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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 In the same manner shall be demonstrated , that to alleadge the Creed , as containing all Articles of faith necessary to be explicitely believed , is not pertinent to free from sinne the voluntary deniall of any other point knowen to be defined by Gods Church . And this were sufficient to overthrow all that D. Potter alleadgeth , concerning the Creed : though yet by way of Supererogation , we will prove , that there are divers important matters of Faith which are not mentioned at all in the Creed .

14 From the aforesaid maine principle , that God hath alwaies had , and alwaies will have on earth , a Church Visible , within whose Communion Salvation must be hoped , and infallible , whose definitions we ought to believe ; we will prove , that Luther , Calvin and all other , who continue the division in Communion , or Faith , from that Visible Church , which at , and before Luther's appearance , was spread over the world , cannot be excused from Schisme and Heresy , although they opposed her faith but in one only point ; whereas it is manifest , they dissent from her , in many and weighty matters , concerning as well beliefe , as practise .

15 To these reasons drawne from the vertue of Faith , we will adde one other taken from Charitas propria , the Vertue of Charity , as it obligeth us , not to expose our soule to hazard of perdition , when we can put ourselves in a way much more secure , as we will prove , that of the Roman Catholiques to be .

16 We are then to prove these points . First , that the infallible means to determine controversies in matters of faith , is the visible Church of Christ . Secondly , that the distinction of points fundamentall , and not fundamentall , maketh nothing to our present Question . Thirdly , that to say the Creed containes all fundamentall points of faith , is neither pertinent , nor true . Fourthly , that both Luther , and all they who after him , persist in division from the Communion , and Faith of the Roman Church , cannot be excused from Schisme . Fiftly , nor from Heresy . Sixtly and lastly , that in regard of the precept of Charity towards ones selfe , Protestants be in state of sinne , as long as they remaine divided from the Roman Church . And these six points , shall be severall Arguments for so many ensuing Chapters ,

17 Only I will here observe , that it seemeth very strange , that Protestants should charge us so deeply with Want of Charity , for only teaching , that both they , and we cannot be saved , seeing themselves must affirme the like of whosoever opposeth any least point delivered in Scripture , which they hold to be the sole Rule of Faith . Out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former Inferences passe for good . For , is it not a grievous sinne , to deny any one truth contained in holy Writ ? Is there in such deniall , any distinction betwixt points fundamentall , and not fundamentall , sufficient to excuse from heresy ? Is it not impertinent , to alleadge the Creed containing all fundamentall points of faith , as if believing it alone , we were at liberty to deny all other points of Scripture ? In a word : According to Protestants ; Oppose not Scripture , there is no Errour against faith . Oppose it in any least point , the error ( if Scripture be sufficiently proposed , which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to believe even fundamentall points ) must be damnable . What is this , but to say with us , Of persons contrary in whatsoever point of beliefe , one party only can be saved ? And D. Potter must not take it ill , if Catholiques believe they may be saved in that Religion for which they suffer . And if by occasion of this doctrine , men will still be charging us with Want of Charity , and be resolved to take scandall where none is given ; we must comfort our selves with that grave , and true saying of S. Gregory : If scandall l l S. Greg. Hom. 7. in Ezec. be taken from declaring a truth , it is better to permit scandall , then forsake the truth . But the solid grounds of our Assertion , and the sincerity of our intention in uttering what wee think , yield us confidence , that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of Pope Gelasius to Anastasius the Emperour ; Farre ●e it from the Roman Emperour that he should hold it for a wrong to have truth declared to him ! Let us therefore begin with that Point which is the first that can be controverted betwixt Protestants and us , for as much as concernes the present Question , and is contained in the Argument of the next ensuing Chapter .

THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST CHAPTER . Shewing , that the Adversary grants the Former Question and proposeth a New one : And that there is no reason , why among men of different opinions and Communions , one Side only can be sav'd .

1. TO the first § . Your first onset is very violent . D. Potter is charg'd with malice and indiscretion , for being uncharitable to you , while he is accusing you of uncharitablenesse . Verily a great fault , and folly , if the accusation be just ; if unjust , a great calumnie . Let us see then how you make good your charge . The effect of your discourse , if I mistake not , is this . D. Potter chargeth the Roman Church with many and great errours ; judgeth reconciliation betweene her Doctrine and ours impossible ; and that for them who are convicted in Conscience of her Errors , not to forsake her in them , or to be reconcil'd unto her , is damnable : Therefore if Roman Catholiques be convicted in conscience of the Errours of Protestants , they may and must judge a reconciliation with them damnable , & consequently , to judge so is no more uncharitable in them , then it is in the Doctor to judge as he does . All this I grant ; nor would any Protestant accuse you of want of Charity , if you went no further : if you judg'd the Religion of Protestants damnable to them only who professe it being , convicted in conscience that it is erroneous . For , if a man judge some act of vertue to be a sinne , in him it is a sinne indeed : So you have taught us , p. 19. So if you be convinc'd , or rather , to speake properly , perswaded in conscience that our Religion is erroneous , the profession of it , though in it selfe most true , to you would be damnable . This therefore I subscribe very willingly , and withall , that if you said no more , D. Potter and my selfe should not be to Papists only , but even to Protestants , as uncharitable as you are . For I shall alwaies professe and glory in this uncharitablenesse of judging hypocrisie a damnable sinne . Let Hypocrites then and Dissemblers on both sides passe . It is not towards them , but good Christians ; not to Protestant Professors but Believers that we require your Charity . What think you of those that believe so verily the truth of our Religion , that they are resolv'd to die in it , and if occasion were , to die for it ? What Charity have you for them ? What think yee of those that in the dayes of our Fathers , laid down their lives for it ? are you content that they shall be saved , or doe you hope they may be so ? Will you grant that notwithstanding their Errours , there is good hope they might die with repentance ? and if they did so ▪ certainly they are sav'd . If you will doe so , this Controversie is ended . No man will hereafter charge you with want of Charity . This is as much as either we give you , or expect of you , while you remaine in your Religion . But then you must leave abusing silly people , with telling them ( as your fashion is ) that Protestants confesse Papists may be saved , but Papists confesse not so much of Protestants ; therefore yours is the safer way , and in Wisdome and Charity to our owne soules we are bound to follow it . For granting this , you grant as much hope of salvation to Protestants , as Protestants doe to you . If you will not , but will still affirme , as C. M. does , that Protectants , not dissemblers but believers , without a particular repentance of their Religion cannot be saved : This I say , is a want of Charity , into the society whereof D. Potter cannot bee drawn but with palpable and transparent Sophistrie . For I pray Sir what dependance is there between these Propositions : We that hold Protestant Religion false should be damned if we should professe it , Therefore they also shall be damned , that hold it true ? Iust as if you should conclude , Because hee that doubts is damned if he eat , Therefore he that does not doubt is damn'd also if he eat . And therefore though your Religion to us , or ours to you , if professed against Conscience would be damnable ; yet may it well be uncharitable to define it shall be so , to them that professe either this or that according to Conscience . This recrimination therefore upon D. Potter wherewith you begin , is a plain Fallacie : And I feare your proceedings will be answerable to these beginings !

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

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

1 That whatsoever Protestant wanteth capacity , or having it , wanteth sufficient meanes of instruction to convince his Conscience of the falshood of his own , and the truth of the Roman Religion , by the confession of his most rigid Adversaries , may be saved , notwithstanding any error in his Religion . 2 That nothing hinders but that a Protestant dying a Protestant may dye with contrition for all his sinnes . 3 That , if he doe dye with Contrition , he may and shall be saved .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This meanes is universally infallible ,

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

He that can finde any connection between these Propositions , I belieue will be able to finde good coherence between the deafe Plaintiffe's accusation , in the Greek Epigram , and the deafe Defendants Answer , and the deafe Iudges sentence ; And to contriue them all into a formall Categoricall Syllogisme .

11 Indeed if the matter in agitation were plainely decided , by this infallible meanes of deciding Controversies , and the Parties in variance knew it to be so , and yet would stand out in their dissention ; this were in one of them , direct opposition to the Testimonie of God , and undoubtedly a damnable sinne . But if you take the liberty to suppose what you please , you may very easily conclude what you list . For who is so foolish as to grant you these unreasonable Postulates , that every emergent Controversie of Faith is plainly decided by the means of decision which God hath appointed , and that of the Parties lititigant , one is alwaies such a convicted Recusant as you pretend ! Certainly , if you say so , having no better warrant then you haue , or can haue for it , this is more proper and formall uncharitablenesse , then ever was charg'd upon you . Me thinks , with much more Reason , and much more Charity , you might suppose , that many of these Controversies which are now disputed among Christians ( all which professe themselues lovers of Christ , and truly desirous to knowe his will and doe it ( are either not decidable by that meanes which God hath provided , and so not necessary to be decided : Or if they be , yet not so plainly and evidently , as to oblige all men to hold one way : or Lastly , if decidable , and evidently decided , yet you may hope that the erring part , by reason of some veile before his eyes , some excusable ignorance or unavoidable preiudice , does not see the Question to be decided against him , and so opposes not that which He doth know to be the word of God , but only that which You know to be so , and which hee might know , were he void of prejudice . Which is a fault I confesse , but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often : and not of such a gigantique disposition as you make it , to fly directly upon God Almighty , and to giue him the lye to his face .

12 Ad §. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. In all this long discourse you only tell us what you will doe , but doe nothing . Many Positions there are , but proofes of them you offer none , but reserue them to the Chapters following ; and there in their proper places they shall be examined . The summe of all your Assumpts collected by your selfe , §. 16 is this . That the infallible meanes of determining Controversies , is the visible Church .

That he distinction of points Fundamentall , and not Fundamentall , maketh nothing to the present Question .

That to say the Creed containeth all Fundamentals , is neither pertinent nor true .

That whosoever persist in Division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church are guilty of Schisme and Heresie .

That in regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones selfe , Protestants are in state of sinne , while they remaine divided from the Romane Church .

To all these Assertions I will content my selfe for the present to oppose this one , That not one of them all is true . Only I may not omit to tell you , that if the first of them were as true as the Pope himselfe desires it should be , yet the corollary which you deduce from it , would be utterly inconsequent , That whosoever denies any point propos'd by the Church , is iniurious to Gods Divine Maiestie , as if He could deceiue , or be deceived . For though your Church were indeed as Infallible a Propounder of Divine Truths as it pretends to be , yet if it appear'd not to me to be so , I might very well belieue God most true , & your Church most false . As though the Gospell of S. Mathew be the word of God , yet if I neither knew it to be so , nor believed it , I might belieue in God , and yet think that Gospell a Fable . Hereafter therefore I must entreat you to remember , that our being guilty of this impiety , depends not only upon your being , but upon our knowing that you are so . Neither must you argue thus , The Church of Rome is the Infallible Propounder of Divine Verities , therefore he that opposes Her calls Gods Truth in Question : But thus rather ; The Church of Rome is so , and Protestants know it to be so , therefore in opposing her , they impute to God , that either he deceiues them , or is deceived himselfe . For as I may deny something which you upon your knowledge have affirm'd , & yet never disparage your honesty , if I never knew that you affirm'd it : So I may bee undoubtedly certaine of Gods Omniscience , and Veracitie , & yet doubt of something which he hath revealed , provided I doe not knowe , nor belieue that he hath revealed it . So , that though your Church be the appointed witnesse of Gods Revelations yet untill you know , that we know she is so , you cannot without foule calumnie impute to us , That we charge God blasphemously with deceiving , or being deceived . You will say perhaps , That this is directly consequent from our Doctrine , That the Church may erre , which is directed by God in all her proposalls . True , if we knew it to be directed by him , otherwise not ; much lesse if we belieue , and know the contrary . But then if it were consequent from our opinion , haue you so little Charitie as to say , that men are iustly chargeable with all the consequences of their Opinions ; Such Consequences , I mean , as they doe not owne but disclaim , and if there were a necessity of doing either , would much rather forsake their Opinion then imbrace these Consequences ? What opinion is there that draws after it such a train of portentous blasphemies , as that of the Dominicans , by the judgement of the best Writers of your own Order ? And will you say now that the Dominicans are justly chargable with all these blasphemies ? If not , seeing our case ( take it at the worst ) is but the same , why should not your judgement of us be the same ? I appeale to all those Protestants that haue gone over to your side ; whether when they were most averse from it , they did ever deny or doubt of Gods omniscience or Veracitie ; whether they did ever belieue , or were taught , that God did deceiue them or was deceiued himselfe . Nay , I provoke to you your selfe , & desire you to deale truly , & to tell Us whether you doe in your heart belieue , that we doe indeed not belieue the eternall Veracitie of the eternall Verity ? And if you judge so strangely of us , having no better ground for it , then you haue or can haue , wee shall not need any farther proofe of your uncharitablenes towards us , this being the extremity of true uncharitablenesse . If not , then I hope having no other ground but this ( which sure is none at all ) to pronounce us damnable Heretiques , you will cease to doe so ; and hereafter ( as , if your ground be true , you may doe with more truth and Charity ) collect thus , They only erre damnably , who oppose what they know God hath testified , But Protestants sure doe not oppose what they knowe God hath testified , at least we cannot with Charity say they doe , Therefore they either doe not erre damnably , or with charity we cannot say they doe so .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

118 To the place of S. Austin , wherewith this Paragraph is concluded , I shall need giue no other Reply , but onely to desire you to speak like an honest man , and to say , whether it be all one for a man , to allow and disallow in every Scripture what he pleases , which is , either to dash out of Scripture such Texts or such Chapters , because they crosse his opinion● or to say ( which is worse , ) Though they be Scripture they are not true ? Whether I say for a man thus to allow and disallow in Scripture what he pleases , be all one , and no greater fault , then to allow that sense of Scripture which he conceiues to be true and genuine , and deduc'd out of the words , and to disallow the contrary ? For Gods sake , Sr , tell me plainly ; In those Texts of Scripture , which you alleage for the infallibility of your Church , doe not you allow what sens● you think true , and disallow the contrary ? And doe you not this by the direction of your private reason ? If you doe , why doe you condemne it in others ? If you doe not , I pray you tell me what direction you follow ? or whether you follow none at all ? If none at all , this is like drawing Lots , or throwing the Dice for the choice of a Religion . If any other : I beseech you tell me what it is . Perhaps you will say , the Churches Authority ; and that will be to dance finely in a round , thus , To belieue the Churches Infallible Authority , because the Scriptures avouch it ; & to belieue that Scriptures say and mean so , because they are so expounded by the Church . Is not this for a Father to beget his Sonne , and the Sonne to beget his Father ? For a foundation to support the house , and the house to support the foundation ? Would not Campian haue cryed out at it , Ecce quos gyros , quos Maeandros ? And to what end was this going about , when you might as well at first haue concluded the Church infallible because she saies so ; as thus to put in Scripture for a meere stale , and to say , the Church is infallible because the Scripture saies so , and the Scripture meanes so because the Church saies so , which is infallible ? Is it not most evident therefore to every intelligent man , that you are enforced of necessity to doe that your selfe , which so tragically you declaime against in others ? The Church , you say , is infallible ; I am very doubtfull of it : How shall I know it ? The Scripture you say affirmes it , as in the 59. of Esay , My spirit that is in thee , &c. Well I confesse I finde there these words : but I am still doubtfull , whether they be spoken of the Church of Christ : & if they be , whether they mean as you pretend . You say , the Church saies so , which is infallible . Yea but that is the Question , and therefore not to be begg'd but proved . Neither is it so evident as to need no proofe : otherwise why brought you this Text to proue it ? Nor is it of such a strange quality , aboue all other Propositions , as to bee able to proue it selfe . What then remaines but that you say , Reasons drawn out of the Circumstances of the Text , will evince that this is the sense of it . Perhaps they will . But Reasons cannot convince mee , unlesse I judge of them by my Reason ; and for every man or woman to relye on that , in the choice of their Religion , and in the interpreting of Scripture , you say is a horrible absurditie ; and therefore must neither make use of your own in this matter , nor desire mee to make use of it .

119 But Vniversall Tradition ( you say , and so doe I too , ) is of it selfe credible : and that has in all ages taught the Churches infallibility with full consent . If it haue , I am ready to belieue it . But that it has I hope you would not haue me take upon your word : for that were to build my selfe upon the Church , and the Church upon You. Let then the Tradition appeare ; for a secret Tradition is somewhat like a silent Thunder . You will perhaps produce , for the confirmation of it , some sayings of some Fathers , who in every Age taught this Doctrine ; ( as Gualterius in his Chronologie undertakes to doe , but with so ill successe , that I heard an able Man of your Religion professe , that in the first three Centuries , there was not one Authority pertinent : ) but how will you warrant that none of them teach the contrary ? Again , how shall I be assured that the places haue indeed this sense in them ? Seeing there is not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ , that does say in plain termes , The Church of Rome is infallible . What , shall wee belieue your Church that this is their meaning ? But this will be again to goe into the Circle , which made us giddy before ; To proue the Church Infallible because Tradition saies so , Tradition to say so , because the Fathers say so , The Fathers to say so , because the Church saies so , which is infallible . Yea , but reason will shew this to be the meaning of them . Yes , if we may use our Reason , and rely upon it . Otherwise , as light shewes nothing to the blinde , or to him that uses not his eyes ; so reason cannot proue any thing to him that either has not , or uses not his reason to judge of them .

120 Thus you haue excluded your selfe from all proofe of your Churches infallibility from Scripture or Tradition . And if you flye lastly to Reason it selfe for succour , may not it justly say to you , as Iephte said to his Brethren , Yee haue cast me out and banished me , and doe you now come to me for succour ? But if there be no certainty in Reason , how shall I be assured of the certainty of those which you alleage for this purpose ? Either I may judge of them , or not : if not , why doe you propose them ? If I may , why doe you say I may not , and make it such a monstrous absurdity , That men in the choyce of their Religion should make use of their Reason ? which yet , without all question , none but unreasonable men can deny , to haue been the chiefest ende why Reason was given them .

122 Ad § 22. An Heretique he is ( saith D. Potter ) who opposeth any truth , which to be a divine revelation he is convinced in conscience by any meanes whatsoever : Be it by a Preacher or Lay-man , be it by reading Scripture , or hearing them read . And from hence you infer , that he makes all these safe propounders of Faith . A most strange and illogicall deduction ! For may not a private man by evident reason convince another man , that such or such a Doctrine is divine revelation , and yet though he be a true propounder in this point , yet propound another thing falsely , and without proofe , and consequently not be a safe propounder in every point ? Your Preachers in their Sermons , do they not propose to men divine Revelations , and doe they not sometimes convince men in conscience , by evident proofe from Scripture , that the things they speak are Divine revelations ? And whosoever , being thus convinc'd , should oppose this Divine revelation , should hee not be an Heretique , according to your own grounds , for calling Gods own Truth into question ? And would you think your selfe well dealt with , if I should collect from hence , that you make every Preacher a safe , that is , an infallible Propounder of Faith ? Be the meanes of Proposall what it will , sufficient or insufficient , worthy of credit , or not worthy , though it were , if it were possible , the barking of a Dog , or the chirping of a Bird , or were it the discourse of the Divell himselfe , yet if I be , I will not say convinc'd , but persuaded , though falsly , that it is a Divine revelation , and shall deny to belieue it , I shall be a formall , though not a materiall Heretique . For he that believes , though falsly any thing to be Divine revelation , & yet will not believe it to be true , must of necessity believe God to be false , which according to your own Doctrine , is the formality of an Heretique .

123 And how it can be any way advantagious to Civill government , that men without warrant from God should usurpe a tyranny over other mens consciences , and prescribe unto them without reason , and sometimes against reason , what they shall believe , you must shew us plainer if you desire we should believe . For to say , Verily I doe not see but that it must be so , is no good demonstration . For whereas you say , that a man may be a passionate & seditious creature , from whence you would have us inferre , that he may make use of his interpretation to satisfie his passion , and raise sedition : There were some colour in this consequence , if we ( as you doe ) made private men infallible interpreters for others ; for then indeed they might lead Disciples after them , and use them as instruments for their vile purposes : But when we say they can only interpret for themselves , what harme they can doe by their passionate or seditious interpretations , but only endanger both their temporall and eternall happinesse , I cannot imagine . For though we deny the Pope or Church of Rome to be an infallible Iudge , yet we doe not deny , but that there are Iudges which may proceed with certainty enough against all seditious Persons , such as draw men to disobedience either against Church or State , as well as against Rebells , and Traytors , and Theeves , and Murderers .

124 Ad § 23. The next § in the begining argues thus : For many ages there was no Scripture in the World : and for many more , there was none in many places of the world : yet men wanted not then and then some certain direction what to believe : Therefore there was then an infallible Iudge . Iust as if I should say , Yorke is not my way from Oxford to London , therefore Bristol is : Or a dogge is not a horse , therefore he is a man . As if God had no other waies of revealing himselfe to men , but only by Scripture and an infallible Church . S. Chrysostome and Isidorus Pelusiota conceaved he might use other meanes . And S. Paul telleth us that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 might be known by his workes ; and that they had the Law written in their hearts . Either of these waies might make some faithfull men without either necessity of Scripture or Church .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

163 Ad § . 27. To the place of S. Austin alleaged in this paragraph . I Answer . First that in many things you will not bee tried by S. Augustines judgement , nor submit to his authority ; not concerning Appeals to Rome , not concerning Transubstantiation , not touching the use and worshiping of Images , not concerning the State of Saints soules before the day of judgement , not touching the Virgin Maries freedome from actuall and originall sinne , not touching the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants , not touching the damning Infants to hell that dye without Baptisme , not touching the knowledge of Saints departed , not touching Purgatory , not touching the fallibility of Councells , even generall Councells , not touching perfection and perspicuity of Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation , not touching Auricular Confession , not touching the halfe Communion , not touching Prayers in an unknown tongue ; In these things , I say , you will not stand to S. Austines judgement , and therefore can with no reason or equity require us to doe so in this matter . 2. To S. Augustine in heat of disputation against the Donatists , and ransacking all places for arguments against them , we oppose S. Austine out of this heat , delivering the doctrine of Christianity calmely , and mode rately ; where he saies , In iis quae apertè posita sunt in sacris Scripturis , omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent ●idem , mores'que vivendi . 3 Wee say , he speaks not of the Roman but the Catholique Church , of farre greater extent , and therefore of farre greater credit and authority then the Roman Church . 4 He speaks of a point not expressed , but yet not contradicted by Scripture ; whereas the errors we charge you with , are contradicted by Scripture . 5 He saies not that Christ has recommended the Church to us for an Infallible definer of all emergent controversies , but for a credible witnesse of Ancient Tradition . Whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the practise of the Church ( understand of all places and ages ) though he be thought to resist our Saviour , what is that to us , who cast off no practises of the Church , but such as are evidently post-nate to the time of the Apostles , and plainly contrary to the practise of former and purer times . Lastly it is evident , and even to impudence it selfe undeniable , that upon this ground , of beleiving all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ , Error was held , for example , the necessity of the Eucharist for infants , and that in S. Austines time , and that by S. Austine himselfe : and therefore without controversy this is no certain ground for truth , which may support falshood as well as truth .

164 To the Argument wherewith you conclude , I Answere , That though the visible Church shall alwaies without faile propose so much of Gods revelation , as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven , for otherwise it will not be the visible Church , yet it may sometimes adde to this revelation things superfluous , nay hurtfull , nay in themselves damnable , though not unpardonable ; and sometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable , and therefore it is possible , without si●ne , to resist in some things the Visible Church of Christ . But you presse us farther , and demand , what visible Church was extant , when Luther began , whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church ? As if it must of necessity either be Protestant or Roman , or Roman of necessity , if it were not Protestant ! yet this is the most usuall fallacy of all your disputers , by some specious Arguments to perswade weak men that the Church of Protestants cannot be the true Church ; and thence to inferre , that without doubt it must be the Roman . But why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it , and the Grecian another ? And if one must be the whole , why not the Greek Church , as well as the Roman ? there being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your own ; unlesse it be , that she is poor , and oppressed by the Turk , and you are in glory and splendor .

165 Neither is it so easy to be determined as you pretend , That Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole visible Church in matters of Faith , neither is it so evident that the Visible Church may not fall into such a state wherein she may be justly opposed . And lastly for calling the distinction of points into Fundamentall and not Fundamentall , an evasion , I believe you will find it easier to call it so , then to prove it so . But that shall be the issue of the Controversy in the next Chapter .

CHAP. III. That the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall , is neither pertinent , nor true in our present Controversie . And that the Catholike Visible Church cannot erre , in either kinde of the said points .

THIS distinction is abused by Protestants to many purposes of theirs , and therefore if it be either untrue or impertinent ( as they understand , and apply it ) the whole edifice built thereon , must be ruinous and false . For if you object their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith , without any means of agreement ; they instantly tell you ( as Charity mistaken plainly shewes ) that they differ only in p●ints not fundamentall . If you convince them , even by their own Confessions , that the ancient Fathers taught divers points held by the Roman Church against Protestants ; they reply , that those Fathers may neverthelesse be saved , because those errours were not fundamentall . If you will them to remember , that Christ must alwaies haue a visible Church on earth , with administration of Sacraments , and succession of Pa●stors , and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman , whose Communion and doctrine , Luther then for●ook , and for that cause must be guilty of Schisme and Herosie ; they haue an Answer ( such as it is ) that the Catholike Church cannot perish , yet may erre in points not fundamentall , and therefore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors , under paine of Damnation ; as if ( forsooth ) it were Damnable , to hold an error not Fundamentall , nor Damnable . If you wonder how they can teach , that both Catholiques , and Protestants may be saved in their severall professions ; they salve this contradiction , by saying , that we both agree in all fundamentall points of faith , which is enough for salvation . And yet , which is prodigiously strange , they could never be induced to give a Catalogue what points in particular be fundamentall , but only by some generall description , or by referring us to the Apostles Creed , without determining , what points therein be fundamentall , or not fundamentall for the matter ; and in what sense , they be , or be not such : and yet concerning the meaning of divers points contained , or reduced to the Creed , they differ both from us , and among themselves . And indeed , it being impossible for them to exhibit any such Catalogue , the said distinction of points , although it were pertinent , and true , cannot serve them to any purpose , but still they must remaine uncertaine , whether or not they disagree from one another ; from the ancient Fathers ; and from the Catholique Church , in points fundamentall : which is to say , they have no certainty , whether they enjoy the substance of Christian Faith , without which they cannot hope to be saved . But of this more heerafter .

2 And to the end , that what shall be said concerning this distinction , may be better understood , wee are to observe ; that there be two precepts , which concerne the vertue of faith , or our obligation to believe divine truths . The one is by Divines called Affirmative , whereby we are obliged to have a positive explicite belief of some chief Articles of Christian faith . The other is ●ermed Negative , which strictly binds us not not to disbelieve , that is , not to believe the contrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our understanding , as revealed , or spoken by Almighty God . The said Affirmative Precept ( according to the nature of such commands ) injoynes some act to be performed , but not at all times , nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons , in respect of all objects to be believed . For objects ; we grant that some are more necessary to be explicitely , and severall believed then other : either because they are in themselves more great , and weighty ; or els in regard they instruct us in some necessary Christian duty towards God , our selves , or our Neighbour , For persons ; no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more then others , by reason of their office , vocation , capacity or the like . For times ; we are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of faith , but according as severall occasions permit , or require . The second kind of precept called Negative , doth ( according to the nature of all such commands ) oblige universally , all persons , in respect of all objects ; and at all times ; se●per & pro semper , as Divines speak . This generall doctrine will be more cleere by examples ▪ I am not obliged to be alwaies helping my Neighbour , because the Affirmative precept of Charity , bindeth only in some particular cases : But I am alwaies bound by a Negative precept , never to doe him any hurt , or wrong . I am not alwaies bound to utter what I know to be true : yet I am obliged , never to speak any one least untruth , against my knowledge . And ( to come to our present purpose ) there is no Affirmative precept , commanding us to be at all times actually believing any one , or all Articles of faith : But we are obliged , never to exercise any act against any one truth , known to be revealed . All sorts of persons are not bound explicitely , and distinctly to know all things testified by God either in Scripture , or otherwise : but every one is obliged , not to believe the contrary of any one point , known to be testified by God . For that were in fact to affirme , that God could be deceived , or would deceive , which were to overthrow the whole certainty of our faith , wherein the thing most principall , is not the point which we believe , which Divines call the Materiall Object , but the chiefest is the Motive for which we believe , to wit , Almighty Gods infallible revelation , or authority , which they terme the Formall Object of our faith . In two senses therefore , and with a double relation , points of faith may be called fundamentall , and necessary to salvation , The one is taken with reference to the Affirmative Precept , when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and believe them explicitely and severally . In this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith , which D. Potter a a Pag. 209. to no purpose laboureth to prove against his Adversary , who in expresse words doth grant and explicate b b Charity Mistaken cap. 8. Pag● 75. it . But the Doctor thought good to dissemble the matter , and not to say one pertinent word in defence of his distinction , as it was impugned by Charity Mistaken , and as it is wont to be applied by Protestants . The other sense , according to which , points of faith may be called Fundamentall , and necessary to salvation , with reference to the Negative precept of faith , is such , that we cannot without grievous sinne , and forfeiture of salvation , disbelieve any one point , sufficiently propounded , as revealed by Almighty God . And in this sense we avouch , that there is no distinction in points of faith , as if to reject some must bee damnable , and to reject others , equally proposed as Gods word , might stand with salvation . Yea the obligation of the Negative precept is farre more strict , then is that of the Affirmative , which God freely imposed , and may freely release . But it is impossible , that he can dispense , or give leave to disbelieue , or deny what he affirmeth : & in this sense , sin & damnation are more inseparable from error in points not fundamentall , then from ignorance in Articles fundamentall . All this I shew by an example , which I wish to be particularly noted for the present , and for divers other occasions hereafter . The Creed of the Apostles containes divers fundamentall points of faith , as the Deity , Trinity of Persons , Incarnation , Passion , and Resurrection of our Saviour Christ &c. It containes also some points , for their matter , and nature in themselves not fundamentall ; as under what Iudge our Saviour suffered , that he was buried , the circumstance of the time of his Resurrection the third day &c. But yet neverthelesse , whosoever once knowes that these points are contained in the Apostles Creed , the deniall of them is damnable , and is in that sense a fundamentall error ; and this is the precise point of the present question .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 Besides , from the fallibility of Christs Catholique Church in some points , it followeth , that no true Protestant earned , or unlearned , doth or can with assurance believe the universall Church in any one point of doctrine . Not in points of lesser moment , which they call not fundamentall ; because they believe that in such points she may erre . Not in fundamentalls ; because they must know what points be fundamentall , before they goe to learn of her , least otherwise they be rather deluded , then instructed ; in regard that her certain , and infallible direction extends only to points fundamentall . Now , if before they addresse themselves to the Church , they must know what points are fundamentall , they learn not of her , but will be as fit to teach , as to be taught by her : How then are all Christians so often , so seriously , upon so dreadfull menaces , by Fathers , Scriptures , and our blessed Saviour himselfe , counselled and commanded to seeke , to hear , to obey the Church ? S. Austine was of a very different mind from Protestants : If ( saith he ) the s s Epist. 118. Church through the whole world practise any of these things , to dispute whether that ought to be so done , is a most insolent madnesse . And in another place he saith , That which t t Lib. 4. de . Bapt. c. 24. the whole Church holds , and is not ordained by Councels , but hath alwaies been kept , is most rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolicall authority . The same holy Father teacheth , that the custome of baptizing children cannot be proved by Scripture alone , and yet that it is to be believed , as derived from the Apostles . The custome of our Mother the u u Lib. 10. de Gene ●i ad liter . cap. 23. Church ( saith he ) in baptizing infants i● in no wise to be contemned , nor to be accounted superfluous , nor is it at all to be believed . unlesse it were an Apostolicall Tradition , And elsewhere . Christ w w Serm. 14. de verbis Apost. c. 18. is of profit to Children baptized ; Is he therefore of profit to persons not believing ? But God forbid , that I should say infants doe not believe . I have already said , he believes in another , who finned in another . It is said , be believes , and it is of force , and he is reckoned among the faithfull that are baptized . This the authority of our Mother the Church hath ; against this strength , against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in pieces . To this argument the Protestants in the Conference at Ratishon , gaue this round answer : Nos ab Augustino x x See Protocoll . Mon●●ch . edit. 2. p. 307. hac in parte libere dissentimas . In this we plainly disagree from Augustine . Now if this doctrine of baptizing Infants be not fundamentall in D. Potters sense , then according to S. Augustine , the infallibility of the Church extends to points not fundamentall . But if on the other side it be a fundamentall point ; then according to the same holy Doctour , we must rely on the authority of the Church , for some fundamentall point , not contained in Scripture , but delivered by Tradition . The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not rebaptizing of those who were baptized by Heretiques , whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner . Wee follow y y Lib. 1. cont. Crescon . cap. 32. & 34. indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of Canonicall all Scriptures . But how ? Consider his words : Although verily there be brought no example for this point out of the Canonicall Scriptures , yet even in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by us , while we doe that , which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend , that so , because the holy Scripture cannot deceaue us , whosoever is afraid to be deceaved by the obscurity of this question , must haue recourse to the same Church concerning it , which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate to us . Among many other points in the aforesaid words , we are to obserue , that according to this holy Father , when we prove some points not particularly contained in Scripture , by the authority of the Church , even in that case we ought not to be said to belieue such points without Scripture , because Scripture it selfe recommends the Church ; and therefore relying on her we relye on Scripture , without danger of being deceaved by the obscurity of any question defined by the Church . And elsewhere he faithi Seeing this is z z De ●nit . Eccles. c. 19. written in no Scripture , we must belieue the testimony of the Church , which Christ declareth to speak the truth . But it seemes D. Potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not rebaptizing such as were baptized by Heretiques , is no necessary point of faith , nor the contrary an heresie : wherein he contradicteth S. Augustine , from whom we haue now heard , that what the Church teacheth , is truly said to be taught by Scripture ; and consequently to deny this particular point , delivered by the Church , is to oppose Scripture it selfe . Yet if he will needs hold , that this point is not fundamentall , we must conclude out of S. Augustine , ( as we did concerning the baptizing of Children ) that the infallibility of the Church reacheth to points not fundamentall . The same Father in another place , concerning this very question of the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretiques , saith : The a a De Bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this , but this Custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their tradition , as there are many things that the universall Church observeth which are therefore with good reason believed to haue been commanded by the Apostles , although they be not written . No lesse cleer is S. Chrysoslome for the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church . For treating these words ( 2. Thess. 2. Stand , & hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether by speech or by Epistle ) saith : Hence it is b b Hom. 4. manifest that they delivered not all things by letter , but many things also without writing , and these also are worthy of beliefe . Let us therefore account the tradition of the Church to be worthy of beliefe . It is a Tradition : Seek no more . Which words are so plainly against Protestants , that Whitaker is as plaine with S. Chrysostome , saying : I answer c c De Sacra Script . p. 678. that this is an inconsiderate speech , and unworthy so great a Father . But let us conclude with S. Augustine , that the Church cannot approue any errour against faith , or good manners . The Church ( saith he ) being d d ●p. 119. Placed between much chaffe and cockle , doth tollerate many things ; but yet she doth not approue , nor dissemble , nor doe those things which are against faith , or good life .

17 And as I haue proved that Protestants , according to their grounds , cannot yeeld infallibls assent to the Church in any one point : so by the same reason I prove , that they cannot rely upon Scripture it selfe in any one point of faith . Not in points of lesser moment ( or not fundamentall ) because in such points the Catholique Church , ( according to D. Potter ) and much more any Protestant may erre , and thinke it is contained in Scripture , when it is not . Not in points fundamentall , because they must first know what points be fundamentall , before they can bee assured . that they cannot erre in understanding the Scripture , and consequently independantly of Scripture , they must foreknow all fundamentall points of faith : and therefore they doe not indeed rely upon Scripture , either for fundamentall , or not fundamentall points .

18 Besides , I mainly urge D. Potter , and other Protestants , that they tell us of certain points which they call fundamentall , and we cannot wrest from them a list in particular of such points , without which no man can tell whether or no he erre in points fundamentall , and be capable of salvation . And which is most lamentable , insteed of giving us such a Catalogue , they fall to wrangle among themselves about the making of it .

