Catholic Charity Complaining and Maintaining that Rome is Uncharitable, Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
In opposition to the Cavaliers ninth Chapter, containing a vaine Challenge of Protestants, for not daring to declare their Fundamentalls, divided into three Sections.
SECT. I.
Wherein are confuted his Cavills against the Apostles Creed, as not containing all points Fundamentall.
THe title of this Chapter, and the Chapter it selfe are at some discord: For the title saith, That the Protestants neither doe, nor dare declare what are their fundamentall points of Faith: and the Chapter, even in the first words, saith this, It is usuall with many to affirme, that the Apostles Creed containes all fundamentall points of Faith. So it seemes that Protestants doe declare, and doe not declare their fundamentall points; and the Title beats them for not declaring, and the Chapter beats them for declaring: Thus the Protestants must bee beaten howsoever, not indeed for declaring, or for not declaring, but because they are Protestants. A right marke of faction, which commonly makes an ill construction of all, even of the good actions of those against whom it is factious. But let us see how hee chastiseth us for our declaring: These men, when they are pressed, grow soone ashamed of that opinion; when they are told, that in the Creed there is no mention made at all, either of the Canon in holy Scripture, or of the number or nature, yea, or so much as the name of Sacraments. But let this Authour consider, whether hee ought not to be ashamed, who thus casting shame on Protestants, casts it also on the Fathers. For, doe the Fathers in their rules of Faith make mention of the Canon of Scripture, or the number, or of the name of the Sacraments? Let him survey them in Irenaeus, Tertullian, &c. and hee shall see, that they doe not. And yet Tertullian saith of the rule of Faith, Nihil ultra scire, est omnia scire. Againe, doe you not thus cast shame on your own fellowes? For do not many of your owne Doctors in their Explicites (called by your selfe, more fundamentall) leave out the Canon of Scriptures, and the number, yea, the nature and name of Sacraments? If therefore they do say, that it is a mortall sinne, not to know explicitely these important points, which are more fundamentall, then may they bee ashamed to leave their Disciples in mortall sinne, by not naming the aSee before Romish Authours alledged, who say, that twelve or fourteen Articles (whereof these of the Canon and Sacraments are none) doe suffice to be explicitely beleeved; and divers Romish Authours alledged by Lorca, that differ in the number of the Canonicall Books.Canon or number of the Sacraments explicitely to be beleeved: And if you cleare them, you shall cleare us also. But withall, give me leave to aske, even in defence of these your fellowes: Doe you thinke that no man can be saved that doth not know the number of Canonical Books, if he beleeve the fundamentall points contained in those Books? Or doe you thinke that one who was baptized in his infancy, not knowing then the vertue and use of the Sacrament of Baptisme, and dying before he come to the knowledge of the use of the Eucharist, may not bee saved by beleeving in Christ, and being regenerate by this faith? Your owne Jesuite bSi finis Sacramentorum esset excitare fidem, Baptismus non prodesset infantibus; sed iis …otius qui p…aesentis sunt-. Itō, illi dicunt, Sacramenta ideo instituta esse, ut excitent fidem; ex quo sequitur effectum illorum esse fidem, … ja… re…uta…i—. Becan. Manu…. c. 11. n. 3….31. & seq.Becanus may stop your mouth, when he saith, That Faith is not so stirred up by the Sacraments, that it is the effect of them; and that otherwise the Sacraments would not profit children. And Vasquez brings in divers great Doctors, that distinguish between the mysteries of Faith, without the knowledge of which a man cannot be saved; and Baptisme, and other Sacraments. Ex his tamen Doctoribus, Alexander, Bonaventura, Gabriel & Adrianus loquuti solùm videntur de ignorantia Fidei circa mysteria, sine quibus salus non contingit alicui; caeteri verò de ignorantia cujuscunque praecepta divini positivi, quale est Baptismi— Cum praedictis Doctoribus concordat Corduba; quod attinet ad fidem mysteriorum, quae ad salutem necessaria sunt, non tamen in eo quod spectat ad praecepta positiva Dei, qualis est Baptismi, & aliorum Sacramentorum. Vasquez m. 1.2. Disp. 120. cap. 1.So till you answer him, doe not require of us to bring in Sacraments as fundamentalls of that faith, which is denied by your owne to be an effect of them. But you are soone weary, and I hope ashamed of this point; and therefore wander to another, not much more of kinne to the point, then the Chapter hath been hitherto to the Title. You say there are great differences between the Protestants and you, about the understanding of the Article of the descent of Christ into Hell, and the other of the holy Catholick Church, and the Communion of Saints, &c. But what doe you here talk of differences in understanding fundamentals, where the present question is, Whether the Protestants doe acknowledge their fundamentalls to bee contained in the Creed? For, if Protestants declare that their fundamentals are contained in the Creed, then your Title is gone, which saith, That they do not, nor dare not declare them. And surely it will aske a greater strength, and a farre bigger volume then Charity mistaken, to prove that Protestants doe not rightly understand the Articles of the Creed. But secondly, the Authours objection is grounded not onelyonly upon a new, but upon a false supposition, if his fellow Romists may bee Judges: For his supposed proposition is this, That all the Articles in the Creed are Fundamentall. Now this is different from the first proposall of our opinion, That all fundamentall Articles are in the Creed. It is also denied by his owne fellowes: For, though all fundamentall Articles be there, yet they say, that some Articles that are there may not bee fundamentall, or explicitely to be known upon losse of salvation; as before hath been shewed out of Vasquez and Azorius: Therefore to stand upon a different understanding of those Articles, which are denied by your owne men to bee Explicites (or doubted) is besides the matter. But thirdly, Do we differ from you in understanding those points? What is that to the point undertaken in the end of the last Chapter and promised to be shewed in this, That wee differ among our selves in the number of Fundamentalls. You are now gone …om our ridiculousnesse, by differing in the number of fundamentalls; and are come to a ridiculousnesse of your owne, by your differing from us in the false understanding of some Articles of the Creed, which all your owne Prophets doe not account Fundamentals. But you add: It is to little purpose to know or confesse, that the Creede containes all Fundamentals, unlesse there were some certaine way to understand them right. This is againe a ranging from shewing our differences among our selves, or that wee have not these Fundamentals: Yet I answer, Wee have a certaine, and the best way of understanding them right; wee have a learned Ministery endued with gifts from on high, which teacheth and preacheth these Fundamentals, and the right meaning of them. And the right meaning thus taught, the Spirit in the hearers doth so discover and certifie the truth of them, that the hearers see the Articles to bee Gods truth and not mans: And accordingly, their faith thus beleeving them, resteth on God as the sole Foundation of their faith; and this teaching of the Catholick Church wee use, commend, and allow. But that The single Article of the holy Catholick Church should containe the reason of all our faith fundamentally, seemes to mee an high kinde of Blasphemie. And this blasphemous doctrine, as wee have before shewed, is the very spirit of Popery or Antichrist, which sets up the Pope in Gods place, and makes his beleevers truely Papists or Antichristians. And this great offence and mysterie of iniquitie carryeth Papists by throngs into the Land of darknesse; and into this secret of theirs the soules of the saved may not enter: True it is, that God useth the service of the Ministers, or, if you will, of the Church, in publishing the Articles of faith; but no other Foundation of supernaturall faith there is but God himselfe, though speaking by man unto man; the Fundamentality of our faith passeth through man that is the instrument, and resteth wholly upon God. But saith hee, If wee understand it otherwise, the Scripture it selfe speakes of particular errours, which are damnable in them by whom they are imbraced; and yet they are not at all against any expresse Doctrine of the Creed: As namely, where Saint Paul calls it a Doctrine of Divels to forbid marriage, and meates, &c. I answer, first, That the Authour hereby proves that which wee deny not, and disproves not that which (hee saith) wee affirme: For the point is not, Whether there bee any damnable errours besides those that are against some expresse doctrine of the Creede: But, Whether there bee in the Creede those fundamentall points, which being truely beleeved, will cause unity with Christ the Head, and unity with his Body the Church. Other errours against other Truths in Scripture not fundamentall, wee acknowledge there are many, and proceeding from the Divell, the Father of Lyes, and in themselves damnable to such as hold not the true Foundation, Christ Jesus, by beleeving Fundamentals. And it is to bee feared, that such are many of those true Papists, whose foundation is the Pope: But otherwise they may bee rather aIt is a Romish distinction, Reatus simplex, & redundans in personam.damnable in themselves, then actually damning to those who by bSequitur, illum solum amittere f… dem, qui peccat contra fidem sciens & prudens; errans voluntariè, aut dubitans. Ille tamen qui peccat ignorantià, quamvis crassa, & culpabili culpâ mortali, sicut non est haereticus, sic etiam nec fidem perdit; ut satis clarè S. Thomas Articulo illo tertio (q. 5.) docuit illis verbis: si enim non p…tinaciter dissentit, non est haereticus, sed solum errans. Lorca in 22. Sect. 1. Disp. 33.infirmities hold them, and by beleeving fundamentals are in Christ Jesus, to whom there is no condemnation. Secondly, not onelyonly Fathers in their Rules of faith, but the Romists themselves doe not place the lawfulnesse of meates and marriage among their chiefe Heads of Christianitie, or Explicites and Fundamentals, and therefore this Authour doth ill require of us that which hee cannot obtaine of his fellowes. Wherefore, let him first make this objection against them, and when hee hath their Answer, then let him take it for us.
