generally used as if it may be justly used in any place by those that haue power and think they haue truth certainly they cannot with reason deny but that it may bee used in every place by those that haue power as well as they and think they haue truth as wel as they what could follow but the maintenance perhaps of truth but perhaps onely of the profession of it in one place the oppression of it in a hundred What will follow from it but the preservation peradventure of unity but peradventure only of uniformity in particular States Churches but the immortalizing the greater and more lamentable divisions of Christendome and the world And therefore what can follow from it but perhaps in the judgement of carnall policie the temporall benefit and tranquillity of temporall States and Kingdomes but the infinit prejudice if not the desolation of the kingdome of Christ And therefore it well becomes thē who haue their portions in this life who serve no higher State then that of England or Spain or France nor this neither any further then they may serue themselves by it who thinke of no other happinesse but the preservation of their own fortunes and tranquillity in this world who think of no other meanes to preserve States but humane power and Machiavillian policie and belieue no other Creed but this Regi aut Civitati imperium habenti nihil iniustum quod utile Such men as these it may become to maintaine by worldly power and violence their State instrument Religion For if all be vain and false as in their judgement it is the present whatsoever is better then any because it is already setled and alteration of it may draw with it change of States and the change of State the subversion of their fortune But they that are indeed servants and lovers of Christ of truth of the Church and of man-kinde ought with all courage to oppose themselves against it as a common enemy of all these They that know there is a King of Kings and Lord of Lords by whose will and pleasure Kings and Kingdomes stand and fall they know that to no King or state any thing can be profitable which is unjust and that nothing can be more evidently unjust then to force weak men by the profession of a religion which they believe not to loose their owne eternall happinesse out of a vain and needlesse feare least they may possibly disturb their temporall quietnesse There is no danger to any state from any mans opinion unlesse it be such an opinion by which disobedience to authority or impiety is taught or licenc'd which sort I confesse may justly be punished as well as other faults or unlesse this sanguinary doctrine bee joyn'd with it that it is lawfull for him by humane violence to enforce others to it Therefore if Protestants did offer violence to other mens consciences and compell them to embrace their Reformation I excuse them not much lesse if they did so to the sacred Persons of Kings and those that were in authority over them who ought to be so secur'd from violence that even their unjust and tyrannous violence though it may be avoided according to that of our Saviour When they persecute you in one Citty fly into another yet may it not be resisted by opposing violence against it Protestants therefore that were guilty of this crime are not to be excused and blessed had they been had they chosen rather to be Martyrs then murderers and to dye for their religion rather then to fight for it But of all the men in the world you are the most unfit to accuse them hereof against whō the soules of the Martyrs from under the Altar cry much lowder then against all their other Persecutors together Who for these many ages together haue daily sacrificed Hecatombes of innocent Christians under the name of Heretiques to your blind zeal and furious superstition Who teach plainly that you may propagate your Religion whensoever you haue power by deposing of Kings and invasion of Kingdomes think when you kill the adversaries of it you doe God good service But for their departing corporally from them whom mentally they had forsaken For their forsaking the externall Cōmunion company of that part of the unreformed part of the Church in their superstitions impieties thus much of your accusation we embrace glory in it And say though some Protestants might offend in the manner or the degree of their separation yet certainly their separation it selfe was not Schismaticall but innocent and not only so but just and necessary And as for your obtruding upon D. Potter that he should say There neither was nor could be iust cause to doe so no more then to depart from Christ himselfe I haue shewed divers times already that you sdeal very injuriously with him confounding together Departing from the Church and Departing from some generall opinions and practises which did not constitute but vitiate not make the Church but marre it For though he saies that which is most true that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church that is to cease being a member of the Church no more then to depart from Christ himself in as much as these are not divers but the same thing yet he no where denies but there might be iust and necessary cause to depart from some opinions and practises of your Church nay of the Catholique Church And therefore you doe vainly to infer that Luther and his followers for so doing were Schismatiques 97 Ad § 35. I answer in a word that neither are Optatus his sayings rules of Faith and therefore not fit to determine Controversies of Faith And then that Majorinus might well be a Schismatique for departing from Ca cilianus and the Chayre of Cyprian Peter without cause and yet Luther and his followers who departed from the Communion of the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of their own Diocesse be none because they had just and necessary cause of their departure For otherwise they must haue continued in the profession of known Errours and the practise of manifest corruptions 98 Ad § 36. In the next Section you tell us that Christ our Lord gaue S. Peter his successors authority over his whole Militant Church And for proof hereof you first referre us to Brerely citing exactly the places of such cheefe Protestants as haue confessed the antiquity of this point Where first you fall into the Fallacy which is called Ignoratio elenchi or mistaking the Question for being to proue this point true you onely prove it ancient Which to what purpose is it when both the parties litigant are agreed that many errors were held by many of the ancient Doctors much more ancient then any of those who are pretended to be confessed by Protestants to haue held with you in this matter and when those whom you haue to doe with and whom it is vain to dispute against but
