear to show, that according to Stapleton, the infallibility of the Church reacheth further than to those points which you call fundamental, and that it belongs to the very foundation of Faith, that we believe whatsoever the Church holds? And that it is not lawful for any to dispute against such determinations of the Church? Which doth overthrew your distinction of points fundamental & not fundamental; though you allege the authority of S. Thomas and Stapleton in favour thereof. For S. Thomas (o) 2.2. q. 2. are. 5. in the very place by you cited, after he had said, that there are some objects of faith which we are bound explicitly to believe; addeth; that we are bound to believe all other points, when they are sufficiently propounded to us, as belonging to faith. You might gain more reputation to yourself, and allow your adversary more ease, if you would once resolve to cite your Authors with more sincerity. 18. To prove, that the infallibility of the Church extends only to fundamental points, you also allege Maldonatus, who saith: That he will not repugn (p) In Joan. 24.26. if one will affirm, that those words 10.14. vers. 16. He shall teach you all things; be referred to those other words; Whatsoever I have spoken to you: as if our Saviour did say, that the holy Ghost was to teach them nothing, but that which he himself had taught them. But do you in good earnest believe, that our Saviour taught the Aposlles fundamental points alone, which all Christians are bound explicitly to believe? Or will you say, the Apostles were infallibly assisted only when they delivered fundamental points of faith? So you must say, if Christ did teach them only points fundamental, and the holy Ghost taught them only those things which Christ had taught them, unless you will say, they were infallible without the assistance of the holy Ghost. You see he had good reason to say, that (q) First Part. cap. 2. num. 13. by denying the universal infallibility of the Church, & limiting the promises of Christ made to her, you opened a gap for men to say that the A postles in their Preaching and Writing were not universally infallible. And here I ask, whether it be not a fundamental error against faith, and Salvation, to deny the truth of any one point sufficiently propounded as revealed by God? and since without question it is so, you must either grant, that the Church can err fundamentally and damnably against faith, which yet yourself deny; or else you must yield that her infallibility reaches to all points sufficiently propounded as divine Truths, whether they be in themselves fundamental, or not fundamental, which is as much as we desire. 19 Against the infallibility of the Church you bring a long argument, (pag. 157.158.) the force whereof is this: Nothing according to us can be believed by divine faith which hath not been defined by the Church: But the Church hath not defined that she is infallible in all her decrees: Therefore we cannot believe by divine faith that she is infallible in all her decrees. 20. Before I answer your Argument, I must reflect that you do not sincerely allege these words out of Bellarmine; Until (r) Lïb. 4. de Roman. Pont. cap. 14 §. Respondeo inprimis. a doctrine be declared or defined by the Church, so long it might be either doubted of, or denied without danger. For Bellarmine makes no such general Rule, but only speaking of the opinion of Pope john the two and twentith; That the Saints do not see God before the Resurrection (which is your own error) he excuseth him from Heresy, because at that time the Church had not defined the matter. Where you see Bellarmine speaks only of a particular point; which that Pope not conceiving to be contained in Scripture, and the thing having not been expressly defined by the Church nor evidently known to have been the universal sense thereof; it was not at that time a matter of faith. And he himself before his death retracted his error. But to come to your Argument, I wish you would be careful not to object against us, what yourself must answer. For do not you teach, that the Church works upon all (s) Pag. 139. within her, to prepare, induce, and persuade the mind to embrace the faith, to read and believe the Scriptures? And that the ordinary means (t) Pag. 142.143. appointed by God to present, and propound divine Verities, is the Church? And therefore we cannot in the ordinary course believe Scriptures, or any other divine Verity, but by the Proposal of the Church. But this doctrine (that the Church is the first Inducer to embrace the faith, and the ordinary Means without which we cannot believe) is not proposed by the Church, and therefore it is not a thing which we can believe. You likewise grant that the Church is infallible in all fundamental points. And I ask in what decree, definition, or declaration hath the Church proposed to us, that herself cannot err in fundamental points, especially with your addition, that she may err in points not fundamental? Now, to your Argument I an were: First; That it is not necessary, that the Church should by any particular decree testify her own infallibility, because it being evident that she is the self same Church which was founded by our Saviour Christ, and continued from the Apostles to this Age, by a never interrupted succession of Pastors, and faithful people; it follows that she is the Church of Christ: which being once granted, it is further inferred, that all are obliged to have recourse to her, and to rest in her judgement for all other particular points which concern faith, or Religion; which we could not be obliged to do, if we were persuaded, that she were subject to error. Which yet is more evident, if we add, that there can be no Rule given in what points, we should believe her, and in what not: and therefore we are obliged to believe her in all. Moreover, since the true Church must be judge of Controversies in faith, as we have proved, it clearly follows that she must be infallible in all points. Which umuersall infallibility being supposed out of the general ground of God's providence, which is not defective in things necessary, we may afterward believe the same infallibility, even by the Church herself, when she testifies that particular point of her own infallibility: As the Scripture cannot give Testimony to itself, till first it be believed to be God's word, yet this being once presupposed, it may afterward give Testimony to itself, as S. Paul affirmeth, that, All Scripture is divinely (u) 2. Tim. 3.16. inspired etc. Secondly I answer, that the Church hath many ways declared her own infallibility. which she professeth even in the Apostles Creed, I believe the holy Catholic Church. For she could not be holy, if she were subject to error in matters of faith, which is the first foundation of all sanctity; she could not be Catholic, or Universal for all Ages, if at any time she could err, and be Author that the whole world should err in points revealed by God; she could not be One, or Apostolical, (as she professeth in another Creed) if she were divided in points of faith, or could swerve from the Doctrine of the Apostles; she could not be always existent and visible, because every error in faith destroys all Faith, & the Church. So that while the Church, and every faithful person, believes & professes the Sanctity, Universality, Unity, and Perpetual Visibility of the Church; she, and they believe & proclaim her infallibility in all matters of faith: which she doth also avouch by accursing all such as believe not her definitions; and while in all occasions of emergent Controversies, she gathers Counsels to determine them, without examining whether they concern points fundamental, or not fundamental; while in all such holy Assemblies, she saith with the first Council; It hath (w) Act. 15. seemed to the holy Ghost and us, while she proposeth diverse points to be believed, which are not contained in Scripture; as that those who are baptised by Heretics, cannot without sacrilege be rebaptised; that Baptism of Infants is lawful; that Easter is to be kept at a certain time against the Heretics called Quartadecimani; that the Blessed Virgin, the most Immaculate Mother of God, was eternally a most pure Virgin; that such particular Matter and Form is necessary for the validity of Sacraments; that such particular Books, Chapters, and lines are the word of God, with diverse such other points; of all which we may say, that which S. Augustine said about Rebaptisation of Heretics: The obscurity of this Question (x) Lib. 1. cont. Donat, cap. 7. before the schism of Donatus did so move mon of great note, and Fathers and Bishops endued with great Charity, to debate and doubt without breach of peace: that for a long time in several Regions there were diverse and doubtful decrees, till that which was truly believed was undoubtedly established by a full Council of the whole world. And yet the point declared in that Council was neither fundamental, in your sense, nor contained in Scripture. And to the same effect are the words of S. Ambrose, who speaking of the Heretics, condemned in the Council of Nice, saith that, They were not condemned by humane (y) Lib. 1. defid. ad Gratian. cap. 5. industry, but by the authority of those Fathers: as likewise the last General Council of Trent defines; That it belongs to the Church (z) 1. Sess. 4. to judge of the true sense, and interpretation of Scripture, which must needs suppose her infallibility. And lastly, the thirst that every one, who desires to save his soul, feels in his soul to find out the true Church; and the quiet which every one conceives he shall enjoy, if once he find her, shows that the very sense, and feeling of all Christians is, that the Church is infallible. For otherwise what great comfort could any wiseman conceive to be incorporated in a Church, which is conceived to be subject to error in matters of faith? 21. For want of better arguments you also allege (a) pag. 161. some Authors within the Roman Church of great learning (as you say) who have declared their opinion, that any particular Churches, (and by consequence the Roman) any Counsels though General, may err. But though that which you affirm were true, it would fall short of proving that the Catholic Church is not infallible in all points. For, besides particular Churches, or General Counsels, there is the common Consent of all Catholics, known by perpetual sacred Tradition; and there is likewise the continued Succession of Bishops and Pastors, in which if one should place an universal infallibility, it were sufficient to overthrew your assertion of the fallibility of the Church. And even yourself teach, that the Church is infallible in all fundamentals, and yet you affirm that any particular, or General Council may err, even to Heresy, or Fundamental, and Damnable errors: And therefore you must grant, that according to your Principles, it is one thing to say, General Counsels may err, and another, that the Catholic Church may err. But yet for the thing itself, it is a matter of faith, that true General Counsels, confirmed by the Pope, cannot err. And if any hold the contrary, he cannot be excused, except by ignorance, or inaduertence. And as for the Roman Authors which you cite, Occam is no competent witness; both because that work of his dialogues which you cite is condemned, and because he himself was a known enemy, and rebellious against the sea Apostolic. Besides the words which you cite out of him against the Authority of Counsels are not his opinion, but alleged for arguments sake, for so he professeth expressly in the very preface of that work, and often repeats it, that he doth not intent to deliver any opinion of his own. Thirdly, whereas he allegeth reasons for, and against Counsels, he allegeth but fine against them, and seven for them. Lastly before he comes to dispute against Counsels he doth in two several (b) Dialog. lib. 5.1. part. cap. 25. etc. 28. places, & in the very beginning of those Chapters of which the one is by you cited, deliver his opinion in the person of his Disciple to be directly for the infallible authority of Counsels. So as here is a double corruption, the one, the citing words for his opinion which are not so: the other, the concealing those which are his, and directly to the contrary Clemangis his works are forbidden. That work of Cusanus which you (c) Concord. Cathol. cite, he afterward retracted. Panormitanus in the place (d) In cap. Significasti. extra. de Electione. cited by you, may seem to speak of Counsels, disagreeing from the Pope: and though he say, that if the Council erred, it did not follow that the whole Church should err, because the faith might remain in others; yet that doth not convince that he held a General Council together with the Pope might err: For Canus hath the very same Objection and Answer, and yet, as we shall see anon, he holds it to be a matter of faith, that General Counsels confirmed by the Pope cannot err. Nevertheless if Panormitanus did hold that General Counsels with the Pope might err, he can only be excused, because he did not affirm it with pertinacity. Petrus de Aliaco hath indeed (e) Quaest. in Vesper. art. 3. the words which you cite: but they are not spoken by him as his opinion, but as the opinion of some others: & so he hath also the clean contrary proposition, viz. that a general Council cannot err, nor even the Remane Church; which you might as well have alleged for his opinion as the other: but the truth is, that neither are alleged by him as his own doctrine but as the opinion of others, as I said, which he expreslly saith that he doth forbear to discuss for the present, contenting himself only with these three Conclusions which express his own opinion. First, that always there is some Church which is ruled by the law of Christ (which according to his former explication is as much as to say, that there is always some Church which cannot err.) The second, that it is not convinced out of Scripture, that any particular Church is in such manner conformed to the rule of Christ's law. The third is, that it is convinced out of Scripture, that always there is some universal Church which never swerves from the rule of Christ. Neither will it advantage you, that he teacheth that any particular Church may err; For as I have often told you, the Roman Church in the sense which I have heretofore declared, is all one with the Universal Church, and so his doctrine that the Universal Church cannot err directly proves, that the Roman cannot err. And when he teacheth, that the Universal Church cannot err, he doth not distinguish betwixt points fundamental, and not