But being unhappily, as well as impertinently fallen into the mention of these damnable errours, hee saw, that as soone as they were brought in, they looked, at least asquint, on the Church of Rome, and claymed kindred of her: And therefore hee thought that there was need of an Apologie to put off this kindred and acquaintance: Which by the way is not to bee understood of the chastity and fasts of the Catholick Church (as Protestants doe most perversely affirme) which knowes that those things are lawfull; but that yet it is most gratefull to God, when his servants for his love deprive themselves of those del…ghts: But of the Heresies of the Manich…es, as Saint Augustine doth expressely declare, who forbad both marriage and meates, as being abominable and impure through the institution thereof; which they said was derived from a certaine second ill conditioned god of their owne making. But this, nor all the water in the Sea will wash away all the kindred betweene Romists and these errours: For though Saint Augustine may apply this Prophecie to the Manichees, yet may hee not also apply them to the Montanists, aSemel in totum macellum in Apostolo admissà detestatione eorum, qui sicut nubere prohibent, ita jubeant à cibis abstinere à Deo conditis; & ideo nos esse jam tunc praenotatos in novissimis temporibus abscedentes à fide, &c. Tert. de Iejun. adver. Psychios,Tertullian himselfe acknowledging that they have beene taxed out of this very place? And if to the Montanists, why not to those Romists, who, with Durandus, maintaine a curse, and so an impurity of flesh, and cleannesse of bHow shall a spectator beleeve that flesh is not thought uncleane, when he seeth a Fast to exclude it, and yet to admit all delicate and incendiary fishes, conserves and wines? Licet liberè saepius vinum. Navar. Man. cap. 21. n. 13. In more positum est, ut in diebus jejuniorum piscibus, leguminibus, fructibus, & vino similiter utamur; & omnes communi consensu testantur, id quod solum in potum, non in …ibum sumitur, cujusmodi vinum etiam est, jejunium minimè relaxare. Azor. lib. 7. cap. 10.fish: who also forbid marriage to Priests, which this place plainly condemneth? And whereas this Authour talkes of voluntary deprivation, it is certaine, that many (whatsoever this Authour saith) have not deprived themselves voluntarily of marriage; but have taken it upon them as a yoke and burden, which neither they nor their Predecessors were able to beare, many sinking under it unto the very pit of Hell. And let them labour with their wits and pennes so much as they can, they will never by reason, nor by the lives of their Priests disprove Christs truth, That all men cannot receive it; nor prove their owne cEst verum, omnes qui volunt posse continere. B…llar…. de Mona…bis cap. 31. Yet we read in the History of Trent, lib. 7. many reasons were given for Priests marriage, whereof one wa…, Want of continent persons fit to exercise the Ministery. And the chiefe reason of forbidding it, is there expressed; It would turne the Priests affections to their Families, from the Popes Hierarchie.untruth, That all men can receive it: And surely, the Fornications, Adulteries, Murders, and pollutions that have issued from this Law of Coelibate, I doubt not, cry aloud to heaven against Rome (as once against dSodomitium scelus ex Coelibatus rigore eas radices in Clero Romano defigit, ut Petrus Damianus eremum petere coactus, librum conscribat cui Titulus, Gomorrhaeus, in quo omnes ejus species edisserit▪ quales tum a pud eos bacchabantur, eumque L…oni n…no inscribit, cujus adversus tanti mali diluviem opem implorat. P…ess. M…st. Iniquit. ad annum 1060. In the yeere 1563. Proclamation was made within the Province of Sivil, that whosoever knew or heard of any Monks or religious persons that had abused Auricular Confession to abominable acts with Matrons and Maidens, they should come in within 30. dayes, laying great penalties on the refusers. Presently there came in such a number of women, only inhabitants within the City of Sivil, that twenty Notaries, and as many Inquisitors would not have sufficed to take the complaints. Wherefore the Inquisitors gave 30. daies more. The Monks, Friers, and Priests go up and downe very melancholy; and as great a plague was feared as the persecution which was then hot against the Lutherans. But the Inquisitors fearing to bring their spiritualty into hatred and obl…quy, and especially to discredit their Auricular Confession, contrary to all mens expectations, made a stay therein, though the Court was orderly seised. Discov. of the Spanish Inquisition.Sodome) for that sore to which it is condemned.
Hee adds further: In like manner Saint Peter saith, That Saint Paul in his Epistles had written certaine things which were hard to bee understood, and which the unlearned and unstable did pervert to their destruction: Saint Augustine declares upon this place, that the places misunderstood concerned the doctrine of Iustification, which some misconceived to bee by faith alone, by occasion of what Saint Paul had writ to the Romanes; and of purpose to countermine that errour, hee saith, that Saint James wrote his Epistle, and proved therein, that good works were absolutely necessary to the Act of Iustification. Hereupon wee may observe two things; the one, That an errour in this point alone, is by the judgement of Saint Peter, to worke their destruction who imbrace it. And the other, That the Apostles Creede which speakes no one word thereof, is no good Rule to let us know all the fundamentall points of faith. To this I answer, First, That this Authour goes on still upon a false ground, as if wee said that all errours in faith that may damne men were fundamentall, and expressely against some Article of the Creede. Whereas, wee have often affirmed, That any errour, though not fundamentall, may damne men that by a lively faith hold not rightly the fundamentals, and so are without Christ. And it seemes, that these men were not well grounded and founded by fundamentals in Christ Jesus, whom Saint Peter calls unlearned and unstable, and their errour the errour of the wicked; A generation of vipers turne wholesome food into poyson, and abuse Scriptures to their owne condemnation.