19 Calvin holds the e e Instit. l. 4. Cap. 2 , Popes Primacy , Invocation of Saints , Free will , and such like , to bee fundamentall errours overthrowing the Gospell . Others are not of his minde , as Melancthou who saith , in f f Cent. Ep. Theol. ep. 74. the opinion of himselfe , and other his Brethren , That the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is of use , or profit to this end , that Consent of Doctrine may be retained . An agreement therefore may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Primacy , if other Articles could be agreed upon . If the Popes Primacy be a meanes , that consent of Doctrine may be retained , first submit to it , and other articles will be easily agreed upon . Luther also saith of the Popes Primacy , it may be borne g g In Assertionib . art. 36 , withall . And why then , O Luther , did you not beare with it ? And how can you , and your followers be excused from damnable Schisme , who chose rather to devide Gods Church , then to beare with that , which you confesse may be borne withall ? But let us goe forward . That the doctrine of freewill , Prayer for the dead , worshipping of Images , Wo●ship and Invocation of Saints , Reall presence , Transubstantiation , Receaving under one kinde , Satisfaction , and Ment of works , and the Masse , be not fundamentall Errours , is taught ( respective ) by divers Protestants carefully alleaged in the Protestants h h Tract. 1. c. 2. Sect. 14. after F. Apologie , &c. as namely by Perkins , Cartwright , Frith , Fulle , Spark , Goade , Luther , Reynolds , Whitaker , Tindall , Franci Iohnson , with others . Contrary to these , is the Confession of the Christian faith , so called by Protestants , which I mentioned i i Cap. 1. v. 4. heretofore , wherein we are damned unto unquenchable fire , for the doctrine of Masse , Prayer to Saints , and for the dead , Freewill , Presence at Idol-service , Mans merit , with such like . Iustification by faith alone is by some Protestants affirmed to be the soule of the k k Chark in the Tower disputation , the 4. daies conference . Church : The only principall origen of l l Fox Act. & Mon p. 402. Salvation : of all other points of m m The Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Consessions pag. 253. doctrine the chiefest and weightiest . Which yet , as we haue seen , is contrary to other Protestants , who teach that me● of good works is not a fundamentall Errour ; yea , divers Protestants defend merit of good works , as may bee seen in n n Tract . 3. Sect. 7. vnder m. n. 15. Breereley . One would think that the Kings Supremacy , for which some blessed men lost their lives was once among Protestants held for a Capitall point ; but now D. Andrewes late of Winchester in his book against Bellarmime tells us , that it is sufficient to reckon it among true Doctrines , And Wo●ton denies that Protestants o o In his answer to a Popish pamphlet p. 68 hold the Kings Supremacy to be an essentiall point of faith . O freedome of the new Gospell ! Hold with Catholiques , the Pope ; or with Protestants , the King ; or with Puritanes , neither Pope , nor King , to be Head of the Church , all is one , you may be saved . Some , as Castalio , p p Vid. Gul. Reginald . Calv. Turcis . lib. ● . c. 6. and the whole Sect of the Academicall Protestants , hold , that doctrines about the Supper , Baptisme , the state and office of Christ , how he is one with his Father , the Trinity , Predestination , and divers other such questions are not necessary to Salvation . And ( that you may observe how ungrounded , and partiall their Assertions be ) Perkins teacheth , that the Reall presence of our Saviours Body in the Sacrament , as it is believed by Catholiques , is a fundamentall errour ; and yet affirmeth the Consubstantiation of Lutherans not to be such , notwithstanding that divers chiefe Lutherans , to their Consubstantiation joyne the prodigious Heresie of Vbiquitation . D. Vsher in his Sermon of the Vnity of the Catholique faith , grants Salvation to the Aethiopians , who yet with Christian Baptisme joyne Circumcision . D. Potter q q Pag. 113. 114. Motton in his Treatise of the kingdome of Israel . p. 94. cites the doctrine of some , whom he termeth men of great learning and judgement : that , all who professe to loue and honour IESVS CHRIST are in the visible Christian Church , and by Catholiques to be reputed Brethren . One of these men of great learning and judgement , is Thomas Morton , by D. Potter cited in his Margent , whose love and honour to Iesus-Christ , you may perceive , by his saying , that the Churches of Arians ( who denied our Saviour Christ to be God ) are to be accounted the Church of God , b●cause they doe hold the foundation of the Gospell , which is Faith in Iesus-Christ the Sonne of God , and Saviour of the world . And , which is more , it seemeth by these charitable men , that for being a member of the Church it is not necessary to believe one only God . For D. Potter r r Pag. 121. among the arguments to proue Hookers and Mortons opinion , brings this : The people of the ten Tribes after their defection , notwithstanding their grosse corruptions , & Idolatry , remained still a true Church . We may also , as it seemeth by these mens reasoning , deny the Resurrection , and yet be members of the true Chruch . For a learned man ( saith D. Potter s s Pag. 122. in behalfe of Hookers , and Mortons opinion ) was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church , though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurre●tion of our bodies . Deere Saviour ! What times doe we behold ? If one may be a member of the true Church , and yet deny the Trinity of the Persons , the Godhead of our Saviour , the necessity of Baptisme , if we may use Circumcision , and with the worship of God joyne Idolatry , wherein doe we differ from Turks , and Iews ? or rather are we not worse , then eyther of them ? If they who deny our Saviours divinity might be accounted the Church of God , how will they deny that favour to those ancient Heretiques , who denied our Saviours true humanity ? and so the totall deniall of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church . S. Hilary t t Comment. in Mat. c. 16. maketh it of equall necessity for Salvation , that we believe our Saviour to be true God , and true Man , saying : This manner of Confession we are to hold , that we remember him to be the Sonne of God , and the Sonne of Man , because the one without the other , can giue no hope of Salvatio● . And yet D. Potter saith of the aforesaid doctrine of Hooker and Morton : The u u Pag. 123. Reader may be pleased to approue , or reject it , as he shall finde cause . And in another place w w Pag. 253. he sheweth so much good liking of this doctrine , that he explicateth and proveth the Churches perpetuall Visibility by it . And in the second Edition of his book , he is carefull to declare , and illustrate it more at large , then he had done before : howsoever , this sufficiently sheweth , that they haue no certainty , what points be fundamentall . As for the Arians in particular , the Author whom D. Potter cites for a moderate Catholique , but ●s indeed a plain Heretique , or rather Atheist , Lucian like jesting at all Religion , x x A moderate examination &c. c. 1. paulò post initium . placeth Arianisme among fundamentall Errours : But contrarily an English Protestant Divine masked under the name of Irenaeus Philalethes , in a little Book in Latine intituled , Dissertatio de pace & concordia Ecclesiae , endeavoureth to proue , that even the deniall of the blessed Trinity may stand with salvation . Divers Protestants haue taught , that the Roman Church , erreth in fundamentall points , But D. Potter , and others teach the contrary , which could not happen if they could agree what be fundamentall points . You brand the Donatists with the note of an Errour , in the matter y y Pag. 126. and the nature of it properly hereticall ; because they taught that the Church remained only with them , in the part of Donat●● , And yet many Protestants are so farre from holding that Doctrine to be a fundamentall errour , that themselves goe further , and say ; that for divers ages before Luther there was no ●rue Visible Church at all . It is then too too apparent , that you haue no agreement in specifying , what be fundamentall points ; neither haue you any meanes to determine what they be ; for if you have any such meanes , why doe you not agree ? You tell us , the Creed containes all points fundamentall● which although it were true , yet you see it serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge , & agreement in such points . And no wonder . For ( besides what I haue said already in the begining of this Chapter , and am to deliver more at large in the next ) after so much labour and spent paper to prove that the Creed containes all fundamentall points , you conclude : It remaines a a Pag. 241. very probable , that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths , whereof consists the V●●ty of faith , and of the Catholique Church . Very probable ? Then , according to all good Logick , the contrary may remain very probable , and so all remain as full of uncertainty , as before . The whole Rule , say you , & the sole Iudge of your faith , must be Scripture . Scripture doth indeed deliver divine Truths , but seldome doth qualify them , or declare whether they be , or be not , absolutely necessary to salvation . You fall b b P. 215. heavy upon Charity Mistaken , because he demands a particular Catalogue of fundamentall points , which yet you are obliged in conscience to doe , if you be able . For without such a Catalogue , no man can be assured whether or no , he haue faith sufficient to Salvation . And therefore take it not in ill part , if we againe and againe demand such a Catalogue . And that you may see we proceed fairely , I will performe , on our behalfe , what we request of you , and doe here deliver a Catalogue , wherein are comprized all points by us taught to be necessary to Salvation , in these words . We are obliged , under paine of damnation , to believe whatsoever the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth , as revealed by Almighty God . If any be of another minde , all Catholiques denounce him to be no Catholique . But enough of this . And I go forward with the Infallibility of the Church in all points .

20 For , euen out of your own doctrine , that the Church cannot erre in points necessary to salvation , any wise man will inferre , that it behoves all , who haue care of their soules , not to forsake her in any one point . 1. Because they are assured , that although her doctrine proved not to be true in some point , yet even according to D. Potter , the errour cannot be fundamentall , nor destructiue of faith , and salvation : neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring ( if it were possible ) with the universall Church . Secondly , since she is , under paine of eternall damnation , to be believed , and obeyed in some things , wherein confessedly she is endued with infallibilitie ; I cannot in wisedome suspect her credit in matters of lesse moment . For who would trust another in matters of highest consequence , and be affraid to rely on him in things of lesse moment ? Thirdly , since ( as I said ) we are undoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest , or fundamentall points , and that there is no Rule to know precisely what , and how many those fundamentall points be ; I cannot without hazard of my soule , leaue her in any one point , least perhaps that point , or points wherein I forsake her , proue indeed to be fundamentall , and necessary to salvation . Fourthly , that visible Church which cannot erre in points fundamentall , doth without distinction propound all her Definitions concerning matters of faith to be believed under Anathema's or Curses , esteeming all those who resist , to be deservedly cast out of her Communion , and holding it a point necessary to salvation , that we believe she cannot erre : wherein if she speak true , then to deny any one point in particular , which she defineth , or to affirm in generall , that she may erre , puts a man into state of damnation . Whereas to belieue her in such points as are not necessary to salvation , cannot endanger salvation ; and likewise to remain in her Communion , can bring no great harme , because she cannot maintain any damnable errour , or practise : but to be divided from her ( she being Christs Catholique Church ) is most certainly damnable . Fifthly , the true Church , being in lawfull , and certain possession of Superiority and Power , to command and require Obedience , from all Christians in some things ; I cannot without grievous sinne withdraw my obedience in any one , unlesse I evidently know , that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth . And who can better inform me , how far God's Church can proceed , then Gods Church her selfe ? Or to what Doctour can the Children and Schollers , with greater reason , and more security , fly for direction , then to the Mother , and appointed Teacher of all Christians ? In following her , I shall sooner be excused , then incleaving to any particular S●ct , or Person , teaching , or applying Scriptures against her doctrine , or interpretation . Sixtly , the fearfull examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the Church upon pretence of her errors , haue failed , even in fundamentall points , and suffered shipwrack of their Salvation , ought to deter all Christians , from opposing her in any one doctrine , or practises as ( to omit other , both ancient and modern heresies ) we see that divers chiefe Protestants , pretending to reform the corruptions of the Church , are come to affirm , that for many Ages she erred to death , and wholy perished ; which D. Potter , cannot deny to be a fundamentall Errour against that Article of our Creed , I believe the Catholique Church , as he a●●irmeth it of the Donatists , because they confined the universall Church within Africa , or some other smal tract of soile . Least therefore I may fall into some fundamentall errour , it is most safe for me to belieue all the Decrees of that Church , which cannot err● fundamentally : especially if we adde ; That according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines , one errour in faith , whether it be for the matter it selfe , great or small , d●stroies faith , as is shewed in Charity Mistaken ; and consequently to accuse the Church of any one Errour , is to affirm , that she lost all faith , and erred damnably : which very saying is damnable , because it leaues Christ no visible Church on earth .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 Ad § . 3. I said purposely ( known by himselfe , and belieues himselfe ) For as , without any disparagement of a mans honesty , I may believe something to be false , which he affirmes , of his certain knowledge to be true , provided I neither know nor believe that he has so affirmed : So without any the least dishonour to Gods eternall never-failing veracity , I may doubt of , or deny some truth revealed by him , if I neither know nor believe it to be revealed by him .

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

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

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

Therefore they impute falshood to God , and erre Fundamentally .

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

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

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

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

21 You say , Not erring in points Fundamentall , is not sufficient for the preservation of the Church ; because any Errour maintained by it against Gods revelation is destructive . I answer . If you mean against Gods Revelation known by the Church to be so , it is true ; but impossible that the Church should doe so , for ipso Facto in doing it , it were a Church no longer . But if you mean against some Revelation , which the Church by errour thinks to bee no Revelation , it is false . The Church may ignorantly disbelieue such a Revelation , and yet continue a Church ; which thus I proue . That the Gospell was to be preached to all Nations , was a Truth revealed before our Saviours Ascention , in these words , Goe and teach all Nations . Mat. 29. 19. Yet through prejudice or inadvertence , or some other cause , the Church disbelieved it ; as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chap. of the Acts , untill the conversion of Cornelius , and yet was still a Church . Therefore to disbelieue some divine Revelation , not knowing it to be so , is not destructive of salvation , or of the being of the Church . Again , It is a plaine Revelation of God , that a a 1. Cor. 11. 28. the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be administred in both kindes : and b b 1. Cor. 14. 15. 16. 26. that the publique Hymnes and Prayers of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification ; yet these Revelations the Church of Rome not seeing , by reason of the veile before their eyes , their Churches supposed infallibility , I hope the deniall of them shall not be laid to their charge , no otherwise then as building hay and stubble on the Foundations , not overthrowing the Foundation it selfe .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore neither is the Churches Infallibility thus to be limited .

Or thus ;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore there must be a Church Vniversally Infallible .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore they are all comprized in the Creed ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

59 In the rest of your interlude , I cannot but commend one thing in you , that you keep a decorum , and observe very well the Rule given you by the great Master of your Art , — Servetur adimum Qualis ab incepto processerat & sibi constet : One vein of scurrility and dishonesty runs clean through it , from the begining to the end . Your next demand then is , Are all the Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter Fundamentall ? and the Answer , I cannot say so . Which Answer ( though it be true ) D. Potter no where gives it , neither hath he occasion , but you make it for him , to bring in another question ; and that is , How then shall I know , which in particular be , and which be not Fundamentall ? D. Potter would have answered , It is a vain question : believe all , and you shall be sure to believe all that is Fundamentall .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

84 Whereas you say , If we will belieue we haue all in the Creed when we haue not all , it is not the Apostles fault but our own : I tell you plainly , if it be a fault , I know not whose it should be but theirs . For sure it can be no fault in me to follow such Guides whether ●oever they lead me ; Now I say , they haue led me into this perswasion , because they haue given me great reason to belieue it , and none to the contrary . The reason they haue given me to belieue it , is , because it is apparent and confest , they did propose to themselues in composing it , some good end or ends : As that Christians might haue a forme , by which ( for matter of faith ) they might professe themselues Catholiques , So Putean out of Th. Aquinas : That the faithfull might know , what the Christian people is to believe explicitely , So Vincent Filiucius : That being separated into divers parts of the world , they might preach the same thing : And that ▪ that might serve as a mark to distinguish true Christians from Infidels , So Cardinall Richlieu . Now for all these and for any other good intent , I say , it will be plainly uneffectuall , unlesse it contain at least all points of simple beliefe , which are in ordinary course , necessary to be explicitely known by all men . So that if it be fault in me to belieue this , it must be my fault to belieue the Apostles , wise and good men : which I cannot doe if I belieue not this . And therefore what Richardus de sancto Victore sayes of God himselfe , I make no scruple at all to apply to the Apostles , and to say , Si error est quod credo , à vobis deceptus sum : If it be an errour which I belieue , it is you , and my reverend esteem of you and your actions that hath led me into it . For as for your suspition , That we are led into this perswasion , out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own , It is plainly uncharitable . I know no opinion I haue , which I would not as willingly forsake as keep , if I could see sufficient reason to enduce me to believe , that it is the will of God I should forsake it . Neither doe I know any opinion I hold against the Church of Rome , but I haue more evident grounds then this whereupon to build it . For let but these Truths bee granted : That the authority of the Scripture is independent on your Church , & dependent only in respect of us upon universall Tradition ; That Scripture is the only Rule of faith : That all things necessary to salvation are plainly delivered in Scripture : Let I say these most certain and divine Truths be laid for foundations , and let our superstructions bee consequent and coherent to them ; and I am confident Peace would be restored , and Truth maintained against you , though the Apostles Creed were not in the world .

CHAP. V. That Luther , Calvin , their Associates , & all who began , or continue the separation from the externall Communion of the Roman Church , are guilty of the proper , and formall sinne of Schisme .

THE Searcher of all Hearts , is witnesse with how unwilling minds , we Catholiques are drawen to fasten the denomination of Schismatiques , or Heretiques , on them , for whose soules , if they imployed their best blood , they judge that it could not be better spent ! If we rejoyce , that they are contistated at such titles , our joy riseth not from their trouble or griefe , but , as that of the Apostles did , from the fountaine of Charity , because they are cont●●stated to repentance ; that so after unpartiall examination , they finding themselves to be what we say , may by Gods holy grace , begin to dislike , what themselves are . For our part , we must remember that our obligation is , to keep within the meane , betwixt uncharitable bitternesse , and pernicious flattery , not yeelding to worldly respects , nor offending Christian Modesty , but uttering the substance of truth in so Charitable manner , that not so much we , as Truth , and Charity may seeme to speak , according to the wholesome advise of S. Gregory Nazianzen in these divine words : We doe not affect peace with a a Orat. 32. preiudice of the true doctrine , that so we may get a name of being gentle , and mild , and yet we seek to conserue peace , fighting in a lawfull manner , and containing our selves within our compasse , and the rule of Spirit . And of these things my iudgment is , and for my part I prescribe the same law to all that deale with soules , and treat of true doctrine , that neither they exasperate me●s minds by harshnesse , nor make them haughty or insolent , by submission ; but that in the cause of faith they behave themselves prudently , and advisedly , and doe not in either of these things exceed the meane . With whom āgreeth S. Leo saying : It behoveth us in such causes to be b b Epist. 8 ▪ most carefull , that without noise of contentions , both Charity be conserved , and Truth maintained .

2. For better Methode , we will handle these points in order . First we will set downe the nature , and essence , or as I may call it , the Quality of Schisme . In the second place , the greatnesse and grievousnesse , or ( so to tearme it ) the Quantity thereof . For the Nature , or Quality will tell us who may without injury be iudged Schismatiques : and by the greatnesse , or quantity , such as finde themselves guilty thereof , will remaine acquainted with the true state of their soule , and and whether they may conceive any hope of salvation or no. And because Schisme will be found to be a division from the Church , which could not happen , unlesse there were alwaies a visible Church ; we will , Thirdly prove , or rather take it as a point to be granted by all Christians , that in all ages there hath beene such a Visible Congregation of Faithfull People . Fourthly , we will demonstrate , that Luther , Calvin , and the rest , did separate themselves from the Communion of that alwaies visible Church of Christ , and therefore were guilty of Schisme . And fifthly we will make it evident , that the visible true Church of Christ , out of which Luther and his followers departed , was no other but the Roman Church , and consequently that both they , and all others who persist in the same division , are Schismatiques by reason of their separation from the Church of Rome .

3 For the first point touching the Nature , 1. Point . or Quality of Schisme : As the naturall perfection of man consists in his being the Image of God his Creator , by the powers of his soule ; so his supernaturall perfection is placed in fimilitude with God , The nature of Schisme . as his last End and Felicity ; and by having the said spirituall faculties , his Vnderstanding and Will linked to him . His Vnderstanding is united to God by Faith ; his Will , by Charity . The former relies upon his infallible Truth : The latter carrieth us to his infinite Goodnesse . Faith hath a deadly opposite , Heresie . Contrary to the Vnion , or Vnity of Charity , is Separation and Division . Charity is twofold . As it respects God , his Opposite Vice is Hatred against God : as it uniteth us to our Neighbour , his contrary is Seperation or division of affections and will , from our Neighbour . Our Neighbour may be considered , either as one private person hath a single relation to another , or as all concur to make one Company or Congregation , which we call the Church ; and this is the most principall reference and Vnion of one man with another : because the chiefest Vnity is that of the Whole , to which the particular Vnity of Parts is subordinate . This Vnity , or Onenesse ( if so I may call it ) is effected by Charity , uniting all the members of the Church in one Mysticall Body ; contrary to which , is Schisme , from the Greeke word signifying Scissure , or Division . Wherefore vpon the whole matter , wee find that Schisme , as the Angellicall Doctor S. Thomas defines it , is ; A voluntary separation c c 2. 2. q. 39. art ▪ in corp. & ad 3. from the Vnity of that Charity , whereby all the members of the Church are united . From hence he deduceth , that Schisme is a speciall and particular vice , distinct from Heresy , because they are opposite to two different Vertues : Heresy , to Faith : Schisme , to Charity . To which purpose hee fitly alleageth S. Hierome upon these words , ( Tit. 3. ) A man that is an Heretique after the first and second admonition avoide , saying : I conceive that there is this difference betwixt Schisme and Heresy , that Heresy involves some perverse assertion : Schisme for Episcopall dissention doth seperate men from the Church . The same doctrine is delivered by S. Austine in these words : Heretiques d d Lib. 1. de●id . & Symb. cap. 10. and Schismatiques call their Congregations , Churches : but Heretiques corrupt the Faith by believing of God false things : but Schismatiques by wicked divisions breake from fraternall Charity , although they believe what we believe . Therefore the Heretique belongs not to the Church , because she loves God : nor the Schismatique , because she loves her Neighbour . And in another place he saith . It is wont to be demanded e e Quest. Evangel. ex Mat. q. 11. How Schismatiques be distinguished from Heretiques : and this difference is found , that not a divers faith , but the divided Society of Communion doth make Schismatiques . It is then evident that Schisme is different from Heresie . Neverthelesse ( saith S. Thomas f f Vbi supra . as he who is deprived of faith must needs want Charity : so every Heretique is a Schismatique , but not conversively every Schismatique is an Heretique ; though because want of Charity disposes and makes way to the destruction of faith ( according to those words of the Apostle , Which ( a good conscience ) some casting off , have suffered shipwrack in their faith ) Schisme speedily degenerates to Heresy , as S. Hierome after the rebearsed words teacheth , saying : Though Schisme in the beginning may in some sort be understood different from Heresy ; yet there is no Schisme which doth not faigne some heresy to it selfe , that so it may seeme to have departed from the Church upon good reason . Neverthelesse when Schisme proceeds originally from Heresy , Heresy as being in that case the predominant quality in these two peccant humours , giveth the denomination of an Heretique ; as on the other side we are wont , especially in the beginning , or for a while , to call Schismatiques , those men who first began with only Schisme , though in processe of time they fell into some Heresy , and by that meanes are indeed both Schismatiques and Heretiques .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 Let us now come to the fourth , 4. Point . Luthe● and all that follow him are Schismatiques . and chiefest point , which was , to examine whether Luther , ●●lvin , and the rest did not depar● from the externall Communion of Christs visible Church , and by that sepa●ation became g●●lty of Schisme . And that they are properly Schismatiques cleerely followeth from the grounds which we have laid ; concerning the nature of Schisme , which 〈◊〉 in leaving the externall Communion of the visible Church of Christ our Lord : and it is cleere by evidence of fact , that Luther and his followers forsooke the Communion of that Anci●nt Church ▪ For they did not so much as pretend to joyne with any Congregation , which had a being before their time ▪ for they would needs conceive that no visible company was free from errours in doctrine , and corruption in practise : And therefore they opposed the doctrine ; they withdrew their obedience from th● Prel●tes ; they left participation in Sacraments ; they ch●nged the Liturgy of publique service of whatsoever Church then extant . And these things they pre●●nded to doe out of a perswasion , that they were bound ( forsooth ) in conscience so to doe , unlesse they would particip●te with ●rrors , corruptions , and superstitions . We dare not ( saith D. Potter ) communicate a a Pag. 68. with Rome either in her publique Lit●rgy , which is manifestly polluted with grosse superstition &c. or in those corrupt and ungrounded opinions , which she hath added to the Faith of Catholiques . But now 〈◊〉 D. Potter tell me with what visible Church extant before Luther , he would have adventured to communicate in her publique Liturgy and Doctrine , since he durst not communicate with Rome ▪ He will not be able to assigne any , even with any little colour of common sense . If then they departed from all visible Communities professing Christ , it followeth that they also left the Communion of the true visible Church , whichsoever it was , whether that of Rome , or any other ; of which Point I doe not for the present dispute . Yea this the Lutherans doe not only acknowledge , but prove , and brag of . If ( faith a learned Lutheran ) there had 〈◊〉 right b b Georgi●● Milius in Augustan . Confess . art. 7. de Eccles. Pag. 137. ●elievers which went before Luther in his office , there had then been no need of a Lutheran Reformation . Another affirmeth it to be ridiculous , to think that in the time c c Benedict . M●rgenstern . tract . de Eccles. Pag. 145. before Luther ; any had the purity of Doctrine ; and that Luther should receive it from them , and not they from Luther . Another speaketh roundly , and saith it is impudency to say , that many learned men d d Conrad . Schlusselb . in Theolog. Calvinist . lib. ● , fol. 130 ▪ in Germany before Luther , did hold the Doctrine of the Gospell . And I adde : That farre greater impudency , it were to affirme , that Germany did not agree with the rest of Europe , and other Christian Catholique Nations , and consequently , that it is the greatest impudency to deny , that he departed from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church , spread over the whole world , We have heard Calvin saying of Protestants in generall ; We were , even , forced e e Ep. 141. to make a separation from the whole world . And , Luther of himselfe in particular : In the beginning f f In praefat. operum suorum . I was alone . Ergo ( say I , by your good leave ) you were at least a Schismatique , divided from the Ancient , Church , and a member of no new Church . For no sole man can constitute a Church ; and though he could ; yet such a Church could not be , that glorious company , of whose number , greatnesse , and amplitude , so much hath been spoken both in the old Testament , and in the New .

13 D. Potter endeavours to avoid this evident Argument by divers evasions ; but by the confutation , thereof I will ( with Gods holy assistance ) take occasion , even out of his own Answers and grounds , to bring unanswerable reasons to convince them of Schisme .

14 His chief Answer is : That they have not left the Church , but her Corruption .

15 I reply . This answer may be given either by those furious people , who teach that those abuses , and corruptions in the Church were so enormous , that they could not stand with the nature , or being of a true Church of Christ : Or else by those other more calme Protestants , who affirme , that those errors did not destroy the being , but only deforme the beauty of the Church . Against both these sorts of men . I may fitly use that unanswerable Dilemma , which S. Augustine brings against the Donatists in these concluding words : Tell me whether the g g Lib. 2. cont. Epist. Gaudent . c. 7. Church at that time when you say she entertained those who were guilty of all crimes , by the contagion of those sinfull persons ▪ perished , or perished not ? Answere ; whether the Church perished , or perished not ? Make choice of what you think . If then she perished , what Church brought forth D●natus ? ( we may say Luther . ) But if she could not perish ; because so many were incorporated into her ( without Baptisme ( that is , without a second baptisme , or rebaptization , and I may say , without Luthers Reformation ) answer me I pray you , what madnesse did moue the Sect of Don●tus to separate themsel●es from her upon pretence to avoid the Communion of ●ad men . I beseech the Reader to ponder every one of S. Augustines words ; and to consider whether any thing could ha●e been spoken more directly against Luther , and his followers of what sort soever .

16 And now to answer more in particular ; I say to those who reach , that the visible Church of Christ perished for many Ages , that I can easily afford them the cur●esie , to free them from meer Schisme : but all men touched with any spark of zeal to vindicate the wisedome , and Goodnesse of our Saviour from blasphemous injurie , cannot choose but believe and proclaim them to be superlative Arch-heretiques . Neverthelesse , if they will needs haue the honour of Singularity , and desire to be both formall Heretiques , and properly Schismatiques , I will tell them , that while they dream of an invisible Church of men , which agree with them in Faith , they will upon due reflection find themselves to be Schismatiques , from those corporeall Angels , or invisible men ▪ because they held externall Communion with the visible Church of those times , the outward Communion of which visible Church these modern hot-spurs forsaking , were thereby divided from the outward Communion of their hidden Brethren , and so are Separatists from the externall Communion of them , with whom they agree in faith , which is Schisme in the most formall , and proper signification thereof . Moreover according to D. Potter , these boysterous Creatures are properly Schismariques . For , the reason why he thinks himselfe , and such as he is , to be cleared from Schisme , notwithstanding their division from the Roman Church , is because ( according to his Divinity ) the property of h h Pag. 76. Schisme , is ( witnesse the Donatists and Luciferians ) to cut off from the Body of Christ , and the hope of Salvation , the Church from which it separates : But those Protestants of whom we now speak , cut off from the Body of Christ , and the hope of Salvation , the Church from which they separated themselues ; and they doe it directly as the Donatists ( in whom you exemplify ) did , by affirming that the true Church had perished : and therefore they cannot bee cleared from Schisme , if you may be their Iudge . Consider , I pray you , how many prime Protestants both domesticall and forraign , you haue at one blow struck off from hope of Salvation , and condemned to the lowest pit , for the grievous sinne of Schisme . And withall it imports you to consider , tha● you also involve your selfe , and other moderate Protestants in the selfe , same crime and punishment , while you communicate with those , who , according to your own principles , are properly , & formally Schismatiques . For if you held your selfe obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church , by reason of her Errors and Corr●ptions , which yet you confesse were not fundamentall ; shall it not be much more damnable for you , to live in Communion and Confraternity , with those who defend an errour of the fayling of the Church , which in the Donatists you confesse i i Pag. 126. to haue been properly hereticall against the Article of our Creed ; I believe the Church ? And I desire the Reader , here to apply an authority of S. Cyprian ( epist. 76. ) which he shall finde alleaged in the next number . And this may suffice for confutation of the aforesaid Answer , as it might haue relation to the rigid Calvinists .

17 For Confutation of these Protestants , who hold that the Church of Christ had alwaies a being , and cannot erre in points fundamentall , and yet teach , that she may erre in matters of lesse moment , wherein if they forsake her , they would be accounted not to leave the Church , but onely her corruptions ; I must say , that they change the state of our present Question , not distinguishing between internall Faith , and externall Communion , nor between Schisme , and Heresie . This I demonstrate out of D. Potter himselfe ; who in expresse words teacheth , that the promises which our Lord hath made k k Pag. 151. unto his Church for his assistance , are intended not to any particular Persons or Churches , but only to the Church Catholique : and they are to be extended not to every parcel , or particularity of truth , but only to points of Faith , or fundamentall . And afterwards speaking of the Vniversall Church , he s●●th : It 's comfort l l Pag. 155. enough for the Church , that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers , and conserue her on earth against all enemies ; but shee may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour , till she be in heaven . Out of which words I observe , that , according to D. Potter , the selfe same Church , which is the Vniversall Church , remaining the universall true Church of Christ , may fall into errors and corruptions : from whence it clearly followeth that it is impossible to leave the Externall communion of the Church so corrupted , and retain externall communion with the Catholique Church ; since the Church Catholique , and the Church so corrupted is the selfe same one Church , or company of men . And the contrary imagination talkes in a dream , as if the errours and infections of the Catholique Church were not inherent in her , but were separate from her , like to Accidents , without any Subject , or rather indeed , as if they were not Accidents , but Hypostases , or Persons subsisting by themselues . For men cannot be said to liue , in , or out of the Communion of any dead creature , but with Persons , endued with life and reason ; and much lesse can men be said to live in the Communion of Accidents , as errors and corruptions are , and therefore it is an absurd thing to affirm , that Protestants divided themselues from the corruptions of the Church , but not from the Church her selfe , seeing the corruptions of the Church were inherent in the Church . All this is made more cleer , if we consider , that when Luther appeared , there were not two distinct visible true Catholique Churches , holding contrary Doctrines , and divided in externall Communion ; one of the which two Churches did triumph over all errour , and corruption in doctrine and practise ; but the other was stained with both . For to faign this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of histories , which are silent of any such matter . It is against D. Potters own grounds , that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall , which were not true , if you will imagine a certain visible Catholique Church free from errour even in points not fundamentall . It contradicteth the words in which he said , the Church may not hope to triumph over all errour , till she be in heaven , It evacuateth the brag of Protestants , that Luther reformed the whole Church : and lastly it maketh Luther a Schismatique , for leaving the Communion of all visible Churches , seeing ( upon this supposition ) there was a visible Church of Christ free from all corruption , which therefore could not be forsaken without just imputation of Schisme . We must therefore truly affirme , that since there was but one visible Church of Christ , which was truly Catholique , and yet was ( according to Protestants ) stained with corruption ; when Luther left the externall Communion of that corrupted Church , he could not remain in the Communion of the Catholique Church , no more then it is possible to keep company with D. Christopher Potter , and not keep company with the Provost of Queenes Colledge in Oxford , if D. Potter and the Provost be one , and the selfe same man : For so one should be , and not be with him at the same time . This very argument drawne from the Vnity of God's Church , S. Cyprian urgeth to convince , that Novatianus was cut off from the Church in these words : The Church is m m Epist. 76 ▪ ad Mag. One , which being One cannot be both within and without . If she ●e with Novatianus , she was not with Cornelius ; But if she were with Cornelius , who succeeded Fabianus , by lawfull ordination , Novatianus is not in the Church . I purposely here speak only of externall Communion with the Catholique Church . For in this point there is great difference between internall acts of our understanding , and will ; and of externall deeds . Our Vnderstanding and Will , are faculties ( as Philosophers speak ) abstractive , and able to distinguish , and as it were , to part things , though in themselves they be really conjoyned . But reall externall deeds doe take things in grosse as they find them , not separating things which in reality are joyned together . Thus , one may consider and loue a sinner as he is a man , friend , benefactor , or the like ; and at the same time not consider him , nor loue him as he is a sinner ; because these are acts of our Vnderstanding and will , which may respect their objects under some one formality , or consideration , without reference to other things contained in the selfe same objects . But if one should strike , or kill a sinfull man , he will not be excused , by alleaging , that he killed him , not as a man , but as a sinner ; because the selfe same person being a man , and the sinner , the externall act of murder fell joyntly upon the man , and the sinner . And for the same reason one cannot avoid the company of a sinner , and at the same time be really present with that man who is a sinner . And this is our case : and in this our Adversaries are egregiously , & many of them affectedly , mistaken . For one may in some points belieue as the Church believeth , and disagree from her in other . One may loue the truth which she holds , and detest her ( pretended ) corruptions . But it is impossible that a man should really separate himselfe from her externall Communion , as she is corrupted , and be really within the same externall Communion as she is sound ; because she is the selfe same Church which is supposed to be sound in some things , and to erre in others . Now , our question for the present doth concern only this point of externall Communion : because Schisme , as it is distinguished from Heresie , is committed when one divides himselfe from the Externall Communion of that Church with which he agrees in Faith ; Whereas Heresie doth necessarily imply a difference in matter of Faith , and beliefe : and therefore to say , that they left not the visible Church , but her errours , can only excuse them from Heresie ( which sh●ll be tried in the next Chapter ) but not from Schisme , as long as they are really divided from the Externall Communion of the selfe same visible Church , which , notwithstanding those errours wherein they doe in judgement dissent from her , doth still remain the true Catholique Church of Christ ; and therefore while they forsake the corrupted Church , they forsake the Catholique Church . Thus then it remaineth cleer , that their chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the Question ; confoundeth internall acts of the Vnderstanding with externall Deeds ; doth not distinguish between Schisme and Heresie ; and leaues this demonstrated against them : That they divided themselues from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church , because they conceived that she needed Reformation . But whether this pretence of Reformation will acquit them of Schisme , I referre to the unpartiall judges , heretofore n n Numb. 8 ▪ alleaged ; as to S. Irenaeus who plainly saith : They cannot make any so important REFORMATION , as the Evill of the Schisme is pernicious . To S. Denis of Alexandria , saying : Certainly all things should be endured rather then to consent to the division of the Church of God : those Martyrs being no lesse glorious that expose themselues to hinder the dismembring of the Church , then those that suffer rather then they will offer sacrifice to Idols . To S. Augustine , who tells us : That not to heare the Church , is a more grievous thing then if he were striken with the sword , consumed with flames , exposed to wild beasts . And to conclude all in few words , he giveth this generall prescription : There is no just necessity to divide unity , And D. Potter may remember his own words : There neither was s s Pag. 7● ▪ nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ ; no more then from Christ himselfe . But I haue shewed that Luther , and the rest departed from the Church of Christ ( if Christ had any Church upon earth : ) Therefore there could be no just cause ( of Reformation , or what else soever ) to doe as they did ; and therefore they must be contented to be held for Schismatiques .

18 Moreover ; I demand whether those corruptions which moved them to forsake the Communion of the visible Church , were in manners , or doctrine ? Corruption in manners yeelds no sufficient cause to leave the Church , otherwise men must goe not only out of the Church , but out of the world , as the Apostle t t 1. Cor. 5. 10. saith . Our blessed Saviour foretold that there would bee in the Church cares with choice corne , and ●inners with just men . If then Protestants wax zealous , with the Servants to pluck up the weeds , let them first harken to the wisdome of the Master : Let both grow up . And they ought to imitate them , who as S. Augustine saith , tolerate for the good of u u Ep. 162. Vnity , that which they detest for the good of equity . And to whom the more frequent , & foule such scandals are ; by so much the more is the merit of their perseverance in the Communion of the Church , and the Martyrdome of their patience , as the same Saint calls it . If they were offended with the life of some Ecclesiasticall persons , must they therefore deny obedience to their Pastors , and finally break with Gods Church ? The Pastour of Pastours teacheth us another lesson : Vpon the Chaire of Moyses w w Mat. 33. haue sitten the Scribes and Pharisees . All things threfore whatsoever they shall say to you , obserue yee , and doe yee : but according to their works doe yee not . Must people except against lawes , and revolt from Magistrats , because some are negligent , or corrupt in the execution of the same lawes , and performance of their office ? If they intended Reformation of manners , they used a strange means for the achieving of such an end , by denying the necessity of Confession , laughing at aufferity of pennance , condemning the vowes of Chastity , poverty , obedience , breaking fasts , &c. And no lesse unfit were the Men , then the Meanes . I loue not recrimination . But it is well known to how great crimes , Luther , Calvin , Zwinglius , Beza , and other of the prime Reformers were notoriously obnoxious ; as might bee easily demonstrated by the onely transcribing of what others haue delivered upon that subject ; whereby it would appeare , that they were very farre from being any such Apostolicall men as God is wont to use in so great a work . And whereas they were wont , especially in the beginning of their revolt , malitiously to exaggerate the faults of some Clergy men , Erasmus said well ( Epist ad fratres inferior is Germaniae , ) Let the riot , lust , ambition , avarice of Priests and what soever other crimes be gathered together , Heresie a●one doth exceed all this filthy lake of vices . Besides , nothing at all was omitted by the sacred Councell of Trent which might tend to reformation of manners . And finally the vices of others are not hurtfull to any but such as imitate , and consent to them ; according to the saying of S. Augustine : We conserve innocency , not by knowing the ill deeds of men , but by not yeelding consent to such as we know , and by not judging rashly of such faults as we know not . If you answer ; that , not corruption in manners , but the approbation of them , doth yeeld sufficient cause to leaue the Church ; I reply with S. Augustine , that the Church doth ( as the pretended Reformers ought to haue done ) tolerate or beare with scandals and corruptions , but neither doth , nor can approue them . The Church ( saith he ) being placed z z Ep. 116. betwixt much chaffe and cockle , doth beare with many things ; but doth not approue , nor dissemble , nor act those things which are against faith , and good life . But because to approue corruption in manners as lawfull , were an errour against Faith , it belongs to corruption in doctrine , which was the second part of my demand .

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

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

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

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

23 Furthermore , I aske whether it be the Q●antity or Number ; or Quality , and Greatnesse of doctrinall errors that may yeild sufficient cause to relinquish the Churches Communion ? I prove that neither . Not the Quality , which is supposed to be beneath the degree of points fundamentall , or necessary to salvation . Not the Quantity or Number : for the foundation is strong enough to support all such unnec●ssary additions , as you terme them . And if they once weighed so heavy as to overthrow the foundation , they should grow to fundamentall errors , into which your selfe teach the Church cannot fall . Hay and stubble ( say you ) and such g g Pag. 15● ▪ unprofitable st●ff , laid on the roofe , destroies not the house , whilest the main pillars are standing on the foundatio● . And tell us , I pray you , the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated ? I know you cannot doe it ; and therefore being uncertain , whether or no you have cause to leave the Church , you are certainly obliged not to forsake her . Our blessed Saviour hath declared his will , that we forgive a private offender seaventy seaven times , that is , without limitation of quantity of time , or quality of trespasses ; and why then dare you alleadge his command , that you must not pardon his Church for errors , acknowledged to be not fundamentall ? What excuse can you faine to your selves ; who for points not necessary to salvation , have been occasions , causes , and authors of so many mischiefes , as could not but unavoidably accompany so huge a breach , in kingdomes , in commonwealths , in private persons , in publique Magistrates , in body , in soul , in goods , in life , in Church , in the state , by Schismes , by rebellions , by war , by famine , by plague , by bloudshed , by all sorts of imaginable calamities upon the whole face of the earth , wherein as in a map of Desolation , the heavinesse of your crime appeares , under which the world doth pant ?

24 To say for your excuse , that you left not the Church , but her errors , doth not extenuate , but aggravate your sinne . For by this devise , you sow seeds of endles Schismes , and put into the mouth of all Separatists , a ready answere how to avoid the note of Schisme from your Protestant Church of England , or from any other Church whatsoever . They will , I say , answer , as you doe prompt , that your Church may be forsaken , if she fall into errors , though they be not fundamentall : and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errors ; which two grounds being once laid , it will not be hard to infer the consequence , that she may be forsaken .