fundamental, as you do. You cite out of Canus these words: I confess (f) Canus loc. lib. 5. c. 5. §. At contrà. that every Cenerall Council doth represent the whole Church. But when you urge, that the Church cannot err; it is true in that sense in which faithful people understand it; which is, that the whole Church together, that is, all faithful people do not err: But this doth not hinder, but that the greater part of the Church may err. I should scarcely have believed it to be possible for any man alive who pretends to have credit & common fame to pervert the sense of this Author, as you do, unless I did see with mine own eyes both what you writ, and indeed what Canus affirms. For in the Chapter next precedent (g) Cap. 4. §. Tertia Cō●lusio. to that which you cite, he having affirmed, that a General Council confirmed by the Pope makes a thing certain, and belonging to faith (in respect of us) áddeth, that this Conclusion is so certain that the contrary is heretical, which he proves by diverse good convincing reasons, and among the rest, that if such a Council could err, there were no way certain to decide Controversies of faith. And in the place which you cite afterward, he impugns their opinion who affirm that a General Council is infallible before it be confirmed by the Pope, which they endeavoured to prove because the Council represents the whole Church, and therefore can err no more than the universal Church itself. To which Argument he answers in the words which I set down, and which you allege to prove that Canus held a General Council might err, namely: (But when you urge that the Church cannot err, it is true in that sense in which faithful people understand it, which is, that the whole Church together, that is, all faithful people do not err:) and therefore it is evident that you bring them directly against his words and meaning, & bring the Objection for his answer. And besides what we have already related out of him, within five lines after the words cited by you, he saith, The Council would be infallible if it were confirmed by the Pope. I leave it to your own consideration, what judgement even you would frame of any other beside yourself, if he should cite Authors in this manner. 22. You have no reason to be so much offended, that we equal divine unwritten Traditions, with the written word of God. For we have so reverend an opinion of God's word, as that wheresoever we find it, our faith believes it to be most infallible: nor can we believe that pen, ink, and paper can add any certainty to the Truth thereof. Without cause also you accuse the Roman Church of supine negligence, because she hath not as yet given a Catalogue of unwritten Traditions, as well as of all the Books of Scripture. For you might also condemn the Ancient Church, which did not for diverse ages deliver any Catalogue of Canonical Books, which yet afterward, she did as occasion required. And as the Council of Trent by reason of your heresies, whereby you denied diverse Canonical Books of Scripture, set down a perfect Canon of Scripture: so, as just & necessary occasion may require, the holy Ghost by which she is directed, will not fail to assist her in making a Catalogue of unwritten Traditions. I cannot find but that your modern Brethren will gladly admit of some Apostolical Traditions against the Puritans; and why then do you not make a Catalogue of them, as you have done of the Books of Scripture? Your famous Archbishop of Canterbury saith: For so much as the Original (i) M. Witgift in his his defence etc. pag. 351 & beginning of these names, Metropolitan, Archbishop etc. such is their Antiquity, cannot be found, so fare as I have read, it is to he supposed, they have their Original from the Apostles themselves: for as I remember S. Augustine hath this Rule in his 118. Epistle. And in proof of this Rule of S. Augustine he adds: It is of credit (k) Vbi sugra pag. 352. with the Writers of our time, namely with M. Zwinglius, M. Caluin, M. Gualther; and surely I think no learned man doth descent from them. Are not I pray you these, and the like Traditions, upon which your Hierarchy depends, of some consequence, and worth your labour to put them in a Catalogue? Or do you not hold the Traditions of the Apostles to be infallible true? 23. It is but a Calumny to affirm, that (l) pag. 163. we receive the definitions of the Church, with no less devotion than the holy Scriptures. For you cite (m) pag. 169. that very place of Bellarmine, where he (n) De Cont. l. 2. cap. 12. setteth down at large five singular Prerogatives of the holy Scriptures above the definitions of the Church, in which respect your fault is less excusable. It is your own doctrine that the Church is infallible in all fundamentals, and yet you will not even in respect of such points, equal her Authority with that of holy Scripture. 24. At length you come to teach that General Counsels may err even damnably, and yet you also teach, that their authority is immediately (o) Pag. 162 derived from Christ: and that their decrees (p) Ibid. bind all persons to external Obedience. But will you have men in matters of faith externally believe themselves, & dissemble against their conscience? And think that they do so by authority from Christ? The truth is, that you might as well say, the Church is invisible, as to say, that her infallibility consists not in General Counsels, but in this, that every member of the Church cannot err damnably: For, towards the effect of instructing men in doubts concerning faith, all comes to one effect. And with what colour of truth, do you say (pag. 164.165.) that you give General Counsels much more respect, then do most of our Adversaries, since Catholics believe them to be infallible, which you deny? 25. But you would gladly prove, that Counsels are fallible, because they are discursive in their deliberations, and (r) Pag. 167. use the weights & moments of reason, for the drawing out of Conclusions from their Principles, wherein it is confessed they may mistake. 26. It is true, we grant that the Church coins no new Revelations, but only declares such to us, as have been already delivered in the written, or unwritten word of God; to find which out she useth means, by searching out true Records of Antiquity, by discussing the writings of Fathers, by consulting the holy Scriptures, Traditions &c. because it is the will of God that she use such means. But the thing upon which she finally relies in her Definitions, ex parte Obiecti, is the Revelation, or attestation of God, which is the Formal and last Motine of faith; and exparte Subiecti, in behalf of herself, she relies upon the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost, directing her not to propound any falsehood instead of a revealed truth. Thus we read in the first Council Act. 15. Cùm magna disquisitio sieret: After great search, & examination of the Case, by citing Scriptures, relating Miracles, and the blessing of God, declared by the good success, and conversion of so many Gentiles; the final determination did not rely upon these industries, but, Visum est Spiritui sancto, & nobis. It hath seemed to the Holy Ghost, and us: Which words express both the formal Motive, and chief efficient Cause of faith, as also the free, and voluntary concurring of the Apostles, assisted by the Holy Ghost. And yet I hope you will not out of these diligences, & discourses of the Apostles infer, that this Council was fallible: Or that there was no more certainty in the Conclusion, then in the Arguments themselves, of which some, abstracting from the assistance of the holy Ghost, and the Authority of the Apostles, were but, as the Divines speak, Arguments of Credibility, and dispositions to faith, as Miracles etc. Or will you perhaps with your first Patriarch Luther, reprehend even this Council of the Apostles, and say with him: That james, whose (s) In Assert art. 29. opinion the whole Council followed, changed the verdict of peter, whose judgement, that the Gentiles should not be constrained to observe the jewish Ceremonics, was most true, & consequently the opinion of james and the Council could not be true? You grant (as I must often put you in mind) that the Church is infallible in fundamental points, must she therefore use no industry, to attain to the knowledge of such points? And Protestants, who hold Scripture to be the only Rule of faith, use means of conferring Text, consulting the Originals, Prayer, etc. for attaining the true meaning of Scripture; and yet you will not grant, that your faith is fallible; because you will say, it doth not rely upon those said fallible means, but finally (as you apprehend) it rests in the word of God. And if any Catholic Author equal the definitions of the Church with the holy Scripture, his meaning is, that both the one, and the other, are so infallible, that they cannot deliver any untruth. For in other respects we grant many singular Prerogatives to the holy Scripture, more than to the definitions of Counsels, as may partly beseen in (t) De Conc. lib. 2. cap. 12. Bellarmine. 27. Your objection that the great Council (u) Pag. 170. of Chalcedon corrected the Second of Ephesus, and that S. Augustine saith, Provincial Counsels (w) De Bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 2. cap. 3. may be corrected by Plenary, and Plenary Counsels, the former, by the latter, hath been answered a hundred times; and I doubt not but that you have read Bellarmine who (x) De Couc. lib. 1. cap. 6. shows that the second Council of Ephesus proceeded unlawfully, wherein S. Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople was murdered by the faction of Dioscorus, and the Pope's Legates were driven away, and finally the Eutichian Heresy was confirmed: for which causes that Council was annulled by Pope Leo. You have picked out a pretty example to prove that lawful Counsels, confirmed by the Pope may err. To the words of S. Augustine, Bellarmine answers, that (y) De Consul. lib. 2. c. 7. §. Respondeo Primò. either they are understood of unlawful Counsels, such as was the second of Ephesus; or else, they are to be understood of Questions concerning matter of fact, as whether Caecilianus had delivered up the Bible; or finally, that latter Counsels may be said to correct the former, because some decrees which concern manners may by change of circumstances prove inconvenient, although in the beginning, they were very holy and fit. Which interpretation is gathered out of S. Augustine himself, who saith: That Counsels may be corrected, when Experience doth manifest something which before did not appear. Now, experience hath no place in universal doctrines, but in particular facts, or laws, which respect particular circumstances of time, and place etc. Your second Citation in your Margin out of S. Augustine, (a) Lib. 3. count. Maxim. whose words you did not recite, Bellarmine answers in the place which I have cited now. And heretofore I have declared at large in what sense, and upon what occasion, and reason, S. Augustine against the Donatists made recourse to Scripture alone. 26. You begin to impugn the Pope's infallibility, by saying, that Charity-Mistaken means by his infallible Church, only the Pope. Which saying of yours doth well declare how fallible your affirmations are. And that if the Pope define that to be white, which the eye judges to be black, it must be so admitted by us, you pretend to prove, out of I know not what papers of the jesuites found in Milan, in witness whereof you allege Paulus Soarpius, a seditious, scandalous, and condemned Author: & we must by no means believe you without better proof. You cite also out of Bellarmine, these words: If he (the Pope) should (b) De Rom ●. Pont. lib. 4. c. 5. §§. Quodantens. err, and command the practice of vice, or forbidden the exercise of virtue, the Church were bound in conscience to believe vices to be good, and virtues to be bad. Who would not think by these words of Bellarmine, as you corrupt him, that indeed we might believe Vice to be good, and Vertueil? The direct contrary whereof he affirms; and from thence infers that the Pope, whom the Church is obliged to obey as her Head, and Supreme Pastor, cannot err in decrees of manners prescribed by him, to the whole Church. These be his words. If the Pope did err in commanding vices, or forbidding Virtue, the Church were bound to believe that Vice is good and Virtue ill, unless she would sinne against her conscience. For in doubtful things, the Church is bound to subject herself to the judgement of the Pope, and to do what he commands, and not to do what he forbids: and lest she should sinne against her conscience, she is bound to believe, that what he commands is good, & that what he forbids is ill For the avoiding of which inconvenience he concludes, that the Pope cannot err in Decrees concerning manners, by forbidding Virtue, or commanding Vice. If one should prove that Scripture cannot err in things concerning manners, because otherwise Christians, who are bound to believe whatsoever the Scripture saith, should be obliged to believe Virtue to be ill, and Vice to be good; would you infer that indeed we are to believe, Virtue to be ill, and Vice to be good? Or rather that indeed Scripture could not propose or command any such thing? This is that which Bellarmine saith. But yourself is he, according to whose principles we might be obliged to embrace vice etc. For since you affirm, that the authority (d) Pag. 1ST. of General Counsels is immediately derived from Christ, and that, their Decrees bind all persons to external Obedience; and seeing you hold that they may err perniciously both in faith, and manners; What remains but that we must be obliged, even by authority immediately derived from Christ himself, to err with the Council, and at lest externally embrace Vice. 29. You come afterward to discourse thus: These men (e) Pag. 17●. deal not plainly with us, when they pretend often in their disputations against us, Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels and the Church; since in the issue their final and infallible argument for their faith, is only the Pope's Authority. It were indeed a happy thing, and a most effectual way to end all Controversies if people would submit themselves to some visible living judge, by whom they might be instructed, & by whom it might be declared who allege Scriptures, and Father's right or wrong. Which since you, and your Brethren refuse to do, no wonder, if we be constrained to allege Scriptures, and Fathers, as you likewise do, though you say, that Scripture is infallible, and that all Controversies must be decided by it