But secondly, That faith doth not justifie, but that good workes are absolutely necessarie to the Act of Iustification, is most untrue, and against Saint Augustine himselfe: Untrue; for, a man is justified by faith in Christ, and not by his owne merits; which, in your language, are good workes, as divers of your owne Authours ePighius, Contarenus, Colonienses, Ferus, &c. And the very Councell of Trent saith, That Justification is free, and not merited by faith or workes. Nihil eorum quae Justificationem praecedunt, sive fides, sive opera, gratiam promeretur. Concil. Trident. Sess. 6. Cap. 7. And therefore Becanus, Sequitur ipsa Justificatio, id est, acquisitio, seu infusio justitiae inhaerentis. Cujus justitiae duplex est effectus formalis; Alter expulsio, seu remissio peccatorum: Alter sanctificatio & renovatio interioris hominis; uterque, respectu nostri, gratuitas. And he cited this Chapter of Trent. Bec. Manu. lib. 1. cap. 16.affirme. And a man in the instant of his Justification may dye before he hath had time to do good works, and yet his Justification may be good. And it is against Saint cCum ergo dicit Apostolus arbitrari se justificari▪ hominem per fidem sine operibus Legis; non hoc agit ut praeceptâ ac professâ fide, opera justitiae contemnantur: sed ut sciat se quisque per fidem posse justificari, etiamsi Legis opera non praecesserint; sequuntur enim justificatum, non praecedunt justificandum: unde in praesenti opere non opus est latiùs disputare, praesertim, quia modò de hac quaestione prolixum librum edidi, qui inscribitur de litera & spiritu. August. de fide & operibus, cap. 14. Per ipsam (Gratiam) quippe justificatur gratis, id est, nullis suorum operum praecedentibus meritis; alioquin gratia jam non est gratia, quandoquidem ideo datur, non quia bona opera fecimus; sed ut ea facere valeamus. August. de spiritu & litera, cap. 10.Austin even in the same place, whence the former saying of Saint Peter is taken, where you may find that commonly knowne sentence of his, Opera sequuntur justificatum, non praecedunt justificandum; Good works follow justification, and doe not goe before it: So that whiles this Authour observes two things, hee gives more then two scandalls to his Reader. For first, hee chargeth falsly not Saint Austin onelyonly, but Saint Iames with holding this errour, That good workes were absolutely necessary to the act of justification. And then secondly he will make him to say, that the not holding of this errour, is an errour which may worke their destruction that embrace it: Yea thirdly, that the Apostles Creed is no good rule to let us know all the fundamentall points of faith; because it speakes no one word, to teach us that the Cavaliers errour is a fundamentall point of faith.
Lastly, his owne Doctors doe bring into their Explicites, our faith in Christs dQuem commissio peccatorum diabolo subdidit, remiflio pecca…orum per sanguinem Christi data à diabolo eruit, ut sic justi…iâ vinceretur diabolus, non po…entiâ. Sed quâ justitiâ? Jesu Christi: Et quomodo victus est eâ? Quia in ea nihil dignum morte inveniens, occidit eum tamen. Et utique justum est, ut debitores quos teneba…, liberi dimittantur, in eum CREDENTES, quem sine ullo debito occidit. Lombard. (ex Aug.) lib. 3. dist. 20.passion, & resurrection for justification, but not this his Article, That good workes are absolutely necessary to the act of justification. And if they doe not, why doth hee require it of us in our fundamentalls?
SECT. II.
Wherein his Exceptions against the 39. Articles of Religion established in this Church are answered.
BUt having quarrelled in vaine with the Creed, to prove the insufficiency of it for fundamentalls, now hee comes to the Articles; where he thus begins: Others say that the Booke of the 39. Articles declares all the fundamentall points of Faith, according to the Doctrine of the Church of England; but this also is most absurdly affirmed: For, as it is true, that they declare in some confused manner (which yet indeed is extremely confused) what the Church of England in most things beleeves; so it is true, that they are very carefull, that they bee not too clearly understood. And therefore in many Controversies, whereof that Book speakes, it comes not at all to the main difficulty of the question between them and us, and especially in those of the Church, and Free-will. While the Authour speaks of a confused manner, and which is extremely confused, his words do returne upon himselfe, and his owne discourse: For, that he may make his discourse confused, it seemes hee makes use of this doubtfull word Declare. For if wee say, That the Booke of Articles declares our fundamentalls of faith, wee doe not say, it declares all the knots of questions which are between us and the Romists. For it is well knowne there are divers controversies between us and the Romists, which are not of fundamentalls. And neither the Fathers in their rules of Faith, neither Romists in their Explicites doe declare the knots of questions which may arise even concerning fundamentalls themselves; if the fundamentalls be so expressed, that their true and saving sense may bee received and beleeved by the working of that Spirit, which makes Christs sheep to hear Christs voice. They that thus beleeve, shall bee saved, though they know not all the knots which cunning and erring men doe make. They that write rules of Faith, Explicites, and Fundamentalls, doe not in the same undertake to write all knots of controversies which concerne them. And the Cavalier doth not find them in his owne Doctors among their Explicites: wherefore the answer which he makes for them, let him take for us.
Secondly, for his particulars of the Church, and Free-will: First, for the Church; Doth our Church hold, that the visibility and inerrability of the Church are fundamentalls? And if shee doe not, how can this Authour accuse her for not shewing fundamentalls; because she shewes not those points which she doth not hold to be fundamentall? The hSciendum est quod Ecclesiam credere, non tamen in Ecclesiam credere debeamus, quia Ecclesia non Deus, sed domus Dei est. August. de tempore, s…m. 181.Church is not the foundation of the Church, but she her selfe is built on that onelyonly foundation Christ Jesus. And even your owne men are not agreed about making the Article of the iAcknowledged before by Vasqu…z, and by those who hol… … fourteen Articles to suffice for Explicite faith.Church one of the Explicites; or at least agree not in declaring these points of controversies concerning her to be explicitely beleeved.
And for Free-will, I might aske first: Doth this Authour find in any of his Doctors this knot of Free-will for an Explicite? But secondly, Doth the Councell of Trent it selfe, called of purpose to end controversies, so set downe the knot of this controversie, that your owne Romists are agreed of it among themselves? True it is, that the maine body of the Papacy dotes upon Free-will, according to their Leaders, who, as this Authour well affirmeth, have many (profitable) Doctrines; as that of Merit, Supererogation, &c. depending upon it. But yet there are among them some that hold the efficacy of grace on the will, which the Protestants do teach; and so the Authours confused manner doth now light on the precious Synod of his deare Mother, whose Champion hee is; but not without prevarication: For, while hee condemnes a confused speaking of Free-will, hee is become that sonne of Solomon, who shameth his mother: For she hath taught, and, as he calls it, Declared Free-will, in such a confused manner, that her owne children cannot agree about her meaning.
And now hee sets downe the words of the tenth Article concerning Free-will, and concludes, That this is true Catholick Doctrine, which we beleeve better then they. A man would have thought here, that we had been almost friends; but let not the Reader bee mistaken: for the worke of mistaken Charity, is not to make peace, but division. Therefore after a confessed agreement, a disagreement is to bee pickt out; They declare not (saith he) whether or no a man have freedome of will to doe a good worke, or not to doe it, when first hee is inspired and moved to it by God Almighties grace; which we affirme, and they deny: which is the onelyonly knot of our question, and the point upon which so many other Catholick Doctrines depend. I desire the Reader to take speciall notice of these words of the Cavalier, That upon the Doctrine of Free-will many Romish Doctrines doe depend: For hence may arise a caution to those that affect this Doctrine of Free-will, since here they see it confessed by the Cavalier, that on this Doctrine many Romish Doctrines doe depend; so it concernes them to beware how they admit this Doctrine, which hath so much Popery in the belly of it.
