Page images
PDF
EPUB

thing testified by God, and another positively to oppose what we know he hath testified. The former may often be excused from sin, but never the latter, which only is in the case in question.

13. "In the same manner shall be demonstrated, that to allege the Creed as containing all articles of faith necessary to be explicitly believed, is not pertinent to free from sin the voluntary denial of any other point known to be defined by God's church. And this were sufficient to overthrow all that D. Potter allegeth 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 main principle, that God hath always had, and always will have, on earth, a church visible, within whose communion salvation must be hoped; and infallible, whose definitions we ought to believe; we will prove that Luther, 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 schism 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 belief as practice.

15. "To these reasons, drawn from the virtue of faith, we will add one other taken from charitas propria, the virtue of charity, as it obligeth us not to expose our soul to hazard of perdition, when we can put ourselves in a way much more secure, as we will prove that of the Roman catholics to be.

16. "We are then to prove these points: First, that the infallible means to determine controversies in matters of faith, is the visible church of Christ. Secondly, that the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental maketh nothing to our present question. Thirdly, that to say the Creed contains all fundamental points of faith, is neither pertinent nor true. Fourthly, that both Luther and all they who after him persist in division from the communion and faith of the Roman church cannot be excused from schism. Fifthly, nor from heresy. Sixthly and lastly, that in regard of the precept of charity towards one's self, protestants be in a state of sin as long as they remain divided from the Roman church. And these six points shall be several arguments for so many ensuing chapters.

17. “Only I will here observe, that it seemeth very strange that protestants should charge us so deeply with want of charity, for only teaching that both they and we cannot be saved, seeing themselves must affirm the like of whosoever opposeth any least point delivered in Scripture, which they hold to be the sole rule of faith. Out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former inferences pass for good for is it not a grievous sin to deny any one truth contained in holy writ ?-is there in such denial any distinction between points fuudamental and not fundamental sufficient to excuse from heresy ?-is it not impertinent to allege the Creed containing all fundamental points of faith, as if, believing it alone, we were at liberty to deny all other points of Scripture? In a word, according to protestants, oppose not Scripture, there is no error against faith; oppose it in any least point, the error, if Scripture be sufficiently pro

posed (which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to believe even fundamental points), must be damnable. What is this, but to say with us, of persons contrary in whatsoever point of belief, one party only can be saved? And D. Potter must not take it ill, if catholics believe they may be saved in that religion for which they suffer. And if by occasion of this doctrine men will still be charging us with want of charity, and be resolved to take scandal where none is given, we must comfort ourselves with that grave and true saying of St. Gregory, 'If scandal* be taken from declaring a truth, it is better to permit scandal than forsake the truth.' But the solid grounds of our assertion, and the sincerity of our intention, in uttering what we think, yields us confidence, that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of pope Gelasius to Anastasius the emperor, Far be it from the Roman emperor, that he should hold it for a wrong to have truth declared to him!' us therefore begin with that point which is the first that can be controverted betwixt protestants and us, forasmuch as concerns the present question, and is contained in the argument of the next ensuing chapter."

8. C. Hom. 7. in Eze

Let

THR

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 saved.

AD § 1. Your first onset is very violent: D. Potter is charged with malice and indiscretion for being uncharitable to you, while he is accusing you of uncharitableness. Verily a great fault and folly, it the accusation be just; if unjust, a great calumny. 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 errors; judgeth reconciliation between her doctrine and ours impossible; and that for them who are convicted in con science of her errors not to forsake her in them, or to be reconciled unto her is damnable: therefore if Roman catholics be convicted in conscience of the errors of protestants, they may and must judge a reconciliation with them damnable; and consequently to judge so, is no more uncharitable in them, than it is in the Doctor to judge as he doth. --All this I grant; nor would any protestant accuse you of want o charity, if you went no further; if you judged the religion of protestants damnable to them only who profess it, being convicted in conscience that it is erroneous. For if a man judge some act of virtue to be a sin, in him it is a sin indeed: so you have taught us (p. 19). So, if you be convinced, or rather, to speak properly, persuaded in conscience, that our religion is erroneous, the profes sion of it, though itself most true, to you would be damnable. therefore I subscribe very willingly, and withal, that if you said no more, D. Potter and myself should not be to papists only, but even to protestants, as uncharitable as you are; for I shall always profess and glory in this uncharitableness of judging hypocrisy a damnable sin. Let hypocrites then and dissemblers on both sides pass. 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 resolved to die in it, and, if occasion were, to die for it? What charity have you for them. What think ye of those that, in the days of our fathers, laid down their lives for it? Are you content that they should be saved, or do you hope they may be so? Will you grant, that, notwithstanding their errors, there is good hope they might die with repentance? and if they did so, certainly they are saved. If you will do so, this controversy is ended. No man will ereafter charge you with want of charity. This is as much as