alone. Besides, though the Pope be infallible, yet he is not so alone, as if he did exclude all other infallible means: for Scriptures, General Counsels, and the Consent of the whole Catholic Church are also infallible. And therefore (as I was saying) it is no wonder that we allege other Arguments besides the decrees of Pope's alone. For since in our disputes with you, we abound with all kind of arguments, why should we not make use thereof? And if you will know the reason why Counsels be gathered to the great good of the Church, notwithstanding the Pope's infallibility, you may read Bellarmine, who gives (f) De Rom. Pontif lib. 4. cap. 7. §. Respondeo Id. the reason thereof. I hope you will grant that S. Peter was infallible, and yet he thought good to gather a Council, Act. 15. for greater satisfaction of the faithful, and to take away all occasions of temptation in the weaker Christians. What estimation Antiquity made of the Pope's Authority I have showed heretofore. And if some who have written Pleas, or Prescriptions against Heretics, do not without more ado, appeal (g) Pag. 173. all Heretics to the Pope's Tribunal, you have no cause to wonder; since commonly the first error of all Heretics, is to oppose the Pope, and the Church of Rome, and therefore they must be convinced by other Arguments. Tertullian in his Prescriptions against Heretics doth particularly advice, and direct that Heretics are not to be admitted to dispute out of Scripture, and that it is but in vain to seek to convince them by that means: and yet you hold that the Scripture is not only infallible, but the sole Rule also of faith: How then do you infer against us, that if the Pope be infallible, Tertullian should have appealed all Heretics to his Tribunal; since he doth not appeal them to Scripture, which yet he believed to be infallible. And nevertheless the two Authors whom you cite, Tertullian, and Vincentius Lyrinensis speak, as much in advantage of the Pope and Church of Rome, as can be imagined. If (saith Tertullian) thou live (h) Prescript. cap. 36. near Italy, thou hast the City of Rome, from thence Authority is near at hand, even to us (Africans.) A happy Church, into which the Apostles have poured their whole doctrine together with their blood. And Vincentius Lyrinensis calls the (i) In sus Com. Pope, and Church of Rome, the Head, and other Bishops as S. Cyprian from the South, S. Ambrose from the North etc. and others from other places, the sides of the world. And I cited these words out of him before, who speaking of Rebaptisation, saith: Then (k) In Com. part. 1. the blessed Stephen resisted, together with, but before his Colleagues, judging it as I conceive, a thing worthy of him, that he should surmount them as much in Faith, as he did in the authority of his place. Of the opposition of some particular men to the Pope we have spoken already, and in your saying that his Authority hath been opposed by General Counsels we will not believe you, till you bring better proof. That the divisions of the Eastern from the Latin Church proceeded from the ambition, & pretensions of the Bishop of Rome, you prove by the Authority of Nilus, a schismatic, an Heretic, and a professed enemy of the Church of Rome, and of Protestants also, unless they have a mind to believe that the holy Ghost proceeds not from the Son. And how can Nilus affirm as he doth, that the Pope refuseth to have the grounds of that dissension fairly heard and discussed in a general Council? For under Vrbanus the second a Council was held at Barium in Apulia, where the Grecian Bishops being present, were convicted of error, in denying God the holy Ghost to proceed from God the Son, S. Anselme (l) Anselm. lib. de protes. Spirit. sanct. our Primate of Canterbury being the chief disputant in the behalf of the Latins. Whereupon the Grecian Emperor that then ruled Alexius Comnenus became Catholic, and caused the Grecian Bishops to hold Communion with the Roman Church so long as he lived, Baronîus tom. 12. An. 1118. as Baronius showeth. And greater cause I have to wonder, that you would now revive this Cavil of Nilus. For to say nothing of the Council of Lions in France under Gregory the tenth, Baron. ad an. 1274. where the Patriarch of Constantinople was present, and other Hierarches of Greece to the number of 40. besides innumerable Bishops and Prelates of the Latins, being more than a thousand in all, some Kings being there in person, and all by their Ambassadors, namely Michael Paleologus, and Andronicus his Son Emperors of the East, in whose name their Ambassadors recanted & abjured all errors against the Roman Church, namely that about the Holy Ghost: to pretermit (I say) this instance, who doth not know, that in the general Council at Florence, the matter was debated under Eugenius the fourth, where the Grecians with their Emperor, and their Patriarch, and the Legates of three other patriarchs, and the Armenians, and the Deputyes of the Ethiopians were present, and a perfect concord was then made: from which the Greeks' departing afterward, were subdued and made slaves to the Turk. And that they might see the cause of their destruction to be pertinacity in their Error about the Holy Ghost, upon the very feast of Pentecost (as Bellarmine proveth) the City of Constantinople was taken, their Emperor killed, Lib. 2. de Christo. cap. 30. and their Empire extinguished. And it is well known that the true cause of their dissension, whereupon a separation at last ensued, was the Controversy between Ignatius lawful Patriarch of Constantinople, whom the Pope still kept in his Communion, and Photius an ambitious Intruder into the Patriarchate, by strength of the Imperial Power. Which Schism hath enlarged itself, by addition of the heresy, about the procession of the holy Ghost. For want of better matter, you bring here that old Objection about the Counsels of Constance and Basil, defining that the Council is above the Pope. The Answer whereof you may read in Bellarmine, that (m) De C●. lib. 2. c. ●●. the Popes who were deposed, were in time of Schism, when it was not known who was the true Pope; in which case the Church hath power to provide herself of an undoubted Pastor: To say nothing that two of those Popes voluntarily renounced their pretence. As for the decree of the Council of Constance, that all aught to obey a General Council; he answers, that either it is meant for time of Schism, or if it be universal, that the Council could not make any such definition of faith, because it was never confirmed by the Pope, for as much as concerns that point. And the Council of Basill was in that particular expressly repealed by diverse Popes; and the whole Church received Eugenius as true Pope, who yet was deposed by that Council. To disprove the Pope's infallibility, you cite Victoria saying: Give me (n) Relect. 4. de Potest. Papae & Conc. prop. 12. add fin. Clements, Linus, Silvesters, and I will leave all to their pleasure. But to speak no worse of latter Popes, they are much inferior to those ancient Ones. But you allege this Author according to your wont manner, that is, very unfaithfully. For he in that place speaks only of Dispensations in Laws, the facility and frequency whereof Victoria dislikes in these latter times; Which being wholly matter of Fact, doth nothing prejudice the Pope's Infallibility for points of Faith. 30. To prove that there is nothing but uncertainty in proving the Pope's infallibility, (o) Pag. 176. you allege some place out of Bellarmine, but with so great confusion and fraud, that they serve only to prove the certainty of your ill dealing. Bellarmine distinguishes two Questions: The one, whether S. Peter had any Successor in being head of the Church, and this he saith is most certain, and De iure divino, or by divine institution. The other: whether it be de iure divino, or of divine institution, that S. Peter's Successor must be the particular Bishop of Rome, and this he saith is not so certain (though it be true) because if S. Peter had placed his Sea in some other City, or else had chosen no particular City at all; yet his Successor had been, iure divino, Head of the Church; howbeit in that case, he had not been the particular Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless, because S. Peter did in fact, choose Rome, it is upon that supposal a matter of faith, that the Bishop of Rome, & S. Peter's Successor is all one. As for example by the Law of God all lawful Superiors are to be obeyed, and therefore though it be not of divine institution, that this or that man should be superior; yet supposing that in fact he be Superior, the general divine Law pitches, & fastens upon him, & obligeth us to obey him in particular. This being presupposed, let us now hear what you allege out of (q) De Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 4. §. Restant. Bellarmine. S. Peter sat many year's Bishop of Rome, & there he died You change the very Question. Bellarmine's words in the Title of the Chapter are: Petrum Romae usque admortem Episcopum fuisse. That S. Peter was Bishop of Rome till his death. And he explains his meaning to be, That S. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and that he kept that Bishopric till his death: which is a different thing from what you say; That S. Peter sat many year's Bishop of Rome, and there he died. For he might have been many year's Bishop of Rome, and also died at Rome, and yet not died Bishop of Rome; as one may be Bishop of London for some years, and die at London, & yet not dye Bishop of London. Now Bellarmine saith, that S. Peter died Bishop of Rome, which indeed was the main point; and proves, that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter's successor; whereas to dye at Rome is accidental to his being Bishop of Rome, and in fact diverse Bishops of Rome died in France, and else where. But let us go on. You say that the first reason by which Bellarmine proves that S. Peter died Bishop of Rome, is so weak, that himself saith only suadere videtur, it seems to persuade. This Bellarmine saith only of one reason, besides which he bringeth diverse other demonstrations: neither is it necessary for the certainty of any truth, that every reason for it, be evident. And it is the doctrine of Philosophers, that the best method is, to begin with probable Arguments, and then to ascend to demonstrations. Moreover in this very subject Vdalricus Velenus, a Lutheran, wrote a Book to prove that S. Peter was never at Rome, and to that purpose he brings eighteen reasons, which he calls Persuasions, & yet he holds them for evident Demonstrations. If then Bellarmine, out of his great modesty say, that his first reason seems to persuade, must you thence infer, that it doth not demonstrate? And indeed it is a very good, and solid argument. After this you go forward, and cite Bellarmine saying: There God commanded him to fix his Chair, & to leave his full Power to his heirs and Successors, the Popes. And then you add: But what certainty of this? Indeed (saith Bellarmine) it is no where (r) De Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 12. §. Ob seruandum est tertiò. expressed in Scripture, that the Pope (you should add of Rome, as Bellarmine hath it) succeeds Peter, & therefore happily it is not of divine right that he succeeds him; Yet, it is not improbable, that (s) Ibid. § Et quontam. God commanded him to fasten his Seat at Rome, and it may be devoutly so believed. And it may be truly believed, that you corrupt Bellarmine. First, when you speak of Popes, you leave out, of Rome, in which word consisteth the main point. For Bellarmine teaches, that it is most certain, and de iure divino, that S. Peter should have Popes to succeed him, but he holdeth it not so certain, whether it be of divine institution, that his Successor should be Pope of Rome; that is, have his Seat fixed at Rome, although the facto it be there. Bellarmine's words are: It is not all one, that a thing be a point of faith, and that it be of divine institution. For it was not a divine Law that S. Paul should have a cloak, yet it is a point of faith that S. Paul had a Cloak. Though then it be not exprsly contained in Scripture, that the Bishop of Rome should succeed S. Peter (thus far you go, and leave out the words immediately following, which explicate the whole matter:) Yet it is evidently deduced out of Scripture that some must succeed S. Peter: but that he who succeeds him is the Bishop of Rome, we know by the Apostolical Tradition of S. Peter; which Tradition, General Counsels, Decrees of Popes, and Consent of Fathers, have declared, as hereafter shall be demonstrated. And according to this clear explication he said a little before: Because S. Marcellus Pope in his Epistle ad Antiochenos, writes that S. Peter came to Rome by the Commandment of our Lord; and S. Ambrose (t) In Orat. cont. Auxentium. and S. Athanasius (u) In Apolog. pro fuga sua. affirm, that S. Peter suffered Martyrdom at Rome by the commandment of Christ; it is not improbable, that our Lord did also expressly command that S. Peter should so settle his Seat at Rome, that the Bishop of Rome should absolutely succeed him. But howsoever this be, at lest this manner of Succession proceeds not from the first institution of the Popedom, which is delivered in Scripture. Do you not see what Bellarmine delivers for certain, & what for less certain? It is certain that S. Peter must have Successors; it is certain that in fact his Successor is the Bishop of Rome: but it is not so certain, that by divine institution, his Successor is the Bishop of Rome, but that might proceed from the act of S. Peter, who actually lived and died Bishop of Rome, though he might have chosen some other particular Diocese. These things Bellarmine delivers very clearly; but you do so involve his words, as one would believe, that he held it for uncertain, whether actually the Pope of Rome be S. Peter's Successor, or whether it be certain, and of divine institution, that S. Peter left any Successor at all: both which are plainly against his meaning, and express words. 