LETTER from DR. CHRISTOPHER POTTER, Dean of WORCESTER, to MR. VICARS. [Concluded from page 202 of our last.] UT now you long to hear what is the issue of all my my resolution, why? may easily conjecture; finding upon this serious search, that all doubts are not clearly decided by scripture; that in the ancient church, after the age of St. Augustine, who was presently contradicted by many Catholics, as you may see in the epistles of Prosper and Fulgentius to him upon that very occasion, they have ever been friendly debated, and never determined in any council; that in our ages, whole churches are here divided, either from one another, as the Lutherans from us; or amongst themselves, as the Romanists, amongst whom the Dominican family is wholly for the Contra-Remonstrants; that in all these several churches, some particular doctors vary in these opinions. Out of all this I collect, for my part, that these points are no necessary Catholic verities, nor essential to the faith, but merely matters of opinion, problematical, of inferior moment, wherein a man may err, or be ignorant, without danger to his soul; yet so still that the glory of God's justice, mercy, truth, sincerity, and divine grace be not any ways blemished, nor any good ascribed to man's corrupt will, or any evil to God's decree or providence; wherein I can assure you, I do not depart from my ancient judgment, but do well remember what I affirmed in my questions at the ACT*, and have confirmed it I suppose in my sermon. So you see, I am still where I was; if I can clearly discover any error or corruption in myself, or any other, I should hate it with all my might; but pity, support, and love all that love the Lord Jesus, though they err in doubtful points: but never break charity, unless with him that obstinately errs in funda mentals, or is wilfully factious. And with this modera tion, I dare with confidence and comfort enough, appear before my Lord at the last day, when I fear what will * Quæstiones Inceptoris Chr. Potter. 1627, Efficacia gratiæ non pendet à libero influxu Arbitrii. Christus divinæ Justitiæ, vice nostrâ, propriè & integrè satisfecit. Ipse actus fidci, rò credere, non imputatur nobis in justitiam sensu proprio. become I become of him that loves not his brother; that divine precept of love being so often ingeminated, why mạy not when the Lord himself bath assured me by his beuti pacifici? You will tell me of a dean that should say, Maledicti pacifici; but you and he shall give me leave in this contradiction, rather to bélieve my Saviour. My loving friend, I do very much esteem your learning and judgment, and am so much the more confirmed by your letter in my moderation; for you do oppose it with a very good courage, but not with so good success. All the reasons which I have couched in my sermon, stand still very firm, all unshaken, and almost all untouched. For my part, I honour truth with all my heart, next after God, or rather as I do God himself, who is the God of truth and I shall esteem him my dearest friend, that shall at any time conquer my errors with evidence of truth; for that conquest shall be my happiness and victory. Any error abuseth the understanding, but an error in religion corrupts it, in faith poisons it; how happy and glad shall I be to be purged of all such rust and poison! But I am a Christian, and rational, and still I must repeat it, I cannot be convicted but with scripture or reason; either of these, the former being grounded on the latter, will command my assent, but I cannot be chidden, or frighted, or forced into an opinion; one good argument sways me more than twenty declamations. Falshood is fearful, and loves to go disguised, to walk in a mist, and because it smells ill, to be trimmed with all the flowers of rhetoric; truth hates nothing more than masquing, she loves and longs to appear in her naked, native beauty and after the most rigorous, scrupulous examination, remains still the same. Let me entreat you to look over again that passage of my sermon which offends you, mark well what I say, and upon what grounds. See whether my margin do not make good every particularity in the text, where it is doubtful, by particular and pertinent authorities. After tryal, if you please to inform me where I have faulted, I do seriously promise you to cast the first stone at myself, and to publish my own retractation, after the most imitable pattern, but never yet imitated, of the most learned and modest bishop of Hippo. But that you will without reason, without fault, reject and reprobate my opinion, ex mero beneplacito, ex absolutâ voluntate, as you know who says that God Almighty did with the most part of innocent mankind, mankind, this I cannot think of you my learned, wise, just, and merciful friend. You say the Arminians are heretics, we may not be at peace with them, the matters controverted are fundamental, essential: to this I need say no more, for I have said enough in this letter and in my sermon to prove the contrary; and I doubt not, your second thoughts will persuade you to unsay it. If you persist, then let me tell you, all the learned in Christendom of your own party, even the late doctors of the synod, are your adversaries; and very lately, as I have heard, in the Low-Countries, a learned synod of Contra-Remonstrants did purposely dispute this point, and conclude with my assertion; giving other reasons why the Remonstrants remain banished: and instead of many arguments, I will leave you one, whereon to meditate, which likewise makes very much for my main intention. The Arminians dissent from us only in these four questions*: the, Lutheran churches maintain against us all these four questions, and moreover a number of notable dreams and dotages, both in matters of ceremony and doctrine; amongst others, you remember their absurd Ubiquity and Consubstantiation. Now notwithstanding all their foul corruptions, yet I presume you know, for its apparent out of public records, that our better-reformed churches in England, France, Germany, &c. by the advice of their