25 From some other words of D. Potter I likewise prove , that for Errors not fundamentall , the Church ought not to be forsaken , There neither was ( saith he ) nor can be h h Pag. 75. any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ , no more then from Christ himselfe . To depart from a particular Church , and namely from the Church of Rome , in some doctrines and practises , there might be just and necessary cause , though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation . Marke his doctrine , that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ : and yet he teacheth , that the Church of Christ , may erre in points not fundamentall ; Therefore ( say I ) we cannot forsake the Roman Church for points not fundamentall , for then we might also forsake the Church of Christ , which your selfe deny : and I pray you consider , whether you doe not plainly contradict your selfe , while in the words aboue recited , you say there can be no iust cause to forsake the Catholique Church ; and yet that there may be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome , since you grant that the Church of Christ may erre in points not fundamentall : and that the Roman Church hath erred only in such points ; as by and by we shall see more in particular . And thus much be said to disprove their chiefest Answer , that they left not the Church , but her corruptions .

26 Another evasion D. Potter bringeth , to avoid the imputation of Schisme , and it is , because they still acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Member of the body of Christ , and not cut off from the hope of salvation . And this ( saith he ) cleeres us from i i Pag. 76. the imputation of Schisme , whose property it is , to cut off from the Body of Christ , and the hope of salvation , the Church from which it separates .

27 This is an Answere which perhaps you may get some one to approve , if first you can put him out of his wits . For what prodigious doctrines are these ? Those Protestants who believe that the Church erred in points necessary to salvation , and for that cause left her , cannot be excused from damnable Schisme : But others who believed that she had no damnable errors , did very well , yea were obliged to forsake her : and ( which is more miraculous , or rather monstrous ) they did well to forsake her formally and precisely , because they iudged . that she retained all meanes necessary to salvation , I say , because they so iudged , For the very reason for which he acquitteth himselfe , and condemneth those others as Schismatiques , is because he holdeth that the Church which both of them forsooke , is not cut off from the Body of Christ , and the hope of Salvations whereas those other Zelots deny her to be a member of Christs body , or capable of salvation , wherein alone they disagree from D. Potter : for in the effect of separation they agree , only they doe it upon a different motive or reason . were it not a strange excuse , if a man would think to cloak his rebellion , by alledging that he held the person against whom he rebelled to be his lawfull Soveraign ? And yet D. Potter thinks himselfe free from Schisme , because he forsook the Church of Rome , but yet so , as that still he held her to be the true Church , and to have all necessary meanes to Salvation . But I will no further urge this most solemne foppery , and doe much more willingly put all Catholiques in mind , what an unspeakeable comfort it is , that our Adversaries are forced to confesse , that they cannot cleere themselves from Schisme , otherwise then by acknowledging that they doe not , nor cannot cut off from the hope of Salvation our Church . Which is as much as if they should in plain termes say : They must be damned , unlesse we may be saved . Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemne your zealous brethren of Heresy , for denying the Churches perpetuity , but doth not cleere your selfe from Schisme , which consists in being divided from that true Church , with which a man agreeth in all points of faith , as you must professe your selfe to agree with the Church of Rome in all fundamentall Articles . For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation , and so condemne your selfe of Schisme . And lastly even according to this your own definition of Schisme , you cannot cleere your selfe from that crime , unlesse you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own Assertions . For if you doe not cut us off from the Body of Christ , and the hope of Salvation ; how come you to say in another place , that you judge a reconciliation with us to be k k Pag. ●0 . damnable ! That to depart from the Church of Rome , there might be iust and necessary l l Pag. 75. canse ? That , they that have the understanding and meanes to discover their error , and neglect to use them m 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 Schisme , to cut off from the hope of Salvation , the Church from which it separates : how will you cleere your selfe from Schisme , who dare not flatter us with so easy a censure ? and who affirme that a reconciliation with us is damnable ? But the truth is , there is no constancy in your Assertions , by reason of difficulties which presse you on all sides . For , you are loath to affirme cleerely , that we may be saved , least such a grant might be occasion ( as in all reason it ought to be ) of the conversion of Protestants to the Roman Church : And on the other side , if your affirme , that our Church erred in points fundamentall , or necessary to salvation , you knew not how , not where , not among what company of men , to find a perpetuall visible Church of Christ , before Luther : And therefore your best shift is to say , and unsay , as your occasion command . I doe not examine your Assertion , that it is the property of Schisme , to cut off from the Body of Christ , and the hope of Salvation , the Church from which it separates : wherein you are mightily mistaken , as appears by your own example of the Donatists , who were most formall and proper Heretiques , and not Schismatiques , as Schisme is a vice distinct from Heresy . Besides , although the Donatists , and Luciferians ( whom you also alledge ) had been meere Schismatiques , yet it were against all good Logick , from a particular to inferre a generall Rule , to determine what is the property of Schisme .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40 It seemes D. Potters last refuge to excuse himselfe and his Brethren from Schisme , is because they proceeded according to their conscience , dictating an obligation under damnation to forsake the errours maintained by the Church of Rome . His words are : Although we confesse the h 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 erres in many things , a necessity lies upon us , even under pain of damnation , to forsake her in those errors .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

56 And lastly , since the crime of Schisme is so grievous , that according to the doctrine of holy Fathers rehearsed aboue , no multitude of good works , no morall honesty of life , no cruel death endured even for the profession of some Article of faith can excuse any one who is guilty of that sinne from damnation , I leaue it to be considered , whether it be not true Charity to speak as wee believe , and to believe as all Antiquity hath taught us , That whosoever either beginnes , or continues a division for the Roman Church , which we haue proved to be Christs true Militant Church on earth , cannot without effectuall repentance hope to be a member of his Triumphant Church in heaven . And so I conclude with these words of blessed S. Augustine : It is common w w Co●t . Parm. liv . 2. c. 3. to all Heretiques to be unable to see that thing which in the world is the most manifest , and placed in the light of all Nations , out of whose Vnity whatsoever they work , though they seem to doe it with great care and diligence , can no more availe them against the wrath of God , then the Spiders web against the extremity of cold But now it is high time that we treat of the other sort of Division from the Church , which is by Heresie .

THE ANSWER TO THE FIFTH CHAPTER . The separation of Protestants from the Roman Church , being upon iust and necessary causes , is not any way guilty of Schisme .

1 AD § 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. In the seaven first Sections of this Chapter , there be many things said and many things supposed by you which are untrue , & deserue a censure . As ,

2 First , That Schisme could not be a Division from the Church , or that a Division from the Church could not happen , unlesse there alwaies had been and should be a visible Church . Which Assertion is a manifest falshood ; For although there never had been any Church Visible or Invisible before this age , nor should be ever after , yet this could not hinder , but that a Schisme might now be , and be a Division from the present visible Church . As though in France there never had been untill now a lawfull Monarch , nor after him ever should be , yet this hinders not , but that now there might be a Rebellion , and that Rebellion might be an Insurrection against Soveraigne authority .

3 That it is a point to be granted by all Christians , that in all ages there hath been a visible Congregation of faithfull people . Which Proposition howsoever you understand it , is not absolutely certain . But if you mean by Faithfull , ( as it is plain you doe ) free from all errour in faith , then you know all Protestants with one consent affirm it to bee false ; and therefore without proof to take it for granted is to beg the Question .

4 That supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church were guilty of Schisme , it is certainly consequent , that all who persist in this division must be so likewise . Which is not so certaine as you pretend . For they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state Civill or Ecclesiasticall , doe commit a great fault ; whereof notwithanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration , and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former state , when continuance of time hath once setled the present . Thus haue I known some of your own Church , condemn the Low-countrey men who first revolted from the King of Spain , of the sin of Rebellion , yet absolve them from it who now being of your Religion there , are yet faithfull maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the K. of Spaine .

5 Fourthly , That all those which a Christian is to esteeme neighbours doe concurre to make one company , which is the Church . Which is false ; for a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours , who are not members of the true Church .

6 Fiftly , That all the members of the Visible Church , are by charity united into one Mysticall body . Which is manifestly untrue ; for many of them have no Charity .

7 Sixtly , That the Catholique Church , signifies one company of faithfull people , which is repugnant to your own grounds . For you require , not true faith , but only the Profession of it , to make men members of the visible Church .

8 Seaventhly , That every Heretique is a Schismatique . Which you must acknowledge false in those , who though they deny , or doubt of some point professed by your Church , and so are Heretiques ; yet continue still in the Communion of the Church .

9 Eightly , That all the members of the Catholique Church , must of necessity be united in externall Communion . Which though it were much to be desired it were so , yet certainly cannot be perpetually true . For a man unjustly excommunicated , is not in the Churches communion , yet he is still a member of the Church : and divers times it hath happened , as in the case of Chrisostome and Epiphanius , that particular men , and particular Churches , have upon an overvalued difference , either renounced Communion mutually , or one of them separated from the other , and yet both have continued members of the Catholique Church . These things are in those seven Sections , either said or supposed by you untruly , without all shewe , or pretence of proofe . The rest is an impertinent common place , wherein Protestants and the cause in hand , are absolutely unconcern'd . And therefore I passe to the eighth Section .

10 Ad § . 8. Wherein you obtrude upon us , a double Fallacie ; One , in supposing and taking for granted , that whatsoever is affirmed by three Fathers , must be true ; whereas your selves make no scruple of condemning many things of falsehood , which yet are maintained , by more then thrice three Fathers . Another , in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely , which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases . For whereas you say S. Austine . c. 62. l. 2. cont. Parm. infers out of the former premises , That there is no necessity to divide Vnity : to let passe your want of diligence , in quoting the 62. chapter of that Booke , which hath but 23. in it : to passe by also , that these words which are indeed in the 11. Chapt. are not inferred out of any such premises as you pretend , this I say is evident , that he saies not absolutely , that there never is , or can be any necessity to divide Vnity ( which only were for your purpose , ) but only in such a speciall cale , as he there sets down : That is , When good men tolerate bad men , which can doe them no spirituall hurt , to the intent they may not be seperated from those , who are spiritually good : Then ( saith he ) there is no necessity to divide Vnity . Which very words doe cleerely give us to understand , that it may fall out ( as it doth in our case , ) that we cannot keep Vnity with bad men , without spirituall hurt , i. e. without partaking with them in their impieties , and that then there is a necessity to divide Unity from them : I mean , to break off conjunction with them in their impieties . Which that it was S. Austines mind , it is most evident out of the 21. c. of the same book : where to Parmenian demanding , how can a man remain pure , being joyned with those that are corrupted ? He answers , Very true , this is not possible , if he be ioyned with them , that is , if he commit any evill with them , or favour them which doe commit it . But if he doe neither of these , he is not ioyned with them . And presently after , these two things retained , will keep such men pure and uncorrupted ; that is , neither doing ill , nor approving it . And therefore seeing you impose upon all men of your Communion , a necessity of doing or at least approving many things unlawfull , certainly there lies upon us an unavoidable necessity of dividing unity , either with you , or with God ; and whether of these is rather to be done , be ye judges .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 Now to all this , I answer very briefly thus : That you have played the unwise builder , and erected a stately structure upon a false foundation . For whereas you take for granted as an undoubted Truth , That whosoever leave the externall communion of the visible Church , are Schismaticall , I tell you Sir , you presume too much upon us , and would have us grant , that which is the main point in Question . For either you suppose the externall Communion of the Church corrupted , and that there was a necessity for them , that would communicate with this Church , to communicate in her corruptions : Or you suppose her Communion uncorrupted . If the former , and yet will take for granted , that all are Schismatiques , that leave her Communion though it bee corrupted , you beg the Question in your proposition . If the latter , you beg the Question in your supposition , for Protestants , you know , are Peremptory and Vnanimous in the Deniall of both these things : Both that the Communion of the Visible Church , was then uncorrupted ; And that they are truly Schismatiques , who leave the Communion of the Visible Church , if corrupted ; especially , if the case be so ( and Luthers was so ) that they must either leave her Communion , or of necessity Communicate with her in her corruptions . You will say perhaps , that you have already proved it impossible , that the Church , or her Communion should be corrupted . And therefore that they are Schismatiques , who leave the externall Communion of the Visible Church , because she cannot be corrupted . And that hereafter you will prove , that corruptions in the Churches communion , though the belief and profession of them be made the condition of her communion , cannot justify a separation from it : And therefore that they are Schismatiques , who leave the Churches communion though corrupted . I Answer , that I have examined your proofes of the former , & found that a veine of Sophistry runs cleane through them : And for the latter , it is so plain and palpable a falsehood , that I cannot but be confident , whatsoever you bring in proofe of it , will like the Apples of Sodom , fall to Ashes upon the first touch . And this is my first and main exception against your former discourse : that accusing Protestants of a very great and horrible crime , you have proved your accusation only with a fallacy .

26 Another is , that although it were granted Schisme , to leave the externall Communion of the visible Church in what state or case so ever it be , and that Luther & his followers were Schismatiques , for leaving the externall Communion of all visible Churches : yet you faile exceedingly of cleering the other necessary point undertaken by you , That the Roman Church was then the Visible Church . For neither doe Protestants ( as you mistake ) make the true preaching of the word , and due administration of the Sacraments , the notes of the visible Church , but only of a visible Church : now these you know are very different things , the former signifying the Church Catholique , or the whole Church : the Latter a Particular Church , or a part of the Catholique . And therefore suppose out of curtesy , we should grant , what by argument you can never evince , that your Church had these notes , yet would it by no meanes follow , that your Church were the Visible Church , but only a Visible Church : not the whole Catholique , but only a part of it . But then besides , where doth D. Potter acknowledge any such matter as you pretend ? Where doth he say , that you had for the substance the true Preaching of the word , or due Administration of the Sacraments ? Or where does he say , that ( from which you collect this ) you wanted nothing Fundamentall , or necessary to Salvation ? He saies indeed , that though your Errors were in themselves damnable , and full of great impiety , yet he hopes , that those amongst you , who were invincibly ignorant of the truth , might by Gods great mercy , have their errors pardoned , and their soules saved : And this is all he saies , and this you confesse to be all he saies , See c. 1. §. 3. in diverse places of your book : which is no more , then you your selfe doe , and must affirme of Protestants : and yet I believe , you will not suffer us to inferre from hence , that you grant Protestants to have , for the substance , the true preaching of the word , and due administration of the Sacraments , and want nothing fundamentall , or necessary to salvation . And if we should draw this consequence from your concession , certainly we should doe you injury , in regard many things may in themselves , and in ordinary course be necessary to salvation , to those that have meanes to attain them , as your Church generally hath : which yet , by accident , to these which were by some impregnable impediment , debarred of these meanes , may by Gods mercy be made unnecessary .

27 Lastly , whereas you say , that Protestants must either grant that your Church then was the visible Church , or name some other , disagreeing from yours & agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrine , or acknowledge there was no visible Church . It is all one as if ( to use S. Pauls similitude ) the head should say to the foot , either you must grant that I am the whole body , or name some other member that is so , or confesse that there is no body . To which the foot might answer ; I acknowledge there is a body : and yet , that no member beside you is this body : nor yet that you are it , but only a part of it . And in like manner say we . We acknowledge a Church there was , corrupted indeed universally , but yet such a one as we hope by Gods gratious acceptance , was still a Church . We pretend not to name any one Society that was this Church , and yet we see no reason , that can inforce us to confesse that yours was the Church , but only a part of it , and that one of the worst then extant in the World . In vain therefore have you troubled your selfe in proving , that we cannot pretend , that either the Greekes , Waldenses , Wickliffites , Hussites , Muscovites , Armenians , Georgians , Abyssines , were then the Visible Church . For all this dicourse proceeds from a false and vain supposition , and beggs another point in Question between us , which is , that some Church of one denomination and one Communion ( as the Roman , the Greeke &c. ) must be alwaies , exclusively to all other Communions , the whole visible Church . And though perhaps some weak Protestant having this false principle setled in him , that there was to be alwaies some Visible Church of one denomination , pure from all error in doctrine , might be wrought upon , and prevailed with by it , to forsake the Church of Protestants : yet why it should induce him to goe to yours , rather then the Greeke Church , or any other , which pretends to perpetuall succession as well as yours , that I doe not understand ; Vnlesse it be for the reason which Aeneas Syluius gave , why more held the Pope above a Councell , then a Councell above the Pope : which was because Popes did give Bishopricks , and Archbishopricks , but Councells gave none , and therefore suing in Forma Pauperis , were not like to have their cause very well maintained . For put the case , I should grant of meere favour , that there must be alwaies some Church of one Denomination and Communion , free from all errors in doctrine , and that Protestants had not alwaies such a Church : it would follow indeed from thence , that I must not be a Protestant : But that I must be a Papist , certainly it would follow by no better consequence then this ; If you will leave England , you must of necessity goe to Rome . And yet with this wretched fallacy , have I been sometimes abused my selfe , and known many other poore soules seduced , not only from their own Church , and Religion , but unto yours . I beseech God to open the eyes of all that love the truth , that they may not alwaies be held captive , under such miserable delusions .

28 We see then , how unsuccessefull you have been in making good your accusation , with reasons drawn from the nature of the thing , and which may be urged in common against all Protestants . Let us come now to the Arguments of the other kinde , which you build upon D. Potters own words , out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince Protestants of Schisme .

29 But let the understanding Reader , take with him but three or foure short remembrances , and I dare say he shall find them upon examination , not only answerable , but already answered . The memorandums I would commend to him , are these .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45 Ans. But who are they that pretend , they forsooke the Churches corruptions , and not her externall communion ? Some there be that say , they have not left the Church , that is , not ceased to be members of the Church , but only left her corruptions : some , that they have not left the communion , but the corruptions of it ; meaning the internall communion of it , and conjunction with it by faith and obedience : which disagree from the former only in the manner of speaking : for he that is in the Church , is in this kinde of communion with it : and he that is not in this internall communion , is not in the Church . Some perhaps , that they left not your externall communion in all things ; meaning , that they left it not voluntarily being not fugitivi but fugati , as being willing to joyne with you in any act of piety ; Casaubon . i● Ep. ad Card. Perron . but were by you necessitated and constrained to doe so , because you would not suffer them to doe well with you , unlesse they would doe ill with you . Now to doe ill that you may doe well , is against the will of God , which to every good man is a high degree of necessity . But for such Protestants , as pretend that de facto , they forsook your corruptions only and not your externall communion , that is , such as pretend to communicate with you in your confessions and Liturgies , and participation of Sacraments , I cannot but doubt very much , that neither you nor I have ever met with any of this condition . And if perhaps you were led into error , by thinking that to leave the Church , and to leave the externall communion of it , was all one in sense & signification , I hope by this time you are disabus'd , and beginne to understand , that as a man may leave any fashion or custome of a Colledge , and yet remain still a member of the Colledge ; so a man may possibly leave some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe & others , and continue still a member of that Church : Provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the essence of the Church consists . Whereas peradventure this practise may be so involved with the externall communion of this Church , that it may be simply impossible , for him to leave this practise , and not to leave the Churches externall communion .

46 You will reply perhaps , That the difficulty lies as well against those who pretend to forsake the Churches corruptions & not the Church : as against those who say , they forsook the Churches corruptions , and not her externall communion . And that the reason is still the same : because these supposed corruptions , were inherent in the whole Church , and therefore by like reason with the former , could not be forsaken , but if the whole Church were forsaken .

47 Ans. A pretty Sophisme , and very fit to perswade men that it is impossible for them , to forsake any error they hold , or any vice they are subject to , either peculiar to themselves , or in common with others : Because forsooth , they cannot forsake themselves , and Vices and Errors are things inherent in themselves . The deceit lies , in not distinguishing between a Locall and a Morall forsaking of any thing . For as it were an absurdity , fit for the maintainers of Transubstantiation to defend , that a man may Locally and properly depart from the Accidents of a subject , and not from the subject it selfe : So is it also against reason to deny , that a man may ( by an usuall phrase of speech ) forsake any custome , or quality , good or bad , either proper to himself , or common to himselfe with any company , and yet never truly or properly forsake either his company or himselfe . Thus if all the Iesuits in the Society , were given to write Sophistically , yet you might leave this ill custome , and yet not leave your Society . If all the Citizens of a City , were addicted to any vanity , they might either , all , or some of them forsake it , and yet not forsake the city . If all the parts of a mans body were dirty or filthy , nothing hinders but that all or some of them might clense themselves , and yet continue parts of the body . And what reason then in the world is there , if the whole Visible Church were overcome with tares and weeds of superstitions , and corruptions , but that some members of it might reforme themselves , and yet continue still true members of the body of the Church , and not be made no members , but the better by their Reformation ? Certainly it is so obvious & sensible a Truth , that this thing is possible , that no man in his wits , will be perswaded out of it , with all the Quirks and Metaphysicks in the World . Neither is this to say , that a man may keep company with Christopher Potter , and not keep company with the Provost of Q. Colledge : Nor that a man can avoid the company of a sinner , and at the same time , be really present with the man who is the sinner : which we leave to those Protestants of your invention , who are so foolish , as to pretend , that a man , may really separate himselfe from the Churches externall communion , as she is corrupted , and yet continue in that Churches externall Communion , which in this externall Communion is corrupted . But we that say only the whole Church being corrupted , some parts of it might and did reforme themselves , and yet might and did continue parts of the Church , though separated from the externall communion of the other parts , which would not reforme , need not trouble our selves to reconcile any such repugnance . For the case put by you , of keeping D. Potters company , and leaving the company of the Provost of Queens Colledge ; & of leaving a sinners company , and not the mans : are nothing at all like ours . But if you would speak to the point , you must shew , that D. Potter cannot leave being Provost of Q. Colledge , without ceasing to be himselfe : or , that a sinner cannot leave his sinne , without ceasing to be a man : or that he that is part of any society , cannot renounce any Vice of that society , but he must relinquish the society . If you would shew any of these things , then indeed ( I dare promise ) you should find us apt enough to believe , that the particular parts of the visible Church , could not reforme themselves , but they must of necessity become no parts of it . But untill we see this done , you must pardon us , if we choose to believe sense rather then Sophistry .

48 In this Paragraph you bring in the sentence of S. Cyprian , whereto you refer'd us in the former : but why in a controversy of faith , doe you cite any thing , which is confessed on all hands , not to be a rule of faith ? Besides , in my apprehension , this sentence of S. Cyprian , is in this place , and to this purpose , meerely impertinent . S. Cyprians words are , The Church ( he speaks of the particular Church , or Diocesse of Rome ) being one , cannot be within and without : If she be with Novatianus , she was not with Cornelius : But if she were with Cornelius who succeeded Fabianus by lawfull Ordination , Novatianus is not in the Church . And now having related the words , I am only to remember the Reader , that your businesse was to prove it impossible , For a man to forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church , and then to request him to tell me whether , as I said , In nova fert animus , had not been as much to the purpose ?

49 Toward the conclusion of this Section , you number up your Victories , and tell us , That out of your discourse it remaineth cleere , that this our chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the Question : confoundeth internall Acts of the under standing , with externoll deeds : doth not distinguish between Schisme and Heresy , and leaves this demonstrated against us , that they ( Protestants ) divided themselves from the communion of the Visible Catholique Church , because they conceived that she needed Reformation . To which Triumphs , if any reply be needfull , then briefly thus : We doe not change the state of the Question , but you mistake it . For the Question was not whether they might forsake the corruptions of the Church , and continue in her externall communion , which we confesse impossible , because these corruptions were in her communion . But the Question was , whether they might forsake the corruptions of the Church , and not the Church , but continue still the Members of it . And to this Question , there is not in your whole discourse one pertinent syllable .

50 We doe not confound internall Acts of understanding with externall deeds , but acknowledge ( as you would have us ) that we cannot ( as matters now stand ) separate from your corruptions , but we must depart from your Externall communion . For you have so ordered things , that whosoever will Communicate with you at all , must communicate with you , in your corruptions . But it is you that will not perceive the difference , between , being a part of the Church , and being in externall Communion with all the other parts of it : taking for granted , that which is certainly false , that no two men or Churches , divided in externall communion , can be both true parts of the Catholique Church .

51 We are not to learn the difference between Schisme & Heresy , for Heresy we conceive , an obstinate defence of any Errour , against any necessary Article of the Christian faith : And Schisme , a causelesse separation of one part of the Church from another . But this we say , That if we convince you of errors and corruptions , professed and practised in your Communion , then we cannot be Schismatiques , for refusing to joyne with you in the profession of these Errors , and the practise of these corruptions . And therefore you must free your selves from Error , or us from Schisme .

52 Lastly , whereas you say , That you have demonstrated against us , that Protestants divided themselves from the externall communion of the Visible Church , adde , which externall communion was corrupted , and we shall confesse the accusation , and glory in it . But this is not that Quod erat demonstrandum , but that we divided our selves from the Church , that is , made ourselves out-lawes from it , and no members of it . And moreover , in the Reason of your separation from the externall communion of your Church you are mistaken : for it was not so much because she , your Church , as because your Churches externall communion was corrupted , and needed Reformation .

53 That a pretence of Reformation will acquit no man from Schisme , we grant very willingly , and therefore say , that it concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion , even as much as his Salvation is worth , to looke most carefully to it , that the cause of his separation be just and necessary : For unlesse it be necessary , it can very hardly be sufficient . But whether a true Reformation of our selves from Errors , superstitions and impieties , will not justify our separation in these things ; our separation , I say , from them who will not reforme themselves , and as much as in them lies , hinder others from doing so : This is the point you should have spoken to , but have not . As for the sentences of the Fathers to which you referre us , for the determination of this Question , I suppose by what I have said above , the Reader understands , by alleaging them you have gain'd little credit to your cause or person . And that , if they were competent Iudges of this controversy , their sentence is against you much rather then for you .

54 Lastly , whereas you desire D. Potter to remember his own words : There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ , no more then from Christ himselfe , and pretend that you have shewed that Luther did so : The Doctor remembers his words very well , and hath no reason to be ashamed of them . Only he desires you to remember that hereafter you doe not confound , as hitherto you have done , departing from the Church ( i. e. ceasing to be a member of it , ) with departing from the Churches externall communion ; and then he is perswaded it will appeare to you , that against Luther and his followers you have said many things , but shewed nothing .

55 But the Church Vniversall , remaining the Church Vniversall , according to D. Potter may fall into error : And from hence it cleerely followes , that it is impossible to leave the externall communion of the Church so corrupted , and retain externall communion with the Catholique Church . Ans. The reason of this consequence which you say is so cleere , truly I cannot possibly discern ; But the conclusion inferr'd , methinkes is evident of it selfe , and therefore without proofe I grant it . I meane , that it is impossible to leave the externall communion of the Catholique Church corrupted , and to retain externall communion with the Catholique Church . But what use you can make of it , I doe not understand : Vnlesse you will pretend , that to say a man may forsake the Churches corruptions , and not the Church , is all one as to say , he may forsake the Churches externall Communion and not forsake it . If you mean so , sure you mistake the meaning of Protestants when they say , They forsook not the Church but her corruptions ▪ For in saying so , they neither affirme , nor deny that they forsooke the externall communion of the Church , nor speake at all of it : But they mean only , that they ceased not to be still members of the Church , though they ceased to believe and practise some things which the whole Church formerly did believe and practise . And as for the externall Communion of the Visible Church , we have without scruple formerly granted , that Protestants did forsake it , that is , renounce the practise of some observances , in which the whole visible Church before them did communicate . But this we say they did without Schisme , because they had cause to do so , and no man can have cause to be a Schismatique .

56 But your Argument you conceive , will bee more convincing , if we consider that when Luther appeared , there were not two distinct Visible true Churches , one Pure , the other Corrupted , but one Church only . Ans. The ground of this is no way certain , nor here sufficiently proved . For , whereas you say , Histories are silent of any such matter ; I answer , there is no necessity , that you or I should have read all Histories , that may be extant of this matter ; nor that all should be extant that were written , much lesse extant uncorrupted : especially considering your Church , which had lately all power in her hands , hath been so pernitiously industrious , in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her ; nor that all Records should remain which were written ; nor that all should be recorded which was done . Neither secondly , to suppose a Visible Church before Luther , which did not erre , is it to contradict this ground of D. Potters , that the Church may erre . Vnlesse you will have us believe , that May be , and Must be is all one , and that all which may be true , is true : which rule if it were true , then sure all men would be honest , because all men may be so , and you would not make so bad Arguments , unlesse you will pretend you cannot make better . Nor thirdly , is it to contradict these words , The Church may not hope to triumph over all error , till she be in Heaven : For to triumph over error , is to be secure from it , to be out of danger of it , not to be obnoxious to it . Now a Church may be free from error , and yet not secure from it , and consequently in this sense , not triumph over it . Fourthly , whereas you say , it evacuateth the bragge of Protestants , that Luther reformed the whole Church ; perhaps ( though I know not who they be that say so ; ) by a frequent synecdoche , they may mean by the whole , the greatest , and most illustrious part of it , the lustre whereof did much obscure the other , though it were not wholly invisible . Besides , if their bragge be evacuated , ( as you call it ) let it be so , I see no harme will come of it . Lastly whereas you say , that supposing a visible pure Church , Luther must be a Schismatique , who separated from all visible Churches : I tell you , if you will suppose a visible Church extant before and when Luther arose , conformable to him in all points of Doctrine , necessary and profitable , then Luther separated not from this Church , but adjoyned himselfe to it : Not indeed in place , wich was not necessary , not in externall communion which was impossible , but by the Vnion of faith and charity . Vpon these grounds I say , that the ground of this Argument is no way made certaine , yet because it is not manifestly false , I am content to let it passe . And for ought I see , it is very safe for me to doe so : for you build nothing upon it , which I may not fairely grant . For what doe you conclude from hence , but that seeing there was no Visible Church but corrupted , Luther forsaking the externall communion of the corrupted Church , could not but forsake the externall communion of the Catholique Church ? Well , let this also be granted , what will come of it ? What , that Luther must be a Schismatique ? By no meanes : For not every separation , but only a causeles separation from the communion of the Church we maintain to be Schismaticall . Hereunto may be added , that though the whole Church were corrupted , yet properly speaking , it is not true , that Luther & his Followers forsook the whole corrupted Church , or the externall communion of it : But only that he forsook that Part of it which was corrupted , and still would be so , and forsook not , but only reformed another Part , which Part they themselves were , and I suppose you will not goe about to perswade us , that they forsook themselves or their own communion . And if you urge that they joyned themselves to no other part , therefore they separated from the whole : I say it followes not , in as much as themselves were a part of it , and still continued so : and therefore could no more separate from the whole then from themselves . Thus though there were no part of the people of Rome , to whom the Plebeians joyned themselves , when they made their Secession into the Aventine Hill , yet they divided themselves from the Patricians only , and not from the whole people , because themselves were a part of this people , and they divided not from themselves .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

64 But we are to remember , that according to D. Potter the visible Church hath a blessing not to erre in Fundamentalls , in which any private Reformer may faile , therefore there● was no necessity of forsaking the Church , out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more , and even into damnable errors . Ans. The visible Church is free indeed from all errors absolutely destructive and unpardonable , but not from all errour which in it selfe is damnable : not from all which will actually bring damnation upon them , that keep themselves in them , by their own voluntary and avoidable fault . From such errors which are thus damnable D. Potter doth no where say , that the visible Church hath any priviledge or exemption . Nay you your selfe teach , that he plainly teacheth the contrary , and thereupon will allow him to be no more charitable to Papists , then Papists are to Protestants : and yet upon this affected mistake your discourse is founded in almost forty places of your Book . Besides , any private man who truly believes the Scripture , and seriously endeavours to know the will of God , and to doe it , is as secure as the visible Church , more secure then your Church from the danger of erring in fundamentalls : for it is impossible , that any man so qualified should fall into any error which to him will prove damnable . For God requires no more of any man to his Salvation , but his true endeavour to be saved . Lastly , abiding in your Churches Communion is so farre from securing me or any man from damnable error , that if I should abide in it , I am certain I could not be saved . For abide in it I cannot , without professing to believe your entire doctrine true : professe this I cannot , but I must lye perpetually , and exulcerate my conscience . And though your errors were not in themselves damnable , yet to resist the known Truth , and to continue in the profession of known errors and false . hoods , is certainly a capitall sinne , and of great affinity with the sinne which shall never be forgiven .

95 But neither is the Church of Protestants perfectly free from errors and corruptions : so the Doctor confesses p. 69. which he can only excuse , by saying , they are not fundamentall , as likewise those in the Roman Church , are confessed not to be fundamentall . And what man of Iudgement will be a Protestant , since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one ? Ans. And yet you your selfe make large discourses in this very Chapter , to perswade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome , though supposed to have some corruptions . And why I pray , may not a man of judgement continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted , as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted ? Especially when this Church supposed to be corrupted , requires the beliefe and profession of her supposed corruptions , as the condition of her Communion : which this Church confessedly corrupted , doth not . What man of judgement will think it any disparagement , to his judgement to preferre the better , though not simply the best , before that which is starke naught ? To preferre indifferent good health , before a diseased and corrupted state of Body ? To preferre a field not perfectly weeded , before a field that is quite over-runne with weeds and thornes ? And therefore though Protestants have some Errors , yet seeing they are neither so great as yours , nor impos'd with such tyranny , nor maintained with such obstinacy ; he that conceives it any disparagement to his judgement , to change your Communion for theirs , though confessed to have some corruptions , it may well be presum'd that he hath but little judgement . For , as for your pretence that yours are confessed not to be fundamentall , it is an affected mistake , as already I have often told you .

66 Ad § . 22. But D. Potter saies it is comfort enough for the Church , that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers : but she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and error , till she be in heaven . Now if it be comfort enough , to be secur'd from all capitall dangers , which can arise only from error in fundamentall points , Why were not our first Reformers content with enough , but would needs dismember the Church , out of apernitious greedinesse of more then enough ? Ans. I have already shewed sufficiently , how capitall danger may arise from errors , though not fundamentall . I adde now , that what may be enough for men in ignorance , may be to knowing men not enough : according to that of the Gospell , to whom much is given , of him much shall be required : That the same error may be not capitall to those who want meanes of finding the truth , and capitall to others who have meanes , and neglect to use them : That to continue in the profession of error discovered to be so , may be damnable , though the error be not so . These I presume are reasons enough , and enough why the first Reformers might think ; and justly , that not enough for themselves , which yet to some of their Predecessors they hope might be enough . This very Argument was objected to a a S. Cyprian : Ep. 63. In these words , S●quis de antecessoribus nostris , vel ●gnoranteivel simpliciter non hoc observavit , & tenuit quod nos Dominus facere exemplo & Magisterio suo docuit potest simplicitati ejus de indulgentia Domini , venia concedi : nobis verò non potest ignosci , qui nunc à Domino admoniti & instructi sumus . S. Cyprian upon another occasion , and also by the b b Wilfridu● , to Abbat Colman alleaging that he followed the example of his predecessors famous for holinesse ; and famous for miracles , in these words , De Patre vestr● Columba & sequacibus eius , quorum sanctitatem vos ●mitari & regulam ac praecepta caelestibus signis confirmata sequi perhibetis , possum respondere ; Quia multis in judicio dicentibus Domino quòd in nomine eius prophetaverint & daemonia ejecerint , & virtutes multas fecerint , responsurus sit Dominus , quia nunquam eos noverit . Sed absit ut de patribas vestris hoc dicam , quia iustius multo est de incognitis bonum credere quam malum . Vnde & illos Dei famulos & Deo dilectos esse non nego , qui simplicitate rusticâ sed intentione piâ Deum dilexerunt : Neque illis multum obesse Paschae talem reor observantiam , quandiù ●ullus advenerat qui ei● instituti perfectioris deoreta quae sequerentur , ostenderet . Quos uti credo , fi qui tunc ad eos Cathòlicus calculator adveniret , sic eius mo●ita fuisse secuturos , quomodoea quae noverant ac didicerunt Dei mandata , probantu● fuisse secuti . Tu autem & socij ●ui si audita decreta sedis Apostolicae , imo universalis Ecclesiae & haec literis sacris confirmata contemnitis , a●sque ulla dubietate peccatis . British Quartodecimans , to the maintainers of the Doctrine of your Church ; and c c Beda : lib. 3. Eccl. Hist. c. 25. by both this very answer was returned ; and therefore I cannot but hope that for their sakes you will approve it .

67 But if ( as the Doctor saies ) no Church may hope to triumph over all error ti● she be in heaven , then we must either grant , that errors not fundamentall cannot yeeld sufficient cause to forsake the Church , or you must affirme that all Communities may and ought to be forsaken . Answ. The Doctor does not say , that no Church may hope to be free from all error , either pernitious , or any way noxious : But that no Church may hope to be secure from all error simply , for this were indeed truly totriumph over all . But then we say not , that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errors unfundamentall , unlesse it exact withall either a dissimulation of the being noxious ; or a Profession of them against the dictate of conscience , if they be meere errors . This if the Church does ( as certainly yours doth , ) then her communion is to be forsaken , rather then the sinne of hypocrisy to be committed . Whereas to forsake the Churches of Protestants for such errors , there is no necessity , because they erre to themselves , & doe not under pain of Excommunication exact the profession of their errors .

68 But the Church may not be left by reason of sinne , therefore neither by reason of errors not fundamentall : in as much as both sinne and error are impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven . Ans. The reason of the consequence does not appear to mee : But I answer to the Antecedent : Neither for sinne nor errors , ought a Church to be forsaken , if she does not impose and injoyne them : but if she doe , ( as the Roman does , ) then we must forsake men rather then God ; leave the Churches communion rather then commit sinne , or professe known errors , to be divine truths . For the Prophet EZechiel hath assured us , that to say , the Lord hath said so , when the Lord hath not said so , is a great sinne , and a high presumption , be the matter never so small .

69 Ad § . 23. But neither the Quality nor the number of your Churches errors , could warrant our forsaking of it . Not the Quality , because we suppose them not Fundamentall . Not the number , because the foundation is strong enough to support them . Ans. Here againe you vainely suppose , that we conceive your errors in themselves not damnable : Though we hope they are not absolutely unpardonable : but to say they are pardonable , is indeed to suppose them damnable . Secondly , though the errors of your Church did not warrant our departure , yet your Tyrannous imposition of them , would be our sufficient justification . For this laies necessity on us , either to forsake your company , or to professe what we know to be false .