not by testimony of the private spirit which faith he being private and secret is unfit to teach and refell others but as he acknowledgeth by the Ecclesiasticall Tradition An argument saith he whereby may be argued and convinced what books be Canonicall and what be not Luther saith This indeed the Church hath that she can discerne the word of God from the word of men as Augustine confesseth that he believed the Gospell being moved by the authority of the Church which did preach this to be the Gospell Fulk teacheth that the Church hath judgement to discerne true writings from counterfeit and the word of God from the writing of men and that this iudgement she hath not of her selfe but of the Holy Ghost And to the end that you my not be ignorant from what Church you must receive Scriptures hear your first Patriarch Luther speaking against them who as he saith brought in Anabaptisme that so they might despight the Pope Verily saith he these men build upon a weak foundation For by this means they ought to deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For all these we have from the Pope otherwise we must go make a new Scripture 8 But now in deeds they all make good that without the Churches authority no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall while they cannot agree in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Of the Epistle of S. Iames Luther hath these words The Epistle of Iames is contentious swelling dry strawy and unworthy of an Apostolicall Spirit Which censure of Luther Illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth Kemnitins teacheth that the second Epistle of Peter the second and third of Iohn the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of Iames the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall as not having sufficient Testimony of their authority and therefore that nothing in controversy can be proved out of these Bookes The same is taught by divers other Lutherans and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since Luther's time I wonder what new infallible ground they can alleage why they leaue their Master and so many of his prime Schollers I knâ—w no better ground then because they may with as much freedome abandon him as hee was bold to alter that Canon of Scripture which he found receaved in Gods Church 9 What Bookes of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonicall is not easie to affirme In their sixt Article they say In the name of the holy Scripture who doe understand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church What meane they by these words That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall This were to make the Church Iudge and not Scriptures alone Doe they only understand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of faith By this rule of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church the whole book of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church haue excluded it from the Canon as Melito Asianus Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen And Luther if Protestanis will be content that he be in the Church saith The Iewes place the book of Esther in the Canon which yet if I might be Iudge doth rather deserve to bee put out of the Canon And of Ecclesiastes he saith This book is not full there are in it many abrupt things he wants boots and spurres that is he hath no perfect sentence hee rides upon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him who saith further that the said book was not written by Salomon but by Syrach in the time of the Machabees and that it is like to the Talmud the Iewes bible out of many bookes heaped into one worke perhaps out of the Library of king Ptolomeus And further he saith that he doth not belieue all to haue been done as there is set downe And he reacheth the booke of Iob to be as it were an argument for a fable or Comedy to set before us an example of Patience And he delivers this generall censure of the Prophets Books The Sermons of no Prophet were written whole and perfect but their Disciples and Auditors snatched now one sentence and then another and so put them all into one book and by this meanes the Bible was conserved If this were so the Books of the Prophets being not written by themselues but promiscuously and casually by their Disciples will soone be called in question Are not these errours of Luther fundamentall and yet if Protestants deny the infallibility of the Church upon what certaine ground can they disproue these Lutherian and Luciferian blasphemies ô godly Reformer of the Roman Church But to returne to our English Canon of Scripture In the New Testament by the aboue mentioned rule of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church divers Books of the New Testament must be discanonized to wit all those of which some Ancients haue doubted and those which divers Lutherans haue of late denied It is worth the observation how the before-mentioned sixt Article doth specify by name all the Books of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonicall but those of the New Testament as they are commonly receaved we doe recieue and account them Canonicall The mystery is easily to be unfolded If they had descended to particulars they must haue contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren As they are commonly recieued c. I aske By whom By the Church of Rome Then by the same reason they must receiue divers Books of the Old Testament which they reject By Lutherans Then with Lutherans they may deny some Books of the New Testament If it bee the greater or lesse number of voices that must cry up or down the Canon of Scripture our Roman Canon will prevaile and among Protestants the Certainty of their Faith must be reduced to an Vncertaine Controversie of Fact whether the number of those who reject or of those others who recieue such and such Scriptures bee greater Their Faith must alter according to yeares and daies When Luther first appeared he and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church and so this claime Of being commonly received stood for them till Zuinglius and Calvin grew to some equall or greater number then that of the Lutherans and then this rule of Commonly received will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans I would gladly know why in the former part of their Article they say both of the Old and New Testament In the name of the holy Scripture we doe understand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church and in the latter part speaking againe