31. Your other objections are so old and trivial, that they deserve no Answer: I said already, that in time of Schism the Church hath power to declare, or elect a true and undoubted Pope; and in the mean time God in his Providence can govern his Church without new definitions of Popes, of which there is not always so precise necessity, as that the Church may not subsist without them for a time; as for three hundred years from the Apostles times, she was without any one General Council; and as the jews for two thousand years were without Scripture. If any should enter symonically, & be accepted by the Church as Pope, God will either not permit him to define any matter of faith, or else will assist him not to err perniciously, not for his own sake but in respect of the Church which cannot be led into error, as she might, if that reputed Pope could define a falsehood, because the members are obliged to conform themselves to one whom they esteem their Head. And you yourself must say the same. For since all the spiritual Power, and jurisdiction of your first Prelates, was derived from Rome, you must affirm, that a Pope accepted for such by the Church, is sufficiently enabled for all necessary acts and functions, notwithstanding that secret impediment: For otherwise you might endanger the Authority of your own Prelates. And the same you must in proportion say, of all public Magistrates. The same answer serves to your other Objection, that we are not sure whether he that is elected Pope be baptised. For it belongs to God's providence, not to permit any whom the Church hath elected for her head, to err perniciously, though indeed your suppositions are never to be admitted; but we are to believe that whosoever in a time free from Schism, is accepted by the Church for true Pope, is such indeed. And I wonder you do not reflect, that these objections are also against your own Bishops. Or if you say, that your spiritual jurisdiction comes from the Temporal Prince, the same difficulty will remain concerning him. For I suppose you will not say that one who is not baptised, and consequently not a Christian, can merely by virtue of his Temporal Power give spiritual jurisdiction. And though you say that it is not want of intention in the Minister which can make void the Sacrament of Baptism; yet you will not deny, but that there may be other essential defects, hindering the validity thereof: as for example, if by error the water be so mingled, that it be not elemental water; or if the form of the words in Baptism be not pronounced entirely etc. For in your form of Public Baptism it is said: That water, and; in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are essential parts of Baptism: and this you have gained by your objections. And finally if your doctrine be true that intention in the Minister is not necessary, the Pope cannot (according to your doctrine) want Baptism for want of due intention in the Minister. You proceed. 32. No Papist (x) pag. 180. in Europe (excepting only those few, that stand by, and hear his Holiness when he gives out his Oracles) can be infallibly sure what it is which he hath defined. A goodly Objection! As if there were no means to know what one saith, unless he hear him speak. For aught I know you neither have seen the Pope, nor Rome, will you therefore think, you are not sure that there is a Pope, and Rome? Have you all this while spoken against a thing in the air, while you impugned the Pope? Can no body know what the Apostles spoke, or wrote, except them who were present at their preaching, or writing? Or can no body be sure that the Bible is truly printed unless he himself correct the Print? I grant that you who deny the certainty of Traditions, have cause to believe nothing beside what you see, or hear. But we acknowledge Traditions, and so must you, unless you will question both the preaching, and writing of the Apostles. And beside hearing or seeing, there are other meaning, as History, Letters, true Relations of many, and the like. And thus we have answered all your objections against the fallibility of the Church, Counsels, and Pope, without descending to particular Controversies, which are disputed off among Catholics without breach of faith, or Unity. But here I must put you in mind, that you have left out many things in the sixth Chapter of Charity Mistaken against your promise, notwithstanding that to answer it alone, you have employed your third, fourth, and fifth Section. You have omitted (pag. 44) what it is that maketh men to be of the same Religion: & (pag. 46.) diverse differences betwixt you, & us; as about the Canon of Scripture; five Sacraments; necessity of Baptism, and real presence; unwritten Traditions; Primacy of S. Peter; judge of Controversies; Prayer to Saints, and for the souls in Purgatory: and so, that we are on both sides resolved to persist in these differences etc. Why did you not say one word to all these particulars? Why did you not answer to his example of the Quartadecimani, who were ranked for Heretics, although their error was not Fundamental in your acception? as also to his example of rebaptising Heretics, for which the Donatists were accounted Heretics, although the error be not of itself fundamental? The same I say of his Example, drawn from the Novatian Heretics: And of his reason, that if disobedience to the Church were not the rule whereby heresies, & schisms must be known, it were impossible to conclude what were an Heresy, or Schism: As also to his Assertion proved out of S. Thomas, that error against any one revealed truth destroyeth all faith etc. But necessity hath no law, you were forced to dissemble what you knew not how to answer. CHAP. VI THIS Section is chief employed in relating some debates between Catholics; and is soon answered, by distinguishing between a potential and actual Unity; that is, we deny not, but that Controversies may arise amongst Catholic Doctors, as well for matters concerning practice, as speculation: But still we have a judge to whose known determinations, we hold ourselves obliged to submit our understanding, and will: whereas your debates must of necessity be endless, because you acknowledge no subjection to any visible living judge, whom you hold to be infallible in his determinations. All the instances which you allege against us, prove this, and no more. For some of them concern points not expressly defined by the Church: Others touch upon matters of fact, and as it were suits of Law in the Catholic Clergy of England, wherein you ought rather to be edified, then to object them as any way prejudicial to the Unity of faith, because Pope Clement the 8. in his time, and our holy Father Vrban the VIII. could, and did, by their decrees end those Controversies, & forbidden writing Books on all sides. 2. I wonder you will, like some of the country Ministers, tell us that we have enlarged the Creed of Christians one moiety. And to prove it, you cite the Bull of Pius Quintus, which is properly no Creed, but a Profession of our faith. And if this be to enlarge the Creed, your Church in her 39 Articles, hath enlarged the twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed, more than one moiety thrice told. For the Church makes no new Articles of faith, as you must likewise say in defence of your Church-Articles. Was the Creed of Nice, or of S. Athanasius etc. new Creeds, because they explicate old truths by a new word of Homoousion, or Consubstantial? It is pretty that you bring Pappus and Flaccus, flat Heretics, to prove our many Contradictions. Your comparing the Decrees of the Sacred Council of Trent, which you say, that both the Dominicans and jesuites pretend to favour their contrary opinions, to the Devil in the old oracles, is by your leave wicked; & which you might upon the same pretence as blasphemously apply to the holy Scriptures, which all Heretics, though never so contrary in themselves, do allege as favouring them: Which is a sufficient Argument to show against Protestants, that no writing, though never so perfect, can be a sufficient judge to decide Controversies. And you were ill advised, to make this objection against the Council of Trent, since in his Majesty's Declaration before the 39 Articles, printed 1631. it is said: We take comfort in this, that even in those curious points in which the present differences lie, men of all sorts, take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them. And it is worthy the observation, that the difference betwixt the Dominicans and jesuits, (who as you say do both pretend to have the Council of Trent on their sides) is concerning a Question, which you conceive to be the same with that which is disputed among Protestants, and in which Protestants of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them. Your demand, why the Pope determines not that Controversy betwixt the Dominicans and jesuits, might as well be made against the whole Ancient Church, which did not determine all Controversies at once, nor on a sudden, but after long, and mature deliberation, sooner, or latter, as occasion did require In the mean time, the Pope hath commanded, that neither part censure the other; and his Command is most religiously observed by them, with a readiness to submit their judgement, when the holy Ghost shall inspire him to decree it, one way or other. And who assured you, that the point wherein these learned men differ, is a revealed truth, or capable of definition, or is not rather (as you speak) by plain (b) Pag. 112. Scripture indeterminable, or by any other Rule of faith. 3. It is worthy to be observed, that after you had told us that the dissentious of the Church of Rome are of greater importance, than any among the Reformed; you can name only two, which may have any colour of difficulty, the rest being mere Scholastical disputations in obscure points for the better explanations of the Mysteries of our Faith against Infidels, and Heretics. The one concerns the Pope's Authority: And in particular his Superiority above Counsels; to which we have answered more than once: & all Catholics agree that he is the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of S. Peter, & the Visible Head of the Church, to whom all particular persons, and Churches are subject. The other, is touching a Contrariety between Sixtus 5. and Clement the 8. about the Edition of the Bible: which objection, Adamus Tannerus answers (c) Adam. Tanner. tom. 3. disp. 1. q. 4. dub. 6. ●. 264. so fully, that I have thought good to set down his words, wherein he affirms, That this Question having been disputed in the University of Ingolstad, for being satisfied concerning the truth, he wrote to F. Ferdinandus Alberus, (who afterward was Vicar General of the Society of JESUS,) and he by letters dated 28. Aug. 1610. answered in these words, which I have thought best to set down in Latin, as they lie (the sum of them being this, that the Decree of Sixtus was never sufficiently promulgated;) that such as have not the Book itself, may read them here. Circa Biblia Sixtina, post diligentem inquisitionem & discussionem, hanc denique responsionem dederunt ij, qui huic rei incumbebant, qua omnis tollitur difficultas, & cui omnes meritò acquiescent. Responsio sic habet. Certum est, Bullam de ijs Biblijs non fuisse promulgatam; cuius rei certissimum indicium est, in Registro huiusmodi promulgationem non reperiri: & Illustrissimus Cardinalis Bellarminus testatur, se cùm ex Gallia Romam redijsset, à pluribus Cardinalibus audivisse, Bullam illam non fuisse promulgatam, & id quidem illi se certissimè scire aff●rmabant. And the same F. Alberus addeth: Sciat praetereà R. V haec eadem ex S. D. N. (Pope Paul the 5.) habita fuisse, ut tutò his adhaerere liceat, & oporteat. And in his letters dated the 4. of September in the same year 1610. for confirmation of the same matter, he adjoineth these words: Item P. Azor, ●o ipso tempore, quo caeperunt (typis) publicari illa Biblia, cùm instarent aliqui, Papam posse errare, quia videbatur iam errasse de facto in Biblijs; Respondit publicè P. Azar. Bullam illam non fuisse publicatam, quamuis in impressione legeretur subscriptio Cursorum; nam hoc factum fuisse per anticipationem Typographi, ita iubente Pontifice, ne impressio tardaretur. Huius rei testis est P. Andraeas Eudaemon-Ioannes, qui tunc aderat disputationi. Thus he. And besides all this, Po. Sixtus himself marking that diverse things had crept in which needed a second Review, had declared that the whole work should be reexamined, though he could not do it by reason he was prevented by death, as is affirmed in the Preface before the Bible set forth by Pope Clement the 8. 4. If any Catholic Writers teach absolutely, that it is sufficient to believe with an implicit faith alone, you know and acknowledge (pag. 198. and 71. and 241.) they are rejected by the rest. And yet that doctrine is neither so absurd, nor dangerous as the opinion of M. Hooker, and D. Morton as you relate, with much show of favouring them; Who yet not only grant, that one may be ignorant of some fundamental Articles, but also may deny them, without ceasing to be a member of the Church: No, nor so hurtful, as your own doctrine, who must (if your distinction of points be to any purpose) teach that an Error against a revealed truth in points not fundamental, is not damnable. Yea after you have set down the Creed, as a perfect summary (d) Pag. 241. of those fundamental truths, wherein consists the Unity of faith, and all men are bound actually to know necessitate praecepti; you add, but happily not so, necessitate medij, vel finis; so that upon the matter (speaking of things to be believed necessitate medij, it will not be easy for you to free yourself, even from that for which you impugn the Authors who do at least say, that we must believe all Articles implicitly, in the explicit belief of the Article of the Catholic Church: and yet that Article you do not believe as you ought, while you deny her universal Infallibility in propounding divine Truths. 5. I will end with a notorious falsification which I find almost in the end of this your Section. For, in your first Edition (pag. 65. Marg.) you cite Tanner saying (in Colloquio Ratisbon. Sess. 9) If the Prelates of the Church did err in defining any doubt, Christian people by virtue of such a government, might, yea ought to err. And these words you bring to prove, that whatsoever the Pope, assisted with some few of his Cardinals and Prelates, shall define, that must be received though it be false and erroneous; wherein you discover either intolerable ignorance, or supine negligence, or wilful malice. For Tannerus in that place proves the infallibility of the Church, that is, of the Prelates of the Church, because the people are obliged to believe their Pastors; and since it is absurd to say, that they can be obliged to believe that which is erroneous, it follows that the Prelates of God's Church cannot define any error: yea, in express terms he saith; (f) Fol. 100L. I say not, that the Pope is to be obeyed, when he errs; but say only, that if the Superior might err, & yet were endued with public authority, the people might be led to error. And in this very same manner, you falsify Bellarmine in your second Edition (pag. 172) speaking to the same purpose, as I shown in this second (g) Cap. 5. num. 28. Part. Lastly, I must put you in mind that you leave out the discourse of Charity Mistaken (pag. 64.) wherein he answers the vulgar objection, that we have differences among us of Thomists, Scotists, Benedictins &c. and yet (pag. 84.) you bring this very same objection as freshly as if it bade never been answered. CHAP. VII. THE main points treated in your seaventh Section are: the distinction of points fundamental, and that the Creed is a perfect Summary of all fundamental points of faith. In answer whereof I employed the third, and fourth Chapter of the First Part. 2. You say, that the Rule of faith, (a) Pag. 216. being clearly, but diffusedly set down in the Scriptures, hath been afterward summed up in the Apostles Creed: and in the Margin you cite S. Thomas, as if he did affirm that the Rule of faith is clearly contained in Scripture: Whereas he rather saith the contrary in these words: The Verities of faith (b) 2.2. 