70 Our Blessed Saviour hath declared his will , that we forgive a private offender seventy seven times , that is , without limitation of quantity of time , or quality of Trespasses ; and thou how dare we alleage his command , that we must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not fundamentall ? Ans. He that commands us to pardon our Brother sinning against us so often , will not allow us for his sake to sinne with him , so much as once . He will have us doe any thing but sinne , rather then offend any man . But his will is also , that we offend all the World , rather then sinne in the least matter . And therefore though his will were , and it were in our power ( which yet is false ) to pardon the errors of an erring Church ; yet certainly it is not his will , that we should erre with the Church , or if we doe not , that we should against conscience professe the errors of it .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

96 But they indeavoured to force the society whereof they were parts to be healed and reformed as they were ; and if it refused , they did , when they had power driue them away , even their superiours both Spirituall and Temporall as is notorious . The proofes hereof are wanting and therefore I might deferre my answer untill they were produced ; yet take this before hand : If they did so , then herein , in my opinion , they did amisse ; for I haue learnt from the ancient Fathers of the Church , that nothing is more against Religion then to force Religion , & of S. Paul , the weapons of the Christian warfare are not carnall . And great reason : For humane violence may make men counterfeit , but cannot make them believe , & is therefore fit for nothing but to breed forme without , & Atheisme within . Besides , if this meanes of bringing men to embrace any Religion were generally used ( as if it may be justly used in any place by those that haue power , and think they haue truth , certainly they cannot with reason deny but that it may bee used in every place , by those that haue power as well as they , and think they haue truth as wel as they , ) what could follow but the maintenance perhaps of truth , but perhaps onely of the profession of it in one place , & the oppression of it in a hundred ? What will follow from it but the preservation peradventure of unity , but peradventure only of uniformity in particular States & Churches ; but the immortalizing the greater and more lamentable divisions of Christendome and the world ? And therefore what can follow from it , but perhaps in the judgement of carnall policie , the temporall benefit and tranquillity of temporall States and Kingdomes , but the infinit prejudice , if not the desolation of the kingdome of Christ ? And therefore it well becomes them who haue their portions in this life , who serve no higher State then that of England , or Spain , or France , nor this neither any further then they may serue themselves by it ; who thinke of no other happinesse but the preservation of their own fortunes and tranquillity in this world ; who think of no other meanes to preserve States , but humane power and Machiavillian policie ; and belieue no other Creed but this , Regi aut Civitati imperium habenti nihil iniustum , quod utile ! Such men as these it may become to maintaine by worldly power and violence their State instrument , Religion . For if all be vain and false , ( as in their judgement it is ) the present whatsoever , is better then any , because it is already setled : and alteration of it may draw with it change of States , and the change of State the subversion of their fortune . But they that are indeed servants and lovers of Christ , of truth , of the Church , and of man-kinde , ought with all courage to oppose themselves against it , as a common enemy of all these . They that know there is a King of Kings and Lord of Lords , by whose will and pleasure Kings and Kingdomes stand and fall , they know , that to no King or state any thing can be profitable which is unjust ; and that nothing can be more evidently unjust , then to force weak men by the profession of a religion which they believe not , to loose their owne eternall happinesse , out of a vain and needlesse feare , least they may possibly disturb their temporall quietnesse . There is no danger to any state from any mans opinion ; unlesse it be such an opinion by which disobedience to authority , or impiety is taught or licenc'd , which sort , I confesse may justly be punished as well as other faults ; or unlesse this sanguinary doctrine bee joyn'd with it , that it is lawfull for him by humane violence to enforce others to it . Therefore if Protestants did offer violence to other mens consciences and compell them to embrace their Reformation , I excuse them not : much lesse if they did so to the sacred Persons of Kings , and those that were in authority over them , who ought to be so secur'd from violence , that even their unjust and tyrannous violence , though it may be avoided ( according to that of our Saviour , When they persecute you in one Citty fly into another , ) yet may it not be resisted by opposing violence against it . Protestants therefore that were guilty of this crime are not to be excused , and blessed had they been had they chosen rather to be Martyrs then murderers , and to dye for their religion rather then to fight for it . But of all the men in the world you are the most unfit to accuse them hereof , against whom the soules of the Martyrs from under the Altar cry much lowder then against all their other Persecutors together : Who for these many ages together haue daily sacrificed Hecatombes of innocent Christians , under the name of Heretiques , to your blind zeal and furious superstition . Who teach plainly , that you may propagate your Religion whensoever you haue power by deposing of Kings and invasion of Kingdomes , & think when you kill the adversaries of it , you doe God good service . But for their departing corporally from them , whom mentally they had forsaken : For their forsaking the externall Communion & company of that part of the unreformed part of the Church , in their superstitions & impieties : thus much of your accusation we embrace & glory in it ; And say though some Protestants might offend in the manner or the degree of their separation , yet certainly their separation it selfe was not Schismaticall , but innocent , and not only so , but just and necessary . And as for your obtruding upon D. Potter that he should say , There neither was nor could be iust cause to doe so , no more then to depart from Christ himselfe . I haue shewed divers times already , that you sdeal very injuriously with him , confounding together , Departing from the Church , and Departing from some generall opinions and practises , which did not constitute but vitiate , not make the Church but marre it . For though he saies , that which is most true , that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church , that is , to cease being a member of the Church , no more then to depart from Christ himself , in as much as these are not divers but the same thing , yet he no where denies , but there might be iust and necessary cause to depart from some opinions and practises of your Church , nay of the Catholique Church . And therefore you doe vainly to infer , that Luther and his followers for so doing , were Schismatiques .

97 Ad § 35. I answer in a word , that neither are Optatus his sayings rules of Faith , and therefore not fit to determine Controversies of Faith : And then that Majorinus might well be a Schismatique for departing from Ca cilianus , and the Chayre of Cyprian & Peter without cause , and yet Luther and his followers who departed from the Communion of the Bishop of Rome , and the Bishop of their own Diocesse be none , because they had just and necessary cause of their departure . For otherwise they must haue continued in the profession of known Errours and the practise of manifest corruptions .

98 Ad § 36. In the next Section you tell us , that Christ our Lord gaue S. Peter & his successors authority over his whole Militant Church . And for proof hereof you first referre us to Brerely , citing exactly the places of such cheefe Protestants as haue confessed the antiquity of this point . Where first you fall into the Fallacy which is called Ignoratio elenchi , or mistaking the Question ; for being to proue this point true , you onely prove it ancient . Which , to what purpose is it , when both the parties litigant are agreed that many errors were held by many of the ancient Doctors , much more ancient then any of those who are pretended to be confessed by Protestants to haue held with you in this matter : and when those whom you haue to doe with , and whom it is vain to dispute against but out of Principles received by them , are all peremptory , that though novelty be a certain note of falshood , yet no antiquity lesse then Apostolicall is a certain note of truth ? Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend , that Protestants did confesse the Fathers against them in this point . For the point here issuable is not , whether S. Peter were head of the Church ? Nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church ? Nor whether he had authority over it given him by the Church ? But whether by Divine right , and by Christs appointment he were Head of the Catholique Church ? Now having perused Brerely , I cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with you in this point . And the Reader hath reason to suspect , that you also out of all the Fathers could not finde any one authority pertinent to this purpose : for otherwise you were much to blame , citing so few , to make choice of such as are impertinent . For let the understanding Reader peruse the 55. Epist. of S. Cyprian , with any ordinary attention , out of which you take your first place , and I am confident hee shall finde that he meanes nothing else by the words quoted by you , But that in one particular Church at one time there ought to bee but one Bishop , and that he should be obeyed in all things lawfull : The non-performance whereof was one of the most ordinary causes of heresies against the Faith , and Schisme from the Communion of the Church Vniversall . He shall finde secondly , and that by many convincing Arguments , that though he write to Cornelius Bishop of Rome , yet hee speaks not of him , but of himselfe then Bishop of Carthage , against whom a faction of Schismatiques had then set up another . And therefore here your ingenuitie is to bee commended aboue many of your side : For whereas they ordinarily abuse this place to prove , that in the whole Church there ought to be but one Priest and one Iudge ; you seem somewhat diffident hereof , and thereupon say , that these words plainly condemne Luther , whether he will understand them as spoken of the Vniversall or of every particular Church . But whether they condemne Luther is another Question . The question here is , whether they plainly proue the Popes Supremacy over al other Bishops ? which certainly they are as far from proving , as from proving the supremacy of any other Bishop : seeing it is evident they were intended not of one Bishop over the whole Catholique Church , but of one Bishop in one particular Church .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

107 The eleaventh is , that our first reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain . Which is to say , that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture : which in formall and expresse termes , containes many of these opinions . And the reason of this assertion is very vaine : for though they had not an absolute infallibility promised unto them , yet may they be of some things infallibly certaine . As Euclide sure was not infallible , yet was he certain enough , that twice two were foure , and that every whole was greater then a part of that whole . And so though Calvin & Melancthon were not infallible in all things , yet they might and did know well enough , that your Latine Service was condemned by S. Paule , and that the communion in both kindes was taught by our Saviour . The twelfth and last is this , that your Church was in peaceable possession ( you must mean of her doctrine , and the Professors of it , ) and enjoyed prescription for many ages . For besides , that doctrine is not a thing that may be possessed : And the professors of it were the Church it selfe , and in nature of possessors , ( If we may speak improperly , ) rather then the thing possessed , with whom no man hath reason to be offended , if they think fit to quit their own possession : I say that the possession , which the governors of your Church held for some ages , of the party governed , was not peaceable , but got by fraude , and held by violence .

108 These are the Falshoods which in this answer offer themselves to any attentive Reader , and that which remaines is meere impertinence . As first , that a pretence of conscience will not serve to iustifie separation from being Schismaticall . Which is true : but little to the purpose , seeing it was not an erroneous perswasion , much lesse an Hypocriticall pretence , but a true and well grounded conviction of conscience , which D. Potter alleaged to justifie Protestants from being Schismaticall . And therefore though seditious men in Church and State , may pretend conscience , for a cloak of their rebellion : yet this I hope hinders not , but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience , rather then the unjust commands of his tyrannous Superiours . Otherwise with what colour can you defend either your own refusing the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy ? Or the ancient Martyrs , and Apostles , and Prophets , who oftentimes disobeyed the commands of men in authority , and for their disobedience made no other but this Apologie , Wee must obey God rather then men ? It is therefore most apparent that this answer must be meerly impertinent : seeing it will serve against the Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets , & even against your selues , as well as against Protestants . To as little purpose is your rule out of Lyrinensis against them that followed L●ther , seeing they pretend and are ready to justify , that they forsook not , with the Doctors , the faith , but only the corruption of the Church . As vain altogether is that which follows : That in cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our Superiour , or cast off his obedience , nor publiquely oppose his decrees . From whence it will follow very evidently , that seeing it is not a matter of faith , but a disputed question among you , whether the Oath of Allegiance be lawfull : that either you acknowledge not the King your Superiour , or doe against conscience , in opposing his and the kingdomes decree , requiring the taking of this Oath . This good use I say may very fairely bee made of it , and is by men of your own religion . But then it is so far from being a confutation , that it is rather a confirmation of D. Potters assertion . For hee that useth these words , doth he not plainly import ( and such was the case of Protestants , ) that we are to leaue our Superiours , to cast off obedience to them , and publiquely to oppose their Decrees , when we are certain ( as Protestants were , ) that what they command , God doth countermand ▪ Lastly , S. Cyprians example is against Protestants impertinently and even ridiculously alleaged . For what if S. Cyprian holding his opinion true but not necessary , condemned no man ( much lesse any Church ) for holding the contrary ? Yet me thinks this should lay no obligation upon Luther to doe so likewise : seeing he held his own opinions not onely true but also necessary , & the doctrine of the Roman Church not only false but damnable . And therefore seeing the condition and state of the parties censured by S. Cyprian and Luther was so different , no marvell though their censures also were different according to the supposed merit of the parties delinquent . For as for your obtruding again upon us , that we believe the points of difference not Fundamentall or nenessary , you have been often told that it is a calumny . We hold your errors as damnable in themselves as you doe ours , only by accident through invincible ignorance , we hope they are not unpardonable : and you also professe to think the same of ours .

109 Ad § 42. The former part of this discourse , grounded on D. Potters words p. 105. I haue already in passing examined & confuted : I adde in this place . 1. That though the Doctor say , It is not fit for any private man to oppose his iudgement to the publique , That is , his own judgement and bare authority : yet he denies not , but occasions may happen wherein it may be very warrantable , to oppose his reason or the authority of Scripture against it . And is not then to be esteem'd to oppose his own judgement to the publique , but the judgment of God to the judgement of men . Which his following words seem to import , He may offer his opinion to be considered of , so he do it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason . Secondly , I am to tell you that you haue no ground from him , to enterline his words with that interrogatory ( His own conceits , and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture ? ) For these things are in his words opposed , and not confounded , and the latter , not intended for a repetition ( as you mistake it ) but for an Antithesis of the former . He may offer ( saith he ) his opinion to be considered of , so he doe it with evidence of Scripture . But if hee will factiously advance his own conceits , ( that is , say I , clean contrary to your glosse , ) Such as have not evident nor very probable ground in Scripture , ( for these conceits are properly his own ) he may iustly bee branded , &c. Now that this of the two is the better glosse , it is proved by your own interrogation . For that imputes absurdity to D. Potter , for calling them a mans own conceits , which were grounded upon evidence of Scripture . And therefore you have shewed little candour or equity , in fastning upon them this absurd construction . They not only bearing , but even requiring another more faire and more sensible . Every man ought to be presum'd to speak sense , rather then non-sense , coherently , rather then contradictiously , if his words be fairely capable of a better construction . For M. Hooker , if writing against Puritans , he had said something unawares that might give advantage to Papists it were not inexcusable : seeing it is a matter of such extreme difficulty , to hold such a temper in opposing one extreme opinion , as not to seem to favour the other . Yet if his words be rightly consider'd , there is nothing in them that will doe you any service . For though he saies that men are bound to doe whatsoever the sentence of finall decision shall determine , as it is plain men are bound to yeeld such an obedience to all Courts of civill judicature : yet he saies not , they are bound to think that determination lawfull , and that sentence just . Nay it is plain hee saies , that they must doe according to the Iudges sentence , though in their private opinion it seem uniust . As if I be cast wrongfully in a suit at law , and sentenced to pay an hundred pound , I am bound to pay the mony , yet I know no law of God or man , that binds me in conscience to acquit the Iudge of errour in his sentence . The question therefore being only what men ought to think , it is vain for you to tell us what M. Hooker saies at all . For M. Hooker , though an excellent man , was but a man . And much more vain , to tell us out of him , what men ought to doe , for point of externall obedience . When in the very same place , he supposeth and alloweth , that in their private opinion they may think , this sentence to which they yeeld a passive obedience , to swarve utterly from that which is right . If you will draw his words to such a construction , as if he had said , they must think the sentence of iudiciall and finall decision iust and right , though it seem in their private opinion to swarue utterly from what is right ; It is manifest you make him contradict himselfe , & make him say in effect , They must think thus , though at the same time they think the contrary . Neither is there any necessity , that hee must either acknowledge the universall infallibility of the Church , or driue men into dissembling against their conscience , seeing nothing hinders , but I may obey the sentence of a Iudge , paying the mony he awards me to pay , or forgoing the house or land which hee hath judged from me , and yet withall plainly professe , that in my conscience I conceive his judgement erroneous . To which purpose they haue a saying in France , that whosoever is cast in any cause , hath liberty for ten daies after , to rayle at his Iudges .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 Ad § . 16. In stead of a fourth Argument this is presented to us , That if Luther were an Heretique , then they that agreed with him must be so . And that Luther was a formall Heretique , you endeavour to prove by this most formall Syllogisme ; To say the Visible Church is not Vniversall , is properly an Heresy : But Luthers Reformation was not Vniversall ; Therefore it cannot be excused from formall Heresy . Whereunto I Answer , first to the first part , that it is no way impossible that Luther , had he been the inventor and first broacher of a false Doctrine , ( as he was not ) might have been a formall Heretique , and yet that those who follow him may be only so materially and improperly , and indeed no Heretiques . Your own men out of S. Augustine distinguish between Haeretici & Haereticorum sequaces : And you your selfe though you pronounce the leaders among the Arrians formall Heretiques , yet confesse that Salvian was at least doubtfull whether these Arrians , who in simplicity followed their Teachers , might not be excused by ignorance . And about this suspension of his you also seeme suspended , for you neither approve nor condemne it . Secondly , to the second part I say , that had you not presumed upon our ignorance in Logick as well as Metaphysicks and Schoole Divinity , you would never have obtruded upon us this rope of sand for a formall Syllogisme . It is even Cosen German to this , To denie the Resurrection is properly an Heresie ; But Luthers Reformation was not Vniversall , Therefore it cannot be excused from formall Heresie ! Or to this , To say the Visible Church is not Vniversall is properly an Heresie : But the preaching of the Gospell at the beginning was not Vniversall ; therefore it cannot be excused from formall Heresie . For as he whose Reformation is but particular , may yet not denie the Resurrection , so may he also not denie the Churches Vniversality . And as the Apostles who preached the Gospell in the beginning , did beleeve the Church Vniversall , though their preaching at the beginning was not so : So Luther also might and did beleeve the Church Universall , though his Reformation were but particular . I say he did beleeve it Vniversall , even in your own sense , that is , Universall de iure , though not defacto . And as for Vniversality in fact , he beleeved the Church much more Vniversall then his reformation : For he did conceive ( as appeares by your own Allegations out of him ) that not only the Part reformed was the true Church , but also that they were Part of it who needed reformation . Neither did he ever pretend to make a new Church but to reform the old one . Thirdly and lastly , to the first proposition of this unsyllogisticall syllogisme , I answer , That to say the true Church is not alwaies defacto universall , is so far from being an Heresy , that it is a certaine truth knowne to all those that know the world , and what Religions possesse farre the greater part of it . Donatus therefore was not to blame , for saying , that the Church might possibly be confin'd to Africk ; but for saying without ground , that then it was so . And S. Austine , as he was in the right , in thinking that the Church was then extended farther then Africk ; so was he in the wrong if he thought that of necessity it alwaies must be so ; but most palpably mistaken in conceiving that it was then spread over the whole earth , & known to all nations , which if passion did not trouble you , & make you forget how lately almost halfe the world was discovered , and in what estate it was then found , you would very easily see and confesse .

15 Ad § . 17. In the next Section you pretend that you have no desire to prosecute the similitude of Protestants with the Donatists ; and yet you doe it with as much spight and malice as could well bee devised , but in vaine : For Lucilla might doe ill in promoting the Sect of the Donatists , and yet the Mother and the Daughter , whom you glance at , might doe well in ministring influence ( as you phrase it ) to Protestants in England . Vnlesse you will conclude because one woman did one thing ill , therefore no woman can doe any thing well : or because it was ill done to promote one Sect , therefore it must bee ill done , to maintaine any .

16 The Donatists might doe ill in calling the Chaire of Rome the Chaire of Pestilence , and the Roman Church an Harlot ; and yet the state of the Church being altered , Protestants might doe well to doe so , and therefore though , S. Austine might perhaps have reason to persecute the Donatists for detracting from the Church , and calling her harlot , when she was not so ; yet you may have none to threaten D. Potter that you would persecute him ( as the Application of this place intimates you would , ) if it were in your power : plainly shewing that you are a curst cow though your hornes be short , seeing the Roman Church is not now what it was in S. Austines time . And hereof the conclusion of your own book affords us a very pregnant testimony : where you tell us out of Saint Austine , that one grand-impediment , which among many kept the seduced followers of the faction of Donatus from the Churches Communion , was a vile calumny raised against the Catholiques , that they did set some strange thing upon their Altar . To how many ( saith S. Austine ) did the reports of ill tongues shut up the way to enter , who said , that we put , I know not what upon the Altar ? Our of detestation of the calumny , and just indignation against it , he would not so much as name the impiety wherewith they were charged , and therefore by a Rhetoricall figure calls it , I know not what . But compare with him Optatus , writing of the same matter , and you shall plainly perceive that this ( I know not what ) pretended to be set upon the Altar , was indeed a picture , which the Donatists ( knowing how detestable a thing it was to all Christians at that time , to set up any Pictures in a Church to worship them , as your new fashion is ) bruited abroad to be done in the Churches of the Catholique Church . But what answer doe S. Austine and Optatus make to this accusation ? Doe they confesse and maintaine it ? Doe they say , as you would now , It is true we doe set Pictures upon our Altar , and that not only for ornament or memory , but for worship also ; but we doe well to doe so , and this ought not to trouble you , or affright you from our Communion ? What other answer your Church could now make to such an objection , is very hard to imagine : And therefore were your Doctrine the same with the Doctrine of the Fathers in this point , they must have answered so likewise . But they to the contrary not only deny the crime , but abhorre and detest it . To litle purpose therefore doe you hunt after these poore shadowes of resemblances between us and the Donatists : unlesse you could shew an exact resemblance between the present Church of Rome and the Ancient : which seeing by this , and many other particulars it is demonstrated to bee impossible ; that Church which was then a Virgin may be now a Harlot , and that which was detraction in the Donatists , may be in Protestants a just accusation .

17 As ill successe have you in comparing D. Potter with Tyconius whom as S. Austin findes fault with for continuing in the Donatists separation , having forsaken the ground of it , the Doctrine of the Churches perishing : so you condemne the Doctor , for continuing in their Communion , who hold ( as you say ) the very same Heresy . But if this were indeed the Doctrine of the Donatists how is it that you say presently after , that the Protestants who hold the Church of Christ perished , were worse then Donatists , who said that the Church remained at least in Africa ? These things me thinkes , hang not well together . But to let this passe ; The truth is , this difference , for which you would faine raise such a horrible dissention between D. Potter and his Brethren , if it be well considered is only in words and the manner of expression : They affirming only , that the Church perished from its integrity , and fell into many corruptions which he derlies not : And the Doctor denying only that it fell from its essence , and became no Church at all , which they affirme not .

18 These therefore are but velitations , and you would seeme to make but small account of them . But the main point you say is , that since Luthers Reformed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Luther , and yet was in the Apostles time , they must of necessity affirme heretically with the Donatists , that the true unspotted Church of Christ perished , and that she which remained on earth , was ( O Blasphemy ! ) anharlot . By which words it seemes you are resolute perpetually to confound True and Vnspotted ; and to put no difference between a corrupted Church and none at all . But what is this , but to make no difference betwen a diseased and a dead man ? Nay what is it but to contradict your selves , who cannot deny but that sinnes are as great staines and spots and deformities in the sight of God , as errors ; and confesse your Church to be a congregation of men , whereof every particular , not one excepted , ( and consequently the generality which is nothing but a collection of them ) is polluted and defiled with sinne ? You proceed .

19 But , say you , The same heresy followes out of D. Potter and other Protestants , that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall ; because we have shewed that every error against any revealed truth is Heresy and Damnable , whether the matter be great or small : And how can the Church more truly be said to perish , then when she is permitted to maintaine damnable Heresy ? Besides we will hereafter prove that by every act of Heresy all divine faith is lost , & to maintaine a true Church without any faith , is to fansy a living man without life . Ans. what you have said before , hath been answered before , and what you shall say hereafter , shall be confuted hereafter . But if it be such a certain ground , that every error against any one revealed truth is a damnable Heresy , Then I hope I shall have your leave to subsume , That the Dominicans in your account must hold a damnable heresy , who hold an error against the immaculate Conception : which you must needs esteeme a revealed truth , or otherwise why are you so urgent and importunate to have it defined ? seeing your rule is , nothing may be defined unlesse it be first revealed . But without your leave , I will make bold to conclude , that if either that or the contrary assertion be a revealed truth , you or they , choose you whether , must without contradiction hold a damnable Heresy : if this ground be true that every contradiction of a revealed Truth is such . And now I dare say , for fear of inconvenience you will beginne to temper the crudenesse of your former assertion , and tell us , that neither of you are Heretiques , because the Truth against which you erre though revealed , is not sufficiently propounded . And so say I , neither is your Doctrine which Protestants contradict sufficiently propounded . For though it be plain enough , that your Church proposeth it , yet still methinkes , it is as plain , that your Churche's proposition is not sufficient ; and I desire you would not say but prove the contrary . Lastly , to your Question , How can the Church more truly be said to perish , then when she is permitted to maintaine a damnable Heresy ? I Answer , she may be more truly said to perish , when she is not only permitted to doe so , but defacto doth maintaine a damnable Heresy . Again , she may be more truly said to perish , when she falls into an Heresy , which is not only damnable in it selfe , and ex natura rei , as you speak , but such an Heresy , the belief of whose contrary Truth is necessary , not only necessitate praecepti but medii , and therefore the heresy so absolutely and indispensably destructive of salvation , that no ignorance can excuse it , nor any generall repentance , without a dereliction of it , can begge a pardon for it . Such an heresy if the Church should fall into , it might be more truly said to perish , then if it fell only into some heresy of its own nature damnable . For in that state all the members of it , without exception , all without mercy must needs perish for ever : In this , although those that might see the truth & would not , cannot upon any good ground hope for Salvation , yet without question , it might send many soules to heaven , who would gladly have embrac'd the truth , but that they wanted means to discover it . Thirdly and lastly , shee may yet more truly bee said to perish when shee Apostates from Christ absolutely , or rejects even those Truths out of which her Heresies may bee reformed ; as if shee should directly deny Iesus to be the Christ , or the Scripture to be the Word of God . Towards which state of Perdition it may well be feared that the Church of Rome doth somewhat incline , by her superinducing upon the rest of her errors the Doctrine of her own infallibility , whereby her errors are made incurable ; and by her pretending that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to her doctrine , and not her doctrine to be judg'd of by Scripture , whereby she makes the Scripture uneffectuall for her Reformation .

20 Ad § 18. I was very glad when I heard you say The Holy Scripture and ancient Fathers doe assigne Separation from the visible Church as a mark of Heresie : for I was in good hope , that no Christian would so bely the Scripture , as to say so of it , unlesse hee could have produced some one Text at least , wherein this was plainly affirmed , or from whence it might be undoubtedly and undeniably collected . For assure your selfe , good Sir , it is a very haynous crime to say , thus saith the Lord , when the Lord doth not say so . I expected therefore some Scripture should haue been alleaged , wherein it should haue beene said , whosoever separates from the Roman Church is an Heretique : or the Roman Church is infallible , or the Guide of faith : or at least , There shall be alwaies some visible Church infallible in matters of faith . Some such direction as this I hoped for : And I pray consider whether I had not reason ! The Evangelists and Apostles who wrote the New Testament , we all suppose were good men , and very desirous to direct us the surest and plainest way to heaven ; wee suppose them likewise very sufficiently instructed by the Spirit of God in all the necessary points of the Christian faith , and therefore certainly not ignorant of this Vnum Necessarium , this most necessary point of all others , without which as you pretend and teach , all faith is no Faith , that is , that the Church of Rome was designed by God the Guide of Faith . Wee suppose them lastly wise men , especially being assisted by the spirit of wisdome , and such as knew that a doubtfull & questionable Guide was for mens direction as good as none at all . And after all these suppositions , which I presume no good Christian will call into question , is it possible that any Christian heart can believe , that not One amongst them all should ad rei memoriam write this necessary doctrine plainly so much as once ? Certainly in all reason they had provided much better for the good of Christians if they had wrote this , though they had writ nothing else . Me thinks the Evangelists undertaking to write the Gospell of Christ , could not possibly haue omitted , any One of them , this most necessary point of faith , had they known it necessary , ( S. Luke especially , who plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary . ) Me thinks S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their Priviledge to them ! Me thinks instead of saying , Your faith is spoken of all the world over ( which you haue no reason to be very proud of , for he saies the very same thing to the Thessalonians , ) he could not haue fayl'd to haue told them once at least in plaine termes , that their faith was the Rule for all the World for ever . But then sure he would haue forborn to put them in feare of an impossibility , as hee doth in his eleventh Chap. that they also , nay the whole Church of the Gentiles , if they did not look to their standing , might fall away to infidelity , as the Iews had done . Me thinks in all his other Epistles , at least in some , at least in one of them , he could not have fayled to haue given the world this direction , had he known it to be a true one , that all men were to be guided by the Church of Rome , and none to separate from it under pain of damnation . Me thinks writing so often of Heretiques and Antichrist , hee should haue given the world this ( as you pretend ) onely sure preservative from them . How was it possible that S. Peter writing two Catholique Epistles , mentioning his own departure , writing to preserve Christians in the faith , should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended Successours , the Bishops of Route ? How was it possible that S. Iames , and S. Iude in their Catholique Epistles should not giue this Catholique direction ? Me thinks S. Iohn instead of saying , he that believeth that Iesus is the Christ , is born of God , ( The force of which direction , your glosses doe quite enervate , and make unavailable to discern who are the sonnes of God , ) should haue said , Hee that adheres to the doctrine of the Roman Church , and lives according to it , he is a good Christian , and by this Mark yee shall know him ! What man not quite out of his witts , if he consider as he should , the pretended necessity of this doctrine , that without the beliefe hereof no man ordinarily can be saved , can possibly force himselfe to conceive that all these good and holy men , so desirous of mens salvation , and so well assured of it ( as it is pretended , ) should be so deeply and affectedly silent in it , and not One say it plainly so much as once , but leaue it to be collected from uncertain Principles , by many more uncertain consequences ? Certainly he that can judge so uncharitably of them , it is no marvell if he censure other inferiour servants of Christs Atheists , and Hypocrites , and what he pleases . Plain places therefore I did and had reason to look for , when I heard you say , the holy Scripture assignes Separation from the visible Church as a Mark of Heresie . But instead hereof what haue you brought us , but meer impertinencies ? S. Iohn saith of some who pretended to be Christians and were not so , and therefore when it was for their advantage forsook their Profession , They went out from us , but they were not of us ; for if they had been of us , they would no doubt have continued with us . Of some , who before the decree of the Councell to the contrary , were perswaded and accordingly taught , that the convert Gentiles were to keep the Law of Moses , it is said in the Acts , Some who went out from us . And again S. Paul in the same book forewarnes the Ephesians that out of them should arise men speaking perverse things . And from these places which it seems are the plainest you have , you collect that separation from the Visible Church is assigned by Scripture as a Mark of Heresie . Which is certainly a strang and unheard of strain of Logick . Vnlesse you will say that every Text wherein it is said , that some body goes out from some body , affords an Argument for this purpose ! For the first place there is no certainty that it speaks of Heretiques ; but , no Christians , of Antichrists , of such as denied Iesus to be the Christ : See the place and you shall confesse as much . The second place , it is certain , you must not say it speaks of Heretiques , for it speaks only of some who beleeved and taught an Errour , while it was yet a question and not evident , and therefore according to your doctrine , no formall Heresy . The third saies indeed , that of the Professours of Christianity , some shall arise that shall teach Heresy : But not one of them all that saies or intimates , that whosoever separates from the Visible Church ; in what state soever , is certainly an Heretique . Heretiques I confesse doe alwayes doe so ; But they that doe so are not alwayes Heretiques , for perhaps the state of the Church may make it necessary for them to doe so ; as Rebels alwayes disobey the command of their King , yet they which disobey a Kings command ( which perhaps may be unjust ) are not presently Rebels .

21 Your Allegations out of Vincentius , Prosper , and Cyprian are lyable to these exceptions . 1. That they are the sayings of men not assisted by the Spirit of God , and whose Authoritie your selves will not submit to in all things . 2. That the first and last are meerly impertinent , neither of them affirming or intimating , that separation from the present Visible Church is a mark of Heresy : and the former speaking plainly of separation from Vniversality , Consent and Antiquity , which if you will presume without proof that we did and you did not , you beg the Question . For you know we pretend that we separated only from that present Church which had separated from the doctrine of the Ancient , and because she had done so , and so farre forth as she had done so and no farther . And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true , according to your own grounds ; For you say a man may be divided from the Church upon meer Schisme without any mixture of Heresy : And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresy . Lastly , a man may be divided by an unjust excommunication , and be both before and after a very good Catholique ; and therefore you cannot maintain it Vniversally true , That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretique , and Antichrist .

22 In the 19. § we have the Authority of eight Fathers urg'd to prove that the separation from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of S. Peter ( I conceive you mean as it is the Particular Church ) is the mark of Heresy . Which kind of argument I might well refuse to answer , unlesse you would first promise me , that whensoever I should produce as plain sentences , of as great a number of Fathers , as ancient , for any doctrine whatsoever , that you will subscribe to it , though it fall out to be contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church . For I conceive nothing in the world more unequall or unreasonable , then that you should presse us with such Authorities as these , and think you selves at liberty from them ; and that you should account them Fathers when they are for you , and Children when they are against you . Yet I would not you should interpret this as if I had not great assurance , that it is not possible for you ever to gain this cause at the tribunall of the Fathers , nay not of the Fathers whose sentences are here alleaged . Let us consider them in order , and I doubt not to make it appear that farre the greater part of them , nay all of them that are any way considerable fall short of your purpose .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cardinall Perron to avoyd the stroak of this conuincing argument , raiseth a cloud of eloquent words , Lib. 3 cap. 2. Or this reply to King Iames. C. 2. §. 32. which because you borrow them of him in your Second part , I will here insert , and with short censures dispell , and let his Idolaters see that Truth is not afraid of Giants : His words are these .

The first instance then that Calvin alleageth against the Popes censures , is taken from Eusebius ( a ) an Arrian author , and from Ruffinus ( b ) enemie to the Roman Church his translator ; who writ , ( c ) that S. IRENEVS reprehended Pope Victor for having excommunicated the Churches of Asia for the question of the day of Pasche , which they observed according to a particular tradition that S. IOHN had introduced ( d ) for a time in their Provinces , because of the neighbourhood of the Iewes , and to bury the Synagogue with honour , and not according to the universall tradition of the Apostles . Calv. ubi sup●a . Irenaeus ( saith Calvin ) reprehended Pope Victor bitterly , because for a light cause he had moved a great and perillous contention in the Church . There is this in the text that Calvin produceth , He reprehended him , that he had not done well , to cut off from the body of unity , Ruffin . in vers. hist. Eccl. Eus. l. 5. c. 24. so many and so great Churches . But against whom maketh this , but ( e ) against those that obiect it ? for who sees not , that S. IRENEVS , doth not there reprehend the Pope for the ( f ) want of power , but for the ill use of his power ; and doth not reproach to the Pope , that he could not excommunicate the Asians , but admonisheth him , that for ( g ) so small a cause he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church ? Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Iraeneus ( saith Eusebius ) did fitly exhort Pope Victor , Kuffin . b. c. 24. that he should not cut off all the Churches of God which held this ancient tradition . And Ruffinus translating and envenoming Eusebius saith . Iren. l. 3. c. 3. 1. Booke ▪ 〈◊〉 25 He questioned Victor , that he had not done well in cutting off from the body of unity so many and so great Churches of God ▪ And in truth , how could S. IRENEUS have reprehended the Pope for want of power ; he that cries : To the Roman Church , because of a more powerfull principality ; ( that is to say ) as aboue appeareth , ( h ) because of a principality more powerfull then the temporall : or ( as wee have expounded other where ) because of a more powerful Original : ( i ) it is necessary that every Church should agree ? And ( k ) therefore also S. IRENEVS alleageth not to Pope Victor the example of him , and of the other Bishops of the Gaules assembled in a councell holden expressely for this effect who had not excommunicated the Asians , Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. l. 22 ▪ nor the example of Narcissus Bishop of Ierusalem , and of the Bishops of Palestina assembled in an other Councell , holden expressely for the same effect , who had not excommunicated them , nor the example of Palmas , and of the other Bishops of Pontus assembled in the same manner , and for the same cause in the Region of Pontus , who had not excommunicated them , Iren. apud Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 26. but only alleadges to him the example of the Popes his predecessors : The Prelates ( saith he ) who have presided before Soter in the Church where thou presidest , Anisius , Pius , Hyginus , Telesphorus , and Sixtus , have not observed this custome , &c. and neverthelesse none of those that observed it , have been excommunicated . And yet , O admirable providence of God , the ( l ) successe of the after ages shewed , that even in the use of his power , the Popes proceeding was iust . For after the death of Victor , the Councels of Nicea , Conc. Antioch . c. 1. of Constantinople , and of Ephesus , excommunicated again those that held the same custome with the provinces , Conc. Const. c. 7. that the Pope had excommunicated , and placed them in the Catalogue of heretiques , Conc. Eph. p. 2. act. ● . under the titles of heretiques Quarto decumans !

But to this instance Calvins Sect doe annex two new observations ; the first , that the Pope having threatned the Bishops of Asia to excommunicate them , Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of Asia , despised the Popes threats , Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Hieron . in script . Eccl. in Polyer . as it appeares by the answer of the same Polycrates to Pope Victor , which is inserted in the writings of Eusebius , and of S. IEROM , and which S. IEROM seemeth to approve , when he saith , he reports it to shew the spirit and authority of the man . And the second , that when the Pope pronounced anciently his excommunications , he did no other thing but separate himself from the communion of those that he excommunicated , and did not thereby separate them from the universall communion of the Church . To the first then we say , that so farre is this Epistle of Polycrates from abating and deminishing the Popes authority , that contrary wise it greatly magnifies and exalts it . For although Polycrates blinded with the love of the custome of his nation , which he beleeved to be grounded upon the word of God , who had assigned the fourteenth of the Moneth of March for the observation of the Pasche , and upon the example of S. IOHNS tradition maintaines it obstinately ; Neverthelesse , this that he answeres , speaking in his own name , Exod. 12. and in the name of the Councell of the Bishops of Asia , Hieronym , ubi supra . to whom he presided ; I feare not those that threaten us , for my elders have said , it is better to obey God then man . Doth it not shew , that had it not been , that he beleeved the Popes threat , was against the expresse word of God , there had been cause to feare it , and he had been obliged to obey him ; for ( m ) who knowes not , that this answer ; it is better to obey God then men , is not to be made but to those , whom we were obliged to obey , if their commandements were not contrary to the commandements of God ; And that he adds , that he had called the Bishops of Asia , to a Nationall Councell , being ( n ) summoned to it by the Pope ; doth it not insinuate , that the other Councels whereof Eusebius speaks , that were holden about this matter , Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23. through all the provinces of the Earth , and particularly that of Palestina , which if you beleeve the act that Beda said came to his hands , Beda in frag . de Aequinoctio . ve●nali . Theophilus Archbishop of Cesarea had called by the auctority of Victor , were holden at the instance of the Pope , and consequently that the Pope was the first mover of the universall Church ? And that the Councels of Nicea , of Constantinople of Ephesus embraced the censure of Victor , and excommunicated those that observed the custome of Polycrates : doth it not prove , that it was not the Pope but ( o ) Polycrates that was deceived , in beleeving that the Popes commandement , was against Gods commandement ? And that S. IEROM himselfe celebrates the Paschall Homelies of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria , which followed the order of Nicea concerning the Pasche ; Doth it not iustifie , that when S. IEROM saith ; that he reports the Epistle of Polycrates , to shew the spirit , and authority of the man he intends by authority , not authority of right , but of fact ▪ that is to say , the credit that Polycrates had amongst the Asians and other Quarto decimans ?

These are the Cardinall words , The most materiall and considerable passages whereof to save the trouble of repetition , I have noted with letters of reference : whereunto my answers noted respectively with the same letters follow now in order .

( a ) If Eusebius were an Arrian author , It is nothing to the purpose ; what he writes there is no Arrianisme , nor any thing towards it . Never any error was imputed to the Arrians for denying the Authority or the infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome . Besides what Eusebius saies , he saies out of Irenaeus : Neither doth or can the Cardinall deny the story to be true & therefore he goes about by indirect Arts to foyle it & cast a blurre upon it . Lastly , whensoever Eusebius saies any thing , which the Cardinall thinkes for the advantage of his side , he cites him , and then he is no Arrian : or at least hee would not take that for an answer to the arguments he drawes out of him .

( b ) That Ruffinus was enemy to the Roman Church , is said , but not proved , neither can it be .

( c ) Eusebius saies the same also of caeteri omnes Episcopi , all the other Bishops : that they advised Victor to keepe those things , that belonged to peace and unity , and that they sharpely reprehended Victor , for having done otherwise .