But now to the maine knot of his question I give this answer, That in untying this knot there is yet left unfolded the chiefe pleat of the knot: For the chiefe fold of this knot is not, Whether the will, being inspired and moved by God, there bee freedome in it to will, or not to will; but whether the will be not at any time so moved by grace (especially in conversion) that though it may will, or not will; yet it will certainly & infallibly move that way, to which Gods grace enclines it. For indeed the freedome which these men speake for, is a freedome of the will from the grace of God. For they would have the will so free from Gods grace, that grace should not actuate and worke it to will and to doe. For other freedome of the will wee acknowledge, even the most excellent freedome; affirming, that when the will is thus moved by God, it willeth freely that way to which Gods grace moveth it; yea, most freely, because most willingly. For this is the soveraignty of power issuing from the highest cause, that it worketh in second causes according to their own natures: and therefore it workes in the will of man, by making it most freely willing. Accordingly grace doth so worke in the will, that the will determines it selfe that way to which grace doth incline it. And thus (as it hath been well observed) The feare of overthrowing Free-will is removed, Hist. Trent. lib. 2.since things are violently moved by a contrary cause, but never by their owne: And God being the cause of the will, to say it is moved by God, is to say it is moved by it selfe. And indeed this is the chiefe freedome of the will which wee maintaine, when the will doth freely move, being moved by the highest cause, whose service is perfect freedome: OnelyOnly, because the word hath been abused, kVocabulum ambiguum in altero sensum verum & bonum, in altero falsum & perniciosum. Bellar. lib. 4. de lib. …rb. cap. 6. ex Calvin. Instit. lib. 2. cap. 2.we do abstain from that terme, which by this abuse is likely to be mis-understood. But this highest and most excellent freedome wee truly maintaine, even that by which the will is free, when God worketh it freely to will: Yet many Romists complaine, because no other freedome will please them, but that the will may be freed from God, and not be wrought by him to will as he will. But thus doe they mainly fight against Gods glory, and mans safety: For first, great glory is got hereby unto God, that hee can turne the wills that are most averse from him, and make them willingly and gladly to will what he willeth: Even Saul breathing out threatnings and slaughter in his naturall will, hee can change into Paul, in his new and spirituall will,Act 9.1, 6. & 21.13. ready not onelyonly to be bound, but to dye for the Name of the Lord Iesus. And thus he that glorieth, can only glory in the Lord. Secondly, it gives God the glory of performing his promises: God hath promised a Seed to the woman,Rev. 12.17. Gal. 3.16, 28.29. even Christ mysticall, as well as Christ personall; and hee hath promised a Seed to Abraham out of all Nations. Now, by this effectuall power on the wils of men, doth hee performe his promises: Therefore the Psalmist, when hee speakes of Gods establishing Christs Kingdome, saith rightly,Psal. 110.2, 3. Psal. 2.8. The people shall bee willing in the day of thy power: and accordingly, Abraham, having received the promise of this Seed,Rom. 4.21. is said to beleeve, that what God had promised hee was able to performe: Hee did not beleeve in the wils of men left free from Gods ruling and effectuall grace, that they would performe Gods promise; for indeed so hee might have beene deceived: but hee beleeved in God and his power, that hee would performe this promised Seed; and accordingly the Seed of promise is borne like Isaac, Rom. 9.7, 8.by the will and power of the Promiser. And in thus beleeving it is said, That Abraham gave glory to God. Wherefore, this being Abrahams faith, and this faith of Abraham giving glory to God,Rom. 4.11, 34. Let men first consider, whether they can bee the Seede of Abraham that have not this faith of Abraham. And next, If this faith of Abraham give glory to God, Let men bee affraid by a different faith, even a faith in mans free will for the performance of Gods promises, to rob God of his glory. Thirdly, it gives God the glory of our prayers; for therefore wee pray unto God that his Kingdome may come, and his will may bee done, because wee beleeve that Gods effectuall grace doth set up his kingdome in our Wils, and cause them to will the Will of God. Therefore we pray to God for this doing of Gods will, which wee could not pray for to God, if God did not produce this effect: for otherwise the Free-will-prayer must run thus; Lord give mee onelyonly such free will, that I may chuse whether I will doe thy will or no; and not, that thy will may bee certainely done. But for the certaine and sure doing of Gods will, they must pray to their owne free wils, which they beleeve doe bring the possibilitie of doing Gods will into effect. But this is many wayes abominable; One abomination it is to pray to God that I may doe his will, and yet not beleeve that God worketh the will and the deed for which I pray. Another, not to pray indeed that Gods will may bee done, though Christ hath commanded it, but to pray that it may not bee done, as well as bee done. For if I pray onelyonly to God that hee may meerely leave it to my will whether his will shall bee done or not, I doe not pray certainely that his will may bee done, but that it may stand in an even ballance, whether it shall bee done or not: and then it is very possible, yea likely, (as wofull experience hath too often shewed) that his Will will not be done. But howsoever, sure it is, to God they cannot pray; but (which is another abomination) must pray to their owne wils that Gods will may bee surely done, the certainty of doing Gods will being suspended onelyonly on their owne wils, and not depending on Gods effectuall grace. How much better doth our Liturgie imitate this patterne of Christ Jesus, and fulfill his direction? It prayes for the King,Collect of Christ his Circumcision. First Sunday in Lent. That he may alway incline to Gods will, and walke in his way: and for the people, That they may leade a godly, righteous, and sober life; that they may in all things obey Gods blessed will; First Sunday after Trini…y.that they may ever obey his godly motions in righteousnesse and true holinesse; that they may please God both in will and in deede; 17. Sunday.That his grace may prevent and follow us, and make us continually to bee given to all good works. And indeed, these prayers, and especially the Lords prayer, being so soundly good that the soules of men cannot but approve and use them, it doth seeme to evince, that those who doe use these prayers, though otherwise they seeme to favour this Romish free will, yet doe not heartily beleeve that free will which crosseth and denyeth these prayers:Q…idam non credendo credunt. Tertul. as on the other side, it would bee a mighty accusation, if they should so beleeve free will, that they could not say the Lords prayer. Lastly, It takes from God the glory of praise and thanks for our obedience; and especially, for our differing from others: for the free-will-men cannot praise God so well as the Pharisee, who yet was not justified; for, they cannot say, Father, I thank thee that I am not like other men; but they must say, Father, I thank thee that I was like other men, and had the same free will and grace which they had; but, That I am not like other men, I thank my owne free will, which, by a different use of the same grace, wherein by thee I was made like other men, hath made mee unlike to them. To conclude, This opinion of free will, as it robs God of his glory, so it robs man of his safety; for it hangs mans safety upon mans free will: God and his grace doe not keepe man, but mans free will keepes grace, and by grace keepes man; grace dependeth on the will, whether it shall bee kept it selfe, and whether it shall keepe man or lose him: But thus the will, grace, and the man are not safely aNatura h… mana etiam si in illa integritate in qua est condi…a permaneret nullo modo scipsam▪ Creatore suo non adjuvante, servaret. Concil. Ar. Ca. 19. 1 Pet. 1.5▪kept by the power of God unto salvation. Man is brought back againe into the state of free will which the old Adam had, and lost; but with this disadvantage, that hee hath now a mighty law bRom. 7.23▪in his members, rebelling against the law of his minde, which the old Adam had not: And now shall man, with all his imperfections issuing from this body of sinne, stand by free will, wherewith Adam in his full perfection fell? Whosoever thinks so, hath need to thinke better of his imperfect selfe, then of perfect Adam: But, for my part, I see great cause to bee affraid of that free will which hath undone him. Againe, Is there no more stabilitie issuing from the second Adam, Christ Jesus, who is God and man, then there would have beene by descent from the first Adam, who was only a man? Doth Regeneration from Christ give no more stabilitie with his seed, then with Generation should have beene communicated to us descending from the old Adam, if hee had stood in perfection? Yet of Christ that is said which could never bee spoken of Adam, nor can bee spoken of free will; Hee is that Rock on which the Church being grounded, The gates of Hell cannot prevaile against her:Mat. 16. And of the Seed of God given through this second Adam, Joh. 3.9.wee read, It is a remaining Seede, which keepes us from reigning sin. Briefely, as wee are borne of promise, so God gave to the promised Seed a Land of promise; and the bringing that Seed unto the Land of promise is sure to this Seede by the effectuall power of God the Promiser, as the promised Seed was surely given by his promise: And accordingly, for the establishing our hearts, wee doe often heare of the *1 Cor. 1.9. 1 Cor. 10.13. 1 Thes. 5.14. 2 Thes. 3.3. Heb. 10.23.faithfulnesse of God who hath promised. In God therefore is our safety, and not in our owne free will; Hee is our Shepheard, therefore wee doe not feare; his grace keepeth our wils and us, and our wils fundamentally and finally keepe not this grace and us. And thus Gods glory and mans safety are joyned together by Gods powerfull grace; and therefore wee may close up this Point in the words of Saint Paul, God shall preserve us unto his heavenly Kingdome; to him bee glory for ever, Amen. Yet may wee add this Lesson as a Corollary from the joynt consideration of Saint Pauls Conversion and Doctrine, That they who have felt most the effectuall power of Gods grace in their conversion from the kingdome of Sathan unto God, will be most earnest in teaching this grace, and in giving glory to God for that effectuall grace by which they have been converted.