worthiest doctors, Calvin, Bucer, Beza, Martyr, Zanchius, Ursin, Pareus, have still offered to the Lutherans all Christian amity, peace, and communion; and desired them, conjured them to join all together the right hands of fellowship; though those virulent fiery adders of Saxony; would never give ear to the voice of those wise charmers, but profess to this day a perpetual foe-hood, and immortal hostility against us. Although in Polonia, the Lutherans and Calvinists being of a better temper, have long lived in a heavenly and brotherly concord and communion, both of them retaining their old opinions. Now say, good Mr. Vicars, what think you? Do the Lutherans err fundamentally, or no? If so, then they have no union with God, nor connexion with Christ the head; with what conscience then could our churches and worthies offer them their communion, and desire it? If not, how then doth the Arminian err fundamentally, since the Lutheran maintains the same Concerning Predestination, Redemption, Grace, and Perseverance. opinion opinion, with many more and worse? And again, with what conscience can the Arminian, properly qua talis, be rejected out of our communion; when the Lutherun, who is as bad and far worse, is invited to it, and would very joyfully be admitted? Solve me this riddle, but solve it substantially and solidly, & eris mihi magnus Apollo. You tell me Beza calls Origen's error turpissimum errorem; but by the way, that's not Latin for a damnable heresie; and that Sixtus Senensis when he had mustered his fathers, rejects their opinion: and you ask me what I think of Trew and Careles in the Book of Martyrs; all this very impertinently. I enquire not in that place, what Beza, or Calvin, or Sixtus Senensis thought, nor whether the old fathers were deceived; these enquiries were not to my purpose: but can you deny that these writers testify, that many learned, pious, Catholic bishops of the old church taught predestination for foreseen faith or works? And suppose them therein to have erred, as for my part I doubt not but they did, though upon other grounds than the bare assertion of Calvin, Beza, or Senensis; yet can you deny, that notwithstanding this error and others, they were then, and still since accounted holy Catholic bishops? Do you not believe them to be with God? And think you not, as I do, that whatsoever should involve them in a capital censure (as none of your authors do, but speak reverently of them all) should be grossly and wickedly uncharitable? Grant me but these things, which none can deny, and I desire no more, I have enough to make good my words. For Trew and Careles, it seems you think Trew was Careless, and Careles was True; and to tell you my mind, I think so too. But remember this, that both of them were martyrs, or confessors; and so neither erred fundamentally, by consequence, my discourse is true, your's again impertinent. But the Arminians conspire with the Romanists; ergo, no peace, no truce with either: I will plead for neither of them, but for my self. First, the ground of your inference is weak; excuse me, if I cannot reject an opinion, eo ipso, without farther conviction than only because they of Rome approve of it. For what? Do not they, and do not we with them anathematize the Anti-Trinitarians, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, &c? Secondly, if you look again into your books, and consider well, you will confess that the church of Rome makes more against the Arminians, than for them. The prime Vol. IX. Churchm. Mag. Oct. 1805. Oo con controversy, on which all the rest are but appendances, is that touching the absolute irrespective decree; in which point, if you collect and number the suffrages, ten for one against the Arminians. T. Aquinas, you know, was a great schoolmaster, and had many scholars; observe and see whether they all and many more, do not strongly swim in the stream after Austin. And the truth is, our first reformers did herein say over again those lessons, which they had learned in the Roman schools; and the hardest passages that have fallen from Calvin, or Piscator, may easily be paralleled with others as rigorous, in many Romish doctors: especially of late years, the whole Dominican family have been zealous and voluminous in these questions, which they call, de Auxiliis; wherein, though they sweat to sever their opinion from the Calvinists, as they call us, yet some Jesuits tell them, and very truly, that their labour is very vain and ridiculous. Among the Jesuits themselves, the more ancient, as Tollet, Bellarmin, Valentia, Suarez, do not in effect dissent from the Dominicans; only some few new ones, as Molina, Lessius, &c. take up the bucklers against them, and bid them battle, but in a very fair and friendly manner: for they try it in a manly conflict, not as we do with passionate and mutual revilings, but with reasons and arguments, & salvá semper charitate; for so they are commanded by their great dictator at Rome, who indeed dares not otherwise decide the doubts, lest the grieved party raise another more dangerous question, viz. whether his judgment be infallible? In like manner the counsel of Trent, if you mark it, cunningly bere declines the decision, and lurks in such general terms, like him that was called Agias in the old oracle, that both sides confidently avow the sentence to be given for them, when indeed it is given for neither. It is high time to ease both you and myself, for surely we are both weary of this tedious letter; I will draw to a I conclusion. I hold all necessary verities to be clearly revealed in God's divine book, and therein abhor all Pyrrhonian suspension: for he is an atheist that will not believe God Almighty when he speaks. I constantly believe all scripture to be an heavenly truth, though I cannot comprehend it with my reason; I believe likewise we shall know much more in heaven, than we can do on earth, I resolve never to be an Arminian, and ever to be moderate. Howsoever some thoughts or perplexities may trouble my own conscience, yet I resolve never to trouble |