( d ) This is said , but no offer made of any proofe of it : The Cardinall thinks we must take every thing upon his word . They to whom the Tradition was delivered , Polyerates and the Asian Bishops , knew no such matter , nay professed the contrary . And who is more likely to know the Truth , they which lived within two ages of the fountain of it , or the Cardinall who lived sixteen ages after it ?

( e ) How can it make against those that object it : seeing it is evident from Irenaeus his Reprehension , that he thought Victor and the Roman Church , no infallible nor sufficient Iudge , of what was necessary to be believed and done , what not : what was Vniversall Tradition , what not : what was a sufficient ground of Excommunication and what not : and consequently , that there was no such necessity as is pretended , that all other Churches , should in matters of faith , conforme themselves to the Church of Rome ?

( f ) This is to suppose that Excommunication , is an Act , or Argument , or signe of Power & Authority in the party excommunicating , over the party excommunicated , whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church Story , that it was often used by Equalls upon Equalls , and by Inferiors upon Superiors , if the equalls or inferiors , thought their equalls or superiors did any thing which deserved it .

( g ) And what is this but to confesse , that they thought that a small cause of excommunication and unsufficient , which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient ? And consequently , that Victor and his Part declared that to be a matter of faith and of necessity , which they thought not so ; and where was then their conformity ?

( h ) True , you have so expounded it , but not proved nor offered any proofe of your exception . This also we must take upon your Authority . Irenaeus speaks not one word of any other power , to which he compares or before which he preferres the power of the Roman Church . And it is evident out of the Councell of Chalcedon , * * Can. 2● . that all the Principality which it had , was given it ( not by God , but ) by the Church , in regard it was seated in the Imperiall City . Whereupon when afterwards Constantinople was the Imperiall City , they decreed that that Chuch should have equall Priviledges and dignity and preheminence with the Church of Rome . All the Fathers agreed in this decree , saving only the Legats of the Bishop of Rome : shewing plainly that they never thought of any Supremacy given the Bishops of Rome by God , or grounded upon Scripture , but only by the Church , and therefore alterable at the Churches pleasure .

( i ) This is falsely translated . Convenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam , every body knowes signifies no more but to resort or come to the Roman Church : which then there was a necessity that men should doe , because that the affaires of the Empire were transacted in that place . But yet Irenaeus saies not so of every Church simply , which had not been true , but only of the adjacent Churches , for so he expounds himselfe in saying , To this Church it is necessary that every Church , that is , all the faithfull round about should resort . With much more reason therefore we returne the Argument thus , Had Irenaeus thought that all Churches must of necessity agree with the Roman , how could he & all other Bishops have then pronounc'd , that to be no matter of Faith , no sufficient ground of Excommunication , which Victor and his adherents thought to be so ? And how then could they have reprehended Victor so much , for the ill use of his power , as Cardinall Perron confesses they did , seeing if that was true which is pretended , in this also as well as other things , it was necessary for them to agree with the Church of Rome ?

Some there are that say , but more wittily then truly , that all Cardinall Bellarmines works , are so consonant to themselves , as if he had written them in two houres . Had Cardinall Perron wrote his book in two houres , sure he would not have done that here in the middle of the Book , which he condemns in the beginning of it . For here he urgeth a consequence , drawn from the mistaken words of Irenaeus against his lively and actuall practice : which proceeding , there he justly condemnes of evident injustice . His words are * * In his Letter to Casaubon towards the end . , For who knowes not that it is too great an injustice to alleage consequences from passages , and even those ill interpreted and misunderstood , and in whose illation there is alwaies some Paralogisme hid against the expresse words , and the lively & actuall practise of the same Fathers from whom they are collected : and that may be good , to take the Fathers for Adversaries , and to accuse them for want of sense or memory : but not to take them for Iudges , and to submit themselves to the observation of what they have believ'd and practised .

( k ) This is nothing to the purpose : he might choose these examples , not as of greater force and authority in themselves , but as fitter to be imploied against Victor , as domestique examples , are fitter and more effectuall then forraine : and for his omitting to presse him with his own example and others , to what purpose had it been to use them , seeing their Letters sent to Victor from all parts , wherein they reprehend his presumption , shewed him sufficiently , that their example was against him . But besides , he that reads Irenaeus his Letter shall see , that in the matter of the Lent Fast , and the great variety about the celebration of it , which he paralels with this of Easter , he presseth Victor with the example of himselfe and others , not Bishops of Rome ; both they ( saith hee speaking of other Bishops ) notwithstanding this difference , retained peace among themselves , and wee also among our selves retaine it ; inferring from his example , that Victor also ought to doe so .

( l ) If the Popes proceeding was just , then the Churches of Asia were indeed , and in the sight of God excommunicate , and out of the state of Salvation : which Irenaeus and all the other ancient Bishops never thought . And if they were so , why doe you accou●t them Saints and Martyrs ? But the truth is , that these Councells did no way shew the Popes proceedings just , but rather the contrary . For though they setled an uniformity in this matter , yet they setled it as a matter formerly indifferent , & not as a matter of faith or necessity , as it is evident out of * * In ep. ad . Episcopos in Africa● Where he cleerely shewes that this question was not a question of faithe by saying , The C●uncello● Nice was celebrated , by occasion of the Arrian heresy and the difference about Easter . In so much 〈◊〉 they in 〈…〉 and M●sopotamia , did ●●ffer herein from us , and kept this feast on the same day with the I●wes : But thankes be to God ▪ an agreement was made , as concerning the Faith , so 〈◊〉 concerning this holy 〈◊〉 . Athanasius ; & consequently they rather declare Victors proceeding unjust , who excommunicated so many Churches , for differing from him in an indifferent matter .

( m ) It seemes then Polycrates might be a Saint and a Martyr , and yet think the commands of the Roman Church enjoyned upon pain of damnation , contrary to the commandements of God . Besides S. Peter himselfe , the head of the Church , the Vicar of Christ ( as you pretend ) made this very answer to the High Priest , yet I hope you will not say , he was his inferior and obliged to obey him . Lastly , who sees not , that when the Pope commandes us any thing unjust , as to communicate Lay men in one kinde , to use the Latine service , we may very fitly say to him , it is better to obey God then men , and yet never think of any authority he hath over us ?

( n ) Between requesting and summoning , methinkes there should be some difference , and Polycrates saies no more , but that hee was requested by the Church of Rome to call them , and did so . Here then ( as very often ) the Cardinall is faine to help the dice with a false translation , and his pretence being false , every one must see , that that which he pretends to be insinuated by it , is cleerely inconsequent .

( o ) Polycrates was deceived , if he believed it to be against Gods commandement , and the Pope deceived as much , in thinking it to be Gods commandement , for it was neither the one nor the other , but an indifferent matter , wherein God had not interposed his Authority . Neither did the Councell of Nice embrace the censure of Victor , by acknowledging his Excommunication to be just and well grounded , for which the Cardinall neither doth pretend , nor can produce any proofe , any way comparable to the fore-alleaged words of Athanasius testifying the contrary ; though peradventure , having setled the observation , and reduced it to an uniformity , they might excommunicate those who afterward should trouble the Churches peace for an indifferent matter . And thus much for Irenaeus .

31 I come now to S. Austine , and to the first place out of him , where he seemes to say , that the Succession in the Sea of Peter , was the Rock which our Saviour meant when he said , upon this Rock , &c. I answer , first we have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof , because S. Austine himselfe was not , but retracts it as uncertain , & leaves to the Reader whether he will think that , or another more probable . Retr . l. 1. c. 26. Secondly , what he saies of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place , he saies it else where , of all the Successions in all other Apostolique Churches . Thirdly , that as in this place he urgeth the Donatists with separation from the Roman Church , as an argument of their Error : So elsewhere he presseth them with their Separation from other Apostolique Churches , nay more from these then from that , because in Rome the Donatists had a Bishop , though not a perpetuall Succession of them , but in other Apostolique Churches they wanted both . These scatter'd men ( saith he of the Donatists Epist. 165. ) read in the holy bookes the Churches to which the Apostles wrote , and have no Bishop in them : But what is more perverse and mad , then to the Lectors reading these Epistles to say , Peace with you , and to separate from the peace of these Churches , to which these Epistles were written ? So Optatus having done you ( as it might seeme ) great service , in upbraiding the Donatists as Schismatiques , because they had not Communion with the Church of Rome , overthrowes and undoes it all againe , and as it were with a spunge wipes out all that he had said for you , by adding after , that they were Schismatiques , because They had not the fellowship of Communion with the seven Churches of Asia , to which S. Iohn writes : whereof he pronounces confidently , ( though I know not upon what ground ) 〈◊〉 septem Ecclesias quicquid for is est , alienum est . Now I pray tell me , doe you esteeme the Authority of these Fathers a sufficient assurance , that separation from these other Apostolique Churches , was a certain marke of Heresy , or not ? If so , then your Church hath been for many Ages hereticall . If not , how is their authority , a greater argument for the Roman , then for the other Churches ? If you say , they conceived separation from these Churches a note of Schisme , only when they were united to the Roman : so also they might conceive of the Roman , only when it was united to them . If you say , they urg'd this only as a probable , and not as a certain Argument , so also they might doe that . In a word , whatsoever answer you can devise to shew , that these Fathers made not separation from these other Churches a mark of Heresy , apply that to your own Argument , and it will be satisfied .

32 The other place is evidently impertinent to the present question , nor is there in it any thing but this , That Caecilian might contemne the multitude of his adversaries , because those that were united with him were more , and of more account then those that were against him . Had he preferr'd the Roman Church alone , before Caecilians enemies , this had been litle , but something ; but when other Countries from which the Gospell came first into Africa , are joyned in this Patent , with the Church of Rome , how she can build any singular priviledge upon it I am yet to learne ! Neither doe I see what can be concluded from it , but that in the Roman Church was the Principality of an a a You doe ill to translate it , the Principality of the Sea Apostolique , as if there were but one : whereas S. Austine presently after speaks of Apostolicall Churches , in the plurall number ; and makes the Bishops of the , joynt Commisioners for the judging of Ecclesi●sticall causes . Apostolique Sea , which no man doubts : or that the Roman Church was not the Mother Church , because the Gospell came first into Africa , not from her , but from other Churches .

33 Thus you see his wordes make very litle , or indeed nothing for you ▪ But now his Action , which according to Cardinall Perrons rule , is much more to be regarded then his words , as not being so obnoxious to misinterpretation , I mean his famous opposition of three Bishops of Rome in succession , touching the great question of Appeales , wherein he and the rest of the African Bishops proceeded so farre in the first or second Milevitan Councell , as to b b The words of the Decree ( which also Bellarmine l , 1. de Matrim c. 17. assures us to have bin ●erm'd by S. Austine ) are these . Si qui ( Africani , ) ab Epis●●pis provocandum putaverint , non nisi ad African● provocent Concilia , vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum . Ad transmarina autem , qui putaverit appellandum , à nullo intra Africa● in Communionem suscipiatur . This Decree is by Gratian most impudently corrupted . For whereas the Fathers of that Councell intended it particularly against the Church of Rome , he tels us they forbad Appeales to All excepting only the Church of Rome . decree any African Excommunicate , that should appeale to any man out of Africk , and therein continued resolute unto death : I say this famous Action of his , makes cleerely and evidently and infinitely against you . For had Boniface , and the rest of the African Bishops , a great part whereof were Saints and Martyrs , believed as an Article of faith , that Vnion and Conformity with the doctrine of the Roman Church , in all things which she held necessary , was a certain note of a good Catholique , and by Gods command necessary to Salvation , how was it possible they should have opposed it in this ? Vnlesse you will say they were all so foolish as to believe at once direct contradictions , viz. that conformity to the Roman Church was necessary in all points , and not necessary in this : or else so horribly impious , as believing this doctrine of the Roman Church true , and her power to receive Appeales derived from divine Authority , notwithstanding to oppose and condemne it , and to Anathematize all those Africans , of what condition soever , that should appeale unto it . I say of what condition soever : For it is evident , that they concluded in their determination , Bishops as well as the inferior Clergy and Laity : And Cardinall Perrons pretence of the contrary , is a shamelesse falshood , 〈…〉 repugnant to the plaine words of the Remonstrance of the African Bishops to Celestine Bishop of Rome .

34 Your allegation of Tertullian is a manifest conviction of your want of syncerity : For you produce with great ostentation what he saies of the Church of Rome , but you and your fellowes alwaies conceale and dissemble , that immediatly before these words he attributes as much for point of direction to any other Apostolique Church , and that as he sends them to Rome who lived neare Italy , so those neare Achaia hee sends to Corinth , those about Macedonia to Philippi , and Thessalonica , those of Asia to Ephesus . His words are , Goe to now thou that wilt better imploy thy curiosity in the businesse of thy salvation , run over the Apostolicall Churches , wherein the Chaires of the Apostles are yet sate upon in their places , wherein their Authentique Epistles are recited , sounding out the voyce , and representing the face of of every one ! Is Achaia neere thee ? there thou hast Corinth : If thou art not farre from Macedonia , thou hast Philippi , thou hast Thessalonica : If thou canst goe into Asia , there thou hast Ephesus : If thou be adjacent to Italy , thou hast Rome , whose Authority is neere at hand to us ( in Africk ; ) A happy Church , into which the Apostles powred forth all their Doctrine together with their blood , &c. Now I pray Sir tell me , if you can for blushing , why this place might not have been urg'd by a Corinthian , or Philippian , or Thessalonian , or an Ephesian , to shew that in the judgment of Tertullian , separation from any of their Churches is a certain mark of Heresie , as iustly and rationally as you alleadge it to vindicate this priviledge to the Roman Church only ? Certainly if you will stand to Tertullians judgment , you must either grant the authority of the Roman Church ( though at that time a good Topicall Argument , and perhaps a better then any the Heretiques had , especially in conjunction with other Apostolique Churches : ) yet I say you must grant it perforce but a fallible Guide as well as that of Ephesus , and Thessalonica , and Philippi , and Corinth : or you must maintain the Authority of every one of these infallible , as well as the Roman . For though he make a Panegyrick of the Roman Church in particular , and of the rest only in generall , yet as I have said , for point of direction he makes them all equall ; and therefore makes them ( choose you whether ) either all fallible , or all infallible : Now you will and must acknowledge that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the Churches of Ephesus , or Corinth , or if he did , that ( as experience shewes ) he erred in doing so ; and what can hinder , but then we may say also that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the Roman Church , or if he did that he erred in doing so ?

35 From the saying of S. Basil , certainly nothing can be gathered , but only that the Bishop of Rome may discerne betweene that which is counterfeit , and that which is lawfull and pure , and without any diminution may preach the faith of our Ancestours . Which certainly he might doe , if ambition and covetousnesse did not hinder him , or else I should never condemne him for doing otherwise . But is there no difference betweene may and must ? Beleeve hee may doe so , and he cannot but doe so ? Or doth it follow , because he may doe so , therefore he alwayes shall or will doe so ? In my opinion rather the contrary should follow ! For he that saith you may doe thus , implies according to the ordinary sense of words , that if he will he may doe otherwise . You certainly may if you please leave abusing the world with such Sophistry as this ; but whether you will or no , of that I have no assurance .

36 Your next Witnesse I would willingly have examined , but it seemes you are unwilling he should be found , otherwise you would have given us your direction where we might have him . Of that Maximianus who succeeded Nestorius , I can find no such thing in the Councels : Neither can I beleeve that any Patriarch of Constantinople twelve hundred yeares agoe was so base a parasite of the Sea of Rome .

37 Your last Witnesse Iohn of Constantinople , I confesse speaks home and advanceth the Roman sea , even to heaven : But I feare it is , that his owne may goe up with it , which hee there professes to bee all one sea with the sea of Rome ; and therefore his Testimony , as speaking in his own case is not much to be regarded . But besides , I have litle reason to be confident that this Epistle is not a forgery , for certainly Binius hath obtruded upon us many a hundred such . This though written by a Graecian is not extant in Greek but in Latine only . Lastly , it comes out of a suspicious place , an old book of the Vatican Library : which Library the world knowes to have been the Mint of very many impostures .

38 Ad §. 20. 21. 22. 23. The summe of your discourse in the 4. next Sections , if it be pertinent to the Question in agitation , must be this : Want of succession of Bishops and Pastours holding alwayes the same doctrine , and of the formes of ordaining Bishops and Priests which are in use in the Roman Church , is a certain mark of Heresie : But Protestants want all these things : Therefore they are Heretiques . To which I Answer , That nothing but want of truth and holding errour , can make or prove any man or Church hereticall . For if he be a true Aristotelian , or Platonist , or Pyrrhonian , or Epicurean , who holds the doctrine of Aristotle , or Plato , or Pirrho , or Epicurus , although he cannot assigne any that held it before him for many Ages together , why should I not be made a true and orthodox Christian , by beleeving all the doctrine of Christ , though I cannot derive my descent from a perpetuall Succession that beleev'd it before me ? By this reason you should say as well , that no man can be a good Bishop or Pastour , or King or Magistrate , or Father that succeeds a bad one . For if I may conforme my will and actions to the Commandements of God , why may I not embrace his doctrine with my understanding , although my predecessour doe not so ? You have aboue in this Chapter defin'd Faith a free Infallible , obscure , supernaturall assent to divine Truths , because they are revealed by God & sufficiently propounded : This definition is very phantasticall ; but for the present I will let it passe , and desire you to give me some peece or shadow of reason , why I may not doe all this without a perpetuall Succession of Bishops and Pastours that have done so before me ? You may judge as uncharitably , and speak as maliciously of me , as your blind zeale to your Superstition shall direct you , but certainly I know , ( and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know , ) that I doe beleeve the Gospell of Christ ( as it is delivered in the undoubted books of Canonicall Scripture , ) as verily as that it is now day , that I see the light , that I am now writing : and I beleeve it upon this Motive , because I conceive it sufficiently , abundantly , superabundantly proved to be divine Revelation . And yet in this , I doe not depend upon any Succession of men that have alwayes beleeved it without any mixture of Errour ; nay I am fully perswaded , there hath been no such Succession , and yet doe not find my self any way weakned in my faith by the want of it ; but so fully assured of the truth of it , that not only , though your divels at Lowden doe tricks against it , but though an Angell from heaven should gainsay it or any part of it , I perswade my self that I should not be moved . This I say , and this I am sure is true : and if you will be so hyperscepticall as to perswade me , that I am not sure that I doe beleeve all this , I desire you to tell me , how are you sure that you beleeve the Church of Rome ? For if a man may perswade himself he doth beleeve what he doth not beleeve , then may you think you beleeve the Church of Rome , and yet not beleeve it . But if no man can erre concerning what he beleeves , then you must give me leave to assure my selfe that I doe beleeve , and consequently that any man may beleeve the foresaid truths upon the foresaid motives , without any dependance upon any Succession that hath beleeved it alwayes . And as from your definition of faith , so from your definition of Heresy , this phancy may be refuted . For questionlesse no man can be an Heretique but he that holds an Heresie , and an Heresie you say is a Voluntary Errour ; therefore no man can be necessitated to be an Heretique whether he will or no , by want of such a thing that is not in his power to have : But that there should have been a perpetuall Succession of Beleevers in all points Orthodox , is not a thing which is in your power , therefore our being or not being Heretiques depends not on it . Besides , what is more certain , then that he may make a streight line who hath a Rule to make it by , though never man in the world had made any before : and why then may not he that beleeves the Scripture to be the word of God , and the Rule of faith , regulate his faith by it , and consequently beleeve aright without much regarding what other men either will doe or have done ? It is true indeed there is a necessity that if God will have his words beleeved , he by his Providence must take order , that either by succession of men , or by some other meanes naturall or supernaturall , it be preserv'd and delivered , and sufficiently notified to bee his word ; but that this should be done by a Succession of men that holds no errour against it , certainly there is no more necessity , then that it should be done by a Succession of men that commit no sinne against it . For if men may preserve the Records of a Law , and yet transgresse it , certainly they may also preserve directions for their faith , and yet not follow them . I doubt not but Lawyers at the Barre doe find by frequent experience , that many men preserve and produce evidences , which being examined of times make against themselves . This they doe ignorantly , it being in their power to suppresse , or perhaps to alter them . And why then should any man conceive it strange , that an erroneous and corrupted Church should preserve and deliver the Scriptures uncorrupted , when indeed for many reasons which I have formerly alleaged , it was impossible for them to corrupt them ? Seeing therefore this is all the necessity that is pretended of a perpetuall Succession of men orthodoxe in all points , certainly there is no necessity at all of any such , neither can the want of it prove any man or any Church Hereticall .

39 When therefore you have produced some proofe of this , which was your Major in your former Syllogisme , That want of Succession is a certain mark of Heresy , you shall then receive a full answer to your Minor . We shall then consider whether your indelible Character be any reality , or whether it be a creature of your own making , a fancy of your own imagination ? And if it be a thing , and not only a word , whether our Bishops and Priests have it not as well as yours ; & whether some mens perswasion that there is no such thing , can hinder them from having it , or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing ! ( Any more then a mans perswasion that he has not taken Physick or Poyson , will marke him not to have taken it if hee has , or hinder the operation of it ? ) And whether Tertullian in the place quoted by you , speak of a Priest made a Lay-man , by just deposition or degradation , and not by a voluntary desertion of his Order ? And whether in the same place he set not some make upon Heretiques that will agree to your Church ? Whether all the Authority of our Bishops in England before the Reformation , was conferr'd on them by the Pope ? And if it were , whether it were the Pope's right , or an usurpation ? If it were his right , whether by Divine Law or Ecclesiasticall ? And if by Ecclesiasticall only , whether he might possibly so abuse his power , as to deserve to loose it ? Whether de facto he had done so ? Whether supposing he had deserved to loose it , those that deprived him of it had power to take it from him ? Or if not , whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it , untill good caution were put in , and good assurance given , that if he had it again , he would not abuse it as he had formerly done ? Whether in case they had done unlawfully that took his power from him , it may not ( things being now setled , and the present government established ) be as unlawfull to goe about to restore it ? Whether it be not a Fallacy to conclude , because we believe the Pope hath no power in England , now when the King and State and Church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it , therefore wee cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation ? Whether without Schisme , a man may not withdraw obedience from an usurp'd Authority commanding unlawfull things ? Whether the Roman Church might not give authority to Bishops and Priests to oppose her errors , as well as a King gives Authority to a Iudge to judge against him , if his cause be bad ; as well as Traian gave his sword to his Prefect , with this commission , that if he governed well , he should use it for him , if ill against him . Whether the Roman Church gave not Authority to her Bishops and Priests to preach against her corruptions in manners ? And if so , why not against her errors in doctrine , if she had any ? Whether she gave them not authority to preach the whole Gospell of Christ , and consequently against her doctrine , if it should contradict any part of the Gospell of Christ ? Whether it be not acknowledged lawfull in the Church of Rome , for any Lay man or woman that has ability to perswade others by word or by writing from error , and unto truth ? And why this liberty may not be practised against their Religion , if it be false , as well as for it if it be true ? Whether any man need any other commission or vocation then that of a Christian , to doe a work of charity ? And whether it be not one of the greatest works of Charity ( if it be done after a peaceable manner , and without an unnecessary disturbance of order , ) to perswade men out of a false , unto a true way of eternall happinesse ? Especially the Apostle having assur'd us , that he , ( whosoever he is ) who converteth a sinner from the error of his way , shall save a soule from death , and shall hide a multitude of sinnes ? Whether the first Reformed Bishops died all at once , so that there were not enough to ordain Others in the places that were vacant ? Whether the Bishops of England may not consecrate a Metropolitan of England , as well as the Cardinalls doe the Pope ? Whether the King or Queen of England , or they that have the government in their hands , in the minority of the Prince , may not lawfully commend one to them to be consecrated , against whom there is no Canonicall exception ? Whether the Doctrine , that the King is supream head of the Church of England , ( as the Kings of Iudah , & the first Christian Emperors were of the Iewish and Christian Church , ) be any new found doctrine ? Whether it may not be true , that Bishops being made Bishops , have their authority immediatly from Christ , though this or that man be not made Bishop without the Kings authority ; as well as you say , the Pope being Pope , has authority immediatly from Christ , and yet this or that man cannot be made Pope without the authority of the Cardinalls ? Whether you doe well to suppose , that Christian Kings have no more authority in ordering the affaires of the Church , then the great Turk , or the Pagan Emperors ? Whether the King may not give authority to a Bishop to exercise his function in some part of his Kingdome , and yet not be capable of doing it himselfe : as well as a Bishop may give authority to a Physitian , to practise Physick in his Diocesse , which the Bishop cannot doe himselfe ? Whether if Ner● the Emperour would have commanded S. Peter or S. Paul to preach the Gospell of Christ , and to exercise the office of a Bishop of Rome , whether they would have question'd his Authority to doe so ? Whether there were any Law of God or man , that prohibited K. IAMES to give Commission to Bishops , nay to lay his injunction upon them , to doe any thing that is lawfull ? Whether a casuall irregularity may not be lawfully dispenc'd with ? Whether the Popes irregularities if he should chance to incurre any , be indispensable ? And if not who is he or who are they , whom the Pope is so subject unto , that they may dispense with him ? Whether that be certain which you take for granted ; That your Ordination imprints a character and ours doth not ? Whether the power of consecrating and ordaining by imposition of hands , may not reside in the Bishops , and be derived unto them , not from the King but God ; and yet the King have authority to command them to apply this power to such a fit person , whom he shall commend unto them : As well as if some Architects only had the faculty of architecture , and had it immediatly by infusion from God himselfe , yet , if they were the Kings subjects , he wants not authority to command them to build him a Palace for his use , or a fortresse for his service : Or as the King of France pretends not to have power to make Priests himselfe , yet I hope , you will not deny him power to command any of his subjects that has this power , to ordaine any fit person Priest , whom he shall desire to be ordained ? Whether it doe not follow , that whensoever the King commands an house to be built , a message to be delivered , or a murtherer to be executed , that all these things are presently done without intervention of the Architect , messenger , or executioner : As well as , that they are ipsofacto ordain'd and consecrated , who by the Kings authority are commended to the Bishops to be ordained and consecrated : Especially seeing the King will not deny , but that these Bishops may refuse to doe what he requires to be done , lawfully if the person be unworthy , if worthy , unlawfully indeed , but yet de facto they may refuse : and in case they should doe so , whether justly or unjustly ; neither the King himselfe , nor any body else , would esteeme the person Bishop upon the Kings designation ? Whether many Popes , though they were not consecrated Bishops by any temporall Prince , yet might not , or did not receive authority from the Emperor to exercise their Episcopall function in this or that place ? And whether the Emperors had not authority , upon their desert , to deprive them of their jurisdiction , by imprisonment or banishment ? Whether Protestants doe indeed pretend that their Reformation is universall ? Whether in saying , the Donatists , Sect was confined to Africa , you doe not forget your selfe , and contradict what you said above , in §. 17. of this Chapter , where you tell us , they had some of their Sect residing in Rome ? Whether it be certain , that none can admit of Bishops willingly , but those that hold them of divine institution ? Whether they may not be willing to have them , conceiving that way of government the best , though not absolutely necessary ? Whether all those Protestants that conceive the distinction between Priests and Bishops , not to be of divine institution , be Schismaticall and Hereticall for thinking so ? Whether your forme of ordaining Bishops and Priests , be essentiall to the constitution of a true Church ? Whether the formes of the Church of England differ essentially from your formes ? Whether in saying , that the true Church cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests , you have not overthrown the truth of your own Church : wherein I have proved it plainly impossible , that any man should be so much as morally certain , either of his own Priesthood or any other mans ? Lastly , whether any one kind of these externall formes and orders , and government be so necessary to the being of a Church , but that they may not be diverse in diverse places , and that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to submit himself to the Government of the place where he lives whatsoever it be ? All these Questions will be necessary to be discussed for the clearing of the truth of the Minor proposition of your former Syllogisme , and your proofs of it : and I will promise to debate them fairly with you , if first you will bring some better proof of the Maior , That want of Succession is a certain note of Heresy , which for the present remaines both unprov'd and unprobable .

40 Ad § . 23. The Fathers , you say , assigne Succession as one mark of the true Church : I confesse they did urge Tradition as an argument of the truth of their doctrine and of the falsehood of the contrary ; and thus farre they agree with you . But now see the difference : They urg'd it not against all Heretiques that ever should be , but against them who rejected a great part of the Scripture , for no other reason but because it was repugnant to their doctrine , and corrupted other parts with their additions and detractions , and perverted the remainder with divers absurd interpretations : So Tertullian not a leafe before the words by you cited . Nay they urg'd it against them who when they were confuted out of Scripture , fell to accuse the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right , and came not from good authority , as if they were various one from another , and as if truth could not bee found out of them , by those who know not Tradition , for that it was not delivered in writing , ( they did meane wholly , ) but by word of mouth : And that thereupon Paul also said , wee speak wisdome amongst the perfect . So Irenaeus in the very next Chapter before that which you alleage . Against these men being thus necessitated to doe so , they did urge Tradition , but what or whose Tradition was it : Certainly no other but the joint Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches , with one mouth and one voice teaching the same doctrine . Or if for brevity sake they produce the Tradition of any one Church , yet is it apparent , that , that one was then in conjunction with all the rest ; Irenaeus , Tertullian , Origen , testifie as much in the words cited , and S. Austin , in the place before alleaged by mee . This Tradition they did urge against these men , and in a time , in comparison of ours , almost contiguous to the Apostles : So neare , that one of them , Irenaeus , was Scholar to one who was Scholar to S. Iohn the Apostle , Tertullian and Origen were not an age remov'd from him : and the last of them all , litle more then an age from them . Yet after all this they urg'd it not as a demonstration , but only as a very probable argument , far greater then any their Adversaries could oppose against it . So Tertullian in the place above quoted § . 5. How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one faith ? ( it should be , should have erred into on faith . ) And this was the condition of this argument as the Fathers urg'd it . Now if you having to deale with us , who question no Booke of Scripture , which was not anciently questioned by some whom you your selves esteem good Catholiques ; nay who refuse not to be tryed by your owne Canons , your own Translations , who in interpreting Scriptures are content to allow of all those rules which you propose , only except that we will not allow you to be our Iudges ; if you will come fifteen hundred years after the Apostles , a fair time for the purest Church to gather much drosse and corruption , and for the mystery of iniquity to bring its work to some perfection , which in the Apostles time began to work , If ( I say ) you will come thus long after and urge us with the single Tradition of one of these Churches , being now Catholique to it selfe alone , and Hereticall to all the rest : nay not only with her ancient and originall Traditions , but also with her post-nate and introduc'd Definitions , and these as we pretend , repugnant to Scripture , and ancient Tradition , and all this to decline an indifferent tryall by Scripture , under pretence ( wherein also you agree with the calumnie of the old Heretiques ) that all necessary truth cannot be found in them without recourse to Tradition : If , I say , notwithstanding all these differences , you will still be urging us with this argument , as the very same and of the same force with that wherewith the fore-mentioned Fathers urg'd the old Heretiques , certainly this must needs proceed from a confidence you have , not only that we have no School-Divinity , nor Metaphysicks , but no Logick or common sense , that we are but pictures of men , and have the definition of rational creatures given us in vain .

41 But now suppose I should be liberall to you , and grant what you cannot prove , that the Fathers make Succession a certain and perpetuall ma●k of the true Church ; I beseech you what will come of it ? What , that want of Succession is a certain signe of an Hereticall company ? Truly if you say so , either you want Logick , which is a certain signe of an ill disputer ; or are not pleas'd to use it , which is a worse . For speech is a certain signe of a living man , yet want of speech is no sure argument that he is dead , for he may be dumb and yet living still , and we may have other evident tokens that hee is so , as eating , drinking , breathing , moving : So , though the constant and universall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolique Churches ever since the Apostles , be a very great argument of the truth of it , yet there is no certainty , but that truth , even Divine truth , may through mens wickednesse , be contracted from its universality , and interrupted in its perpetuity , and so loose this argument , and yet not want others to iustifie and support it self . For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens hearts , or a conclusion evidently arising from them : It may be either contain'd in Scripture in expresse terms , or deducible from it by apparent consequence . If therefore you intend to prove want of a perpetuall Succession of Professors a certain note of Heresie , you must not content your self to shew , that having it is one signe of truth ; but you must shew it to be the only signe of it and inseparable from it . But this , if you be well advis'd , you will never undertake . First because it is an impossible attempt : and then because if you doe it you will marre all : for by proving this an inseparable signe of Catholique doctrine , you will prove your own , which apparently wants it in many points , not to be Catholique . For whereas you say this Succession requires two things , agreement with the Apostles doctrine , and an uninterrupted conveyance of it down to them that challenge it : It will be prov'd against you that you fail in both points ; and that some things wherein you agree with the Apostles have not been held alwaies , as your condemning the doctrine of the Chiliasts , and holding the Eucharist not necessary for Infants ; and that in many other things you agree not with them nor with the Church for many ages after . For example ; In mutilation of the Communion , in having your Service in such a language as the Assistants generally understand nor , your offering to Saints , your picturing of God , your worshipping of Pictures .

42 Ad § . 24. As for Vniversality of place , the want whereof you object to Protestants as a marke of Heresie : You have not set down cleerely and univocally what you mean by it , whether universality of fact or of right : and if of fact , whether absolute or comparative : and if comparative , whether of the Church in comparison of any other Religion , or only of Hereticall Christians : or if in comparison of these , whether in comparison of all other Sects conjoyn'd , or in comparison only of any One of them . Nor have you proved it by any good argument in any sense to be a certain mark of Heresy : For those places of S. Austine doe not deserve the name . And truly in my judgement you have done advisedly in proving it no better . For as for Vniversality of right , or a right to Vniversality , all Religions claime it , but only the true has it , and which has it cannot be determin'd , unlesse it first be determin'd which is the true . An absolute Vniversality , and diffusion through all the world if you should pretend to , all the world would laugh at you . If you should contend for latitude with any one Religion , Mahumetisme would carry the victory from you . If you should oppose your selves against all other Christians besides you , it is certain you would be cast in this suit also . If lastly , being hard driven you should please you selves with being more then any one Sect of Christians , it would presently be replied , that it is uncertain whether now you are so , but most certain that the time has been when you have not been so . Then when the a a Hierom. Cont. Lucif●rianos . whole world wondred that it was become Arrian : then when Athanasius oppos'd the world , and the world Athanasius : then when b b In Theodoret. Hist. 16. c. l. 2. your Liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him as a note of error , answered for himselfe , There was a time when there were but three opposed the decree of the King , and yet those three were in the right , and the rest in the wrong : then when the Professors of error surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in proportion , as the sands of the Sea doe the Starres of the Heaven . ( As c c In ep. 48. 〈◊〉 Vincentium . S. Austine acknowledgeth : ) then when d d Convnenitorij . lib. 1. c. 4. Vincentius confesseth , that the poyson of the Arrians had contaminated , not now some certain portion , but almost the whole World : then when the author of Nazianzens life testifies , That e e In vita Naziauz the Heresy of Arrius , had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world ; and when Nazianzen found cause to cry out , f f In Orat. Arian . & 〈◊〉 . Where are they who reproach us with our pouerty , who define the Church by the multitude , and despise the little flock ? They have the People , but we the faith . And lastly when Athanasius was so overborn with Sholes & floods of Arrians , that he was enforc'd to write a Treatise on purpose g g To. ● against those , who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents . So that if you had prov'd want of Universality even thus restrained , to be an infallible note of Heresy , there would have been no remedy but you must have confessed , that the time was when you were Heretiques . And besides , I see not how you would have avoided this great inconvenience , of laying grounds and storeing up arguments for Antichrist , against he comes , by which he may prove his Company the true Church . For it is evident out of Scripture , and confessed by you , that though his time be not long , his dominion shall be very large ; and that the true Church shall be then , the woman driven into the wildernesse .

43 Ad § . 25. & 26. The remainder of this Chapter if I would deale strictly with you , I might let passe as impertinent to the question now disputed . For whereas your argument promises that this whole Chapter shall be imploied in proving Luther & the Protestants guilty of Heresy , here you desert this question , and strike out into another accusation of them , that their faith even of the truth they hold , is not indeed true faith . But put case it were not , does it follow , that the having of this faith makes them Heretiques , or that they are therefore Heretiques because they have this faith ? Aristotle beleeved there were Intelligences which moved the Spheares ; he believed this with an humane perswasion , and not with a certain , obscure , prudent , supernaturall faith : and will you make Aristotle an Heretique , because he believed so ? You believe there was such a man as Iulius Caesar , that there is such a City as Constantinople , and your beliefe here of has not these qualifications which you require : And will you be content that this shall passe for a sufficient proofe that you are an Heretique ? Heresy you have defin'd above to be a voluntary error : but he that believes truth , though his belief be not qualified according to your minde , yet sure in believing truth he believes no error ; & from hence according to ordinary Logick methinkes it should follow , that such a man for doing so , cannot be guilty of Heresy .

44 But you will say , though he be not guilty of Heresy for believing these truths , yet if his faith be not saving , to what purpose will it be ? Truly very litle to the purpose of Salvation , as litle as it is to your proving Protestants guilty of Heresy . But out of our wonted indulgence , let us pardon this fault also , and doe you the favour to hear what you can say , to beget this faith in us , that indeed wee have no faith , or at least not such a faith , without which it is impossible to please God . Your discourse upon this point , you have , I know not upon what policie , disjoynted , and given us the grounds of it in the begining of the Chapter , and the superstructure here in the end . Them I have already examined , and for a great part of them , proved them vain and deceitfull . I have shewed by many certain arguments , that though the subject matter of our faith be in it selfe most certain , yet that absolute certainty of adherence , is not required to the essence of faith , no nor to make it acceptable with God , but that to both these effects it is sufficient , if it be firme enough to produce Obedience and Charity . I haue shewed besides , that Prudence is rather commendable in faith , then intrinsecall and essentiall to it . So that whatsoever is here said , to prove the faith of Protestants no faith , for want of certainty or for want of prudence , is already answered before it is objected : for the foundation being destroyed the building cannot stand . Yet for the fuller refutation of all pretences , I will here make good , that to prove our faith destitute of these qualifications , you have produc'd but vain Sophismes , and for the most part , such arguments as returne most violently upon your selves . Thus then you say ,

45 First that their belief wanteth certainty , I prove , because they denying the universall Infallibility of the Church , can have no certain ground to know what objects are revealed or testified by God . But if there be no other ground of certainty but your Churches infallibility , upon what certain ground doe you know that your Church is infallible ? Upon what certain ground doe you know all those things which must be known before you can know that your Church is infallible ? As that there is a God : that God hath promised his assistance to your Church in all her Decrees : that the Scripture wherein this promise is extant is the word of God : that those texts of Scripture which you alleage for your infallibility are incorrupted : that that which you pretend is the true sense of them ? When you have produc'd certain grounds for all these things , I doubt not but it will appeare , that we also may have grounds certain enough to believe our whole Religion , which is nothing else but the Bible , without dependance on the Churches infallibility . Suppose you should meet with a man that for the present , believes neither Church , nor Scripture , nor God , but is ready & willing to believe them all , if you can shew some sufficient grounds to build his faith upon ; will you tell such a man there are no certain grounds , by which he may be converted ; or there are ? If you say the first , you make all Religion an uncertain thing ; If the second , then either you must ridiculously perswade , that your Church is infallible , because it is infallible , or else that there are other certain grounds besides your Churches infallibility .