Yea, let us hereunto joyne that memorable aCass. Art. 18. ex Bonavent. Hoc piarum mentium est, ut nil sibi tribuant, sed totum gra…iae Dei; unde, quantum cunque aliquis det gratiae Dei, à pietate non recedet, etiamsi multa tribuendo gratiae Dei, aliquid subtrahat p… testati Naturae, vel li…e…i arb…t …: cù… verò aliquid gratiae Dei subtrahitur, & Natu…ae t…ibuitu… quòd gra… est, ibi potest periculum intervenire.Caution, which may serve for a Load-stone to direct those that sayle in the deepe of this Controversie to the harbour of safety where they would bee, That in all doubts and difficulties they incline to that opinion which gives most glory to God: For, as it hath beene well taught, This is the disposition of godly mindes, to attribute nothing to themselves, but all to the grace of God; whence it will come to passe, that though a man should give never so much to the grace of God, and thereby take away somewhat from the power of Nature and free will, hee shall never depart from piety: but when something is taken from Grace and given to Nature, thence danger may arise.
Hee goes on: So also doe they play at fast and loose, when in the sixth Article of holy Scripture, they enumerate all those Books of the old Testament which they allow to be Canonicall; wherein, by the way, they are rather bThen was a Saint of Rome & a Cardinall rather Jewes then Christians, by the Cavaliers censure; for thus saith Lorca, Gravior Controversia est de his li…ris, quos à Canone …ejiciunt, non solum hae…etici recentiores, sed etiam sanctus Antonius & Caj…tanus. Tract. de loc. Cathol. lib. 1. Disp. 3. Mem. 3. ubi de libris Tobiae, Iudith, Eccl…siastici, Sapientiae, & Maccabaeorum disputat.Iewes then Christians▪ for not admitting the Books of Judith, the Maccabees, and divers others in the Canon. This Authour is still busie in bringing in the number of Canonicall Books for fundamentall; (as before in the Creed) when his owne Masters put it not among their Explicites and Fundamentals.
But yet, if the number were on all sides taken for a Fundamentall, our Church hath sufficiently expressed her meaning to men whose eyes are single, and not troubled with the fiery humour of uncharitablenesse and contention: For first, for the number of the old, they enumerate (as himselfe confesseth) all the Bookes of the old Testament which they account Canonicall; so then, if the number of Canonicall Books bee a Fundamentall, the Articles have shewed this Fundamentall concerning the old Testament: Yet thus hee is not pleased, but is still angry with the Articles, to his owne hurt, and runnes against them with a sword, whose point he turns against his owne soule, and the head against our Church: For hee saith, They are rather Iewes then Christians, for not admitting the Bookes of Judith, the Maccabees, &c. But the Authour endangereth himselfe in this point, to be censured as neither good Jew, nor good Christian.Rom 3 1, 2. For Saint Paul, who was an excellent both Jew and Christian, saith, That whereas great was the preferment of the Jew, yet herein it stood chiefly, Because that unto them were committed the Oracles of God. So that if that was the chiefe preferment of the Jew under the Law and Old Testament, that the Oracles of God were committed to them; what shall we say of that Christian, that takes this chiefe preferment from them, and scandalizeth them and others for following them, even in that wherein the holy Ghost by Saint Paul giveth them a chiefe preferment? Againe, if those were the Oracles of God which were committed to the Jewes, and these of Iudith and Maccabees were not committed to them by God as his Oracles, and accordingly not received by them; either these are not Gods Oracles, or Saint Pauls word will bee denied, that Gods Oracles were committed to the Jewes. So that the Authour hath herein good matter, not for pennance onelyonly, but for true and hearty repentance; for shaming the Jewes and us for following them in that very point, wherein Saint Paul saith, that their preferment or advantage chiefly consisteth. Againe, the Romists themselves hold the Church of the Jewes to have been the true Church in the time of the Law; and the high Priest an unerring head of that Church, as our Authour before hath taught us. Now is it not against these Romists owne grounds to say, That the Church of the Jewes, when it was unerring, did erre in the number of Canonicall Scriptures, a fundamentall of this Authour, or else an impertinency? Therefore Lorca more warily alloweth aNec tamen concedendum est, hos libros antiquae Synagogae, ante adventum C…risti ignor… …uisse, & ex…ra Canonem… quoniam …l…sia ab e…s pr… Ap…stoli…is ….(though in danger to be censured for a Jew) That those Books were anciently given to the Jewes. Howsoever, if the high Priest had not then the infallibility to discerne Canonicall Scriptures, how hath the Pope now that infallibility? For our Authour brings in the infallibility of the individuall high Priest, to prove (as it should seem) the present infallibility of the Pope; so that the high Priest either had this infallibility, and so the Authour is put to shame, for shaming the Jews in their discerning and numbering the Canonicall Scriptures; or hee had not this infallibility, and so he is put to confusion, in his proving the Popes infallibility by him that was fallible.
But hee goes on, and talkes of Trifling, and not onelyonly talkes of it, but doth it: They trifle also (saith hee) when they tell us that they understand those onelyonly Bookes both of the Old and New Testament to be Canonicall, of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church. For they know as well as wee, that the Apocalyps, the Epistle of St. James, Saint Jude, and one of Saint Peters, were not acknowledged, till proofes were made, during the space of three or foure hundred years after Christ our Lord. But if a Romist had written the same words which our Articles do, no question he would have found'out some gentle construction, to have made it sound and good; perchance hee would have said, that there was never any generall doubt in the Church, and that the universall Church never doubted them: (For wee know, that the most ancient Fathers received them, and used testimonies from them) Or, upon the word, Doubt, there was no just sound, or sufficient doubt of them, no doubt that was worth the name of a doubt. But indeed, this Article (as it seemes) mainly looking to the Apocryphals of the Old Testament, wherein alone stands the doubt, and difference of number between us and Rome; it might hold it sufficient to use such words as concerned that difference, not mentioning or regarding ancient differences in that of the New Testament, wherein between us and Rome is present agreement. But yet more trifling and frivolous is our Authours inference: Th…s… men have been pleased out of th… great grace to admit them, though the Maccabees must be rejected, because they speak of prayer for the dead. For we, or rather the Scripture hath shewed before, why the Maccabees are not received as Canonicall; because, contrary to this Authour, but agreeabe to Saint Paul, they were not committed to the b… Scriptu…am quae app…llatur Maccab… rum, …udaei non h…bent sicut Legem, & Prophetas, & Psalmos, &c. …. Epi…. Gau…en…. l. 2. ca. 23.Jewes as the Oracles of God. So we cNon oportet libros qui sunt extra Can…nem l…gere, nisi solo… Canonicos Novi & Veteris Testamenti. Q…e a…tem opo…at legi, & in authoritatem recipi haec sunt, Gen…sis, …. A… Macca…o…um lib…i in ho… Catalogo nusquam legu…tur. …. L…odicen. in s…xta Sy…odo confirma…um.found them left out of the Canon, and doe not thrust them out: But they are Romists that bring in the Maccabees to be Canonicall, to prove prayers for the dead; because they have no proofe for them in the Canon. If the Canon prove not prayers for the dead, being beneficiall to the Papacie, the Papacie must make Canon, to prove prayers for the dead. For surely, if Apocrypha had not been made Canon, there had been no Canon to prove their Apocryphall prayer for the dead.