〈◊〉 art. 9 ad 1. are contained in Scripture diffusedly, & in some things obscurely etc. so that to draw the Verity of faith out of Scripture, there is required long study and exercise. Is this to say the Scripture is clear, even for fundamental points? 3. I see not how you can prove that the Creed contains all fundamentals, out of those Letters called Formatae, form; the manner whereof is set down by (c) Ann. 325. num. 44. & 407. num. 3. apud Spond. Baronius. Among other things one was, to write the first letter in Greek of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost; & of S. Peter: the one, saith Baronius, being to profess their faith against the Arrian Heretics of those times; the other, to show their Communion with the Catholic Church; because he was esteemed truly Catholic, who was joined in Communion with the Successor of S. Peter. And this Baronius proves out of Optatus. Whereby it appears that the intention of those form Letters was not to express all fundamental points of faith, but particularly aimed at the Arrians: & besides the Articles of our Creed, they contained the Primacy of S. Peter, teaching us that it is necessary for every true Catholic to be united with the Sea of Peter. You cite the circular letters of Sophronius, Tarasius, Pelagius Patriarch of Rome, and Photius of Constantinople & for those of Pelagius you cite Baronius (Ann. 556. n. 33.) But the letters of Pelagius which Baronius sets down at large, do not so much as mention the Apostles Creed: and besides the four six General Counsels, he professes to receive the Canons which the Sea Apostolic (that is, the Roman Sea) hath received, the Epistles of the Popes, Celestine, Sixtus, Leo, Hilarius, Simplicius, Felix, Gelasius (the first) Anastasius, Hormisda, john, Felix, Boniface, john, Agapetus; and then adds: This is my Faith. I wonder by what Logic you will infer out of these Letters, that the Creed alone, explained by the first Counsels, contains all Articles of faith, since Pelagius professes to receive diverse other things not contained in the Creed. Sophronius also (Sext. Synod. Act. 11.) in his letters recites, and condemns by name a very great number of particular Heresies, and Hetetiques which are not mentioned in any of the Creeds, and adds a full condemnation of all Heretics. Neither are you more fortunate or faithful in Tarasius, who in his Confession of faith doth expressly teach Invocation of our blessed Lady, Angels, Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, Confessors &c. as also worship of Images, of which he was a most zealous defender against the Iconomacht, and was the chief in the seaventh Synod, who condemned those Heretics. And since he was a man famous both for sanctity and miracles, we may note by the way, what persons they were who in ancient times opposed Protestants in those Iconomachis. Photius likewise is by you misalledged. For he in his Letter to Pope Nicholas set down by Baronius (ad Ann. 859.) wherein he maketh a profession of his faith, faith: I receive the seven holy General Counsels. And having mentioned the six Counsels, and what Heretics were condemned by them, he adds: I also receive that holy, and great Council, which was the second held at Nice, which cast out, and overcame, as filth, the Iconomachis, that is, the oppugners of Images, who therefore were Christomachis, that is, oppugners of Christ, as also the impugners of Saints. Tell me now, I pray you, by what art can you extract out of Photius his Letter, an argument to prove, that the Apostles Creed as it was explained in the Creeds of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Athanasius, comprehends a perfect Catalogue of fundamental truths, and implies a full rejection of fundamental heresies (as you affirm pag. 217) since he expressly professes to receive also the seven General Counsels, and that in particular, which condemned the Impugners of Images, that is, such as yourself and other Protestants are? Will you grant that the Creed implies a rejection of the error of the Iconomachis, or opposers of Images, as of a Fundamental Heresy? Who will not wonder at your ill fortune in mis-alledging Authors? Yet I grant that fraud can never be employed better, then to the disadvantage of him, who useth it. 4. You say, (d) pag. 226. to little purpose, that; the learned Cardinal Peron thinks (e) Replique çap. 1. it probable, that the Article of the Catholic Church, and the Communion of Saints is all one, the latter being only an Explication of the other. But what is this for your purpose, which was to prove that Articles not expressed in the Creed, cannot be reduced to the Catholic Church; Because no learned Romanist will say that the new doctrines of the Roman Church are contained in the Communion of Saints? For Cardinal Peron only means, what he saith in express words; That the Catholic Church consists not in the simple number of the faithful, every one considered a part; but in the joint Communion also of the whole body of the faithful: From whence it doth not follow, that the Church is not she, who ought to deliver, and propound divine Verities to us as she is the Mother and Teacher of all Christians. Doth not Charity and Communion in the spirit of Love include Faith; and consequently some infallible Propounder of the Articles thereof? The Explication of Azor, concerning the Article of the Catholic Church which you bring, maketh nothing in the world to your purpose. I have told you already, that while we believe the Unity, Universality, Perpetuity, Sanctity of the Church, we jointly believe her Infallibility, and freedom from all error in faith. But it is a mere slander to talk, as if we held that she had sovereign and infallible power to prescribe, or define what she pleases. You say, that the Creed is a sufficient Rule of faith, to which nothing essential can be added, or may be detracted: As if the addition of Material objects, added any thing to the Essence of faith, which is taken, not from the material Object, or the things which we believe, but from the Formal Object, and Motive, which is the Testimony of Almighty God. 5. Though it were granted, that the Creed being rightly understood, contains all fundamentals, yet doth it not follow that Protestants agree in them, both because they may disagree in the meaning of some of those Articles; as also, because disagreement in any one point of Faith, though not fundamental, cannot stand with the Unity, and substance of faith, even in such points as both of them believe. As for the Author of the Examen pacifique, I have told you already, that he is no Catholic. 6. You set down your own opinion about the necessity of good works, which you know is contrary to many of your prime Brethren; yet, this I will not urge for the present, but only say, that you forget that Charity Mistaken, among other instances, alleges this to prove that all points of faith are not contained in the Creed; to which you give no answer at all, but only tell us what your own opinion is. And that it may appear how you comply with your promise, not to omit without Answer any one thing of moment; hear what Charity Mistaken saith to this purpose, in these words. S. Peter saith, that S. Paul in his Epistles had written certain things, which were hard to be understood, and which the unlearned, and unstable, did pervert to their own destructions. S. Austen declares upon this place, that the places misunderstood concerned the doctrine of justification, which some misconceived to be by faith alone. And of purpose to countermine that error, he saith, that S. james wrote his Epistle, and proved therein that good works were absolutely necessary to the act of justification. Hereupon we may observe two things; the one, that an error in this point alone, is by the judgement of S. Peter, to work their destruction, who embrace it: and the other, that the Apostles Creed which speaks no one word thereof, is no good rule, to let us know all the fundamental points of faith. Did not all this discourse deserve some answer from one, who professes to omit nothing? 7. But now you come to a new business, and say: If the (f) Pag. 239. Roman Church be not guilty of Manicheisme; why is single life called Chastity, and commended as an eminent degree of sanctimony? As if (forsooth) Marriage must be ill, because a single life is better. Why do you not lay the same aspersion upon our Saviour Christ, who proposed Chastity as one of the Evangelicall Counsels; upon S. Paul, who saith that (h) 1. Cor. 7. he who doth not marry, melius facit, doth better; & upon the Ancient Fathers, who so highly extol a single life? You cannot be ignorant but that among diverse degrees of Chastity, Catholic Divines do also place Conjugal Chastity, which they hold to be good, and meritorious, though yet inferior to the other. 8. You go on, and ask, why Marriage is said to be incompatible with (i) Innocent. Papa dist. 82. can. Proposuisti. holiness, or with (k) Idem. God's favour; nay counted a (l) Bell. de Clericis cap. 19 §. I am verò pollution worse than (m) Coster. Enchirid c. de Caelib. whoredom? With better reason we may say, why do you pervert and corrupt Authors against your own conscience? Innocentius, whom you cite saith only: It is not lawful that they should be admitted to sacred functions (that is, holy Orders) who live with their wives, because it is written: Be holy, because I am holy, saith our Lord. Is this to say absolutely, that Marriage is incompatible with holiness because it is incompatible with that holiness which by the Church's Ordination is required in Priests? S. Paul saith, that an unmarried woman (n) I. Cor. 7. and a Virgin thinks of things belonging to God, that she may be holy in body and soul. Will you hence infer, that the Apostle affirms, Marriage to be incompatible with holiness, because it is incompatible with that peculiar holiness, which Virginity is apt to breed? Those words, Be holy, because I am holy, are taken out of Levit. chap. 11. vers. 44. where the jews are forbidden to touch certain beasts: and yet I hope you will not accuse God of Manicheisme, as if the eating of such beasts were incompatible with holiness? The other words alleged by Innocentius, Those who are in flesh cannot please God, are understood, as I said, of that particular holiness and pleasing of God, which is required in those that take holy Orders. To prove that Bellarmine accounts Marriage a pollution, you allege out of him these words: (o) De Clericis cap. 19 §. jamverò. Not only the Marriage of Priests, which is sacrilege & not marriage; but even the Marriage of holy persons is not exercised without a certain pollution & turpitude. But why do you take pleasure in alleging Authors against their own meaning? Bellarmine to prove how congruous & convenient it is, that Priests should lead a single life, after many Authorities of Scriptures, Counsels, & Fathers proves it also by reason itself, in regard that Marriage is a great impediment to Ecclesiastical functions; and beginning with the action of sacrificing, he saith: Matrimony, as Saint Hierome saith lib. 1. in jovinian. hinders the office of sacrificing, because there is required most great purity and sanctity therein, as S. Chrysostome in his sixth Book of Priesthood doth declare; and it cannot be denied, but that in the act of Marriage there is mingled a certain impurity and pollution, not which is sin, but which arose from sin. For though Caluin exclaim against Pope Siricius, who is so ancient that he sat an. 385. because he called the Marriage of Priests, Pollution; yet that not only the Marriage of Priests, which is not marriage but sacrilege; but also the Martrimony of holy persons is not exercised without a certain pollution and turpitude, appears by the rebellion of nature, and the shamefastness of men in that act, who always seek to be hidden, as S. Augustine hath observed, lib. 14. de Civitate Dei. cap. 17. Thus Bellarmine: and indeed S. Augustine in the next Chap. expressly speaks de pudore Concubitus non solum vulgari, sed etiam coniugali. And now what but malice can reprehend any one tittle in this doctrine of Bellarmine? or rather in the doctrine of the Fathers by him cited, which contains against you, Sacrifice, & single life of Priests? Moreover you falsify both Innocentius and Bellarmine, who speak not of Marriage in itself, of which you make them speak in your Text, but of the act thereof; and therefore Innocentius saith: Qui exercent cum uxore carnale consortium; And Bellarmine saith: Non exercetur sine pollutione quadam etc. Which is not even so much as to say, the act itself is pollution, but only, Non exercetur sine pollutione etc. and this also not absolutely, but with a limitation, non sine pollutione quadam etc. For Matrimony of itself, may stand with most perfect Chastity, yea with Virginity, as appeareth in the most Immaculate Mother of God. And at this day, a married man may be made Priest, if his wife consent, and other Conditions prescribed in the holy Canons be observed. And whereas you say, It seems by S. Augustine, they (the Manichees) did not forbid meats, or marriage as absolutely impure, or to all: only their choice Elect ones must obstaine; the other vulgar, their Auditors, were left at their liberty: This objection taken out of Peter Martyr, is answered by Bellarmine in the Chapter next to that which you cited, that S. Augustine lib. 30. contra Faustum cap. 6. writes, that the Manichees did absolutely forbid Marriage, because though they did permit it to their Auditors, yet it was only for that they could not do otherwise. You cannot (saith S. Augustine) say that you do not forbid (Marriage) because without breach of friendship you tolerate many of your Auditors, being either not willing, or not able to obey you in this. Thus S. Augustine. But we do not only permit, or tolerate the Marriage of Christians, but do also commend them. And besides the Manichees did so permit Marriage to their Auditors for satisfying their lust, that they jointly warned them to avoid procreation of Children, which is manifestly to detest Marriage. But Catholics do therefore chief commend Marriage, because it is known to have been instituted by God for the procreation of Children. Thus Bellarmine. And now I hope you see how free he is from Manicheisme, & that the places which in your Margin you allege out of S. Aug. to prove that some of the Manichees might marry, are brought by you very contrary to his express words, in the place which now we have heard Bellarmine cite out of him. The doctrine of Costerus (a) Enchiriae, cap. de Caelib. that, though a Priest be guilty of a grievous sacrilege if he commit fornication; yet he sins more grievously, if he contract Matrimony, is very true, because Matrimony in a Priest is no Matrimony at all by reason of his solemn vow of Chastity, & the Church's prohibition, as Bellarmine (o) De Matrim. Sacr. l. 1. c 21. proves at large out of Counsels & Fathers: and so I say to you, with S. john Chrysostome, Though you call (p) In Epïst. 