This

either we give you or expect of you, while you remain in your religion. But then you must leave abusing silly people with telling them (as your fashion is) that protestants confess papists may be saved, but papists confess not so much of protestants; therefore yours is the safer way, and in wisdom and charity to our own souls we are bound to follow it. For, granting this, you grant as much hope of salvation to protestants, as protestants do to you. If you will not, but will still affirm, as Charity Mistaken doth, that protestants, 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 be drawn but with palpable and transparent sophistry. For, I pray, Sir, what dependence is there between these propositions: We that hold protestant religion false should be damned if we should profess it; therefore they also shall be damned that hold it true? Just as if you should conclude, because he that doubts is damned if he eat, therefore he that doth not doubt is damned also if he eat. And therefore though your religion to us, and 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 profess either this or that according to conscience. This recrimination therefore upon D. Potter, wherewith you begin, is a plain fallacy; and I fear your proceedings will be answerable to these beginnings.

2. Ad § 2. In this paragraph protestants are thus far 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 imperial edicts, but against the corruptions of the church of Rome.

But

3. Ad § 3-6. That you give us not over to reprobation, that you pray and hope for our salvation-if it be a charity, it is such a one as is common to Turks and Jews and pagans with us. that which follows is extraordinary; neither do I know any man that requires more of you than there you pretend to. For there you tell us, "that when any man esteemed a protestant dies, you do not instantly avouch that he is lodged in hell."-Where the word esteemed is ambiguous; for it may signify esteemed truly, and esteemed falsely. He may be esteemed a protestant that is so; and may be esteemed a protestant that is not so. And therefore 1 should have had just occasion to have laid to your charge the transgression of your own chief prescription, which, you say, truth ex acts at our hands, that is, to speak clearly or distinctly, and not to walk in darkness;-but that your following words to my understanding, declare sufficiently that you speak of both sorts. there you tell us, that the reasons why you damn not any man that dies with the esteem of a protestant, are, 1. "Because you are not always acquainted with what sufficiency of means he was furnished for instruction;"-you must mean touching the falsehood 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 do not penetrate his capacity to understand his cate

For

chist;" which is also peculiar to those who, for want of capacity, (as you conceive) remain 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 esteemed protestants, but indeed were not so. 4. "Because you have no revelation what contrition might have retracted his sins:" 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 the dying protestant, yet contrition might, for aught you know, retract his sins; which appropriates this reason also to protestants truly so esteemed. I wish, with all my heart, that in obedience to your own prescription, you had expressed yourself 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 means of instruction to convince his conscience of the falsehood 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 die with contrition for all his sins.

3. That if he do die with contrition, he may and shall be saved.

4. All these acknowledgments we have from you while you are, as you say, stating, but, as I conceive granting, the very point in question; which was, as I have already proved out of C. M., whether, without uncharitableness, 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. affirms 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 means sufficient to instruct and convince them of the truth of your religion, and the falsehood of their own; nor of those who, though they have neglected the means they might have had, died with contrition, that is, with a sorrow for all their sins, proceeding from the love of God. So that, according to your doctrine, it shall remain upon uch only as either were, or but for their own fault might have been, sufficiently convinced of the truth of your religion, and the falsehood of their own, and yet die 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 follows in your fourth paragraph, that you allow protestants as much charity as D. Potter allows you. But then I must entreat you to alter the argument of this chapter, and not to go 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 crudeness of your assertion by saying " one side only can be saved, unless want of conviction, or else repentance, excuse

« PreviousContinue »