that these controversies about Scripture are not decidable by Scripture and have shewed that your deduction from it that therefore they are to be determin'd by the authority of some present Church is irrationall and inconsequent I might well forbeare to tire my selfe with an exact and punctuall examination of your premises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wether they be true or false is to the Question disputed wholly impertinent Yet because you shall not complaine of tergiverâ—ation I will runne over them and let nothing that is materiall and considerable passe without some stricture or animadversion 30 You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is Gods word is the Church and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. Sect. 8. Let the Reader consult the place and he shall finde that he and M. Hooker have been much abused both by you here and by M. Breerly and others before you and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose but very much directly to the contrary There he tells us indeed that ordinarily the first introduction and probable motive to the belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded that in the same place he plainly denies His words are Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it selfe is divine and sacred The Question then being by what meanes we are taught this some answere that to learne it we have no other way then tradition As namely that so we believe because we from our Predecessors and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied and by experience we all know that the first outward motive leading men to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary minde without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevaile when the very thing hath ministred farther reason If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture and our own perswasion which Scripture it selfe hath setled may be proved a truth infallible In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to rely upon the Scriptures endeavoured still to maintaine the Authority of the bookes of God by arguments such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable if they judge thereof as they should Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard even by such kinde of proofes so to manifest and cleare that point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent principle such as all men acknowledge to be true By this time I hope the reader sees sufficient proofe of what I said in my Reply to your Preface that M. Breerelies great ostentation of exactnesse is no very certain argument of his fidelity 31 But seeing the beliefe of the Scripture is a necessary thing and cannot be prov'd by Scripture how can the Church of England teach as she doth Art 6. That all things necessary are contain'd in Scripture 32 I have answered this already And here again I say That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be That all the Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in Scripture That is all the materiall objects of our faith whereof the Scripture is none but only the meanes of conveying them unto us which we believe not finally and for it selfe but for the matter contained in it So that if men did believe the doctrine contained in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aimes at is the beliefe of the Gospell the covenant between God and man the Scripture he hath provided as a meanes for this end and this also we are to believe but not as the last object of our faith but as the instrument of it When therefore we subscribe to the 6. Art you must understand that by Articles of Faith they mean the finall and ultimate objects of it and not the meanes and instrumentall objects and then there will be no repugnance between what they say and that which Hooker and D. Covell and D. Whitaker and Luther here say 33 But Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. Iames. Kemnitius and other Luth. the second of Peter the second and third of Iohn The Epist. to the Heb. the Epist. of Iames of Iude and the Apocalyps Therefore without the Authority of the Church no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall 34 So also the Ancient Fathers and not only Fathers but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the authority of the very same bookes and by their difference shewed they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church For had they done so they must have agreed all with that Church and consequently among themselves Now I pray tell me plainly Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonicall or had they not If they had not it seemes there is no such great harme or danger in not having such a certainty whether some books be Canonicall or no as you require If they had why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs 35 You proceed And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art have these words In the name of the Holy Scripture we doe vnderstand those Bookes of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church you demaund what they meane by them Whether that by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall I Answer for them Yes they are so And whereas you inferre from hence This is to make the Church Iudge I haue told you already That of this Controversie we make the Church the Iudge but not the present Church much lesse the present Roman Church but the consent and testimony of the
That the Church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any Scripture and not infallibly assisted positively to give the true sense of all Scripture I put to you your own Question why should we believe the Holy Ghost will stay there Or why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing that is in teaching the Church what Bookes be true Scripture For if the Holy Ghosts assistance be promised to all things profitable then will he be with them infallibly not only to guard them from all errors but to guide them to all profitable truths such as the true senses of all Scripture would be Neither could he stay there but defend them irresistibly from all Vices Nor there neither but infuse into them irresistibly all Vertues for all these things would be much for the benefit of Christians If you say he cannot doe this without taking away their free will in living I say neither can he necessitate men to believe aright without taking away their freewill in believing and in professing their belief 97 To the place of S. Austine I answere That not the authority of the present Church much lesse of a Part of it as the Roman Church is was that which alone mov'd Saint Austine