6. ad Theodorum. such a Contract Marriage, yet I esteemee it worse than Adultery. What say you to S. Chrysostome, who saith, that Marriage after a solemn vow of Chastity, is not only worse than fornication, as Costerus said, but even then Adultery? as S. Ambrose also calls (q) In lib. ad Virginem lapsam. c. 5. the Marriage of a vowed Virgin, Adultery. Now supposing this doctrine of Catholics, that the Matrimony of Priests is no Matrimony; it follows that by attempting to contract Matrimony, besides the sins of fornication and Sacrilege, he commits a grievous disobedience to the Church, a sacrilegious irreverence against the Sacrament of Matrimony, which he celebrates invalidly; and may be presumed also to add a profession of Heresy, as if the Church could not forbid, or make void the Marriage of Clergy men; as in fact, Luther, & such Apostatas sinned not only against Continency, against their vow, against the Sacrament of Marriage, against the precept of the Church; but also against Faith: & lastly both they and all Priests that marry, do to the uttermost of their power, add a greater immobility in sin, then if they did commit fornication, without attempting to marry. But I beseech you doth he, who teaches that a double sin is committed by abusing Marriage, teach thereby that Marriage is ill, & unlawful; or rather doth he not show that in itself it is holy and must not be abused? If one should not only commit incest within the forbidden degrees, but also attempt to marry, should not he commit a greater sin by the abuse of Marriage joined with in 〈◊〉, then by incest alone? Or is it not a greater sin both to commit Adultery, and attempt Marriage with the Adultress, while his lawful wife life's, then only to commit Adultery? The one by the laws of the Kingdom is punished with death, but not the other. So as it is clear that the doctrine of Costerus cannot be blamed, but by such as oppose the Church, and all Antiquity, about Marriage after a solemn vow of Chastity. But if Costerus deserve blame, what say you to your Patriarch Luther, who teaches, that (r) Tom. 2 Ger. fol. 214. if the Council should grant Churchmen liberty to marry, he would think that man more in God's grace, who during his life kept three harlots, than he who married according to the decree of the Council: and that he would command under pain of damnation, that no man should marry by the permission of such a Council, but either live chaste, or if that were impossible, than not to despair, though he kept a harlot. O holy Reformer of the Roman Church! What can please these men? If the Church permit them not to marry, they will Apostatate under pretence of reforming her corruptions; If they be permitted to marry, they will rather choose to be infamously wicked, then to marry. In your first Edition, you say, that Marriage is (by us) counted a Crime; and you prove it out of Pelagius dist. 61. can. Catinensis, where it is said: Advise, that one may be chosen, who neither hath a wife, nor children, nor any Crime repugnant to the Canons. But with what conscience can you deceive your unlearned Reader, since the Latin, even as you allege it, hath the quite contrary to your English as is evident by the words which I have now set down, in which, Marriage is distinguished from a Crime? But what if after all this your objecting Manicheisme to us, either yourself, or at least many chief Protestants be found more liable to that Heresy, if they will speak with coherence to their other grounds? For as the Manichees in your opinion did not forbid Marriage to all, but only to their Elect: so do Protestants say, that those who have the gift of Chastity not only may, but aught to abstain from Marriage, because they teach that there are no works of Supererogation, but that men are bound to perform whatsoever God doth inspire them to; & consequently such Elect Persons should sinne against the law of God if they married, which is more than Catholics affirm, who do not teach that the prohibition of Priests to marry, proceeds immediately from the law of God. 9 You go from Marriage to Meat, and say: And for Meats; (s) Pag. 239. why is abstinence from flesh accounted a perfect Christian fast, yea holy and meritorious? And why is he that eats flesh in Lent, punished with a more grievous penance, than he that commonly blasphemes the name of God, or defiles his Neighbour's bed, or abuses himself by drunkenness, or others by railing, slandering, etc. But these Arguments might better beseem some illiterate railing Lecturer, than a man of your place; especially in a Treatise tending to Pacification. For how do you think we can be saved, if we were indeed guilty of Manicheisme, and such absurd impieties, as those whereof you talk. Abstinence from flesh, is meritorious, not because flesh of its own nature is evil, as neither was the forbidden apple; but because obedience to lawful Superiors is good: and if fasting to subdue the flesh, and overcome temptations were not holy, why did not the Ancient Fathers commend feasting, as highly as fasting? For I will not think you to be so great a stranger to the Fathers, that you can be ignorant how frequently they extol fasting. And I desire to know, whether you do not think, that his Majesty's Laws, and in particular his Proclamations about keeping Lent, do not bind in conscience? And if you answer me at all, I beseech you forget not this demand; and whether the observation of them be not holy, and forasmuch as belongs to that particular object, a perfect Cbristian fast, and meritorious in that sense, and degree, according to which you grant that other works are meritorious, or deserving a reward? For the other part of your objection, that he that eats flesh in Lent is punished with a more grievous penance than he that blasphemes etc. you show how modest a man you are, and with all, that you are little seen either in the Canon, or Civil Law. For the Civil Law commands, that (t) In Authentiea, us non luxurientur homines. Novel. 77. Blasphemers should be punished with death, because, saith the Law, Hunger and earthquakes, and plagues, come by reason of such crimes. In the (u) Cap. Statuimus de matediçi●● Canon Law, Blasphemers, beside other punishments, are to stand as Penitents at the Church door for the space of some Sundays, and for some fridays to fast in bread & water etc. and by other decrees of Popes the same sin is grievously punished, as in particular the Council of Lateran under Leo the 10. commands, That none be absolved from Blasphemy without a grievous penance: and to the same purpose julius III. and Pius V have made very severe decrees. Nevertheless it is also true, that greater punishment may in foro externo, be appointed for some sins which are less than other, as S. Thomas doth (w) 1.2. q. 105. ar. 2. ad 9 and, 2.2. q. 39 art. 2. ad 1. truly affirm. Do not yourselves more usually punish such, as without licence eat flesh in Lent, then them who take the Name of God in vain, or abuse themselves by drunkenness, or wrong their Neighbours by detraction? And beside, to eat flesh in Lent may be an act of Heresy, which how grievous a sin it is, hath been explicated heretofore. 10. By occasion of mentioning the Manichees, you charge your Margin, as your fashion is, with a deep piece of erudition, that the name (forsooth) of their founder Manes, is conform to the Greek word, which signifies Madness. But if we delighted is take hold of such goodly occasions of Vanity, we could say, that he was a Persian, and his name was first Cubricus, which he changed into Names, which in the Babylonian Tongue signifies (x) Epiph. haeres. 66. a Vessel. But let us leave these toys to Grammar Scholars. 11. It seems you are willing of set purpose to mistake the point in question, which was; whether the Creed contain all fundamental points of faith or no? about which Charity Mistaken, having instanced in some points of faith not contained in the Creed, as the Scriptures, and Sacraments; he adds these words: Besides that, there are (y) Pag. 86.87. some great differences between them (meaning Protestant's) and us about the understanding of the Article of the descent of Christ our Lord into hell, and that other of the Holy Catholic Church, and that also of the Communion of Saints, which we believe, and they deny to involve both Prayers for the dead, and Prayers to Saints, as that we should not be much better, either for our knowing, or confessing that the Creed contains all fundamental points of Faith, unless withal there were some certain way how to understand them aright, and especially unless under the Article which concerns the holy Catholic Church, they would understand it to be endued with so perfect infallibility, and great Authority, as that it might teach us all the rest. This solid discourse you mangle as you please, still forgetting the promise you made in your Preface to the Reader not to omit any one thing of moment. For you answer not a word to his particular instances of Prayer for the dead; or to Saints; nor to his general exception, that we should not be much better for knowing that the Creed contains all fundamental points of faith, unless withal there were some way of understanding them aright. If you answer, that Prayers for the dead, or to Saints, are not Fundamental points, whether they be denied, or affirmed; then you must grant that you forsook the Church of Rome for things indifferent, and not fundamental one way or other. For these two points, and such as these, were the pretended errors, wherewith you seek to cloak your Schism. To the other you answer; The Church of England (z) Pag. 240. questioneth not the sense of those Articles; She takes them in the old Catholic sense: and the words are so plain, they bear their meaning before them. Why do you answer to these two points of the Catholic Church, and our Saviour's descent into Hell, rather than to the other which Charity-Mistaken doth mention? And in these two of which you take notice, why do you use so much tergiversation? Why do you not plainly, and honestly acquaint us with the meaning of them. If you say, that by the Catholic Church is understood a Church always visible, & not capable of error in fundamental points, many of your chief Brethren will contradict that which you judge to be plain: and your Church of England speaks so generally, Art. 19 of the Church, that, as it is affirmed in the Preface, men of all sorts may take that Article to be for them. And as for the other Article of our Saviour's descent, if it beso plain as it bears the sense before it, how comes Caluin to understand it one way, Brentius another, Beza another, and other Protestants in another, differently from Catholics, with whom nevertheless some other Protestants agree, who teach a Lymbus Patrum, as Lascitius, Oecolampadius, Zwinglius, Peter Martyr, Bullinger, and (a) Vide Brereley tract. 3. Sect. 7. under M. num. 26. Bilson, and we may add D. Pott●er as one different from all the rest, who saith, the sense is plain, and yet he keeps it to himself. 12. But, the Roman Doctors (b) Pag. 2●●. cannot agree among themselves about this Article. Is there any Catholic that denies Lymbus Patrum, or that Christ descended to Hell as it signifies Lymbus? Yes; because, say you, (c) Contr. 3 q. 5. art. 1. Stapleton affirms the Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell, & that there is a Catholic, & an Apostolic Church. Bellarmine (d) 4. D● Christo. cap. 6. & 12. on the contrary is resolute, that the Article of the descent is every where in Scripture: and Thomas grants (e) 2.2. q. 2. art. 9 ad 1. as much for the whole Creed. What is all this to the purpose? It is one thing to disagree in the doctrine of Chists descent, & another, whether that doctrine which they believe be proved out of Scripture, or delivered by the Church out of Unwritten Traditions. Among Protestant's who hold Scripture only to be the Rule of faith, it is all one not to be contained in Scripture & not to be a point of faith; but not so with Catholics, who besides Scripture, believe infallible unwritten Traditions. And whereas you say; Bellarmine is resolute, that the Article of the descent is every where in Scripture, and in Latin Scripturae passim hoc docent: Bellarmine's words are; All men agree that Christ descended into Hell aliquo modo, in some manner or sense, because Scripture every where teaches so much. Why did you leave out aliquo modo, which words might well have showed that there was no contrariety between Bellarmine & Stapleton. S. Thomas doth not purposely dispute, whether all Articles of the Creed be contained in Scripture, but only upon an other occasion teaches, that the Creed is not an Addition to Scripture, out of which it is taken, & that the truths believed by faith are contained in Scripture diverse ways, and in some obscurely; which doth in no wise exclude the Authority of the Church to declare the meaning of the Creed. For if some be contained in Scripture but obscurely, who shall declare them to us, but the Church? 