46 But you proceed and tell us , that Holy Scripture is in it selfe most true and infallible , but without the direction and declaration of the Church , we can neither have certain meanes to know what Scripture is Canonicall , nor what Translations be faithfull , nor what is the true meaning of Scripture . Answ. But all these things must be known , before we can know the direction of your Church to be infallible , for no other proofe of it can be pretended , but only some Texts of Canonicall Scripture , truly interpreted : Therefore either you are mistaken , in thinking there is no other meanes to know these things , but your Churches infallible direction , or we are excluded from all meanes of knowing her direction to be infallible .

47 But Protestants , though as you suppose , they are perswaded their own oponions are true , and that they have used such meanes as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture , as Prayer , conferring of Texts &c. Yet by their disagreement shew , that some of them are deceived . Now they hold all the Articles of their faith , upon this only ground of Scripture , interpreted by these rules , and therefore it is cleere , that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all . The first of these suppositions must needs be true , but the second is apparently false : I mean , that every Protestant is perswaded that he hath used those means which are prescribed for understanding of Scripture . But that which you collect from these suppositions is cleerely inconsequent : and by as good Logick you might conclude , that Logick and Geometry stand upon no certain grounds , that the rules of the one , and the principles of the other doe sometimes faile , because the disagreement of Logicians and Geometricians shew , that some of them are deceived . Might not a Iew conclude as well against all Christians , that they have no certain ground whereon to rely in their understanding of Scripture , because their disagreements shew that some are deceived ; because some deduce from it the infallibility of a Church , and others no such matter ? So likewise a Turke might use the same argument against both Iewes and Christians , and an Atheist against all Religions , and a Sceptick against all reason . Might not the one say , Mens disagreement in Religion , shew that there is no certainty in any ; and the other , that experience of their contradictions teacheth , that the rules of reason doe sometimes faile ? Doe not you see and feele how void of reason and how full of impiety your sophistry is ? And how transported with zeale against Protestants , you urge arguments against them , which if they could not be answered , would overthrow not only your own , but all Religion ? But God be thanked , the answere is easy and obvious ! For let men but remember not to impute the faults of men but only to men , and then it will easily appear , that there may be sufficient certainty in reason , in Religion , in the rules of interpreting Scripture , though men through their faults , take not care to make use of them , and so run into divers errors and dissentions .

48 But Protestants cannot determine what points be fundamentall , and therefore must remain uncertain , whether or no they be not in some fundamentall error . Ans. By like reason since you acknowledge , that every error in points defin'd and declared by your Church destroies the substance of faith , and yet cannot determine what points be defined , it followeth that you must remain uncertain , whether or no you be not in some fundamentall error , and so want the substance of faith , without which there can be no hope of Salvation . Now that you are uncertain what points are defined , appeares from your owne words . c. 4. §. 3. of your second Part , where say you , No lesse impertinent is your discourse , concerning the difficulty to know what is Heresy : For we grant that it is not alwaies easy to determine in particular occasions , whether this or that Doctrine be such , because it may be doubtfull , whether it be against any Scripture , or divine Tradition , or Definition of the Church . Neither were it difficult to extort from you this confession , by naming diverse Points , which some of you say are defin'd , others the contrary . And others hang in suspense , and know not what to determine . But this I have done elsewhere : as also I have shewed plainly enough , that though we cannot perhaps say in particular , thus much , and no more is fundamentall , yet believing all the Bible , we are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamentall . As he that in a receit , takes twenty ingredients whereoften only are necessary , though he know not which those ten are , yet taking the whole twenty he is sure enough that he has taken all that are necessary .

49 Ad § . 29. But that he who erreth against any one revealed truth looseth all Divine Faith , is a very true doctrine delivered by Catholique Divines , ( you mean your own ) with so generall a consent , that the contrary is wont to be censur'd as temerarious : Now certainly some Protestants must doe so , because they hold contradictions which cannot all be true ; Therefore some of them at least , have no divine faith . Ans. I passe by your weaknesse , in urging Protestants with the authority of your Divines , which yet in you might very deservedly be censur'd . For when D. Potter , to shew the many actuall dissentions between the Romish Doctors , notwithstanding their braggs of potentiall Vnity , referres to Pappus , who has collected out of Bellar ▪ their contradictions , and set them down in his own words to the number of 237. & to Flacius , de Sect is & controversiis Religionis Papisticae ; you making the very same use of M. Breerely against Protestants ; yet jeere and scorne D. Potter , as if he offer'd you for a proofe , the bare authority of Pappus and Flacius , and tell him , which is all the answer you vouchsafe him , It is pretty that he brings Pappus and Flacius , flat Heretiques , to prove your many contradictions ▪ As if he had proved this with the bare authority , the bare judgement of these men , which sure he does not , but with the formall words of Bellarmine faithfully collected by Pappus . And why then might not we say to you , Is it not pretty that you bring Breerly as flat an Heretique as Pappus or Flacius , to prove the contradictions of Protestants ? Yet had he been so vain as to presse you with the meere authority of Protestant Divines in any point , me thinkes for your own sake , you should have pardon'd him , who here and in many other places , urge us with the judgement of your Divines as with weighty arguments . Yet , if the authority of your Divines were even Canonicall , certainly nothing could be concluded from it in this matter , there being not one of them , who delivers for true doctrine this position of yours , thus nakedly set down , That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine faith . For they all require , ( not your selfe excepted ) that this truth must not only be revealed , but revealed publiquely , and ( all things considered ) sufficiently propounded to the erring Party , to be one of those , which God under pain of damnation commands all men to believe . And therefore the contradiction of Protestants ( though this vaine doctrine of your Divines were supposed true , is but a weak argument ) That any of them have no divine . Faith , seeing you neither have , not ever can prove ▪ ( without begging the Question of your Churches infallibility , ) that the truthes about which they differ , are of this quality and condition . But though out of curtesy wee may suppose this doctrine true , yet we have no reason to grant it , nor to think it any thing but a vain and groundlesse fancy : and that this very weak and inartificiall argument , from the authority of your Divines , is the strongest pillar which it hath to support it . Two reasons you alleage for it out of Thomas Aquinas , the first whereof vainly supposeth against reason and experience , that by the commission of any deadly sinne , the habit of Charity is quite extirpated . And for the second , though you cry it up for an Achilles , and think like the Gorgons head it will turne us all into stone , and in confidence of it , insult upon D. Potter as if he durst not come near it , yet in very truth having considered it well , I finde it a serious , grave , prolixe , and profound nothing . I could answer it in a word , by telling you , that it beggs without all proofe or colour of proofe , the main question between us , that the infallibility of your Church is either the formall motive , or rule , or a necessary condition of faith : which you know we flatly deny , and therefore all that is built upon it has nothing but wind for a foundation . But to this answer I will adde a large confutation of this vain fancy , out of one of the most rationall and profound Doctors of your own Church , I mean Estius , who upon the third of the Sent. the 23. dist ▪ the 13. § . writes thus , It is disputed ( saith he ) whether in him who believes some of the Articles of our faith , and disbelieves others , or perhaps someone , there be faith properly so called in respect of that which he does believe ? In which question we must before all , carefully distinguish between those , who retaining a generall readinesse to believe whatsoever the Church believes , yet erre by ignorance in some doctrine of faith , because it is not as yet sufficiently declared to them that the Church does so believe ; and those who after sufficient manifestation of the Churches doctrine , doe yet choose to dissent from it , either by doubting of it , or affirming the contrary . For of the former the answer is easy ; but of these , that is , of Heretiques retaining some part of wholsome doctrine , the question is more difficult , and on both sides by the Doctors probably disputed . For that there is in them true faith of the Articles wherein they doe not erre , first experience seemes to convince : For many at this day denying , for example sake , Purgatory , or Invocation of Saints , neverthelesse firmely hold , as by divine revelation , that God is Three and One ▪ that the Sonne of God was incarnate and suffered , and other like things . ●As anciently the Novatians , excepting their peculiar error , of denying reconciliation to those that fell in persecution , held other things in common with Catholiques : So that they assisted them very much against the Arrians , as Socrates relates in his Eccl. Hist. Moreover the same thing is proved by the example of the Apostles , who in the time of Christs passion being scandaliz'd , lost their faith in him : as also , Christ after his resurrection upbraids them with their incredulity , and calls Thomas incredulous , for denying the Resurrection , Ioh. 20. Whereupon S. Austine also in his preface upon the 96. Ps. saith , That after the Resurrection of Christ , the faith of those that fell was restored again . And yet we must not say , that the Apostles then lost the faith of the Trinity , of the Creation of the world , of Eternall life , and such like other Articles . Besides , the Iewes before Christs comming , held the faith of one God the Creator of Heaven and Earth : who although they lost the true faith of the Messias by not receiving Christ , yet we cannot say , that they lost the faith of one God , but still retained this Article as firmely as they did before .

Adde hereunto , that neither Iewes nor Heretiques seeme to lye , in saying they believe either the books of the Prophets , or the four Gospels : It being apparent enough , that they acknowledge in them Divine Authority , though they hold not the true sense of them , to which purpose is that in the Acts. c. 20. Believest thou the Prophets ? I know that thou believest . Lastly it is manifest , that many gifts of God , are found even in bad men , and such as are out of the Church ; therefore nothing hinders but that Iewes and Heretiques , though they erre in many things , yet in other things may be so divinely illuminated as to believe aright . So S. Austin seemes to teach in his book , De Vnico Baptismo : contra Pe●ilianum c. 3. in these words : When a Iew comes to us to be made a Christian , we destroy not in him Gods good things but his own ill . That he believes one God is to be worshipped , that he hopes for eternall life , that he doubts not of the Resurrection , we approve and commend him : we acknowledge , that as he did believe these things , so he is still to believe them , and as he did hold , so he is still to hold them . Thus he : subioyning more to the same purpose in the next , and again in the 26. Chapter , and in his third book , De Bapt. contr. Donat. cap. ult. and upon Psal. 64. But now this reason seems to perswade the contrary : Because the formall obiect of faith seemes to be the first verity , as it is manifested by the Churches Doctrine as the Divine and infallible Rule , wherefore whosoever adheres not to this Rule , although he assent to some matters of faith , yet he embraces them not with faith , but with some other kinde of assent : as if a man assent to a conclusion , not knowing the reason by which it is demonstrated , he hath not true knowledge , but an opinion only of the same conclusion . Now that an Heretique adheres not to the r●le aforesaid , it is manifest : Because if he did adhere to it , as divine and infallible , he would receive all without exception , which the Church teacheth , and so would not be an Heretique . After this manner discourseth S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 5. art. 3. From whom yet Dur and dissents upon this distinction , thinking there may be in an Heretique true faith , in respect of the Articles in which he doth not erre . Others , as Scotus and Bonaventure , define not the matter plainly , but seeme to choose a middle way .

To the authority of S. Austine and these Schooleme● , this may be adjoyned , That it is usuall with good Christians to say , that Heretiques have not the entire faith . Whereby it seemes to be intimated , that some part of it they doe retaine . Whereof this may be another reason : That if the truths which a Iew or a Heretique holds , he should not hold them by faith , but after some other manner , to wit , by his own proper will and judgement , it will follow , that all that excellent knowledge of God and divine things , which is found in them , is to be attributed not to the grace of God , but the strength of Free will , which is against S. Austine , both elsewhere , and especially in the end of his book De potentia .

As for the reason alleaged to the contrary , We answer : It is impertinent to faith , by what meanes we believe the prime Verity , that is , by what meanes God useth to conferre upon men the gift of Faith . For although now the ordinary meanes be the Testimony and teaching of the Church , yet it is certain that by other meanes , faith hath been given heretofore , and is given still . For many of the Ancients , as Adam , Abraham , Melchisedeck , Iob , received faith by speciall revelation ; the Apostles by the Miracles and Preaching of Christ ; others again by the Preaching and miracles of the Apostles ; and Lastly others , by other meanes , when as yet they had heard nothing of the infallibility of the Church ; to little Children by Baptisme , without any other help , faith is infus'd : And therefore it is possible , that a man not adhering to the Churches doctrine as a Rule infallible , yet may receive some things for the word of God , which doe indeed truly belong to the faith , either because they are now , or heretofore have been confirm'd by miracles : Or because he manifestly sees that the ancient Church taught so , or upon some other inducement . And yet neverthelesse we must not say , that Heretiques and Iewes doe hold the Faith , but only some part of the Faith . For the Faith signifies an entire thing , and compleat in all parts ; whereupon an Heretique is said to be simply an Infidell , to have lost the Faith , and according to the Apostle 1. Tim. 1. to have made shipwrack of it , although he holds some things , with the same strength of assent and readinesse of will , wherewith by others are held all those points which appertaine to the Faith . And thus farre Estius . Whose discourse I presume may passe for a sufficient refutation of your argument out of Aquinas . And therefore your Corollaries drawn from it , That every error against faith , involves opposition against Gods testimony , That Protestants have no Faith , no certainty , and that you have all Faith , must together with it fall to the ground .

50 But if Protestants have certainty , they want obscurity , and so have not that faith , which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing . This argument you prosecute in the next Paragraph ; But I can find nothing in it , to convince or perswade me that Protestants cannot have as much certainty as is required to faith , of an object not so evident as to beget science . If obscurity will not consist with certainty in the highest degree , then you are to blame for requiring to faith contradicting conditions . If certainty and obscurity will stand together , what reason can be imagin'd that a Protestant may not entertain them both as well as a Papist ? Your bodies & souls , your understandings and wills are , I think , of the same condition with ours : And why then may not we be certain of an obscure thing as well as you ? And as you made this long discourse against Protestants , why may not wee putting Church instead of Scripture , send it back again to you ? And say ; If Papists have certainty , they want obscurity , and so have not that faith , which as the Apostle saith , is of things not appearing , or not necessitating our understanding to an assent ? For the whole edifice of the faith of Papists is setled on these two principles , These particular propositions are the propositions of the Church , And the sense and meaning of them is clear and evident , at least in all points necessary to salvation . Now these principles being one suppos'd , it clearly followeth , that what Papists beleeve as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true , by this argument ; It is certain and evident , that whatsoever is the word of God or Divine Revelation is true ; But it is certain and evident that these propositions of the Church in particular are the word of God and Divine Revelations ; therefore it is certain and evident , that all propositions of the Church are true . Which Conclusion I take for a Major in a second argument , and say thus ; It is certain and evident that all propositions of the Church are true ; But it is certain and evident , that such particulars , for example , The lawfulnesse of the halfe Communion , The lawfulnesse and expedience of Latine Service , the Doctrine of Transubstantiation , Indulgences &c. are the Propositions of the Church ; therefore it is certain and evident that these particular objects are true . Neither will it avail you to say , that the said principles are not evident by naturall discourse , but only by the eye of reason clear'd by grace : For supernaturall evidence , no lesse ( yea rather more ) drowns and excludes obscurity , then naturall evidence doth . Neither can the Partie so enlightned , be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light , but rather his understanding is by necessity made captive and forc'd not to disbeleeve what is presented by so clear a light . And therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the Apostle , but an invention of your own .

51 And having thus cryed quittance with you , I must intreat you to devise ( for truly I cannot ) some answer to this argument , which will not serve in proportion to your own . For I hope you will not pretend that I have done you injurie , in setling your faith upon principles which you disclaim . And if you alleage this disparity , That you are more certain of your principles , then we of ours , and yet you doe not pretend that your principles are so evident , as we doe that ours are : what is this to say , but that you are more confident then we , but confesse you have lesse reason for it ? For the evidence of the thing assented to , be it more or lesse , is the reason and cause of the assent in the understanding . But then besides , I am to tell you , that you are here , as every where , extremely , if not affectedly mistaken in the Doctrine of Protestants ; who though they acknowledge , that the things which they beleeve are in themselves as certain as any demonstrable or sensible verities , yet pretend not that their certainty of adherence is most perfect and absolute , but such as may be perfected and increas'd as long as they walke by faith and not by sight . And consonant hereunto is their doctrine touching the evidence of the objects whereunto they adhere . For you abuse the world & them , if you pretend that they hold the first of your two principles , That these particular Books are the word of God , ( for so I think you mean ) either to be in it self evidently certain , or of it self and being devested of the motives of credibility , evidently credible : For they are not so fond as to be ignorant , nor so vain as to pretend , that all men doe assent to it , which they would if it were evidently certain , nor so ridiculous as to imagine , that if an Indian that never heard of Christ or Scripture , should by chance find a Bible in his own Language , and were able to read it , that upon the reading it hee would certainly without a miracle beleeve it to bee the word of God : which he could not chuse if it were evidently credible . What then doe they affirm of it ? Certainly no more then this , that whatsoever man that is not of a perverse mind , shall weigh with serious and mature deliberation , those great moments of reason which may incline him to beleeve the Divine authority of Scripture , and compare them with the light objections that in prudence can be made against it , he shall not chuse but find sufficient nay abundant inducements to yeeld unto it firme faith and syncere obedience . Let that learned man Hugo Grotius speake for all the Rest , in his Booke of the truth of Christian Religion ; which Book whosoever attentively peruses shall find that a man may have great reason to be a Christian without dependance upon your Church for any part of it : and that your Religion is no foundation , but rather a scandall and an objection against Christianity . He then in the last Chapter of his second book hath these excellent words , If any be not satisfied with these arguments above-said , but desires more forcible reasons for confirmation of the excellency of Christian Religion , let such know that as there are variety of things which be true , so are there divers waies of proving or manifesting the truth . Thus is there one way in Mathematicks , another in Physicks , a third in Ethicks , and lastly another kind when a matter of fact is in question : wherein verily we must rest content with such testimonies as are free from all suspition of untruth ; otherwise down goes all the frame and use of history , and a great part of the art of Physick , together with all dutifulnesse that ought to be between parents and children : for matters of practice can no way else be known but by such testimonies . Now it is the pleasure of Almighty God that those things which he would have us to beleeve ( so that the very beleef thereof may be imputed to us for obedience ) should not so evidently appear , as those things which are apprehended by sense and plaine demonstration , but only be so farre forth revealed as may beget faith , and a perswasion thereof , in the hearts and minds of such as are not obstinate : That so the Gospell may be as a touchstone for triall of mens judgments , whether they be sound or unsound . For seeing these arguments , whereof we have spoken , have induced so many honest , godly , and wise men to approve of this Religion , it is thereby plain enough that the fault of other mens infidelity is not for want of sufficient testimony , but because they would not have that to be had and embraced for truth which is contrary to their wilfull desires ; it being a hard matter for them to relinquish their honours , and set at naught other commodities ; which thing they know they ought to doe , if they admit of Christs doctrine and obey what he hath commanded . And this is the rather to be noted of them , for that many other historicall narrations are approved by them to be true , which notwithstanding are only manifest by authority , and not by any such strong proofs , and perswasions , or tokens , as doe declare the history of Christ to be true : which are evident , partly by the confession of those Iewes that are yet alive ; and partly in those companies and congregations of Christians which are any where to be found ; whereof doubtlesse there was some cause .

Lastly seeing the long duration or continuance of Christian Religion , and the large extent thereof can be ascribed to no humane power , therefore the same must be attributed to miracles : or if any deny that it came to passe through a miraculous manner ; this very getting so great strength and power without a miracle , may be thought to surpasse any miracle .

52 And now you see I hope that Protestants neither doe nor need to pretend to any such evidence in the doctrine they beleeve , as cannot well consist both with the essence and the obedience of faith . Let us come now to the last nullity which you impute to the faith of Protestants , and that it is want of Prudence . Touching which point , as I have already demonstrated , that wisdome is not essentiall to faith , but that a man may truly beleeve truth , though upon insufficient motives ; So I doubt not but I shall make good , that if prudence were necessary to faith , we have better title to it then you ; and that if a wiser then Solomon were here , he should have better reason to beleeve the Religion of Protestants then Papists , the Bible rather then the Councell of Trent . But let us hear what you can say !

53 Ad § . 31. You demand then first of all , What wisdome was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient , and besides which there could be demonstrated no other Visible Church of Christ upon earth ? I answer : Against God and truth there lyes no presoription , and therefore certainly it might be great wisdome to forsake ancient errours for more ancient Truths . One God is rather to be follow'd then innumerable worlds of men : And therefore it might be great wisdome either for the whole Visible Church , nay for all the men in the world , having wandred from the way of Truth , to return unto it ; or for a part of it , nay for one man to doe so , although all the world besides were madly resolute to doe the contrary . It might be great wisdome to forsake the errors though of the only Visible Church , much more the Roman , which in conceiving her self the whole Uisible Church , does somewhat like the Frog in the Fable , which thought the ditch he liv'd in to be all the world .

54 You demand again , What wisdome was it to forsake a Church acknowledg'd to want nothing necessary to Salvation , indued with Succession of Bishops , &c , usque ad Election or Choice ? I answer : Yet might it be great wisdome to forsake a Church not acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation , but accused and convicted of many damnable errors : certainly damnable to them who were convicted of them , had they still persisted in them after their conviction ; though perhaps pardonable ( which is all that is acknowledg'd ) to such as ignorantly continued in them . A Church vainly arrogating without possibility of proof a perpetuall Succession of Bishops , holding alwaies the same doctrine ; and with a ridiculous impudence pretending perpetuall possession of all the world : whereas the world knows , that a litle before Luthers arising , your Church was confined to a part of a part of it . Lastly a Church vainly glorying in the dependance of other Churches upon her , which yet she supports no more then those crouching Anticks which seeme in great buildings to labour under the weight they beare , doe indeed support the Fabrick . For a corrupted and false Church may give authority to preach the truth , and consequently against her own falshoods and corruptions . Besides , a false Church may preserve the Scripture true , ( as now the Old Testament is preserved by the Iewes , ) either not being arriv'd to that height of impiety as to attempt the corruption of it , or not able to effect it , or not perceiving , or not regarding the opposition of it to her corruptions . And so we might receive from you lawfull Ordination and true Scriptures , though you were a false Church ; and receiving the Scriptures from you ( though not from you alone , ) I hope you cannot hinder us , neither need wee aske your leave , to believe and obey them . And this , though you be a false Church , is enough to make us a true one . As for a Succession of men that held with us in all points of Doctrine , it is a thing we need not , and you have as litle as we . So that if we acknowledge that your Church before Luther was a true Church , it is not for any ends , for any dependance that we have upon you ; but because we conceive that in a charitable construction , you may passe for a true Church . Such a Church ( and no better ) as you doe sometimes acknowledge Protestants to be , that is , a Company of men , wherein some ignorant soules may be saved . So that in this ballancing of Religion against Religion , and Church against Church , it seemes you have nothing of weight and moment to put into your scale ; nothing but smoak and winde , vaine shadowes and phantasticall pretences . Yet if Protestants on the other side , had nothing to put in their Scale but those negative commendations which you are pleas'd to afford them ; nothing but , no unity , nor meanes to procure it ; no farther extent when Luther arose then Luthers body ; no Vniversality of time or place ; no visibility or being , except only in your Church ; no Succession of persons or doctrine ; no leader but Luther , in a quarrell begun upon no ground but passion ; no Church , no Ordination , no Scriptures but such as they receiv'd from you ; if all this were true , and this were all that could be pleaded for Protestants , possibly with an allowance of three graines of partiality your Scale might seem to turne . But then if it may appear that part of these objections are falsely made against them , the rest vainely ; that whatsoever of truth is in these imputations , is impertinent to this triall , and whatsoever is pertinent is untrue ; and besides , that plenty of good matter may be alleaged for Protestants which is here dissembled : Then I hope , our cause may be good notwithstanding these pretences .

55 I say then , that want of Vniversality of time & place , The invisibility or not existence of the professors of Protestant Doctrine before Luther , Luthers being alone when he first opposed your Church , Our having our Church , Ordination , Scriptures , personall and yet not doctrinall Succession from you , are vain and impertinent allegations , against the truth of our Doctrine and Church . That the entire truth of Christ without any mixture of error should be professed or believed in all places at any time , or in any place at all times , is not a thing evident in reason , neither have we any Revelation for it . And therefore in relying so confidently on it , you build your house upon the sand . And what obligation we had either to be so peevish , as to take nothing of yours , or so foolish as to take all , I doe not understand . For whereas you say that this is to be choosers and therefore Heretiques , I tell you that though all Heretiques are choosers , yet all choosers are not Heretiques , otherwise they also , which choose your Religion must be Heretiques . As for our wanting Vnity and Meanes of proving it , Luthers opposing your Church upon meere passion , our following private men rather then the Catholique Church ; the first and last are meere untruths , for we want not Vnity , nor Meanes to procure it in things necessary . Plain places of Scripture , and such as need no interpreter are our meanes to obtaine it . Neither doe we follow any private men , but only the Scripture , the word of God as our rule , and reason , which is also the gift of God given to direct us in all our actions , in the use of this rule . And then for Luthers opposing your Church upon meere passion , it is a thing I will not deny because I know not his heart , and for the same reason you should not have affirmed it . Sure I am , whether he opposed your Church upon reason or no , he had reason enough to oppose it . And therefore if he did it upon passion , we will follow him only in his action and not in his passion , in his opposion , not in the manner of it ; and then I presume you will have no reason to condemne us , unlesse you will say that a good action cannot be done with reason , because some body before us hath done it upon passion . You see then how imprudent you have been in the choice of your arguments , to prove Protestants unwise in the choice of their Religion .

56 It remaines now , that I should shew that many reasons of moment may bee alleaged for the justification of Protestants , which are dissembled by you , and not put into the ballance . Know then Sir that when I say , The Religion of Protestants , is in prudence to be preferr'd before yours : as on the one side I doe not understand by your Religion , the doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius , or any other privat man amongst you , nor the Doctrine of the Sorbon , or of the Iesuits , or of the Dominicans , or of any other particular Company among you , but that wherein you all agree , or professe to agree , the Doctrine of the Councell of Trent : so accordingly on the other side , by the Religion of Protestants , I doe not understand the Doctrine of Luther , or Calvin , or Melancthon ; nor the Confession of Augusta , or Geneva , nor the Catechisme of Heidelberg , nor the Articles of the Church of England , no nor the Harmony of Protestant Confessions ; but that wherin they all agree , and which they all subscribe with a greater Harmony , as a perfect rule of their Faith and Actions , that is , The BIBLE . The BIBLE , I say , The BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants ! Whatsoever else they believe besides it , and the plain , irrefragable , indubitable consequences of it , well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion , but as matter of Faith and Religion , neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves , nor require the beliefe of it of others , without most high and most Schismaticall presumption . I for my part after a long ( and as I verily believe & hope , ) impartiall search of the true way to eternall happinesse , doe professe plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot , but upon this Rock only . I see plainly and with mine own eyes , that there are Popes against Popes , Councells against Councells , some Fathers against others , the same Fathers against themselves , a Consent of Fathers of one age against a Consent of Fathers of another age , the Church of one age against the Church of another age . Traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended , but there are few or none to be found : No Tradition but only of Scripture , can derive it selfe from the fountain , but may be plainly prov'd , either to have been brought in , in such an age after Christ ; or that in such an age it was not in . In a word , there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only , for any considering man to build upon . This therefore , and this only I have reason to believe : This I will professe , according to this I will live , and for this , if there be occasion , I will not only willingly , but even gladly loose my life , though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me . Propose me any thing out of this book , and require whether I believe it or no , and seeme it never so incomprehensible to humane reason , I will subscribe it with hand and heart , as knowing no demonstration can be stronger then this , God hath said so , therefore it is true . In other things I will take no mans liberty of judgement from him ; neither shall any man take mine from me . I will think no man the worse man , nor the worse Christian : I will love no man the lesse , for differing in opinion from me . And what measure I meat to others I expect from them again . I am fully assured that God does not , and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man then this , To believe the Scripture to be Gods word , to endeavour to find the true sense of it , and to live according to it .

57 This is the Religion which I have chosen after a long deliberation , and I am verily perswaded that I have chosen wisely , much more wisely than if I had guided my selfe according to your Churches authority . For the Scripture being all true , I am secur'd by believing nothing else , that I shall believe no falshood as matter of Faith . And if I mistake the sense of Scripture , and so fall into error , yet am I secure from any danger thereby , if but your grounds be true : because endeavouring to finde the true sense of Scripture , I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy , and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto mee . And then all necessary truth being as I have prov'd , plainly set down in Scripture , I am certain by believing Scripture , to believe all necessary Truth : And he that does so , if his life be answerable to his faith , how is it possible he should faile of Salvation ?

58 Besides , whatsoever may be pretended to gain to your Church the credit of a Guide , all that & much more may be said for the Scripture . Hath your Church been ancient ? The Scripture is more ancient . Is your Church a meanes to keep men at vnity ? So is the Scripture to keep those that believe it and wil obey it , in unity of belief , in matters necessary or very profitable , and in unity of Charity in points unnecessary . Is your Church universall for time or place ? Certainly the Scripture is more universall . For all the Christians in the world ( those I mean that in truth deserve this name , ) doe now , and alwaies have believed the Scripture to be the word of God : whereas only you say that you only are the Church of God , & all Christians besides you deny it .

59 Thirdly , following the Scripture , I follow that whereby you prove your Churches infallibility , ( whereof were it not for Scripture what pretence could you have , or what notion could we have ? ) and by so doing tacitely confesse , that your selves are surer of the truth of the Scripture then of your Churches authority . For we must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proved , otherwise it is no proofe .

60 Fourthly , following the Scripture , I follow that which must be true if your Church be true : for your Church gives attestation to it . Whereas if I follow your Church , I must follow that which , though Scripture be true , may be false ; nay which if Scripture be true must be false , because the Scripture testifies against it .

61 Fiftly , to follow the Scripture I have Gods expresse warrant and command , and no colour of any prohibition : But to believe your Church infallible , I have no command at all , much lesse an expresse command . Nay I have reason to fear that I am prohibited to doe so in these words : call no man Master on earth : They fell by infidelity , Thou standest by faith , Bee not high minded but feare : The spirit of truth The world cannot receive .

62 Following your Church I must hold many things not only above reason but against it , if any thing be against it : whereas following the Scripture I shall believe many mysteries but no impossibilities ; many things above reason , but nothing against it ; many things which had they not been reveal'd , reason could never have discover'd , but nothing which by true reason may be confuted : many things which reason cannot comprehend how they can be , but nothing which reason can comprehend that it cannot be . Nay I shall believe nothing which reason will not convince that I ought to believe it : For reason will convince any man , unlesse he be of a perverse mind , that the Scripture is the word of God : And then no reason can be greater then this , God sayes so therefore it is true .

63 Following your Church I must hold many things which to any mans judgment that will give himself the liberty of judgment , will seem much more plainly contradicted by Scripture , then the infallibility of your Church appeares to be confirm'd by it ; and consequently must be so foolish as to believe your Church exempted from error upon lesse evidence , rather then subject to the common condition of mankind upon greater evidence . Now if I take the Scripture only for my Guide , I shall not need to doe any thing so unreasonable .

64 If I will follow your Church I must believe impossibilities , and that with an absolute certainty , upon motives which are confess'd to be but only Prudentiall and probable : That is , with a weak foundation I must firmly support a heavy , a monstrous heavy building : Now following the Scripture I shall have no necessity to undergoe any such difficulties .

65 Following your Church I must be servant of Christ and a Subject of the King , but only - Ad placitum Papae . I must bee prepar'd in mind to renounce my allegiance to the King , when the Pope shall declare him an Heretique and command me not to obey him : And I must be prepar'd in mind to esteem Vertue Vice , and Vice Vertue if the Pope shall so determine . Indeed you say it is impossible he should doe the latter ; but that you know is a great question , neither is it fit my obedience to God and the King should depend upon a questionable foundation . And howsoever , you must grant that if by an impossible supposition the Popes commands should be contrary to the law of Christ , that they of your Religion must resolve to obey rather the commands of the Pope then the law of Christ . Whereas if I follow the Scripture , I may , nay I must obey my Soveraign in lawfull things , though an Heretique , though a Tyrant , and though , I doe not say the Pope , but the Apostles themselves , nay an Angell from heaven should teach any thing against the Gospell of Christ , I may , nay I must denounce Anathem● to him .

66 Following the Scripture I shall believe a Religion , which being contrary to flesh and blood , without any assistance from worldly power , wit or policy ; nay against all the power and policy of the world prevail'd and enlarg'd it self in a very short time all the world over . Whereas it is too too apparent , that your Church hath got and still maintaines her authority over mens consciences , by counterfeiting false miracles , forging falle stories , by obtruding on the world suppositious writings , by corrupting the monuments of former times , and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you , by warres , by persecutions , by Massacres , by Treasons , by Rebellions ; in short , by all manner of carnall meanes whether violent or fraudulent .

67 Following the Scripture I shall believe a Religion , the first Preachers and Professors whereof , it is most certain they could have no worldly ends upon the world , that they could not project to themselves by it any of the profits or honours or pleasures of this world , but rather were to expect the contrary , even all the miseries which the world could lay upon them . On the other side , the Head of your Church , the pretended Successor of the Apostles , and Guide of faith , it is even palpable , that he makes your Religion the instrument of his ambition , & by it seekes to entitle himselfe directly or indirectly to the Monarchy of the world . And besides , it is evident to any man that has but halfe an eye , that most of those Doctrines which you adde to the Scripture doe make one way or other , for the honour or temporall profit of the Teachers of them .

68 Following the Scripture only , I shall embrace a Religion of admirable simplicity , consisting in a manner wholly in the worship of God in spirit and truth . Whereas your Church and Doctrine is even loaded with an infinity of weak , childish , ridiculous , unsavoury superstitions and ceremonies , and full of that righteousnesse for which Christ shall judge the world .

69 Following the Scripture , I shall believe that which Vniversall , never-failing Tradition assures me , that it was by the admirable supernaturall worke of God confirm'd to be the word of God : whereas never , any miracle was wrought , never so much as a lame horse cur'd in confirmation of your Churches authority and infallibility . And if any strange things have been done , which may seeme to give attestation to some parts of your doctrine , yet this proves nothing but the truth of the Scripture , which foretold that ( Gods providence permitting it , and the wickednesse of the world deserving it ) strange signes and wonders should be wrought to confirme false doctrine , that they which love not the truth , may be given over to strange delusions . Neither does it seeme to me any strange thing , that God should permit some true wonders to be done to delude them who have forged so many to deceive the world .

70 If I follow the Scripture , I must not promise my selfe Salvation without effectuall dereliction and mortification of all vices , and the effectuall practice of all Christian vertues : But your Church opens an easier and a broader way to Heaven , and though I continue all my life long in a course of sinne , and without the practice of any vertue , yet gives me assurance that I may be let in to heaven at a posterne gate , even by any act of Attrition at the houre of death , if it be joyn'd with confession , or by an act of Contrition without confession .

71 Admirable are the Precepts of piety and humility , of innocence and patience , of liberality , frugality , temperance , sobriety , justice , meeknesse , fortitude , constancy and gravity , contempt of the world , love of God and the love of man kind ; In a word , of all vertues , and against all vice , which the Scriptures impose upon us , to be obeyed under pain of damnation : The summe whereof is in manner compriz'd in our Saviours Sermon upon the Mount , recorded in the 5. 6. and 7. of S. Matthew , which if they were generally obeyed , could not but make the world generally happy , and the goodnesse of them alone were sufficient to make any wise and good man believe that this Religion rather then any other , came from God the Fountain of all goodnesse . And that they may be generally obeyed , our Saviour hath ratified them all in the close of his Sermon , with these universall Sanctions , Not every one that sayeth Lord Lord , shall enter into the Kingdome , but he that doth the will of my Father which is in Heaven : and again , whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doth them not , shall be likned unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand , and the ruine descended , and the stood came , and the winds blew , and it fell , and great was the fall thereof . Now your Church , notwithstanding all this , enervates and in a manner dissolves and abrogates many of these precepts , teaching men that they are not lawes for all Christians , but Counsells of perfection and matters of Supererrogation : that a man shall doe well if he doe observe them , but he shall not sinne if he observe them not ; That they are for them who ayme at high places in heaven , who aspire with the two sonnes of Zebede , to the right hand or to the left hand of Christ : But if a man will be content barely to goe to heaven , and to be a doore keeper in the house of God , especially if he will be content to tast of Purgatory in the way , he may obtaine it at any easier purchase . Therefore the Religion of your Church is not so holy nor so good as the doctrine of Christ delivered in Scripture , and therefore not so likely to come from the Fountaine of holinesse & goodnesse .

72 Lastly , if I follow your Church for my Guide , I shall doe all one , as if I should follow a Company of blind men in a judgement of colours , or in the choice of a way . For every unconsidering man is blind in that which he does not consider . Now what is your Church but a Company of unconsidering men , who comfort themselves because they are a great company together , but all of them , either out of idlenesse refuse the trouble of a severe tryall of their Religion , ( as if heaven were not worth it , ) or out of superstition fear the event of such a tryall , that they may be scrupled and staggered and disquieted by it ; and therefore , for the most part doe it not at all . Or if they doe it , they doe it negligently and hypocritically , and perfunctorily , rather for the satisfaction of others then themselves : but certainly without indifference , without liberty of judgement , without a resolution to doubt of it , if upon examination the grounds of it prove uncertain , or to leave it , if they prove apparently false . My own experience assures me , that in this imputation I doe you no injury : but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking , doubting of any part of your Doctrine , among mortall sinnes . For from hence it followes , that seeing every man must resolve that he will never commit mortall sinne , that he must never examine the grounds of it at all , for fear he should be mov'd to doubt : or if he doe , he must resolve that no motives , be they never so strong shall move him to doubt , but that with his will and resolution he will uphold himselfe in a firme belief of your Religon , though his reason and his understanding faile him . And seeing this is the condition of all those whom you esteem good Catholiques , who can deny , but you are a Company of men unwilling and afraid to understand , least you should doe good ! That have eyes to see and will not see , that have have not the love of truth ( which is only to be known by an indifferent tryall , ) & therefore deserve to be given over to strong delusions ; men that love darknesse more then light : in a word , that you are the blind leading the blind , and what prudence there can be , in following such Guides , our Saviour hath taught us in saying , If the blind lead the blind , both shall fall into the ditch .

73 There remaines unspoken to in this Section , some places out of S. Austin , and some sayings of Luther , wherein he confesses that in the Papacy are many good things . But the former I have already considered , and return'd the argument grounded on them . As for Luthers speeches , I told you , not long since , that we follow no privat men , and regard not much what he saies either against the Church of Rome , or for it , but what he proves . He was a man of a vehement Spirit , and very often what he took in hand , he did not doe it but over doe it . He that will justify all his speeches , especially such as he wrote in heat of opposition , I believe will have work enough . Yet in these sentences , though he overreach in the particulars , yet what he saies in generall we confesse true , and confesse with him that in the Papacy are many good things , which have come from them to us , but withall we say there are many bad , neither doe wee think our selves bound in prudence either to reject the good with the bad , or to retain the bad with the good , but rather conceive it a high point of wisdome , to separate between the pretious and the vile , to sever the good from the bad , and to put the good in vessels to be kept , and to cast the bad away ; to try all things , and to hold that which is good .