But now concerning the Bookes of the New Testament, the Authour hath discovered an Elephant in an Atome: Observe, saith hee, what this booke of Articles saith concerning the Canonicall Bookes of the New Testament; it saith onelyonly this: All the bookes of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, wee doe receive, and account them for Canonicall. But why doe they not particularly enumerate all the bookes which they acknowledge to be of the New Testament, as they had done them of the Old? A strange wonder, and one that deserved observation; and an observation that well deserved a question: but the question scarce deserves an answer; especially seeing the Authour answers himselfe before he makes the question. For first, who doth not see, that in the bookes of the New Testament, there being no differences between us and the Romists, it was sufficient to say, That those are received for Canonicall, which are commonly received?
And secondly, this Authour himselfe so farre answers his owne question before he makes it, that hee acknowledgeth, the Page fore-going, That these men have been pleased, out of their great grace, to admit Saint James, Saint Jude, &c. Yet now he takes a deep exception for not naming St. Iames, which is so admitted, that hee himselfe can by name say that we admit him. So it seems wee had no great depth in hiding the name of Saint Iames, which our Authour, as shallow as his pen runs, did so easily find. But I confesse, I am sorry both for him and my selfe: for him, that hee is troubled with working such Cob webs; and for my selfe, that I have the labour of sweeping them away. Yet will hee needs goe on in such industrious vanities: But abstracting from all these insincerities, wherewith that booke of Articles is full fraught, they doe not so much as say, that the Articles of Doctrine which they deliver are fundamentall, either all, or halfe, or any one thereof, or that they are necessarily to be beleeved by them, or the contrary damnable if it be beleeved by us. But they are glad to walk in a cloud for the reasons which have been already toucht. Our Author commends the booke of Articles, while he calls the Insincerities of it, These Insincerities; that is, these which before have been shewed to be invisible, and no Insincerities; Insincerities only in the eye of the Author, which did cast the shape of them on the booke, when he read it.
But, saith he, They shew not which are fundamentall, and which are not: Neither did they ever promise you that they would do so. The fundamentalls are said to be there, but no man said, for ought I know, that there it was shewed which are fundamentalls, and which are not. Your selves hold points of importance, which are more fundamentall, and to bee explicitely knowne▪ and doth every Romish Councell tell you which are these points, and which are not? And if it doth not, why doe you demand it of our Church in her Synod, more then of your own? Or if you can excuse your own, why doe you quarrell with ours? It was not the intended, much lesse promised businesse of our Church, there to distinguish fundamentalls from superedifications; but to set downe both fundamentalls, and superedifications. And these being taught to her children, the Spirit of Christ the foundation, will discover the fundamentalls to his members, and thereby settle them on Christ, and further build them up by the superedifications, according to their appointed measure. And I have before shewed how our fundamentalls may bee discerned, though I may say somewhat like to that of our Saviour to the Jewes, Why of your selves discern ye not that which is right, and rightly fundamentall? For if you know how to find out these grounds of Christianity, which must bee explicitely knowne, which your selves acknowledge to be more fundamentall, you may easily find out our fundamentalls; so that all this is but an empty out-cry, to affright the Reader with noise without reason: thus to call for a designment of fundamentalls, where none was undertaken, and where in like case your selves do it not; and to quarrell with fundamentalls, which your self and yours do acknowledge. Yet when Romists have agreed of the set number themselves, let them send to us their Catalogue defined by a Synod, and it may be we may deale with them upon exchange.
The Cavalier goes on: Master Rogers indeed in the Analysis which hee makes of those nine and thirty Articles, speakes loud enough by way of taxing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, as being contrary to that of the Church of England; and hee gives it … many ill names as his impure spirit can devise; and affirmes, among other things, that many Papists, and namely, the Franciscans, blush not to affirme, that S. Francis is the holy Ghost, and that Christ is the Saviour of men, but one mother Jane is the Saviour of women: a most execrable aspersion of Postellius the Iesuite; with a great deale of such base trash as this: And yet his Booke is declared to have beene perused, and by the lawfull Authoritie of the Church of England permitted to be publick: But yet even Master Rogers himselfe is not so valiant as to tell us in particular which point of their doctrine is fundamentall to salvation, and which is not. True it is, that Master Rogers doth very clearely and audibly speake against, and condemn divers errours of the Church of Rome, as being not onelyonly contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, but to the Word of God, with which commonly he confronts the errours which hee brings forth to judgement. And among them hee sheweth some errours of a high nature, which make Saviours of Merits and Masses, and Popish Pardons; yea, which carry the faith of the soule from God unto man, the Pope and his Councels. And, for ought I see, hee doth not give worse names then the purest and holiest Spirit gives to the Pope, who calleth him,2 Thess. 2. the Man of sinne, and sonne of perdition, &c. And the impurity which this Authour at his owne costs, and upon his owne word layes on him, Mr Rogers layes on Rome by proofes and allegations, as in divers places, so particularly in the nineteenth Article, Propos. 7. whereof the Title is this, That the Church of Rome most shamefully hath erred in life, ceremonies, and matters of faith: But, for that to which this Authours spirit gives the ill name of base trash, it is brought in as the filth of his owne Associates, and testified by other Writers; and therefore the basenesse of it most justly should light on them that are the first Authours of it. Neither is it strange amongst Papists to make creatures to share salvation with our Saviour;Tu per Thomae s…nguinem, &c. La… Matris misce…e volo cum sanguine Nat…. Ave salus … s… cul…, Arbor …. Item, In Cruce Christi ponimus spem salutis; Cantat enim Eccl…, O C…u…, a…e spes u…ica, &c. Aquia. 3. …ast. 25. Art. 4. the hymnes concerning the milke of the blessed Virgin, the bloud of Thomas, the vertue of the woodden Crosse, singing it aloud in the ears of the world. Filthinesse and basenesse, most abominable, and that deserves to bee swept out of the Church with detestation, and to bee carried out as the Filthinesse out of the holy Place in the Reformation of Hezekiah:2 Chro. 29.5. And why, in an equall judgement, should not Master Rogers his Books much rather be permitted to bee publick for naming such filthinesse with detestation, then Rome allowed to bee Catholick, though using such filthinesse with practicall approbation? Lastly, The want of valour in Master Rogers to tell us which point of our doctrine is fundamentall, and which is not, I thinke is no just accusation; because, for ought I know, hee did not undertake this as his businesse; neither had any Romish Cavalier yet challenged him upon this quarrell.
SECT. III.
Wherein is discovered the vanity of his boasting, That the Protestant Church is unlikely to define which are the fundamentall differences betwixt them and the Papists, since they scarce dare avow any difference at all.