13. As, for the sense of that (f) pag. 240. Article, some hold that Christ descended really into Hell. Others, virtually, and by effect: This virtual descent is taught by one only, namely Durand, and therefore your Others is but an exaggeration; and even he doth not deny Lymbus Patrum, or that the Fathers were there, nor that Christ descended thither in some sort, but only differeth from others, whether he descended secundum substantiam: which doctrine, or rather doubt of his (for he leaveth the thing doubtful) is rejected by all other Divines, as erroneous. 14. By Hell some (g) pag. 240. understand the lowest pit, or the place of the damned, as Bellarmine at first others the Lymbus Patrum, as Bellarmine at last. Would not one conceive by your words, that in the opinion of Bellarmine, Christ descended only into the place of the dammned? And yet your conscience cannot but tell you, that Bellarmine never doubted, but that Christ descended into Lymbus Patrum, and only proposed it as doubtful whether or no he descended into the Hell of the damned, and resolved probabile est: It is probable that the soul of Christ descended to all the infernal places, or Hells. But afterward in his Recognitions he retracted his opinions for as much as concerned the place of the damned; whereby it is clear, that he never doubted of our Saviour's descent to Lymbus; and that you affirming the contrary, do without doubt, desire to deceive your Reader. 15. You say, that it is the most important (h) pag. 242. and most fundamental of all Articles in the Church to believe, that jesus Christ the Son of God, & the Son of Mary, is the only Saviour of the world: wherein you give a deadly blow to D. Morton, who teaches that the Arians denying our Saviour to be God, do notwithstanding make a true Church: and if the opinion of M. Hooker for which you bring diverse Arguments, be true, you cannot exclude the Arians, or Trinitarians from being members of a true Church. 16. To clear the confusedness of your Church in her 39 Articles, you lay the fault upon us. But by your leave, if you read, either Catholic Divines, or the Council of Trent, you will find, that they speak most clearly and distinctly. But Charity Mistaken doth truly say, that you are very careful not to be too clearly understood; and therefore in many Controversies whereof that Book (of the 39 Articles) speaks, it comes not at all to the main question between them and us etc. Which affirmation of his, is most true, both in the points by him specified, & in diverse others; as for example: The third of our Saviour's descent into Hell. The 26. of the Nature and effect of Sacraments. The 27. will have the Baptism of Children to be retained, but doth not specify whether or no it be necessary. The 28. about the Lords Supper, is so general, and of so large a size, that it may reach to Zwinglians, Caluinists, & Lutherans, who yet in this Article are known to be as fare asunder from each other, as East from West. I omit other Articles, and only urge that which Charity Mistaken presseth, and you wholly dissemble, that: Those Articles do not so much as say, that the Articles of doctrine which they deliver are fundamental, either all, or half, or any one thereof, or that they are necessarily to be believed by them, or the contrary damnable if it be believed by us. Is this to keep your promise, not to omit without answer any thing of moment in all his discourse? Certainly this which Charity Mistaken doth urge here, is according to your principles, the very quintessence of all other points. I will not stand to examine how truly you affirm, that our Will is essentially free from all necessity. Such motions of our Will as prevent the deliberation of reason, are they not necessary? The Will in good Philosophy cannot suffer coaction, but it may be necessitated, without changing the essence thereof. 17. To the demand of Charity Mistaken; (Why do they not particularly enumerate all the Books which they acknowledge to be of the New Testament, as they had done them of the Old; but only because they must so have named those Books of S. james, and others for Canonical, which the Lutherans have cast out of their Canon?) You answer that the Lutherans do now admit the Epistle of S. james, and the rest, as Canonical: which you prove by D. Gerhard a Lutheran. But if this be so, you do not answer his Question, what the reason is, why your Church doth not particularly enumerate all the Books which they acknowledge to be of the New Testament, as she had done them of the old? Besides, what Authority had D. Gerhard to speak for all the Lutherans, of which there be diverse sorts, condemning one another? If once you deny the infallibility of the Church, what infallible ground hath D. Gerhard this day to admit of those Books, which yesterday other Lutherans rejected? In the Bibles of Luther to this day, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of S. james, and S. jude, and the Apocalyps of S. john, are excluded from the Canon. 18. Now that none of those Books which we hold for Canonical, be Apocryphal, as you teach, Bellarmine (m) De verbo Dei l. 1. per multa çapita proves at large, and answers all your objections. And if any heretofore doubted of some of them, the Authority of the Visible Catholic Church of Christ ought to preponderate all doubts of particular persons. And it is strange that you cite S. Augustine against the Maccabees, who in that very place which you cite, saith: The Scripture (n) Cont. ep. Gaudent. lib. 2. ç. 23. of the Maccabees is received by the Church not unprofitably, if it be read and heard soberly: which latter words are understood only against desperate inferences of the Donatists, who upon the example of Razias in the History of the Maccabees did kill and precipitate themselves; as is clear by his other ensuing words in the same place. We ought not then to approve by our consent, all things which we read in the Scriptures to have been done by men, even adorned with praises by the testimony of God himself, but to mingle our consideration with discretion, bringing discretion with us, not grounded upon our own Authority, but upon the Authority of the holy and divine Scriptures, which permit not us to praise or imitate all the actions even of those, of whom the Scripture gives good, and glorious Testimony, if they have done any thing, that hath not been well done, or that agreeth not with the consent of the present time. In which words we see S. Augustine calls the Books of the Maccabees, Scriptures, even as afterward he calls Canonical Books in general, Divine, and holy Scriptures; and that the Sobriety of Circumspection, which he adviseth to be observed, in reading them, is not, how far they be true or false, but whether the example of Razias recounted by them, is to be imitated more or less. What you allege out of S. Gregory (o) Moral. lib. 19 ç. 17. is easily answered: For he doth not call the Maccabees, not Canonical, as if he would exclude them from the number of true, and divine Scriptures, but because they were not in the Canon of the jews, or in that which he had at hand when he wrote his first draught of his Commentaries upon job, For he was at that time the Pope's Nuntius, or Legate at Constantinople, and the Greek Rhapsody of African Canons had untruly put out of the Canon the two Books of the Maccabees, though they were received in Africa as Canonical, by the decree of the African Council. And therefore you were ill advised, under colour of commending Pope Gregory, (but indeed the more to impugn us by his authority) to write Greg: M. or Magnus, the Great, whereas he was not Pope, but only Deacon, when he first wrote those Commentaries upon job. 19 You cite S. Hierome praefat. in lib. Salom. The Church reads the Books of judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but she doth not receive them among Canonical writings. But S. Hieromes words are these: As the Church reads Tobias, judith, and the Maccabees, but receives them not among the Canonical Books; so may she read Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, for the edification of the people, but not for the confirmation of Ecclesiastical doctrines. Thus S. Hierome. And you had reason to cite his words by halves: For he afterward retracted what he said of the Books of judith, and Tobias (with which the Maccabees are yet joined in the words cited by you) saying in his Preface upon the History of judith: The Book of judith is read by the Hebrews among the Hagiographs, whose authority is esteemed less sufficient to decide Controversies: but for as much as the Council of Nice hath reckoned it among the holy Scriptures, I have obeyed your request. Where you see that S. Hierome affirms, that the most ancient, and grave Council of Nice, received the Book of judith in that sense, in which the jews did not receive it; & consequently as a Book esteemed sufficient to decide Controversies, which the jews denied. And in another place the same Father saith: Ruth, Hester, and judith have been (q) Ep. 140. so glorious, as they have given their names into the sacred Volumes. Where you see that S. Hierome placeth judith with Ruth and Hester, the former whereof you admit for Canonical, and part of the latter. In his Preface upon the Book of Tobias, he saith: The Hebrews (r) Ep. 100 cut off the Book of Tobias from the Catalogue of the divine Scriptures. And again: The jealousy of the jews, doth accuse us, that against their Canon we translate the Book of Tobias into Latin: but I judge it better to displease the judgement of the Pharisees, and to obey the Commandment of the Bishops. And elsewhere he placeth (t) In Jsa. c. 23. the Maccabees among Canonical Books, saying: The Scripture reports that Alexander king of the Macedonians came out of the land of Cethim. And wonder not if S. Hierome spoke not always in the same manner of the Canon of the Old Testament, since upon experience, examination, and knowledge of the sense of the Church he might alter his Opinion; as once he said of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that it (u) Ad Panlinum. was put out of the number by the greatest part of men: and yet elsewhere he receives it (w) Ep. ad Dardanum. as the Epistle of S. Paul. And if you will have a general explication of S. Hierome concerning his rejecting of Books, not admitted by the Hebrews, hear it in his own words: Whereas I have reported (x) Ad●. Russ. Apolog. 2. what the Hebrews used to object against the History of Susanna, and the Hymn of the three Children, and the Story of the Dragon Bell, which are in the Hebrew; I have not declared what I thought, but what the jews were wont to say against us. And he calls Ruffinus a foolish Sycophant for charging him with the opinion of the Hebrews about these parts of Daniel. And S. Hierome explaining himself in this manner, is acknowledged by (y) Answer to Burges. pag. 87. Covell, and (z) Conference before his Majesty. Bankeroft. How then will you excuse your Church, which in her sixth Article saith in general of all the Books which you esteem Apocryphal, among which are the History of Susanna, the Hymn of the three Children, and that of the Dragon: (The other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life, and instruction of manners: but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine?) How can she (I say) be excused, since S. Hierome, even according to the Confession of your own Brethren, doth explain himself, that he uttered only what the jews were wont to say against us; and calls Ruffinus a foolish Sycophant for saying the contrary? So as, instead of S. Hierome, and the Church of God, you put on the person of Ruffinus against S. Hierome, and of the Synagogue against the Church of Christ our Lord; & so your whole Canon of the old Testament relies upon the Authority of the jews. And finally, D. Potter while he grants that Catholics and Protestants disagree about the very Canon of Scripture, forgets to answer what Charity-Mistaken (pag. 43. & 46.) doth thence infer, to wit, that they cannot be accounted of one and the same Religion, Faith, and Church. 20. The Chymericall Church of your (b) Pag. 234. Master, D. Usher, consisting of men agreeing only in fundamental points, is indeed a Chimaera, or non Ens. For it is impossible that there can be a visible Church, which professing fundamental points, doth not in other points either agree with us, or you, or else disagrees from us both. For either they must hold, for example, the Real Presence, Transubstantiati, Prayer for the dead, and to Saints, Worship of Images, Supremacy of the Pope, Sufficiency of one kind for the Laity etc. and then they agree with us: Or else they deny all these points, and so agree with you against us. And this is that pernicious fallacy, whereby you deceive yourself, and others; as if there were a visible Catholic Church, or company of men, holding all fundamental points, and being neither Roman Catholics, nor Lutherans, nor Caluinists &c. nor any other Church in particular; which is a mere impossible fiction. For Faith is not Faith unless it extend to all points sufficiently propounded as divine Truths, the least whereof if any one deny, he gives his Faith a deadly wound, and his seeming Belief of other Articles avails him nothing. To which purpose this saying of S. Augustine is remarkable: If a man grievously wounded (c) De Baptism. count. Donatist. l. 1. c. 8. in some necessary part of his body, be brought to a Physician, and the Physician say, if he be not dressed he will dye, I think they who brought him, will not be so senseless, as to answer the Physician, after they have considered and viewed his other parts which are sound; What, shall not so many sound parts have power to preserve him alive? And shall one wounded part have power to bring him to his death? In vain then do you flatter your selves with a seeming sound belief of the Articles of the Creed, if in the mean time you receive a deadly wound, by opposing any one truth revealed by God, and propounded by the true Catholic Church. For as all the living members of a man's body, are so united in one life, that a deadly blow received immediately but in one, doth necessarily redound to the destruction of all: so all the objects of faith, being united in the same Formal Motive of God's testimony sufficiently propounded to us, the denial or wounding of any one truth, which is vested with that formal Motive, and life of faith, doth inevitably redound to the death, and destruction of all the rest. When by this occasion you cite our late sovereign Lord king james affirming, that (d) Epïst. Casauboni ad Card. Per. ad Obseruat. 