to believe the Gospell but the perpetuall Tradition of the Church of all Ages Which you your selfe have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is prov'd and which it selfe needs no proof and to which you have referred this very saying of S. Austine Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi c. p. 55. And in the next place which you cite out of his book De Vtil Cred. c. 14. he shewes that his motives to believe were Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity And seeing this Tradition this Consent this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Manichaeus as to believe the Gospell the Christian Tradition being as full against Manichaeus as it was for the Gospell therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds that he had as much reason to disbelieve Manichaeus as to believe the Gospell Now if you can truly say that the same Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity that the same Vniversall and Originall Tradition lyes against Luther and Calvin as did against Manichaeus you may doe well to apply the Argument against them otherwise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names in steade of Manichaeus unlesse you can shew the thing agrees to them as well as him 98 If you say that S. Austin speakes here of the authority of the Present Church abstracting from consent with the Ancient and therefore you seeing you have the present Church on your side against Luther and Calvin as S. Austin against Manichaeus may urge the same words against them which S. Austin did against him 99 I answer First that it is a vaine presumption of yours that the Catholique Church is of your side Secondly that if S. Austine speake here of that present Church which moved him to believe the Gospel without consideration of the Antiquity of it its both Personall and Doctrinall succession from the Apostles His argument will be like a Buskin that will serve anylegge It will serve to keepe an Arrian or a Grecian from being a Roman Catholique as well as a Catholique from being an Arrian or a Grecian In as much as the Arrians and Grecians did pretend to the title of Catholiques and the Church as much as the Papists now doe If then you should haue come to an ancient Goth or Vandall whom the Arrians converted to Christianity and should haue mov'd him to your Religion might he not say the very same words to you as S. Austin to the Manichaeans I would not beleive the Gospell unlesse the authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyed saying beleive the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me doe not beleive the Homoousians Choose what thou pleasest if thou shalt say beleive the Arrians they warne me not to give any credit to you If therefore I beleive them I cannot beleive thee If thou say doe not beleive the Arriās thou shalt not doe well to force me to the faith of the Homoousians because by the preaching of the Arrians I beleived the Gospell it selfe If you say you did well to beleive them commending the Gospell but you did not well to beleive them discommending the Homoousians Doest thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should beleive what thou wilt and not beleive what thou wilt not It were easie to put these words into the mouth of a Grecian Abyssine Georgian or any other of any Religion And I pray bethinke your selves what you would say to such a one in such a case and imagine that we say the very same to you 100 Whereas you aske Whether Protestants doe not perfectly resemble those men to whom S. Austine spake when they will have men to believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning Luther I demand againe whether you be well in your wits to say that Protestants would have men believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture whereas they accuse her to deliver many bookes for Scripture which are not so and doe not bid men to receive any book which she delivers for that reason because she delivers it And if you meant only Protestants will have men to believe some bookes to be Scripture which the Roman Church delivers for such may not we then aske as you doe Doe not Papists perfectly resemble these men which will have men believe the Church of England delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning the Church of Rome 101 And whereas you say S. Austine may seeme to have spoken Prophetically against Protestants when he said Why should I not most diligently enquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose Authority I was moved to believe that Christ Commanded any good thing I answer Vntill you can shew that Protestants believe that Christ commanded any good thing that is That they believe the truth of Christian Religion upon the Authority of the Church of Rome this place must be wholly impertinent to your purpose which is to make Protestants believe your Church to be the infallible expounder of Scriptures and judge of Controversies nay rather is it not directly against your purpose For why may not a member of the Church of England who received his baptisme education and Faith from the Ministery of this Church say just so to you as S. Austine here to the Manichees Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them the Church of England before all others by whose Authority I was mov'd to believe that Christ commanded any good thing Can you F. or K. or whosoever you are better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the belief
doubtfull whether they be spoken of the Church of Christ if they be whether they mean as you pretend You say the Church saies so which is infallible Yea but that is the Question and therefore not to be begg'd but proved Neither is it so evident as to need no proofe otherwise why brought you this Text to proue it Nor is it of such a strange quality aboue all other Propositions as to bee able to proue it selfe What then remaines but that you say Reasons drawn out of the Circumstances of the Text will evince that this is the sense of it Perhaps they will But Reasons cannot convince mee unlesse I judge of them by my Reason and for every man or woman to relye on that in the choice of their Religion and in the interpreting of Scripture you say is a horrible absurditie and therefore must neither make use of your own in this matter nor desire mee to make use of it 119 But Vniversall Tradition you say and so doe I too is of it selfe credible and that has in all ages taught the Churches infallibility with full consent If it haue I am ready to belieue it But that it has I hope you would not haue me take upon your word for that were to build my selfe upon the Church and the