HEe goes on; Much lesse is there any appearance that ever the Church of England should doe it; since even now wee have seene, that it dares not, in divers points, so much as declare in publick manner, that it professes the expresse contrary of what wee held: Nay, wee are not likely to see the fundamentall points of faith, whereof they talke so loud, to bee avowed by so much as either of the Universities; yea, or yet by any one Colledge or Societie of learned men amongst them. This Authour is exceedingly troubled for want of more division, and complaines there is not opposition enough betweene us and Rome; yet, when wee expresse a contrariety to the Tenents of Rome, then hee cryes out, There is such a crossenesse betweene us, that wee cannot bee one Church: and when wee doe not expresse it, then Wee dare not so much as declare it in publick manner. And now he calls for Fundamentals, as Goliah for Combatants, Give mee a man that wee may fight together; and yet a man would thinke, that one trained up in the Schoole of Rome to such an eminence, as to take him to bee her Champion and Cavalier, should so know the first grounds of Christianity, which himselfe calls more fundamentall, that hee should not make it a quarrell against us, that wee doe not teach him: Yet, before hath beene shewed, how a man that hath not much more skill then himselfe, may ghesse with as much certainty at our fundamentals, as at his owne Romish Explicites. But if hee lack work for his Cavalier, and to that end desire plaine points of Controversie, our Church hath evidently declared her judgement against the Papall Supremacy, Transubstantiation, Worship of Images, Merits, Purgatory, Prayer in an unknowne tongue, Sacrifice of the Masse, and divers other points: And I wonder how this Authour got leave either of his judgement or modesty, to say, that shee who da…es in these points to declare her opposition to the Synagogue of Rome, dare not doe it in others, if shee pleased: For, to omit the other points, shee that dares declare her opposition against the Popes Supremacie, hath dared to oppose the very Head and Heart of Popery; and if shee dare oppose the Head, why should shee bee affraid of the Limmes and Branches? But, both in the Head and many Branches, our Church hath declared her judgement; and therein may hee and his fellowes exercise their valour, if they doe so much overflow with it, even to complaining of want of quarrels: And when they have dispatched these Controversies, and quit themselves in them like Cavaliers, then let them call for more, and find fault with want of differences. And now if I would answer a wise man according to his wisdome, I would use his owne words, and make them speak against himselfe and his fellowes; We are not likely to see their Romish Explicites, whereof they talke so loud, avowed by their Universities, Colledges, or Councels, &c. Yea, we are not likely to see the point of worshipping images with Latria; nor the Popes power to depose Kings, determined by any Councell: and yet of these points Papists speak aloud, & for them fill the world with Treasons against God in heaven, and Gods Deputies on earth. And I might, with very little exchange, adjoyne his own following words; The reason of their Reservation is plaine: for, if a Councell should bee convinced of errours, their maine Cause would receive a mortall wound. But now, when some particular men defend these errours, they may say as Master Hart did to Master Reynolds,Reynolds and Harts conference, Chap. 2. dist. 2. I care not for the judgement of Andradius, or Cajetane, or any other private man, though you could bring an hundred of them. But I am weary of waiting on his words, which either have no weight, or weight to presse himselfe to the ground. But a swelling, yet most empty vanity, is that saying which our Authour imagineth to bee great with reason; I have heard some Catholicks affirme (and that, to my thinking, with great reason) that they would hold it to bee no ill work for them, if the pretended Colledge of Chelsey, or any other, were founded by Protestants, expresly for writing Books of Controversie by common consent. For, as I said before, Our Church by common consent hath declared her judgement in divers points of Controversie already named, and the Romists have here worke enough to confute, if they can, what hath beene established by common consent, Hic Rhodus, Hic saltus. This they have assayed hitherto with shame and losse; and though they lose by the quarrels they have already undertaken, yet they are not ashamed to call for more quarrels, that is, for more losse. Besides, this vanity may bee turned against themselves: For, why should not we also demand, That the Pope and his Councell should establish a Colledge at Rome, or Rhemes, which should write Controversies by a Pseudo-Catholcik consent? which when they have done, then let them call for a Colledge from us. I wish this Authour would try to speake something against us, wherein hee might not speake against himselfe. But our Cavalier is now like a Ship drawing neere to the Harbour, and his water is still shallower and shallower: yet hath he descryed one Doctor, of whom, if hee doe not make prize, all his Adventures are lost: But what if wee disclaime the Doctor, as Master Hart did Andradius and Cajetane? then is our Authour put to silence, for want of a Colledge writing with common consent: Yet saving to our selves these and the like exceptions, Let us see what hee saith; and first, take notice of the Preface, which, like a Beadle, doth usher and make way for the Doctor; On the other side, at times they make eager Invectives against us for declaring so many, yea, and all the Doctrines of our Church to bee fundamentall; so farre forth as that whosoever refuses obstinately to beleeve any of of them, doth forfeit the salvation of his soule. And in the strength of this zeale of theirs, Doctor Dunne, in a Sermon made before his Majesty at his first happy comming to this Crown, doth bitterly exclaime against the Catholick Roman Church, as making every toy to bee fundamentall: And can you blame our Writers or Preachers to reprove you, that you will damne so many soules for toyes, yea, for errours? For herein they have God for their patterne, and your patterne is that which God reproved in Ionah. For we, with the Father of MercieMercy, would save many thousand soules, who by faith in Christ the foundation are united unto God, and by repentance and regeneration doe strive and endeavour to obey him. But you, imitating the fault of Ionah, for the Popes honour and supremacy, will have many thousands of such beleeving and penitent soules to be damned (who know not the right hand from the left, in many of your frivolous Doctrines) if the Pope doe affirme it: For example; If a man beleeve all the Truths in the Bible, and all those which are in the Romish Decrees, and withall lives justly, soberly, and godly; yet beleeves not, that it is unlawfull for Gossips to marry, this man must bee damned. And how may not Preachers then say to the Romists, Now walke yee not charitably, when through your vanities the brother must perish, for whom Christ died? Christ would have saved him as a foundation of salvation; but the new and supposititious foundation, the Pope, damneth him whom Christ would save. But the best is, hee who by a fundamentall faith is built upon Christ the true foundation, can never be damned by unbeleeving any Article of faith created and coined by the Pope, a counterfeit foundation.
And here, while the Authour doth quarrell with the poornesses of the Doctour, not being able to maintaine a combate with his rich…s; it seemes hee doth it with a greater poornesse: For what a poore quarrelling is it with the Doctour for saying, That Papists will not let Protestants to bee saved, though they beleeve the same Creed, except they will beleeve the same Mathematicks, and govern themselves by the same Kalendar: when thi… Authour knowes his meaning, and expressed it himselfe in the words nearly preceding, That the Romane Church makes …oyes fundamentalls? And might not the Pharisees thus have taken a poore exception at our Saviour for saying, that they strained Gnats, whereas they strained not Gnats, but payed the tythe of Mint and Cummin? Besides, he doth not say, that it is really so done; but premising this: When every thing must be called Foundation, wee shall never know where to stop, where to consist. If we should beleeve their Sacrificium incruentum, their unbloudy sacrifice in the Masse; if we did not beleeve their Sacrificium cruentum too, that there was a power in that Church to sacrifice the bloud of Kings, wee should be said to be defective in a fundamentall Article. If we should admit their Metaphysickes, their transcendent Transubstantiation, and admit their Chimiques, their Purgatory fires, and their Mythologie and Poetry, their apparitions of soules and spirits; they would bind us to their Mathematicks too, and they would not let us be saved, except we would reforme our Almanackes to their ten daies, and reforme our clockes to their foure and twenty houres; for who can tell when there is an end of Articles of faith, in an arbitrary and occasionall Religion? So the Doctour only shewes how such an unlimited making of fundamentalls, may goe on in a perpetuall procession, it having already made things not so profitable as Clocks and Kalendars, Articles of faith, and points fundamentall: Witnesse the Service in an unknowne tongue, the Lords Supper without wine, &c. But the Cavalier fights in earnest with this supposition, and tells us, that Romists doe rather governe themselves with the lesse perfect Kalendar, which now is used in this place: Yea, hee gives a morall of this their deed; letting the world see thereby how willingly we can accommodate to them in all things, which belong not meerly to Religion. The controversie of Kalendars, I leave to the Critickes of time, to bee decided and rectified in their emendatione Temporum. But the argument of accommodation, taken from our Almanackes, is retorted by a greater argument remembred in our Almanackes: For, when in them wee see the Papists Treason on the fifth of November, wee are thereby put in mind, that Papists doe not accommodate to Protestants in all things that belong not meerly to Religion. For it is not meerly a matter of Religion for a King to sit in Parliament; and yet the Papists would have accommodated him, by blowing him up with powder, thus sitting in Parliament.