3. the things which are simply necessary to be believed, are but few in number; and yet that all things are simply necessary, which the word of God commands us to believe; it had been your duty to explain the contrariety which appears betwixt those two sayings. For since the word of God commands us to believe every Proposition contained in holy Scripture, which are many thousands, how are the things necessary to be believed, but few in number? 21. But now I must put you in mind of not performing your promise, not to omit any one thing of moment. For besides other, you omit to set down what Charity Mistaken writes (e) Pag. 73. about the true sense of the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, which if you had set down as he delivers it, it had clearly appeared, how through your whole Book you had still avoided the true State, and point of the Question. To which purpose you conceal in particular, what he allegeth out of D. Dunne, late Deane of S. Paul's, who having put great strength in the distinction of Fundamental and not Fundamental points, he wipes out with a wet finger the whole substance of his discourse by saying, That (f) Pag. 96. difference in points which are not important is not to prejudice a man's salvation, unless by not believing them he commits a disobedience withal (as certainly every one doth, who denies any least point sufficiently propounded to him, as revealed by God, whosoever that Propounder be:) For (saith he) Obedience indeed (g) Pag. 97. is of the Essence of Religion. The Conclusion. AND thus having in this Second Part answered the particulars in D. Potter's Book, and having proved in the First Part, that this truth, Amongst men of different Religions, one only side can be saved, is so evidently true, as no Christian that understands the terms, can call it in question; in so much as if any will go about to persuade the contrary, we must say with S. Augustine; He doth err (a) De Cinit. Dei. l. 21. cap. 17. so much the more absurdly, and against the true word of God more perversely, by how much he seemeth to himself to judge more charitably: It cannot but appear, how much it importeth every soul, to seek out that one saving Truth, which can be found only in the true Visible Catholic Church of Christ. Wherefore our greatest care must be to find out that one true Church; which we shall be sure not to miss, if our endeavour be not wanting to his grace, who desires that (b) 1. Tim. 2.4. all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the TRUTH. For, the words of the sacred Council of Trent are most true: God commands not (c) Sest. 6. cap. 11. impossible things, but by commanding warns thee both to do what thou art able, & to ask what thou art not able, and helps thee, that thou mayst be able. Let not men therefore flatter, and deceive themselves, that Ignorance will excuse them. For if they want any one thing absolutely necessary to salvation, Ignorance cannot excuse. And there are so many, and so easy, and yet withal so powerful means to find the true Church, that it is a most dangerous, and pernicious error, to rely upon the excuse of invincible Ignorance. And I wish them to consider, that he can least hope for relief by Ignorance, who once confides therein: because his very alleging of Ignorance, showeth that God hath put some thoughts into his mind of seeking the safest way; which if he, relying on God's grace, do carefully and constantly endeavour to examine, discuss, and perfect, he shall not fail to find what he seeks, and to obtain what he asks. Neither will the search prove so hard and intricate, as men imagine. For, as God hath confined salvation within the Communion of his Visible Church; so hath he endued her with so conspicuous Marks of Unity, and agreement in doctrine; Universality for Time, and Place; a never interrupted Succession of Pastors; a perpetual Visibility from the Apostles, to us &c. far beyond any probable pretence that can be made by any other Congregations; that whosoever doth seriously and unpartially weigh these Notes, may easily discern to what Church they belong. But all this diligence must be used with perfect indifferency, and constant resolution to proceed in this affair, which is the most important of all other, as at the hour of their death, and the day of their final account, they would wish to have done: For nothing can counterpoise an Eternity of Felicity, or Misery. Their Prayer will be much helped with Almsdeeds, offered to this intention of obtaining Light of Almighty God, according to that saying of the Prophet Esay: Break thy bread (d) Cap. 58. V 7. ●. to the hungry, and needy, and harbourless; when thou shalt see the naked cover him, & despise not thy flesh. Then shall thy LIGHT break forth as the Morning, and thy Health shall soon arise, and thy justice shall go before thy face, and the Glory of our Lord shall embrace thee. Then shalt thou call, & our Lord will hear: Thou shalt cry, and he will say; Lo, here I am. And so he will not fail to show thee Where he is: Namely, in his own Catholic visible Church. Fasting likewise gives strength and wings to our Prayer: for Prayer is good (e) Tob. 12. ●. with fasting. But nothing is more necessary, then that they root out of their souls, prejudice of Opinion, Fear, Hope, Avarice, Interest, humane Respects, and such either corruptions of nature, or temptations of our Enemy; to which men will the more easily be led to yield, by the desire which they have naturally to lead a life in liberty, and not to adventure the loss of such conveniences & delights, as they are wont to like so well; as also not to incur those disadvantages and afflictions to which a contrary course might make them subject. Some of these things, are excellently pointed at by S. Augustine, when he writes against the Donatist Heretics of his time, which every man ought seriously to consider how fare they may perhaps concern himself. How many (saith he) being (f) Epist. 48● convinced by evidence of truth, did desire to be Catholics, but did defer it from day to day, for fear of offending their friends or kinsfolks? How many were tied, not by truth, wherein they never much confided, but by the heavy chain of obdurate custom? How many did believe the faction of Donatus to be the true Church, because too much assuredness made them drowsy, disdainful, and slothful? To how many did the reports of ill Tongues shut up the way to enter, who said, that we put, I know not what, upon the Altar? How many thinking that it was no matter on what side one were a Christian, did therefore remain among the Donatists, because there they were borne? And afterward: We were frighted to enter, by reason of false reports, which we should not have known to be false unless we had entered, into the Catholic Church (as daily we hear from the mouth of Protestants converted to Catholic Religion.) Others say: We did indeed believe, that it imported nothing, in what Company, we did hold the faith of Christ. But thankes be to our Lord, who hath gathered us from division, and hath showed to us, that it agreeth to one God, that he be worshipped in Unity. FINIS. Faults escaped in the Print. GOod Reader, whereas through the absence of the Author of this Work, and by reason of an uncorrected written Copy sent unto the press, many errors & mistake have happened in the printing, especially having been constrained, through the difficulties of these times, to use the help of strangers, and such as are ignorant in our tongue; It is in all humble manner desired, that (these said Circunstances duly considered) thou wouldst in no wise herein condemn the said Author as accessary heerto, but favourably affoarding thy Censure hereof, and in reading over the Book, to correct them with thy pen, they being here exactly gathered by himself, and set down as followeth. EPistle Dedicatory. Pag. 7. lin. 3. Catholics Corrige Catholic In the Preface. PAg. 2. lin. 26. indifferent Corrige in different Pag. 7. lin. 26. transfered Corrige transferred In the first Part. PAg. 38. lin. 26. one, the other Corrïge one, and the other Pag. 44. lin. 6. contentions Corrige contentious Pag. 45. lin. 29. as there is Corrige as in Job is Pag. 51. lin. 15. affirm knowledge Corrige affirm that our first knowledge Pag. 54. lin. 8. it Corrige is Ibid. lin. 24. then Corrige them Pag. 56. lin. 25. languages. Corrige languages? Pag. 57 lin. 25. Hospinians Corrige Hospinianus Pag. 59 lin. 1. Caerlile corrige Carlisle Pag. 61. lin. 11. No! Corrige No. Pag. 67. lin. 7. seditions corrige seditious Pag. 78. lin. 6. not corrige no Pag. 79. lin. 1. several corrige severally Pag. 89. lin. 16. they holy corrige the holy Pag. 95. lin. 30. deleatur be Pag. 99 lin. 4. saith corrige he saith Pag. 102. lin. 8. Hold corrige hold Pag. 103. lin. 1. Circumcision D. Potter corrige Circumcision D. Potter Pag. 105. lin. 3. errors: But (x) corrige errors (x): But &c. for the letter (x) is not referred to Philaletes, but to the Moderate examination etc. Pag. 111. lin. 2. at corrige it Pag. 113. lin. 9 Text corrige Texts Ibid. lin. 17. or corrige nor Pag. 115. lin. 16. nor. corrige not. Pag. 119. in the Title Chap. 111. corringe Chap. 1111. Pag. 124. lin. 2. beliene corrige believe Pag. 126. lin. 25. their corrige there (for in Latin it is (ibi) not (illorum.) Pag. 135. lin. 17. of few corrige or few Pag. 136. lin. 22. danably corrige damnably Ibid. lin. 26. damnably corrige damnably. I mean, it ought not to be in a different or curciffe letter, because it is not D. Potters word, though it follow out of his doctrine. Pag. 140. lin. 5. before, to avoid corrige before. To avoid Pag. 141. lin. 4. supposes; it doth corrige supposes. It doth Pag. 146. lin. 25. name; confess corrige name; I confess Pag. 147. lin. 19 which corrige with Pag. 149. lin. 10. deleatur we Pag. 155. lin. 11. we was corrige he was Pag. 161. lin. 10. & 26. Napier corrige Napper Ibid. lin. 19 goodly corrige godly Ibid. lin. 29. wilernes corrige wilderness Ibid. lin. 31. Hailbronerus corrige Hailbronnerus Pag. 162. lin. 15. for that corrige that for Pag. lin. 17. conld corrige could Pag. 163. lin. 29. have also corrige have not also Pag. 165. lin. 22. men departed. corrige men to departed. Pag. 174. lin. 5. Christopher Potter, corrige D. Christop. Potter, Pag. 183. lin. 20. at last corrige at lest Pag. 184. lin. 29. your grounds corrige your own grounds Ibid. lin. 30. enough corrige enough The like also pag. 185. lin. 2. 6. 7. 8. enough corrige enough Pag. 185. lin. 9 deleatur not Pag. 187. lin. 6. breach in corrige breach, in Pag. 190. lin. 1. & 2. And D. Potter corr. And yet D. Potter Pag. 193. lin. 7. Reformation: corrige Reformation. Pag. 197. lin. 18. sencelenesse corrige senselessness Pag. 200. lin. 25. manuer corrige manner Pag. 204. lin. 6. after impossible, add, and damnable: Pag. 209. lin. 26. correct the parenthesis this: (What? do you mean that they are his own conceits, and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture?) Pag. 212. lin. 16. the government corrige her government Pag. 215. lin. 18. Augustine's corrige Augustine Pag. 218. lin. 14. deleatur that Pag. 221. lin. 16. God's Church, corrige God's Word, Pag. 225. lin. 24. A godly corrige A goodly Pag. 230. lin. 5. for corrige from Pag. 233. lin. 18. see by a corrige see now by a Pag. 235. lin. 2. summoved corrige summoned Pag. 238. lin. 22. these corrige those Ibid. lin. 24. certainly corrige certainty Pag. 239. lin. 9 from Authority. corrige from divine Authority. Ibid. lin. 20. any heresy corrige an heresy Pag. 246. lin. 18. must impudent corrige most impudent Pag. 248. lin. 1. even corrige ever Ibid. lin. 28. began corrige begun Pag. 251. lin. 25. Our of corrige Out of Pag. 252. lin. 27. writ corrige write Pag. 257. lin. 8. Church, because corrige Church: yet because Pag. 259. lin. 23. Greek Turk corrige Great Turk Pag. 263. lin. 17. the parenthesis should end after the word baptism) Ibid. lin. 19 repeated) so corrige repeated: and so Pag. 264. lin. 8. certifitate corrige certificate Pag. 271. lin. 23. Argumenta corrige Argument Pag. 272. lin. 11. ●hould corrige should Pag. 274. lin. 26. draws corrige drowns Ibid. lin. 31. disbelieved corrige disbelieve Pag. 276. lin. 4. (or as corrige or (as Pag. 279. lin. 7. or corrige nor Pag. 293. lin. 12. reitering corrige reiterating In the title of pag. 294. by error, is put 264. Pag. 298. lin. 25. fundamental corrige fundamentals Pag. 299. lin. 10. truth corrige truths. In the Second Part. PAg. 2. in the tittle Part. 1. Corrige Part. 2. Pag. 9 lin. 6. do, with truth you corrige do with truth, you Pag. 12. lin. 22. the many corrige there are many Pag. 14. lin. 3. Chap. corrige Pag Pag. 19 lin. 27. Priest corrige Priests Pag. 23. lin. 1. & 2. second directly corrige second is directly Pag. 28. lin. 19 deleatur will Ibid. lin. 20. doth corrige do Pag. 33. lin. 26. spirit, as he was who corrige spirit as he was, who Pag. 37. lin. 8. your Text your corrige your Text you Pag. 45. lin. 24. general corrige general Pag. 50. lin. 5. man bound corrige man is bound Pag. 61. lin. 5. in fact corrige of fact Pag. 78. lin. 28. seem corrige seen Pag. 86. lin. 29. ingenious corrige ingenuous Pag. 88 lin. 14. Means corrige Newness Pag. 94. lin. 19 martes corrige matters Pag. 97. lin. 18. it is given deleatur it is Ibid lin. 29. Church wall corrige Church walls Pag. 103. lin. 5. the General deleatur the Ibid. lin. 13. you Book corrige your Book Pag. 141. lin. 7. unwarry corrige unwary Ibid. lin. 17. after us; corrige after us. And blot out all the words following. Neither are the Authors etc. unto the next, and 3. Paragraph, as put in by error. Pag. 105. lin. 26. Doth not corrige Do not Ibid. lin. 28. and for corrige and that for Pag. 109. lin. 3. translated corrige translate Ibid. lin. 30. if you corrige if still you Pag. 111. lin. 14. self corrige itself Pag. 127. lin. 20. deleatur may Pag. 131. lin. 8. he had corrige I had Pag. 143. lin. 16. believe corrige belie Pag. 145. lin. 13. & 14. these words only [James changed the verdict of Peter] should be put in a different letter, as the direct affirmation of Luther. Pag. 162. lin. 2. meaning corrige means Ibid. lin. 5. fallibility corrige infallibility Pag. 168. lin. 19 D. Morton corrige M. Morton Pag. 169. lin. 3. medij, corrige medij) Pag. 171. lin. 4. fundamental, and that corrige fundamental, and not fundamental, and that Pag. 177. lin. 16. Counsels corrige Counsels Pag. 186. lin. 28. Names corrige Manes Pag. 191. lin. 23. D. Morton corrige M. Morton Pag. 197. lin. 20. are in corrige are not in Ibid. lin. 25. S. Hierome corrige S. Hieromes In the Margin. 1. Part. Pag. 12. Rejoinders corrige Rejoinder. Pag. 61. sect. 6. 26. corrige sect. 6. pag. 26. Pag. 157. lib. count. Parmen. corrige lib. 1. cont. Parmen. In the Margin. 2. Part. Pag. 13. Petricon. corrige Petricor. Pag. 92. (c) pag. 93. corrige (c) pag. 92. FINIS.