74 Ad § . 32. Your next and last argument against the faith of Protestants is , because wanting Certainty and Prudence , it must also want the fourth condition , Supernaturality . For that being a humane perswasion , it is not in the essence of it supernaturall : and being imprudent and rash , it cannot proceed from Divine motion , and so is not supernaturall in respect of the cause from which it proceedeth . Ans. This litle discourse stands wholly upon what went before , and therefore must fall together with it . I have proved the Faith of Protestants as certain , and as prudent as the faith of Papists ; and therefore if these be certain grounds of supernaturality , our faith may have it as well as yours . I would here furthermore be inform'd how you can assure us that your faith is not your perswasion or opinion ( for you make them all one , ) that your Churches doctrine is true ? Or if you grant it your perswasion , why is it not the perswasion of men , and in respect of the subject of it , an humane perswasion ? I desire also to know , what sense there is in pretending that your perswasion is , not in regard of the object only and cause of it , but in nature or essence of it supernaturall ? Lastly , whereas you say , that being imprudent it cannot come from divine motion : certainly by this reason all they that believe your own Religion , and cannot give a wise and sufficient reason for it , ( as millions amongst you cannot ) must be condemn'd to have no supernaturall faith : or if not , then without question nothing can hinder , but that the imprudent faith of Protestants may proceed from divine motion , as well as the imprudent faith of Papists .

75 And thus having weighed your whole discourse , and found it altogether lighter then vanity , why should I not invert your conclusion ; and say , Seeing you have not proved that whosoever erres against any one point of Faith looseth all divine Faith : nor that any error whatsoever concerning that which by the Parties litigant may be esteem'd a matter of faith is a grievous sinne , it followes not at all , that when two men hold different doctrines concerning Religion , that but one can be saved ? Not that I deny , but that the sentence of S. Chrysost. with which you conclude this Chapt. may in a good sense be true : for oftimes by the faith is meant only that Doctrine which is necessary to salvation , and to say that salvation may be had without any the least thing which is necessary to salvation , implyes a repugnance and destroies it selfe . Besides , not to believe all necessary points , and to believe none at all , is for the purpose of salvation all one ; and therefore he that does so , may justly be said to destroy the Gospell of Christ , seeing he makes it uneffectuall to the end for which it was intended , the Salvation of mens soules . But why you should conceive that all differences about Religon , are concerning matters of faith , in this high notion of the word , for that I conceive no reason .

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

THAT , due Order is to be observed in the Theologicall Vertue of Charity , whereby we are directed to preferre some Objects before others , is a truth taught by all Divines , and declared in these words of holy Scripture : He hath ordered a a Cant. 2 , 4. Charity in me . The reason whereof is : because the infinite Goodnesse of God , which is the formall Obiect , or Motive of Charity , and for which all other things are loved , is differently participated by different Objects ; and therefore the love we beare to them for Gods sake , must accordingly be unequall . In the vertue of Faith , the case is farre otherwise ; because all the Objects , or points which we believe , doe equally participate the divine Testimony or Revelation , for which we believe alike all things propounded for such . For it is as impossible for God , to speake an untruth in a small , as in a great matter . And this is the ground for which we have so often affirmed , that any least errour against Faith , is injurious to God , and destructive of Salvation .

2 This order in Charity may be considered ; Towards God ; Our owne soule ; The soule of our Neighbour ; Our owne life , or Goods ; and the life or goods of our Neighbour . God is to be beloved above all things , both objectivè ( as the Divines speake ) that is , we must wish or desire to God , a Good more great , perfect , and noble then to any ; or all other things : namely , all that indeed He is , a Nature Infinite , Independent , Immense &c. and also appretiative , that is , wee must sooner loose what good soever , then leave , and abandon Him . In the other Objects of Charity , of which I spake , this order is to be kept . We may , but are not bound , to preferre the life and goods of our Neigbour before our owne : we are bound to pre●erre the soule of our Neighbour before our own temporall goods or life , if he happen to be in extreme spirituall necessity , and that we by our assistance can succour him , according to the saying of S. Iohn : In this we have knowne b b 1. Ioan. 3. v. 16. the Charity of God , because he hath yielded his life for us : and we ought to yield our life for our Brethren . And S. Augustine likewise saith : A Christian will not doubt c c De mendac . cap. 6. to loose his owne temporall life , for the eternall life of his Neighbour . Lastly we are to preferre the spirituall good of our own soule , before both the spirituall and temporall good of our Neighbour , because as Charity doth of its own Nature , chiefly encline the person in whom it resides , to love God , and to be united with him : so of it selfe it enclines him to procure those things whereby the said Vnion with God is effected , rather to himselfe then to others . And from hence it followes , that in things necessary to salvation , no man ought in any case , or in any respect whatsoever , to preferre the spirituall good , either of any particular person , or of the whole world before his own soule ; according to those words of our Blessed Saviour : What doth it ; d d Mat. 6 availe a man , if he gaine the whole world , and sustaine the damage of his own soule ? And therefore ( to come to our present purpose ) it is directly against the Order of Charity , or against Charity as it hath a reference to our selves , which Divines call Charitas propria , to adventure either the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation , or the committing of any thing repugnant to it , for whatsoever respect , and consequently , if by living out of the Roman Church we put our selves in hazard , either to want some thing necessarily required to salvation , or else to performe some act against it , wee commit a most grievous sinne against the vertue of Charity , as it respect our selves , and so cannot hope for salvation without repentance .

3 Now , of things necessary to salvation , there are two sorts , according to the doctrine of all Divines . Some things ( say they ) are necessary to salvation , necessitate praecepti , necessary only because they are commanded ; For , If thou wilt e e Math. 10. 17. enter into life , keepe the Commandements . In which kind of things , as probable ignorance of the Law , or of the commandement doth excuse the party from all faulty breach thereof ; so likewise doth it not exclude salvation in case of ignorance . Some other things are said to be necessary to salvation necessitate medij , finis , or salutis ; because they are Meanes appointed by God to attaine our End of eternall salvation , in so strict a manner , that it were presumption to hope for Salvation without them . And as the former meanes are said to be necessary , because they are commanded , so the latter are commonly said to be commanded : because they are necessary , that is : Although there were no other speciall precept concerning them ; yet supposing they bee once appointed as meanes absolutely necessary to salvation , there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them , in vertue of that universall precept of Charity , which obligeth every man to procure the salvation of his own soule . In this sort divine infallible Faith is necessary to salvation ; as likewise repentance of every deadly sinne , and in the doctrine of Catholiques , Baptisme in re , that is , in act , to Children , and for those who are come to the use of reason , in voto , or harty desire , when they cannot have it in act . And as Baptisme is necessary for remission of Originall and Actuall sinne committed before it : so the Sacrament of Confession , or Pennance is necessary in re , or in voto , in act , or desire , for the remission of mortall sinnes , committed after Baptisme . The Minister of which Sacrament of Pennance being necessarily a true Priest , true Ordination is necessary in the Church of God for remission of sinnes by this sacrament , as also for other ends not belonging to our present purpose . From hence it riseth , that no ignorance or impossibility can supply the want of those means which are absolutely necessary to salvation . As if , for example , a sinner depart this world without repenting himselfe of all deadly sinnes , although he dye suddenly , or unexpectedly fall out of his wits , and so commit no new sinne by omission of repentance ; yet he shall be eternally punished for his former sinnes committed , and never repented . If an Infant dye without Baptisme , he cannot be saved , not by reason of any actuall sinne committed by him in omitting Baptisme , but for Originall sinne , not forgiven by the meanes which God hath ordained to that purpose . Which doctrine , all , or must Protestants will ( for ought I know ) grant to be trve , in the Children of Infidels , yea not only Lutherans , but also some other Protestants , as M. Bilson late of Winchester f f In his true difference &c. Part. 4. pag. 168. & 369. & others hold it to be true , even in the Children of the faithfull . And if Protestants in generall disagree from Catholiques in this point , it cannot be denyed but that our disagreement is in a point very fundamentall . And the like I say of the Sacrament of Pennance , which they deny to be necessary to salvation , either in act , or in desire ; which error is likewise fundamentall , because it concernes ( as I said ) a thing necessary to salvation : And for the same reason , if their Priesthood and Ordination be doubtfull , as certainly it is , they are in danger to want a meanes without which they cannot be saved . Neither ought this rigour to seeme strange , or unjust : For Almighty God having of his own Goodnesse , without our merit , first ordained Man to a supernaturall end of eternall felicity ; and then ; after our fall in Adam vouchsafed to reduce us to the attaining of that End , if his blessed Will be pleased to limit the attaining of that End , to some meanes which in his infinite Wisdome he thinks most fit ; who can say , why dost thou so ? Or who can hope for that End , without such meanes ? Blessed be his divine Majesty , for vouchsafing to ordaine us , base creatures , to so sublime an End , by any meanes at all !

4 Out of the foresaid difference followeth another , that ( generally speaking ) in things necessary only , because they are commanded , it is sufficient for avoiding sinne , that we proceed prudently , and by the conduct of some probable opinion , maturely weighed and approved by men of vertue , learning and wisdome , Neither are we alwaies obliged to follow the most strict , and severe , or secure part , as long as the doctrine which wee embrace , proceeds upon such reasons , as may warrant it to be truly probable , and prudent , though the contrary part want not also probable grounds . For in humane affaires , and discourse , evidence and certainty cannot be alwaies expected . But when wee treat not precisely of avoiding sinne , but moreover of procuring some thing without which I cannot bee saved ; I am obliged by the Law , and Order of Charity to procure as great certainty as morrally I am able ; and am not to follow euery probable opinion or dictamen , but tutiorem partem , the safer part , because if my probability prove false , I shall not probably , but certainly come short of Salvation . Nay in such case , I shall incurre a new sinne against the Vertue of Charity towards my selfe , which obligeth every one not to expose his soule to the hazard of eternall perdition , when it is in his power , with the assistance of Gods grace , to make the matter sure . From this very ground it is , that although some Divines be of opinion , that it is not a sinne to use some Ma●ter , or Form of Sacraments , only probable , if we respect precisely the reverence or respect which is due to Sacraments , as they belong to the Morall i●fused Vertue of Religion ; yet when they are such Sacraments , as the invalidity thereof may endanger the salvation of soules , all doe with one consent agree , that it is a grievous offence to use a doubtfull , or onely probable Matter or Forme , when it is in our power to procure certainty . If therefore it may appeare , that though it were not certaine that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation ( as we have proved to be very certaine ) yet at least that is probable , and with all , that there is a way more safe ; it will follow out of the grounds already said , that they are obliged by the law of Charity to imb●ace that safe way .

5 Now , that Protestants have reason at least to doubt in what case they stand , is deduced from what we have said , and proved about the universall infallibility of the Church , and of her being Iudge of Controversies , to whom all Christians ought to submit their Iudgement ( as even some Protestants g●ant , ) and whom to oppose in any one of her definitions ; is a grievous sinne : As also from what we have said of the Vnity , Vniversality , and Visibility of the Church , and of Succession of Persons , and Doctrine ; Of the Conditions of Divine Faith , Certainty , Obscurity , Prudence , and Supernaturality , which are wanting in the faith of Protestants ; Of the frivolous distinction of points fundamentall & not fundamentall , ( the confutation whereof proveth that Heretiques disagreeing among themselves in any least point , cannot have the same faith , nor be of the same Church : ) Of Schisme ; of Heresy ; of the Persons who first revolted from Rome , and of their Motives ; of the Nature of Faith , which is destroyed by any least errour , & it is Certaine that some of them must be in error & want the substance of true faith ; & since all pretend the like certainty , it is cleer that none of them have any certainty at all , but that they want true faith , which is a meanes most absolutely necessary to Salvation . Moreover , as I said heretofore , since it is granted that every Error in fundamentall points is damnable , and that they cannot tell in particular , what points be fundamentall ; it followes that none of them knowes whether he , or his Brethren doe not erre damnably , it being certain that amongst so many disagreeing persons some must erre . Vpon the same ground of not being able to assigne what points be fundamentall , I say , they cannot be sure whether the difference among them be fundamentall or no , and consequently whether they agree in the substance of faith and hope of Salvation . I omit to adde that you want the Sacrament of Pennance , instituted for remission of sinnes , or at least you must confesse that you hold it not necessary ; and yet your own Brethren , for example , the Century Writers doe g g Cent. 3. cap. 6. Col. 1●7 . acknowledg that in times of Cyprian , and Tertullian , Private Confession even of Thoughts was used ; and that , it was then commanded , and thought necessary . The like , I say , concerning your Ordination , which at least is very doubtfull , and consequently all that depends thereon .

6 On the other side , that the Roman Church is the the safer way to Heaven ( not to repeat what hath been already said upon divers occasions ) I will again put you in mind , that unlesse the Roman Church was the true Church there was no visible true Church upon earth . A thing so manifest , that Protestants themselves confesse that more then one thousand years the Roman Church possessed the whole world , as we have shewed heretofore , out of their own h h Chap. 5. Hu● . 9. words : from whence it follows , that unlesse Ours be the true Church , you cannot pretend to any perpetuall visible Church of your Own ; but Ours doth not depend on yours , before which it was . And here I wish you to consider with feate and trembling , how all Roman Catholiques , not one excepted ; that is , those very men whom you must hold not to erre damnably in their belief , unlesse you will destroy your own Church , and salvation , doe with unanimous consent believe , and professe that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation ; and then tell me , as you will answer at the last day , Whether it be not more safe , to live and die in that Church , which even your selves are forced to acknowledge not to be cut off from hope of Salvation , ( which are your own words ) then ●●live in a Church , which the said confessedly true Church doth firmly believe , and constantly professe not to be capable of Salvation . And therefore I conclude that by the most strict obligation of Charity towards your own soule , you are bound to place it in safety , by returning to that Church , from which your Progenitors Schismatically departed ; least too late you find that saying of the holy Ghost verified in your selves : He that loves i i Eccl. 3. 27. the danger , shall perish therein .

7 Against this last argument of the greater security of the Roman Church drawn from your own confession , you bring an Objection ; which in the end will be found to make for us , against your selfe . It is taken from the words of the Don●tists , speaking to Catholiques in this manner : Your selves confesse k k Pag. 112. our Baptisme , Sacraments , and Faith ( here you put an Explication or your own , and say , for the most part , as if any small error in faith did not destroy all Faith ) to be good , and available . We deny yours to be so , and say there is no Church , no salvation amongst you ; Therefore it is safest for all to joyn with us .

8 By your leave our Argument is not ( as you say ) for simple people alone , but for all them who have care to save their soules . Neither is it grounded upon your Charitable Iudgement ( as you l l Pag. 81. speak ) but upon an inevitable necessity for you , either to grant salvation to our Church , or to entaile certaine damnation upon your owne : because yours can have no being till Luther , unlesse ours be supposed to have been the true Church of Christ . And since you term this Argument a charme , take heed you be none of those , who according to the Prophet David , doe not heare the voice of him m m Ps. 57. 6. who charmeth wisely . But to come to the purpose : Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had a true Church , or might be saved : And therefore you having cited out of S. Augustine , the words of the Catholiques , that the Donatists had true Baptisme , when you come to the contrary words of the Donatists , you adde , No Church , No Salvation ; making the Argument to have quinque terminos ; without which Addition you did see it made nothing against us : For , as I said , the Catholiques never yielded , that among the Donatists there was a true Church , or hope of salvation . And your selfe , a few leaves after , acknowledge that the Donatists maintained an error , which was in the Matter and Nature of it properly haereticall , against that Article of the Creed , wherein we professe to believe the holy n n Pag. 126. Catholique Church : and consequently , you cannot allow salvation to them , as you doe , and must doe to us . And therefore the Donatists could not make the like argument against Catholiques , as Catholiques make against you , who grant us Salvation , which we deny to you . But at least ( you will say ) this Argument for the Certainty of their Baptisme , was like to Ours touching the Security and Certainty of our salvation ; and therefore that Catholiques should have esteemed the Baptisme of the Donatists more certain then their own , and so have allowed Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques , or sinners , as the Donatists esteemed all Catholiques to be . I answer , no. Because it being a matter of faith , that Baptisme administred by Heretiques , observing due Matter , form &c. is valide ; to rebaptize any so baptized , had been both a sacriledg in reiterating a Sacrament not reiterable , and a profession also of a damnable Heresy , and therefore had not been more safe , but certainly damnable . But you confesse that in the doctrine or practice of the Roman Church , there is no belief , or profession of any damnable error , which if there were , even your Church should certainly be no Church . To believe therefore and professe as we doe , cannot exclude Salvation , as Rebaptization must have done . But if the Donatists could have affirmed with truth , that in the opinion both of Catholiques and themselves , their Baptisme was good , yea and good in such sort as that unlesse theirs was good , that of the Catholiques could not be such ; but theirs might be good , though that of the Catholiques were not : and further that it was no damnable error to believe , that Baptisme administred by the Catholiques was not good , nor that it was any Sacriledg to reiterate the same Baptisme of Catholiques : If , I say , they could have truly affirmed these things , they had said somewhat , which at least had seemed to the purpose . But these things they could not say with any colour of truth , and therefore their argument was fond , and impious . But we with truth say to Protestants : You cannot but confesse that our doctrine containes no damnable error ; and that our Church is so certainly a true Church , that unlesse ours be true you cannot pretend any ; Yea you grant , that you should be guilty of Schisme , if you did cut off our Church from the Body of Christ , and the hope of salvation : But we neither doe , nor can grant that yours is a true Church , or that within it there is hope of salvation : Therefore it is safest for you to joyn with us , And now against whom hath your Objection greatest force ?

9 But I wonder not a little , and so I think will ever body else , what the reason may be , that you doe not so much as goe about to answer the argument of the Donatists , which you say is all one with Ours , but referre us to S. Augustine there to read it ; as if every one carried with him a Library , or were able to examine the places in S. Augustine : and yet you might be sure your Reader would be greedy to see some solid answer to an argument so often urged by us , and which indeed , unless you can confute it , ought alone to move every one who hath care of his soule , to take the safest way , by incorporating himself in our Church . But we may easily imagine the true reason of your silence : For the answer which S. Augustine gives to the Donatists , is directly against your self , and the same which I have given . Namely , that Catholiques o o Ad lit . Petil. l. 2. cap. 10● . approve the Baptisme of Donatists , but abhorre their heresy of Rebaptization . And that as gold is good ( which is the similitude used by p p Contra Cresc , lib. 1. cap. 21. S. Augustine ) yet not to be sought in company of theeves ; so though Baptisme be good , yet it must not be sought for in the Conventicle of Donatists . But you free us from damnable heresy , and yield us salvation , which I hope is to be imbraced in whatsoever Company it is found ; or rather that Company is to be imbraced before all other , in which all sides agree , that salvation may be found . We therefore must inferre , that it is safest for you to seeke salvation among us . You had good reason to conceal S. Augustins answer to the Donatists .

10 You frame another argument in our behalf , and make us speake thus : If Protestants believe the q q Pag. 7● . Religion of Catholiques to be a safe way to Heaven , why doe they not follow it ? which wise argument of your own , you answer at large , and confirm your answer by this instance : The Iesuits and Dominicans hold different Opinions touching Predetermination , and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin : Yet so , that the Iesuits hold the Dominicans way safe , that is , his error not damnable , and the Dominicans hold the same of the Iesuits ; Yet neither of them with good Consequence can presse the other to believe his opinion , because by his own Confession it is no damnable error .

11 But what Catholique maketh such a wise demaund as you put into our mouths ? If our Religion be a safe way to heaven , that is , not damnable ; why doe you not follow it ? As if every thing that is good , must be of necessity imbraced by every body . But what think you of the Argument framed thus ? Our Religion is safe even by your Confession , therefore you ought to grant that all may imbrace it . And yet further , thus : Among different Religions and contrary waies to heaven , one only can be safe : But ours , by your own Confession , is safe , whereas we hold that in yours there is no hope of salvation : Therefore you may and ought to imbrace ours . This is our Argument . And if the Dominicans and Iesuits did say one to another as we say to you ; then one of them might with good consequence press the other to believe his opinion . You have still the hard for tune to be beaten with your own weapon .

12 It remaineth then , that both in regard of Faith , and Charity , Protestants are obliged to unite themselves with the Church of Rome . And I may adde also , in regard of the Theologicall V●●tue of Hope , without which none can hope to be saved , and which you want , either by ex●●sse of Confidence , or defect by Despair , not unlike to your Faith , which I shewed to be either ●●●cient in Certainty , or excessive in Evidence ; as likewise according to the rigid Calvinists , it is either so strong , that once had , it can never be lost ; or so more then weak , and so much nothing ; that it can never be gotten . For the trve Theologicall Hope of Christians , is a Hope which keeps a mean between Presumption , and Desperation ; which moves us to work our salvation with feare , and trembling ; which conducts us to make sure our salvation by good works , as holy Scripture adviseth . But contrarily , Protestants doe either exclude Hope by Despaire , with the Doctrine that our Saviour died not for all , and that such want grace sufficient to salvation ; or else by vaine Presumption grounded upon a fantasticall persuasion , that they are Predestinate ; which Faith must exclude all feare , and trembling , Neither can they make their Calling certain by good works , who doe certainly beleeve that before any good works they are justified , and justified even by Faith alone , and that by Faith whereby they certainly believe that they are justified . Which points some Protestants doe expresly affirme to be the soule of the Church , the principall Origen of salvation , Of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest ; as already I have noted Chap. 3. n. 19. And if some Protestants doe now relent from the rigour of the aforesaid doctrine , we must affirme , that at least some of them want the Theologicall Vertue of Hope ; yea that none of them can have trve Hope , while they hope to be saved in the Communion of those , who defend such doctrines , as doe directly overthrow all true Christian Hope . And for as much as concernes Faith , we must also infer , that they want Vnity therein ( and consequently have none at all ) by their disagreement about the soule of the Church , the principall Origen of salvation , of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest . And if you want trve Faith , you must by consequence want Hope , or if you hold that this point is not to be so indivisible on either side , but that it hath latitude sufficient to imbrace all parties , without prejudice to their salvation ; notwithstanding that your Brethren hold it to be the soule of the Church &c. I must repeat what I have said heretofore , that , even by this Example , it is cleer , you cannot agree what points be fundamentall . And so ( to whatsoever answer you fly ) I presse you in the same manner , and say , that haue no Certainty whether you agree in fundamentall points , or Vnity and substance of Faith , which cannot stand with difference in fundamentalls . And so upon the whole matter , I leave it to be considered , whether , Want of Charity can be iustly charged on us , because we affirme , that they cannot ( without repentance ) be saved , who want of all other the most necessary meanes to salvation , which are , the three Theologicall Vertues , FAITH , HOPE , and CHARITY .

13 And now I end this first part , having as I conceive , complyed with my first designe , ( in that measure , which Time , Commodity , scarcity of Books , and my own small Abilities could afford ) which was to shew , that Amongst men of different Religions , one side only can be saved . For since there must be some infallible Meanes to decide all Controversies concerning Religion , and to propound truth revealed by Almighty God ; and this Meanes can be no other , but the Visible Church of Christ , which at the time of Luthers appearance was only the Church of Rome . and such as agreed with her : We must conclude , that whosoever opposeth himself to her definitions , or forsaketh her Communion , doth resist God himself , whose Spouse she is , and whose divine truth she propounds ; and therefore becoms guilty of Schisme , and Heresie , which since Luther , his Associates , and Protestants have done , and still continue to doe ; it is not Want of Charity , but abundance of evident cause that forceth us to declare this necessary Truth , PROTESTANCIE VNREPENTED DESTROIES SALVATION .

THE ANSWER TO THE SEAVENTH CHAPTER . That Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves , to re-unite themselves to the Roman Church .

THE first foure Paragraphs of this Chapter are wholly spent in an un-necessary introduction unto a truth , which I presume , never was , nor will be by any man in his right wits , either denied or question'd ; and that is , That every man in wisdome and charity to himselfe , is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation .

2 The fift and sixt are nothing in a manner , but references to discourses already answered by me , and confuted in their proper places .

3 The seaventh , eight , ninth , tenth , and eleventh ; have no other foundation but this false pretence , That we confesse the Roman Church free from damnable error .

4 In the twelfth there is something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions , or others to leave their communion ; but to prove Protestants in state of sinne while they remain separate from the Roman Church , there is not one word or syllable : and besides , whatsoever argument there is in it for any purpose , it may be as forcibly return'd upon Papists , as it is urg'd against Protestants ; in as much as all Papists , either hold the doctrine of Predetermination , and absolute Election , or communicate with those that doe hold it . Now from this doctrine , what is more prone and obvious , then for every naturall man ( without Gods especiall preventing grace ) to make this practicall collection , Either I am elected or not elected ; If I be , no impiety possible can ever damne me : If not , no possible industry can ever save me ? Now whether this disiunctive perswasion be not as likely ( as any doctrine of any Protestants , ) to extinguish Christian hope , and filiall feare , and to lead some men to despaire , others to presumption , all to a wretchlesse and impious life , I desire you ingenuously to informe me ! and if you deny it , assure your selfe you shall be contradicted and confuted by men of your own Religion and your own Society , and taught at length this charitable Doctrine , that though mens opinions may be charg'd with the absurd consequences which naturally flow from them , yet the men themselves are not ; I meane , if they perceive not the consequence of these absurdities , nor doe not own and acknowledge , but disclaim and detest them . And this is all the answer which I should make to this discourse , if I should deale rigidly and strictly with you . Yet that you may not think your selfe contemn'd , nor have occasion to pretend , that your arguments are evaded , I will entreat leave of my Reader to bring to the test every particle of it , and to censure what deserves a censure , and to answer what may any way seeme to require an answer : and then I doubt not , but what I have affirm'd in generall will appear in particular .

Ad § . 1. To the First then I say . 1. It was needlesse to prove , that due Order is to be observed in any thing ; much more in Charity , which being one of the best things , may be spoil'd by being disordered ! Yet if it stood in need of proofe , I fear this place of the Canticles , He hath ordered Charity in me , would be no enforcing demonstration of it . 2. The reason alleaged by you why we ought to love one object more then another , because one thing participates the Divine Goodnesse more than another , is phantasticall , and repugnant to what you say presently after . For by this rule no man should love himselfe more then all the world ; unlesse he were first vainely perswaded that he doth more participate the Divine Goodnesse then all the world . But the true reason why one thing ought to be lov'd more then another is , because one thing is better then another , or because it is better to us , or because God commands us to doe so , or because God himselfe does so , and we are to conforme our affections to the will of God . 3. It is not true that all objects which we believe , doe equally participate the Divine Testimony or Revelation : For some are testified more evidently , and some more obscurely ; and therefore whatsoever you have built upon this ground , must of necessity fall together with it . And thus much for the first number .

6 Ad § . 2. In the Second many passages deserve a censure . For 1. it is not true that we are to wish or desire to God a nature infinite , independent , immense : For it is impossible I should desire to any person that which he hath already , if I know that he hath it ; nor the perpetuity of it , if I know it impossible but he must have it for perpetuity . And therefore , rejoycing only and not welwishing is here the proper work of love . 2. Whereas you say , That in things necessary to salvation , no man ought in any case or in any respect whatsoever , to preferre the spirituall good of the whole world before his own soule : In saying this you seeme to me to condemne one of the greatest acts of Charity , of one of the greatest Saints that ever was , I mean S. Paul , who for his brethren desir'd to be an Anathema from Christ . And as for the Text alleaged by you in confirmation of your saying , what doth it availe a man if he gaine the whole world , and sustaine the damage of his owne soule ! it is nothing to the purpose : For without all question it is not profitable for a man to doe so ; but the question is , whether it be not lawfull for a man to forgoe and part with his own particular profit , to procure the universall , spirituall , and eternall benefit of others ? 3. Whereas you say , it is directly against Charity to our selves , to adventure the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation , this is true : But so is this also , that it is directly against the same Charity , to adventure the omitting any thing , that may any way helpe or conduce to my salvation , that may make the way to it more secure or lesse dangerous . And therefore if the errors of the Roman Church doe but hinder me in this way , or any way endanger it , I am in Charity to my selfe bound to forsake them , though they be not destructive of it . 4. Whereas you conclude , That if by living out of the Roman Church we put our selves in hazard to want something necessary to Salvation , we commit a grievous sinne against the vertue of Charity as it respects our selves : This consequence may be good in those which are thus perswaded of the Roman Church , and yet live out of it . But the supposition is certainly false . We may live and dye out of the Roman Church , without putting our selves in any such hazard : Nay to live and dye in it is as dangerous as to shoote a gulfe , which though some good ignorant soules may doe and escape , yet it may well be feared that not one in a hundred but miscarries .

7 Ad § . 3. I proceed now to the third Section ; & herein first I observe this acknowledgement of yours , That in things necessary only because commanded , a probable ignorance of the commandement excuses the Party from all fault , and doth not exclude Salvation . From which Doctrine it seemes to me to follow , that seeing obedience to the Roman Church cannot be pretended to be necessary , but only because it is commanded , therefore not only an invincible , but even a probable ignorance of this pretended command , must excuse us from all faulty breach of it , and cannot exclude Salvation . Now seeing this command is not pretended to be expresly delivered , but only to be deduced from the word of God , and that not by the most cleere and evident consequences that may be ; and seeing an infinity of great objections lies against it , which seeme strongly to prove that there is no such command ; with what Charity can you suppose , that our ignorance of this command , is not at the least probable , if not , all things considered , plainly invincible ? Sure I am , for my part , that I have done my true endeavour to finde it true , and am still willing to doe so ; but the more I seeke , the farther I am from finding , and therefore if it be true , certainly my not finding it is very excusable , and you have reason to be very charitable in your censures of me . 2. Whereas you say , That besides these things necessary because commanded , there are other things , which are commanded because necessary : of which number you make Divine infallible faith , Baptisme in Act for Children , and in Desire for those who are come to the use of Reason , and the Sacrament of Confession , for those who have committed mortall sinne : In these words you seeme to me to deliver a strange Paradoxe viz. That Faith , and Baptisme , and Confession are not therefore necessary for us , because God appointed them , but are therefore appointed by God because they were necessary for us , antecedently to his appointment ; which if it were true , I wonder what it was beside God that made them necessary , and made it necessary for God to command them ! Besides , in making faith one of these necessary meanes , you seem to exclude Infants from Salvation : Fo● Faith comes by hearing , and they have not heard . In requiring that this Faith should be divine and infallible , you cast your Credentes into infinite perplexity , who cannot possibly by any sure marke discerne whether their Faith be Divine or humane , or if you have any certain signe , whereby they may discerne , whether they believe your Churches infallibility with Divine or only with humane faith , I pray produce it , for perhaps it may serve us to shew , that our faith is divine as well as yours . Moreover in affirming that Baptisme in act is necessary for Infants , and for men onely in desire , You seeme to me in the latter to destroy the foundation of the former . For if a desire of Baptisme will serve men instead of Baptisme , then those words of our Saviour , Vnlesse a man be borne again of water &c. are not to be understood literally and rigidly of externall Baptisme ; for a desire of Baptisme is not Baptisme , and so your foundation of the Absolute necessity of Baptisme is destroied . And if you may glosse the Text so farre , as that men may be saved by the desire , without Baptisme it selfe , because they cannot have it , why should you not glosse it a little farther , that there may be some hope of the salvation of unbaptized infants : to whom it was more impossible to have a desire of Baptisme , then for the former to have the thing it selfe ? Lastly , for your Sacrament of Confession , we know none such , nor any such absolute necessity of it . They that confesse their sinnes and forsake them shall finde mercy , though they confesse them to God only and not to men . They that confesse them both to God and men , if they doe not effectually and in time forsake them , shall not finde mercy . 3. Whereas you say , that supposing these meanes once appointed as absolutely necessary to salvation , there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them ; you must suppose I hope , that we know them to be so appointed , and that it is in our power to procure them : otherwise though it may be our ill fortune to faile of the end , for want of the meanes , certainly we cannot be obliged to procure them . For the rule of the law is also the dictate of common reason and equity , That no man can be obliged to what is impossible . We can be obliged to nothing but by vertue of some command : now it is impossible that God should command in earnest anything which he knowes to be impossible . For to command in earnest , is to command with an intent to be obeyed ; which is not possible he should doe , when he knowes the thing commanded to be impossible . Lastly , whosoever is obliged to doe any thing , and does it not , commits a fault ; but Infants commit no fault in not procuring to have Baptisme ; therefore no obligation lies upon them to procure it . 4. Whereas you say , that if Protestants dissent from you in the point of the necessity of Baptisme for Infants , it cannot be denied but that our disagreement is in a point fundamentall ; If you mean a point esteemed so by you , this indeed cannot be denied : But if you mean a point that indeed is fundamentall , this may certainly be denied , for I deny it , and say , that it doth not appear to me any way necessary to Salvation to hold the truth , or not to hold an error , touching the condition of these Infants . This is certain , and we must believe that God will not deale unjustly with them , but how in particular he will deale with them concernes not us , and therefore we need not much regard it . 5. Whereas you say the like of your Sacrament of Penance , you only say so , but your proofes are wanting . Lastly , whereas you say , This rigour ought not to seeme strange or uniust in God , but that we are rather to blesse him for ordaining us to Salvation by any meanes : I answer , that it is true , we are not to question the known will of God , of injustice ; yet whether that which you pretend to be Gods will , be so indeed , or only your presumption , this I hope may be question'd lawfully & without presumption ; and if we have occasion we may safely put you in mind of Ezekiel's commination , against all those who say , thus saith the Lord , when they have no certain warrant or authority from him to doe so .

8 Ad § . 4. In the fourth Paragraph you deliver this false & wicked Doctrine , that for the procuring our own salvation we are allwaies bound under pain of mortall sinne to take the safest way , but for avoiding sinne we are not bound to doe so , but may follow the opinion of any probable Doctors , though the contrary may be certainly free from sinne , and theirs be doubtfull . Which doctrine in the former part of it is apparently false : For though wisdome and Charity to our selves would perswade us alwaies to doe so , yet many times , that way which to our selves and our salvation is more full of hazard , is notwithstanding not only lawfull , but more charitable and more noble . For example , to fly from a persecution and so to avoid the temptation of it , may be the safer way for a mans own salvation ; yet I presume no man ought to condemne him of impiety , who should resolve not to use his liberty in this matter , but for Gods greater glory , the greater honor of truth , & the greater confirmation of his brethren in the faith , choose to stand out the storme and endure the fiery tryall , rather then avoid it ; rather to put his own soule to the hazard of a temptation , in hope of Gods assistance to goe through with it , then to baulke the opportunity of doing God and his brethren so great a service . This part therefore of this Doctrine is manifestly untrue . The other not only false but impious ; for therein you plainly give us to understand , that in your judgement , a resolution to avoid sinne , to the uttermost of our power , is no necessary meanes of Salvation , nay that a man may resolve not to doe so , without any danger of damnation . Therein you teach us , that we are to doe more for the love of our selves , and our own happinesse then for the love of God ; and in so doing contradict our Saviour , who expresly commands us , to love the Lord our God withall our heart , withall our soule , and withall our strength ; and hath taught us that the loue of God consists in avoiding sinne and keeping his commandements . Therein you directly crosse S. Pauls doctrine , who though he were a very probable Doctor , and had delivered his judgement for the lawfulnesse of eating meats offered to Idols ; yet he assures us that he which should make scruple of doing so , and forbear upon his scruple , should not sinne , but only be aweak brother ; whereas he , who should doe it with a doubtfull conscience , ( though the action were by S. Paul warranted lawfull , yet ) should sinne and be condemn'd for so doing . You pretend indeed to be rigid defenders and stout champions for the necessity of good workes ; but the truth is , you speak lies in hypocrisy , and when the matter is well examin'd , will appear to make your selves and your own functions necessary , but obedience to God unnecessary : Which will appear to any man who considers what strict necessity the Scripture imposes upon all men , of effectuall mortification of the habits of all vices , and effectuall conversion to newnesse of life , and universall obedience , Bellar. Contr. Barcl . c. 7. In 7. c. resutare con●tur Bard●verba illa Romuli . Veteres illos Imperotores Constantium Valentem & Caeteros non ideo toleravit Ecclesia quod legitimè successissent , sed quod illos sine populi detrimento coercere non po●erat . Et miratur hoc idem scripsisse Bellarminum . l 5. de Pontif. c. 7. Sed ut magis miretur , sciat hoc idem sensisse S. Th●m●m . 2. 2. 〈◊〉 . 12 art. 2. ad 1. ●●bi dicit Ecclesiam tolerasse ut sideles obedirent Iuliano Apostatae , qui●i● suinovitate nondum habebant vires ●ōpescendi Principes terrenos . and withall remembers that an act of Attrition , which you say with Priestly absolution is sufficient to salvation , is not mortification , which being a work of difficulty and time , cannot be perform'd in an instant . But for the present , it appears sufficiently out of this impious assertion , which makes it absolutely necessary for men , either in Act if it be possible , or if not , in Desire , to be Baptiz'd and Absolv'd by you , and that with Intention : and in the mean time warrants them that for avoding of sinne , they may safely follow the uncertain guidance of a vain man , who you cannot deny may either be deceiv'd himselfe , or , out of malice deceive them , & neglect the certain direction of God himselfe , and their own consciences . What wicked use is made of this Doctrine , your own long experience can better informe you , then it is possible for me to doe : yet my own litle conversation with you affords one memorable example to this purpose . For upon this ground I knew a young Scholar in Doway , licenc'd by a great Casuist to swear a thing as upon his certain knowledge , whereof he had yet no knowledge but only a great presumption , because ( forsooth ) it was the opinion of one Doctor that he might doe so . And upon the same ground , whensoever you shall come to have a prevailing party in this Kingdome , and power sufficient to restore your Religion , you may doe it by deposing or killing the King , by blowing up of Parliaments , and by rooting out all others of a different faith from you . Nay this you may doe , though in your own opinion it be unlawfull , because Bellarmine , a man with you of approved vertue , learning and judgement , hath declared his opinion for the lawfulnesse of it , in saying , that want of power to maintaine a rebellion , was the only reason that the Primitive Christians did not rebell against the persecuting Emperors . By the same rule , seeing the Priests and Scribes and Pharisees , men of greatest repute among the Iewes for vertue , learning and wisdome , held it a lawfull and a pious work to persecute Christ and his Apostles , Et posi●a , Sanctus Gregorius decit , nullum adversus Iuliani persecutionem fuisse remediu● praeter lachrimas , quoniam non habebat Ecclesia vires , quibus illius tyrannidi resistere posset . it was lawfull for the people to follow their leaders : for herein , according to your Doctrine , they proceeded prudently , and according to the conduct of opinion , maturely weighed and approved by men as it seem'd to them of vertue , learning and wisdome ; nay by such as sate in Moses chaire , and of whom it was said , whatsoever they bid you observe , that observe and doe : which universall you pretend is to be understood universally , and without any restriction or limitation . And as lawfull was it for the Pagans to persecute the Primitive Christians , because Truian & Pliny , men of great vertue and wisdome were of this opinion . Lastly , that most impious & detestable Doctrine , ( which by a foule calumny you impute to me , who abhorre and detest it , ) that men may be saved in any Religion , followes from this ground unavoidably . For certainly Religion is one of those things which is necessary only because it is commanded : for if none were commanded under pain of damnation , how could it be damnable to be of any ? Neither can it be damnable to be of a false Religion , unlesse it be a sin to be so . For neither are men saved by good luck , but only by obedience ; neither are they damned for their ill fortune but for sin and disobedience . Death is the wages of nothing but sin : and S. Iames sure intended to deliver the adequate cause of sin and death in those words , Lust when it hath conceived bringeth forth sin , and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death . Seeing therefore in such things , according to your doctrine , it is sufficient for avoiding of sin , that we proceed prudently , & by the conduct of some probable opinion , maturely weighed & approv'd by men of learning , vertue and wisdome : and seeing neither Iews want their Gamaliels , nor Pagans their Antoninus'es , nor any sect of Christians such professors and maintainers of their severall sects , as are esteem'd by the people , which know no better ( and that very reasonably ) men of vertue , learning , and wisdome , it followes evidently that the embracing their religion proceeds upon such reason as may warrant their action to bee prudent , and this is sufficient for avoiding of sin , and therefore certainly for avoiding damnation , for that in humane affaires and discourse , evidence and certainty cannot be alwaies expected . I haue stood the longer upon the refutation of this doctrine , not only because it is impious , and because bad use is made of it , and worse may be , but only because the contrary position , That men are bound for avoiding sin alwaies to take the safest way , is a faire and sure foundation , for a cleer confutation of the main conclusion , which in this Chapter you labour in vain to prove , and a certain proof that in regard of the precept of charity towards ones selfe , and of obedience to God , Papists ( unlesse ignorance excuse them ) are in state of sin as long as they remain in subjection to the Roman Church .