But the Cavalier having thus spoken to ill effect, to amend the matter, brings not forth the Doctours words, but his saying to this effect: But that the Reader may be his owne guide, and the Doctour the speaker of his owne effect, and the Cavaliers faire carriage may more plainly appeare, I will here confront the Doctours words with the Cavaliers. The Doctours words are these: Call not superedifications, foundations; nor call not the furniture of the house, foundations; call not ceremoniall and rituall things, essentiall parts of Religion, and of the worship of God, otherwise then as they imply disobedience: for obedience to lawfull authority is alwaies an essentiall part of Religion. The Cavalier thus repeats him, That difference in beliefe in points which are not very important, is not to prejudice a mans salvation, unlesse by not beleeving them hee commit a disobedience withall. For, saith he, obedience indeed is of the essence of Religion. I thinke that the Cavalier, seeing his face in this glasse, finds that it lookes red with blushing at the mis-reporting of the Doctour. The Doctour speakes of ceremonies, the Cavalier reports him speaking of differences in beliefe: The Doctour speakes of ceremonies commanded by lawfull authority; the Cavalier of points of faith, commanded by the unlawfull authority of the Pope. But if it please him to remember what hath been already told him, That the Church, much lesse the aIt were good that the Cavalier would answer his own great Masters, Driedo, Castro, and Vasquez, who say, that a Law-maker cannot at his pleasure by his command, make a sinne veniall or mortall. Materiae quae praecipitur gravitas & utilitas tantae considerationis est, ut non pendeat ex voluntate Legislatoris ad mortalem, aut venialem culpam obligare, posito semel praecepto, sed ex ipsa majore gravitate & levitate respectu finis, cujus gratia praecipitur culpa venialis, aut mortalis judicanda sit. Vasquez …. 12. Disp. 158. cap. 4. And it seemes it is not for the Popes honour to command points of small importance: For Thomas Aquinas saith of the Pope, Ad quem majores & difficiliores Ecclesiae quaestiones referun…ur. 22. quaest. 1. A. 10. So it seemes this Eagle should not take Flies. But the Councell of Ephesus, Decrevit sancta haec Synodus alteram sidem; Nemini licere proferre, aut scribere, aut componere praeter …am quae de…inita fuit à sanctis Patribus apud Nicaeam urbem in Spiritu sancto congregatis. And A…hanasius gives a reason for it: Nam fides quae mihi à Patribus, secundùm sacras Scripturas, & Confessionibus confirmata est, satis mihi idonea …ticaxque videbatur ad omnem imp…tatem emovendam, & pi…tatem ejus, quae in Christo est, fidei … A…hanas. ad Epict. epist. Corinth.Pope, hath an Inerrability in points of small importance; and where she hath no Inerrability, she hath no authority. Again, in respect of the different capacities of the hearers, all are not capable of every little point and subtlety of faith: and I thinke no Pope hath power to command his disciples to beleeve that, which their capacity is not able to understand. But lawfull Rites or Ceremonies, not being points of faith, but of action; and being easie to bee understood, the obedience to lawfull authority in them may more concerne the essence of Religion, then obedience to the Pope in those small points of faith, wherein the Pope hath no unerring power, and no authority to make a lawfull command; for the people doe not sinfully disobey, where the Pope hath no lawfull authority to command.
The Author having thus lost his premisses and proofes, yet goes on to a conclusion, which cannot but be lost in the losse of his premisses; so that his concluding inferences, This shall serve for discharge both of what they object against our unity in faith, and of what they alledge in the behalfe of theirs: And, I conceive, that I have sufficiently secured these two maine grounds, upon which this whole discourse is turned, are but commendations of a false conception, and of a discourse, which is turned upon grounds over-turned: For neither is his first ground sufficiently secured, That there is but one true Faith, and one true Religion and Church, out of which there is no salvation; the word Out being understood in the sense of the Authour, that is, That if a man be out of the faith professed in the Church in the least haire, part, or degree, that there can bee to him no salvation. Nor more secured is his second ground, That Catholicks and Protestants cannot possibly be accounted of that one Religion, Church, and Faith. For, as it may be true that Protestants and all Catholickes doe not agree in every small title and mite of faith; yet it is most true, that true Catholickes and Protestants are so entirely of one saving Faith and Religion, that they are also of one Church. And from these Catholickes, I desire not to exclude all of the Romane Diocesse: But indeed Papists, whose humane faith is grounded on the Pope, as their foundation, being ready to beleeve Idolatry, Treason, or whatsoever the Pope shall decree for a matter of faith, these I know not how to account members with us of that true Church, whereof Christ is the Head. They are not so truly Christians of Christ, as Papists of the Pope.
But still I inferre, that when the Authour hath his two grounds granted, That if Protestants and Papists bee not of that one Church wherein is salvation; yet Papists are uncharitable for damning Protestants who are of that Church wherein is salvation; so that neither are his grounds sufficiently secured, neither if they were, are Papists secured sufficiently from uncharitablenesse. But after his pretended sufficient securing of his grounds (either by way of supererogation, or because hee was not secure of his securing) hee yet brings in more proofe, that we are of two Religions: And now for the finall proofe of this last point, according even to their practice as well as ours; Let my Reader but look upon the body of their Lawes made against us, and especially upon the Preambles thereof, wherein they plentifully shew how hatefull an opinion they have of our Church; Let him looke upon the severall Acts of State which have issued from my Lords of the Councell: Let him look upon the Proclamations which have beene made and published from time to time: Let him looke upon the large Commissions which have beene granted to Pursuivants, whereby that scumme of the world hath beene, and is enabled both to ransome and ransack us at their pleasure. Surely, thus farre there is little said, but that many of the late Traytours against the French King may take up for a proofe that they were not of one Religion with that King, because against them there issued Acts of State, Proclamations, Messengers or Pursuivants (though all of them perchance were not the scumme of the Countrey) to apprehend and ransack them. But hee goes farther; Let him looke upon those speeches which have beene uttered in both Houses of Parliament, not onelyonly against Professours, but even the Profession it selfe of our Religion; and how his most excellent Majestie hath beene importuned by their petitions to add more weight to our miseries: for thus it will easily bee scene, how false, how rotten, how superstitious, how idolatrous, how detestable, how damnable, and even destructive of all truth and goodnesse they professe themselves to esteeme our Religion: And in fine, that wee carry such a marke of the Beast in our foreheads, as must needs, in their opinion, shut up the gates of heaven against us, and set open the gates of hell to devoure and swallow us up: So that, certainly, wee are no more of one Church with them in their opinion, then they are of one with us in ours. Here indeed hee hath many good Epithites of Popery, rotten, superstitious, idolatrous, &c. but I finde one great one wanting, and that is trayterous; for this Epithite had a great share in the Parliamentary Complaints and Accusations of Popery. But, to answer his many words in few, (because they were answered in that which last preceded) wee deny not, but that which wee call Popery, and Papists call their Religion (that is, a beleeeving in the Pope, and obeying of him commanding Idolatry, Treason, Rebellion, and whatsoever else hee shall please to decree for a point of faith) is a rotten, superstitious, idolatrous, and traiterous Religion; And of this it is truely said in the prayers of the fifth of November, This their Religion is Rebellion, their faith is faction, their practice murdering of soules and bodies. But yet wee charitably hope, that there are some, though two few, who have not so bowed the knees of their soules to this Baal of Rome, that they submit their soules and faiths to him in all his idolatrous and trayterous Doctrines, Decrees, and Commands; but being rather in Rome then of Rome, are Christs and not the Popes; and therefore will heare Christs voice, and not the Popes, when the Popes voice is the voice of a stranger, and an enemy to Christ.