9 For if the safer way for avoiding sin , be also the safer way for avoiding damnation , then certainly whether the way of Protestants must be more secure , and the Roman way more dangerous , take but into your consideration these ensuing controversies : Whether it be lawfull to worship Pictures ? to picture the Trinity ? to invocate Saints and Angels ? to deny Law-men the Cup in the Sacrament ? to adore the Sacrament ? to prohibite certain Orders of men and woemen to marry ? to celebrate the publique service of God in a language which the assistants generally understand not ? and you will not choose but confesse that in all these you are on the more dangerous side for the committing of sin , and we on that which is more secure . For in all these things , if we say true , you doe that which is impious : on the other side if you were in the right , yet we might be secure enough , for we should only not doe something which you confesse not necessary to be done . We pretend , and are ready to justifie out of principles agreed upon between us , that in all these things , you violate the manifest commandements of God ; and alleage such texts of Scripture against you , as , if you would weigh them with any indifference , would put the matter out of question , but certainly you cannot with any modesty deny , but that at least they make it questionable . On the other side , you cannot with any face pretend , and if you should , know not how to goe about to proue , that there is any necessity of doing any of these things ; that it is unlawfull not to worship pictures , not to picture the Trinity , not to invocate Saints & Angels , not to giue all men the entire Sacrament , not to adore the Eucharist , not to prohibite marriage , not to celebrate divine service in an unknown tongue : I say you neither doe nor can pretend that there is any law of God which enjoynes us , no nor so much as an Evangelicall Counsell that advises us to doe any of these things . Now where no law is there can be no sin , for sin is the transgression of the law ; It remaines therefore that our forbearing to doe these things , must be free from all danger & suspicion of sin ; whereas your acting of them , must be , if not certainly impious , without all contradiction questionable and dangerous . I conclude therefore that which was to be concluded , that if the safer way for avoiding sin , be also ( as most certainly it is , ) the safer way for avoiding damnation , then certainly the way of Protestants must bee more safe , and the Roman way more dangerous . You will say , I know , that these things being by your Church concluded lawfull , we are obliged by God , though not to doe , yet to approue them ; at least in your iudgement we are so , and therefore our condition is as questionable as yours . I answer . The Authority of your Church is no common principle agreed upon between us , and therefore upon that you are not to dispute against us . We might presse you with our judgement as well and as justly as you doe us with yours . Besides , this very thing that your Church hath determin'd these things lawfull , and commanded the approbation of them , is that whereof she is accused by us , and we maintain you haue done wickedly , or at least very dangerously in so determining ; because in these very determinations , you haue forsaken that way which was secure from sinne , and haue chosen that which you cannot but know to be very questionable and doubtfull ; & consequently haue forsaken the safe way to heaven , and taken a way which is full of danger . And therefore , although if your obedience to your Church were questioned , you might fly for shelter to your Churches determinations , yet when these very determinations are accused , me thinks they should not be alleag'd in defence of themselues . But you will say , your Church is infallible , & therefore her determinations not unlawfull . Ans. They that accuse your Church of error , you may be sure doe question her infallibility : shew therefore where it is written , that your Church is infallible , and the dispute will be ended . But till you doe so , give mee leaue rather to conclude thus , your Church in many of her determinations , chooses not that way which is more secure from sin , and therefore not the safest way to salvation ; then vainly to imagine her infallible , and there upon to belieue , though she teach not the securest way to avoid sin , yet shee teaches the certainst way to obtain salvation .

10 In the close of this Number , you say as followes , If it may appeare though not certain , yet at least probable , that Protestancy unrepented destroies salvation , and withall that there is a safer way , it will follow that they are obliged by the law of Charity to that safe way . Ans. Make this appear and I will never perswade any man to continue a Protestant , for if I should , I should perswade him to continue a fool . But after all these prolix discourses , still we see you are at , If it may appeare : From whence without all Ifs and Ands that appeares sufficiently which I said in the beginning of the Chapter , that the foure first Paragraphs of this Chap. are wholly spent in an unnecessary introduction , unto that which never by any man in his right wits was denied , That men in wisdome and charity to themselves are to take the safest way to eternall salvation .

11 Ad § 5. In the fift you begin to make some shew of arguing , & tells us , that Protestants haue reason to doubt in what case they stand from what you have said about the Churches universall infallibility , & of her being Iudge of Controversies , &c. Ans. From all that which you haue said , they have reason only to conclude that you haue nothing to say . They haue as much reason to doubt , whether there can bee any Motion , from what Zeno saies in Aristotles Physicks , as to doubt from what you haue said , whether the Roman Church may possibly erre . For this I dare say , that not the weakest of Zeno's arguments but is stronger then the strongest of yours , and that you would be more perplext in answering any one of them , then I haue been in answering all yours . You are pleas'd to repeat two or three of them in this Section , and in all probability so wise a man as you are , if he would repeat any , would repeat the best , and therefore if I desire the Reader by these to judge of the rest , I shall desire but ordinary justice .

12 The first of them being put into form stands thus , Every least errour in faith destroies the nature of faith ; It is certain that some Protestants doe erre , and therefore they want the substance of Faith . The Major of which Syllogisme I haue formerly confuted by unanswerable arguments out of one of your own best Authors , who shewes plainly that he hath amongst you , as strange as you make it , many other abettors . Besides , if it were true , it would conclude that either you or the Dominicans haue no faith , in as much as you oppose one another as much as Arminians and Calvinists .

13 The second Argument stands thus , Since all Protestants pretend the like certainty , it is clear that none of them haue any certainty at all : Which argument if it were good , then what can hinder but this must also be so , Since Protestants and Papists pretend the like certainty ; it is cleer that none of them haue any certainty at all ! And this too : Since all Christians pretend the like certainty it is cleer that none of them haue any certainty at all ! And thirdly this : Since men of all religions pretend a like certainty , it is cleer that none of them haue any at all ! And lastly this : Since oft-times they which are abused with a specious Paralogisme , pretend the like certainty with them which demonstrate , it is cleer that none of them haue any certainty at all ! Certainly Sir , Zeal and the Divell did strangely blind you , if you did not see that these horrid impieties were the immediate consequences of your positions , if you did see it , & yet would set them down , you deserve worse censure . Yet such as these , are all the arguments wherewith you conceive your selfe to have prov'd undoubtedly , that Protestants haue reason at least to doubt in what case they stand . Neither am I afraid to venture my life upon it , that your selfe shall not choose so much as one out of all the pack , which I will not shew before indifferent Iudges , either to be impertinent to the question , inconsequent in the deduction , or grounded upon some false , or at least uncertain foundation .

14 Your third and fourth argument may bee thus put into one ; Protestants cannot tell what points in particular be fundamentall ; therefore they cannot tell whether they or their brethren doe not erre fundamentally , and whether their difference be not fundamentall . Both which deductions I haue formerly shewed to be most inconsequent ; for knowing the Scripture to contain all fundamentalls , ( though many more points besides , which makes it difficult to say precisely what is fundamentall and what not , ) knowing this I say and believing it , what can hinder but that I may be well assured , that I belieue all fundamentalls , and that all who believe the Scripture syncerely as well as I , doe not differ from me in any thing fundamentall ?

15 In the close of this Section , you say , that you omit to adde that we want the Sacrament of Repentance instituted for the remission of sins , or at least we must confesse that we hold it not necessary : and yet our own brethren the Century writers acknowledge that in the times of Cyprian and Tertullian , private Confession even of thoughts was used , and that it was then commanded and thought necessary ; and then our Ordination , you say is very doubtfull and all that depends upon it . Ans. I also omit to answer , 1. That your brother Rhenanus , acknowledges the contrary , & assures us that the Confession then required and in use , was publique , and before the Church , and that your auricular Confession was not then in the world ; for which his mouth is stopped by your Index Expurgatorius . 2. That your brother Arcudius acknowledges , that the Eucharist was in Cyprians time given to Infants , and esteemed necessary , or at least profitable for them , and the giving it shewes no lesse ; & now I would know whether you will acknowledge your Church bound to giue it , and to esteem so of it ? 3. That it might be then commanded , and being commanded be thought necessary , and yet be but a Church Constitution . Neither will I deny , if the present Church , could , and would so order it , that the abuses of it might bee prevented , and conceiving it profitable , should enjoyn the use of it , but that being commanded it would be necessary . 4. Concerning our Ordinations , besides that I haue prou'd it impossible that they should be so doubtfull as yours , according to your own principles ; I answer , that experience shewes them certainly sufficient to bring men to faith and repentance , and consequently to salvation ; and that if there were any secret defect of any thing necessary , which we cannot help , God will certainly supply it .

16 Ad § 6. In the sixt , you say , you will not repeat , but only put us again in minde that unlesse the Roman Church were the true Church there was no visible Church upon earth , a thing so manifest that Protestants themselves confesse , &c. Ans. Neither will I repeat , but only put you in minde that you haue not prov'd that there is any necessity that there should be any visible true . Church ; nor if there were , that there was no other besides the Roman . For as for the confession of Protestants which here you insist upon , it is evident out of their own words cited by your selfe , that by the whole world , they meant onely the greatest part of it , which is an usuall figure of speech ; and never intended to deny that besides the Church then reigning & triumphing in this world , there was another militant Church , other Christians visible enough though persecuted and oppressed . Nor thirdly doe you here make good so much as with one fallacy , that if the Roman Church were then the visible Church , it must needs be now the only or the safer way to heaven ; and yet the connexion of this consequence was very necessary to be shewne . For , for ought I know , it was not impossible that it might then be the only Visible Church , & yet now a very dangerous way to heaven , or perhaps none at all .

17 Afterwards you vainly pretend that all Roman Catholiques , not one excepted , professe , that Protestancy unrepented destroies salvation . From which generality wee may except two at least to my knowledge , and those are , your selfe , and Franciscus de Sancta Clara , who assures us that Ignorance and Repentance may excuse a Protestant from damnation though dying in his errour . * * I● Problem . 15. & 16. And this is all the charity , which by your own confession also , the most favourable Protestants allow to Papists ; and therefore with strange repugnance to your selfe you subjoyne , that these are the men whom we must hold not to erre damnably , unlesse we will destroy our owne Church and salvation . Whereas , as I have said before , though you were Turks , and Pagans , we might bee good Christians . Neither is it necessary for the perpetuating of a Church before Luther , that your errours even then should not be damnable , but only not actually damning to some ignorant soules among you . In vaine therefore doe you make such tragedies as here you doe ! In vaine you conjure us with feare and trembling to consider these things ! We have considered them againe and againe , and look't upon them on both sides , & finde neither terrour nor truth in them . Let children and fooles bee terrified with bug-beares , men of understanding will not regard them .

18 Ad §. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Your whole discourse in your five next Paragraphs , I have in the beginning of this Chapter fully confuted , by saying , that it stands altogether upon the false foundation of this affected mistake , that we doe and must confesse the Roman Church free from damnable error ; which will presently be apparent , to any one who considers , that the seaventh and tenth are nothing but D. Potters words ; and that in the other three , you obtrude upon us this Crambe no fewer then seven times . May you be pleased to look back to your own Book , & you shall find it so as I have said : & that at least in a hundred other places you make your advantage of this false imputation : which when you have observ'd , and withall considered that your selfe plainly intimate , that D. Potters discourses which here you censure , would be good and concluding , if we did not ( as we doe not ) free you from damnable errour , I hope you will acknowledge that my vouchsafing these Sections the honour of any farther answer , is a great supererrogation in point of civility . Neverthelesse partly that I may the more ingratiate my selfe with you , but especially , that I may stop their mouthes who will be apt to say , that every word of yours which I should omit to speak to , is an unanswerable argument , I will hold my purpose of answering them more punctually and particularly .

19 First then , to your little parenthesis , which you interline among D. Potters words , § . 7. That any small error in faith destroies all faith , ( To omit what hath been said before , ) I answer here what is proper for this place ; that S. Austine , whose authority is here stood upon , thought otherwise : He conceived the Donatists to hold some error in faith and yet not to have no faith . His words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident , you are with us ( saith he to the Donatists . Ep. 48. ) in Baptisme , in the Creed , in the other Sacraments : And again . Super gestis cum emerit : Thou hast proved to me that thou hast faith ; prove to me likewise that thou hast charity . Paralell to which words are these of Optatus , Lib. 5. prope initium . Amongst us and you is one ▪ Ecclesiasticall conversation , common lessons ; the same faith , the same Sacraments . Where by the way we may observe , that in the judgements of these Fathers , even the Donatists , though Heretiques and Schismatiques , gave true Ordination , the true Sacrament of Matrimony , true Sacramentall Absolution , Confirmation , the true Sacrament of the Eucharist , true extream Vnction ; or else ( choose you whether ) some of these were not then esteem'd Sacraments . But for Ordination , whether he held it a Sacrament or no , certainly he held that it remain'd with them entire : for so he saies in expresse tearmes , in his book against Parmenianus his Epistle . Which Doctrine if you can reconcile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church , Lib. 2. c. 3. Eris mihi magnus Apollo .

20 Whereas in the beginning of the 8. Sect. you deny that your argument drawn from our confessing the Possibility of your Salvation , is for simple people alone , but for all men : I answer , certainly whosoever is moved with it , must be so simple as to think this a good and a concluding reason ; Some ignorant men in the Roman Church may be sav'd , by the confession of Protestants , ( which is indeed all that they confesse , ) therefore it is safe for me to be of the Roman Church ; and he that does think so , what reason is there why he should not think this as good , Ignorant Protestans may be saved , by the confession of Papists , ( by name Mr K. ) therefore it is safe for me to be of the Protestant Church ? Whereas you say , that this your argument is grounded upon an inevitable necessity for us , either to grant Salvation to your Church , or to entail certain damnation upon our own , because ours can have no being till Luther , unlesse yours be supposed to have been the true Church . I answer , this cause is no cause : For first , as Luther had no being before Luther , and yet he was when he was , though he was not before ; so there is no repugnance in the termes , but that there might be a true Church after Luther , though there were none for some ages before ; as since Columbus his time , there have been Christians in America , though before there were none for many ages . For neither doe you shew , neither does it appear , that the generation of Churches is univocall , that nothing but a Church can possibly beget a Church ; nor that the present being of a true Church , depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all ages ; any more then the present being of Peripateticks or Stoicks depends upon a perpetuall pedigree of them . For though I at no hand deny the Churches perpetuity , yet I see nothing in your book to make me understand , that the truth of the present depends upon it , nor any thing that can hinder , but that a false Church , ( Gods providence overwatching and overruling it , ) may preserve the meanes of confuting their own Heresies , and reducing men to truth , and so raising a true Church , I mean the integrity and the authority of the word of God with men . Thus the Iewes preserve meanes to make men Christians , and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants , and Protestants ( which you say are a false Church ) doe , as you pretend , preserve means to make men Papists ; that is , their own Bibles , out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be Papists . Secondly , you shew not , nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church depends on the truth of yours . For though you talke vainly , as if you were the only men in the world before Luther , yet the world knowes that this but talke , and that there were other Christians besides you , which might have perpetuated the Church though you had not beene . Lastly , you shew not , neither doth it appear , that your being acknowledged in some sense a true Church , doth necessarily import , that we must grant salvation to it , unlesse by it you understand the ignorant members of it , which is a very unusuall Sinechdoche .

21 Whereas you say , that Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saved . I answ. S. Austin himselfe granted that those among them , who sought the Truth , being ready when they found it to correct their error were not Heretiques , and therefore notwithstanding their error might be saved . And this is all the Charity that Protestants allow to Papists .

22 Whereas you say , that D. Potter having cited out of S. Austine the words of the Catholiques , that the Donatists had true Baptisme , when he comes to the contrary words of the Donatist , addes , no Church , no Salvation ! Ans. You wrong D. Potter , who pretends not to cite S. Austines formall words but only his sense , which in him is compleat and full for that purpose whereto it is alleaged by D. Potter . His words are , Petilianus dixit , venite ad Ecclesiam Populi & aufugite Traditores , Cont. lit . Petil . l. 2. 〈…〉 ▪ si perire non vultis : Petilian saith , come to the Church yee people , and fly from the Traditours if ye will not be damn'd , for that yee may know that they being guilty , esteeme very well of our Faith , Behold I Baptize these whom they have infected ; but they receive those whom we have baptized . Where it is plain , that Petilian by his words makes the Donatists the Church , and excludes the Catholiques from salvation absolutely . And therefore no Church , no Salvation was not D. Potters addition . And whereas you say , the Catholiques never yeelded that among the Donatists there was a true Church and hope of Salvation , I say it appears by what I have alleaged out of S. Austine , that they yeelded both these were among the Donatists , as much as we yeeld them to be among the Papists . As for D. Potters acknowledgement ; that they maintained an error in the matter & nature of it Hereticall : This proves them but Materiall Heretiques , whom you doe not exclude from possibility of Salvation . So that all things considered , this argument must be much more forcible from the Donatists against the Catholiques , then from Papists against Protestants , in regard Protestants grant Papists no more hope of salvation then Papists grant Protestants : whereas the Donatists excluded absolutely all but their own Part from hope of Salvation , so farre as to account them no Christians that were not of it : the Catholiques mean while accounting them Brethren , and freeing those among them , from the imputation of Heresy , who being in error quaerebant cautâ sollicitudine veritatem corrigi parati cùm invenerint .

23 Whereas you say , That the Argument for the certainty of their Baptisme ( because it was confessed good by Catholiques , whereas the Baptisme of Catholiques was not confessed by them to be good , ) is not so good as yours , touching the certainty of your Salvation grounded on the confession of Protestants , because wee confesse there is no damnable error in the Doctrine or practice of the Roman Church : I Ans. no : we confesse no such matter , and though you say so a hundred times , no repetition will make it true . We professe plainly , that many damnable errors plainly repugnant to the precepts of Christ both Ceremoniall and Morall , more plainly then this of Rebaptization , and therefore more damnable , are believed and professed by you . And therefore seeing this is the only disparity you can devise , and this is vanished , it remaines that as good an answer as the Catholiques made touching the certainty of their Baptisme , as good may we make , and with much more evidence of Reason , touching the security and certainty of our Salvation .

24 By the way I desire to be inform'd , seeing you affirme that Rebaptizing those whom Hereticks had baptized was a sacriledge , and a profession of a damnable Heresie , when it began to be so ? If from the beginning it were so , then was Cyprian a sacrilegious professor of a damnable heresy , and yet a Saint and a martyr . If it were not so , then did your Church excommunicate Firmilian and others , and separate from them without sufficient ground of Excommunication or Separation , which is Schismaticall . You see what difficulties you runne into on both sides ; choose whether you will , but certainly both can hardly be avoided .

25 Whereas again in this § . you obtrude upon us , That we cannot but confesse that your doctrine containes no damnable error , and that yours is so certainly a true Church , that unlesse yours be true we cannot pretend any : I answer , there is in this neither truth nor modesty to outface us , that we cannot but confesse what indeed we connot but deny . For my part , if I were upon the rack , I perswade my selfe I should not confesse the one nor the other .

26 Whereas again presently you adde , that D. Potter grants we should be guilty of Schisme , if we did cut off your Church from the body of Christ and the hope of Salvation : I have shewed above that he grants no such matter . He saies indeed , that our not doing so frees us from the imputation of Schisme , & from hence you sophistically inferre , that he must grant , If we did so , wee were Schismatiques , and then make your Reader believe ; that this is D. Potters confession , it being indeed your own false collection . For as every one that is not a Papist , is not a Iesuit , and yet not every one that is a Papist is a Iesuit : As whosoever comes not into England , comes not to London , and yet many may come to England , and not come to London : As whosoever is not a man , is not a King , and yet many are men that are not Kings : So likewise it may be certain , that whosoever does not so is free from Schisme , and yet they that doe so ( if there be sufficient cause , ) may be not guilty of it .

27 Whereas you pretend to wonder that the Doctor did not answer the argument of the Donatists , which he saies is all one with yours , but referres you to S. Austine there to read it , as if every one carried with him a Library , or were able to examin the places in S. Austin : I answer , the parity of the Arguments was that which the Doctor was to declare , whereto it was impertinent what the answer was : But sufficient it was to shew that the Donatists argument which you would never grant good , was yet as good 〈◊〉 yours , and therefore yours could not be good . Now to this purpose as the concealing the answer was no way advantagious , so to produce it was not necessary ; and therefore he did you more service then he was bound to , in referring you to S. Austin for an answer to it . Whereas you say , he had reason to conceale it because it makes directly against himselfe : I say it is so farre from doing so , that it will serve in proportion to the argument , as fitly as if it had been made for it : for as S. Austine saies , that Catholiques approve the Doctrine of Donatists , but abhorre their Heresy of Re-baptization : so we say , that we approve those fundamentall and simply necessary Truths which you retaine , by which some good soules among you may be saved , but abhorre your many Superstitions and Heresies . And as he saies , that as gold is good , yet ought not to be sought for among a company of Theeves , and Baptisme good but not to be sought for in the Conventicles of Donatists : so say we , that the Truths you retaine are good , and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant soules among you to salvation , yet are not to be sought for in the Conventicle of Papists , who hold with them a mixture of many vanities , and many impieties . For , as for our freeing you from damnable Heresy , and yeelding you Salvation , ( which stone here again you stumble at , ) neither he nor any other Protestant is guilty of it ; and therefore you must confesse that this very answer will serve Protestants against this charme of Papists , as well as S. Austine against the Donatists , and that indeed it was not D. Potter but You , that , without a Sarcasme , had reason to conceale this Answer .

28 The last piece of D. Potters book , which you are pleased to take notice of in this first Part of yours , is an argument he makes in your behalfe p. 79. of his book , where he makes you speak thus , If Protestants believe the Religion of Papists to be a safe way to heaven , why doe they not follow it ? This argument you like not , because many things may be good and yet not necessary to be embraced by every body , & therefore scoffe at it , and call it an argument of his own , a wise argument , a wise demand : and then aske of him , what he thinkes of it being fram'd thus , Our Religion is safe , even by your confession , and therefore you ought to grant that all may embrace it . And yet farther thus , Among different Religions one only can be safe : But yours by our own confession is safe : where as you hold that in ours there is no hope of salvation , therefore we ought to embrace yours . Ans. I have advised with him , & am to tell you from him , that he thinks reasonable well of the arguments , but very ill of him that makes them , as affirming so often without shame and conscience , what he cannot but know to be plainly false : and his reason is because he is so farre from confessing , or giving you any ground to pretend he does confesse , that your Religion is safe for all that are of it , from whence only it will follow that all may safely embrace it , that in this very place , from which you take these words , he professeth plainly , that it is extreamly dangerous , if not certainly damnable to all such as professe it , when either they doe , or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinat might believe the contrary , and that for us wh● are convinc'd in conscience that she ( the Rom●● Church ) erres in many things , it lies upon us , even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors . And though here you take upon you a shew of great rigour , and will seem to hold that in our way there is no hope of Salvation ; yet formerly you have been more liberall of your charity towards us , and will needs vye and contend with D. Potter which of the two shall be more Charitable , assuring us that you allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter spares you , for whom he makes Ignorance the best hope of Salvation . Chap. 1. §. 4. And now I appeale to any indifferent reader , whether our disavowing to confesse you free from damnable error , were not ( as I pretend ) a full confutation of all that you say in these five foregoing Paragraphs : And as for you I wonder , what answer , what evasion , what shift you can devise to cleere your selfe from dishonesty , for imputing to him almost a hundred times , this acknowledgment which he never makes , but very often , and that so plainly that you take notice of it , professeth the contrary !

29 The best defence that possibly can be made for you , I conceive , is this , that you were led into this error , by mistaking a supposition of a confession , for a confession ; a Rhetoricall concession of the Doctors , for a positive assertion . He saies indeed of your errors , Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which believe as they professe , yet for us to professe what we believe not , were without question damnable . But , to say , Though your errors be not damnable , we may not professe them , is not to say , your errors are not damnable , but only though they be not . As if you shoul say , though the Church erre in points not fundamentall , yet you may not separate from it : Or , though we doe erre in believing Christ really present , yet our error frees us from Idolatry : Or , as if a Protestant should say , Though you doe not commit Idolatry in adoring the Host , yet being uncertain of the Priests Intention to consecrate , at least you expose yourselfe to the danger of it : I presume you would not think it fairely done , if any man should interpret either this last speech as an acknowledgement , that you doe not commit Idol●try , or the former as confessions , that you doe erre in points not fundamentall , that you doe erre in believing the reall presence . And therefore you ought not so to have mistaken D. Potters words , as if he had confessed the errors of your Church not damnable , when he saies no more but this , Though they be so , or , suppose , or put the case they be so , yet being errors , we that know them may not professe them to be divine truths . Yet this mistake might have been pardonable , had not D. Potter in many places of his book , by declaring his judgement touching the quality and malignity of your errors , taken away from you all occasion of error . But now that he saies plainly , That your Church hath many waies played the Harlot , and in that regard , deserv'd a Bill of divorce from Christ , and the detestation of Christians p. 11. That for that Masse of Errors and abuses in judgement and practice which is proper to her , and wherein she differs from us , we judge a reconciliation impossible , and to us ( who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions ) damnable . pag. 20. That Popery is the contagion or plague of the Church . p. 60. That we cannot , we dare not communicate with her in her publique Liturgy , which is manifestly polluted with drosse of Superstition . p. 68. That they who in former ages dyed in the Church of Rome died in many sinfull errors . p. 78. That they that have understanding and means to discover their errors and neglect to use them , he dares not flatter them with so easy a censure , as to give them hope of salvation p. 79. That the way of the Roman Religion is not safe , but very dangerous , if not certainly damnable , to such as professe it , when they believe ( or if their hearts were upright and not perversely obstinate might believe ) the contrary , p. 79. That your Church is but ( in some sense ) a true Church , and your errors only to some men not damnable , & that we who are convinc'd in conscience that she erres in many things , are under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors . Seeing I say , he saies all this so plainly and so frequently , certainly your charging him falsely with this acknowledgement , and building a great part not only of your discourse in this Chapter , but of your whole book upon it , possibly it may be palliated with some excuse , but it can no way be defended with any just apology . Especially seeing you your selfe more then once or twice , take notice of these his severer censures of your Church , and the errors of it , and make your advantage of them . In the first number of your first Chapter , you set down three of the former places ; and from thence inferre , That as you affirme Protestancy unrepented destroies Salvation , so D. Potter pronounces the like heavy doome against Roman Catholiques : and again §. 4. of the same Chap. We allow Protestants as much charity as D. Potter spare● us , for whom he makes ignorance the best hope of salvation . And c. 5. § 41. you have these words : It is very strange that you iudge us extreamly uncharitable in saying Protestants cannot be saved , while your selfe avouch the same of all Learned Catholiques , whom Ignorance cannot excuse ! Thus out of the same mouth you blow hot and cold ; and one while , when it is for your purpose , you professe D. Potter censures your errors as heavily as you doe ours ; which is very true , for he gives hope of Salvation to none among you , but to those whose ignorance was the cause of their error , and no sinne cause of their ignorance : and presently after , when another project comes in your head , you make his words softer then oile towards you ; you pretend he does and must confesse , That your Doctrine containes no damnable error , that your Church is certainly a true Church , that your way to heaven is a safe way , and all these acknowledgements you set down simple and absolute , without any restriction or limitation ; whereas in the Doctor they are all so qualified , that no knowing Papist can promise himselfe any security or comfort from them . We confesse ( saith he ) the Church of Rome to be ( in some sense ) a true Church , and her errors ( to some men ) not damnable : we believe her Religion safe , that is , by Gods great mercy not damnable , to some such as believe what they professe : But we believe it not safe but very dangerous , if not certainly damnable to such as professe it , when they believe ( or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinate might believe ) the contrary . Observe I pray these restraining termes which formerly you have dissembled , A true Church in some sense , not damnable to some men , a safe way , that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some : And then seeing you have pretended these confessions to be absolute , which are thus plainly limited , how can you avoid the imputation of an egregious Sophister ? You quarrell with the Doctor , in the end of your Preface , for using in his Book such ambiguous tearmes as these , in some sort , in some sense , in some degree : and desire him if he make any reply , either to forbear them , or to tell you roundly in what sort , in what sense , in what degree , he understands these and the like mincing phrases . But the truth is he hath not left them so ambiguous and undetermin'd as you pretend ; but told you plainly , in what sense , your Church may passe for a true Church , viz. In regard we may hope that she retaines those truths which are simply , absolutely , and indispensably necessary to Salvation , which may suffice to bring those good soules to heaven , who wanted meanes of discovering their errors ; this is the charitable construction in which you may passe for a Church : And to what men your Religion may be safe , and your errors not damnable , viz. to such whom Ignorance may excuse , and therefore he hath more cause to complain of you , for quoting his words without those qualifications , then you to finde fault with him for using of them .

30 That your Discourse in the 12. § . presseth you as forcibly as Protestants , I have shewed above : I adde here , 1. Whereas you say that faith , according to rigid Calvinists , is either so strong , that once had , it can never be lost , or so more then weak , and so much nothing that it can never begotten : That , these are words without sense . Never any Calvinist affirmed that faith was so weak , and so much nothing that it can never be gotten : but it seemes you wanted matter to make up your Antithesis , and therefore were resolved to speak empty words rather then loose your figure , Crimina rasis Librat in antithetis , doct as posuisse Figuras Laudatur .

2. That there is no Calvinist that will deny the Truth of this proposition , Christ died for all , nor to subscribe to that sense of it , which your Dominicans put upon it ; neither can you with coherence to the received Doctrine of your own Society , deny that they as well as the Calvinists , take away the distinction of sufficient and effectuall grace , and indeed hold none to be sufficient , but only that which is effectuall . 3. Whereas you say , They cannot make their calling certain by good workes , who doe certainly believe that before any good works they are justified , and justified by faith alone , and by that faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified : I ans. There is no Protestant but believes that Faith , Repentance , and universall Obedience , are necessary to the obtaining of Gods favour and eternall happinesse . This being granted , the rest is but a speculative Controversy , a Question about words which would quickly vanish , but that men affect not to understand one another . As if a company of Physitians were in consultation , and should all agree , that three medicines and no more were necessary for the recovery of the Patients health , this were sufficient for his direction towards the recovery of his health ; though concerning the proper and specificall effects of these three medicines , there should be amongst them as many differences as men : So likewise being generally at accord that these three things , Faith , Hope , & Charity , are necessary to salvation , so that whosoever wants any of them cannot obtain it , and he which hath them all cannot faile of it , it is not very evident that they are sufficiently agreed for mens directions to eternall Salvation ? And seeing Charity is a full comprehension of all good workes , they requiring Charity as a necessary qualification in him that will be saved , what sense is there in saying , they cannot make their calling certain by good workes ? They know what salvation is as well as you , and have as much reason to desire it : They believe it as heartily as you , that there is no good worke but shall have its proper reward , and that there is no possibility of obtaining the eternall reward without good workes : and why then may not this Doctrine be a sufficient incitement and provocation unto good workes ?

31 You say , that they certainly believe that before any good works they are iustified : But this is a calumny . There is no Protestant but requires to Iustification , Remission of sinnes , and to Remission of sinnes they all require Repentance , and Repentance I presume may not be denied the name of a good worke , being indeed , if it be rightly understood , and according to the sense of the word in Scripture , an effectuall conversion from all sinne to all holinesse . But though it be taken for meer sorrow for sinnes past , and a bare purpose of amendment , yet even this is a good worke , and therefore Protestants requiring this to Remission of sinnes , and Remission of sinnes to justification , cannot with candor be pretended to believe , that they are justified before any good worke .

32 You say , They believe themselves iustified by faith alone , and that by that faith whereby they believe themselves iustified : Some peradventure doe so , but withall they believe that that faith which is alone , and unaccompanied with sincere and universall obedience , is to be esteem'd not faith but presumption , and is at no hand sufficient to justification : that though Charity be not imputed unto justification , yet is it required as a necessary disposition in the person to be justified , and that though in regard of the imperfection of it , no man can be justified by it , yet that on the other side , no man can be justified without it . So that upon the whole matter , a man may truly and safely say , that the Doctrine of these Protestants , taken altogether , is not a Doctrine of Liberty , not a Doctrine that turnes hope into presumption , and carnall security ; though it may justly be feared , that many licentious persons , taking it by halfes , have made this wicked use of it . For my part , I doe heartily wish , that by publique Authority it were so ordered , that no man should ever preach or print this Doctrine that Faith alone justifies , unlesse he joynes this together with it , that universall obedience is necessary to salvation . And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by faith , without the works of the Law , were never read in the Church , but when the 13. Chap. of the 1. Epist. to the Corinth . concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be , to prevent misprision , read together with them .

33 Whereas you say , that some Protestants doe expresly affirme the former point to be the soule of the Church , &c. and that therefore they must want the Theologicall vertue of Hope , and that none can have true hope , while they hope to be saved in their Communion . I Ans. They have great reason to believe the Doctrine of Iustification by faith only , a Point of great weight and importance , if it be rightly understood : that is , they have reason to esteeme it a principall and necessary duty of a Christian , to place his hope of justification and salvation , not in the perfection of his own righteousnesse ( which if it be imperfect will not justify , ) but only in the mercies of God through Christs satisfaction : and yet notwithstanding this , nay the rather for this , may preserve themselves in the right temper of good Christians , which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and feare . If this Doctrine be otherwise expounded then I have here expounded , I will not undertake the justification of it , only I will say ( that which I may doe truly ) that I never knew any Protestant such a soli-fidian , but that he did believe these divine truths ; That he must make his calling certain by good workes : That he must work out his salvation with Fear and Trembling , and that while he does not so , he can have no well-grounded hope of Salvation : I say I never met with any who did not believe these divine Truths , and that with a more firme , and a more unshaken assent , then he does that himselfe is predestinate , and that he is justified by believing himselfe justified . I never met with any such , who if he saw there were a necessity 〈◊〉 doe either , would not rather forgoe his beliefe of these Doctrines then the former : these which he sees disputed and contradicted and opposed with a great multitude of very potent Arguments ; then those , which being the expresse words of Scripture , whosoever should call into question , could not with any modesty pretend to the title of Christian. And therefore there is no reason but we may believe , that their full assurance of the former Doctrines doth very well qualify their perswasion of the latter , and that the former ( as also the lives of many of them doe sufficiently testify ) are more effectuall to temper their hope , and to keep it at a stay of a filiall and modest assurance of Gods favour , built upon the conscience of his love and fear , then the latter can be to swell and puffe them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption . This reason , joyn'd with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men of this opinion , is a sufficient ground for Charity , to hope well of their hope : and to assure our selves that it cannot be offensive , but rather most acceptable to God , if notwithstanding this diversity of opinion , we embrace each other with the strict embraces of love & communion . To you and your Church we leave it , to separate Christians from the Church , and to proscribe them from heaven upon triviall and trifling causes : As for our selves , we conceive a charitable judgement of our Brethren and their errors , though untrue , much more pleasing to God then a true judgement , if it be uncharitable ; and and therefore shall alwaies choose ( if we doe erre ) to erre on the milder and more mercifull part , and rather to retain those in our Communion which deserve to be ejected , then eject those that deserve to be retain'd .

34 Lastly , whereas you say , that seeing Protestants differ about the point of Iustification , you must needs inferre that they want Vnity in faith , and consequently all faith , and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamentall ; I Answer , to the first of these inferences , that as well might you inferre it upon Victor Bishop of Rome and Poli●rates ; upon Stephen Bishop of Rome and S. Cyprian : in as much as it is indeniably evident , that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation the other esteemed not so . But points of Doctrine ( as all other things ) are as they are , and not as they are esteemed : neither can a necessary point be made unnecessary by being so accounted , nor an unnecessary point be made necessary by being overvalued . But as the ancient Philosophers , ( whose different opinions about the soule of man you may read in Aristotle de Anima , and Cicero's Tusculan Questions , ) notwithstanding their divers opinions touching the nature of the soule , yet all of them had soules , and soules of the same nature : Or as those Physitians who dispute whether the braine or heart be the principall part of a man , yet all of them have braines and have hearts , and herein agree sufficiently : So likewise , though some Protestants esteeme that Doctrine the soule of the Church , which others doe not so highly value , yet this hinders not but that which is indeed the soule of the Church may be in both 〈◊〉 of them ; and though one account that a necessary truth which 〈◊〉 account neither necessary nor perhaps true , yet this notwithstanding , in those truths which are truly & really necessary they may all agree . For no Argument can be more sophisticall then this ; They differ in some points which they esteeme necessary ; Therefore they differ in some that indeed and in truth are so .

●35 Now as concerning the other inference , That they cannot agree what points are fundamentall : I have said and prov'd formerly that there is no such necessity as you imagin or pretend , that men should certainly know what is , and what is not fundamentall . They that believe all things plainly delivered in Scripture , believe all things fundamentall , and are at sufficient Vnity in matters of faith , though they cannot precisely and exactly distinguish between what is fundamentall and what is profitable : nay though by error they mistake some vaine , or perhaps hurtfull opinions for necessary and fundamentall Truths . c. 3. §. 53. & ●libi . Besides , I have shewed above , that as Protestants doe not agree ( for you overreach in saying they cannot ) touching what points are fundamentall ; so neither doe you agree what points are defin'd & so to be accounted , and what are not : nay , nor concerning the subject in which God hath placed this pretended Authority of defining : some of you setling it in the Pope himselfe , though alone without a Councell : Others in a Councell , though divided from the Pope : Others only in the conjunction of Councell and Pope : Others not in this neither , but in the acceptation of the present Church Vniversall : Lastly , others not attributing it to this neither , but only to the perpetuall Succession of the Church of all ages : of which divided Company it is very evident and undeniable , that every former may be and are obliged to hold many things defin'd and therefore necessary , which the latter , according to their own grounds , have no obligation to doe , nay cannot doe so upon any firme and sure and infallible foundation .