Church upon You. Let then the Tradition appeare for a secret Tradition is somewhat like a silent Thunder You will perhaps produce for the confirmation of it some sayings of some Fathers who in every Age taught this Doctrine as Gualterius in his Chronologie undertakes to doe but with so ill successe that I heard an able Man of your Religion professe that in the first three Centuries there was not one Authority pertinent but how will you warrant that none of them teach the contrary Again how shall I be assured that the places haue indeed this sense in them Seeing there is not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ that does say in plain termes The Church of Rome is infallible What shall wee belieue your Church that this is their meaning But this will be again to goe into the Circle which made us giddy before To proue the Church Infallible because Tradition saies so Tradition to say so because the Fathers say so The Fathers to say so because the Church saies so which is infallible Yea but reason will shew this to be the meaning of them Yes if we may use our Reason and rely upon it Otherwise as light shewes nothing to the blinde or to him that uses not his eyes so reason cannot proue any thing to him that either has not or uses not his reason to judge of them 120 Thus you haue excluded your selfe from all proofe of your Churches infallibility from Scripture or Tradition And if you flye lastly to Reason it selfe for succour may not it justly say to you as Iephte said to his Brethren Yee haue cast me out and banished me and doe you now come to me for succour But if there be no certainty in Reason how shall I be assured of the certainty of those which you alleage for this purpose Either I may judge of them or not if not why doe you propose them If I may why doe you say I may not and make it such a monstrous absurdity That men in the choyce of their Religion should make use of their Reason which yet without all question none but unreasonable men can deny to haue been the chiefest ende why Reason was given them 122 Ad § 22. An Heretique he is saith D. Potter who opposeth any truth which to be a divine revelation he is convinced in conscience by any meanes whatsoever Be it by a Preacher or Lay-man be it by reading Scripture or hearing them read And from hence you infer that he makes all these safe propounders of Faith A most strange and illogicall deduction For may not a private man by evident reason convince another man that such or such a Doctrine is divine revelation and yet though he be a true propounder in this point yet propound another thing falsely and without proofe and consequently not be a safe propounder in every point Your Preachers in their Sermons do they not propose to men divine Revelations and doe they not sometimes convince men in conscience by evident proofe from Scripture that the things they speak are Divine revelations And whosoever being thus convinc'd should oppose this Divine revelation should hee not be an Heretique according to your own grounds for calling Gods own Truth into question And would you think your selfe well dealt with if I should collect from hence that you make every Preacher a safe that is an infallible Propounder of Faith Be the meanes of Proposall what it will sufficient or insufficient worthy of credit or not worthy though it were if it were possible the barking of a Dog or the chirping of a Bird or were it the discourse of the Divell himselfe yet if I be I will not say convinc'd but persuaded though falsly that it is a Divine revelation and shall deny to belieue it I shall be a formall though not a materiall Heretique For he that believes though falsly any thing to be Divine revelation yet will not believe it to be true must of necessity believe God to be false which according to your own Doctrine is the formality of an Heretique 123 And how it can be any way advantagious to Civill government that men without warrant from God should usurpe a tyranny over other mens consciences and prescribe unto them without reason and sometimes against reason what they shall believe you must shew us plainer if you desire we should believe For to say Verily I doe not see but that it must be so is no good demonstration For whereas you say that a man may be a passionate seditious creature from whence you would have us inferre that he may make use of his interpretation to satisfie his passion and raise sedition There were some colour in this consequence if we as you doe made private men infallible interpreters for others for then indeed they might lead Disciples after them and use them as instruments for their vile purposes But when we say they can only interpret for themselves what harme they can doe by their passionate or seditious interpretations but only endanger both their temporall and eternall happinesse I cannot imagine For though we deny the Pope or Church of Rome to be an infallible Iudge yet we doe not deny but that there are Iudges which may proceed with certainty enough against all seditious Persons such as draw men to disobedience either against Church or State as well as against Rebells and Traytors and Theeves and Murderers 124 Ad § 23. The next § in the begining argues thus For many ages there was no Scripture in the World and for many more there was none in many places of the world yet men wanted not then and then some certain direction what to believe
of it because we say the whole Church much more particular Churches and privat men may erre in points not Fundamentall A pretty sophisme depending upon this Principle that whosoever possibly may erre he cannot be certain that he doth not erre And upon this ground what shall hinder me from concluding that seeing you also hold that neither particular Churches nor private men are Infallible even in Fundamentalls that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity remain to you uncertain A Iudge may possibly erre in judgement can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right A travailer may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber Or can our London carrier have no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in the way to London These you see are right worthy consequences and yet they are as like your own as an egge to an egge or milke to milke 161 And for the selfe same reason you say we are not certain that the Church is not Iudge of Controversies But now this selfe same appears to be no reason and therefore for all this we may be certain enough that the Church is no Iudge of Controversies The ground of this sophisme is very like the former viz. that we can be certain of the falshood of no propositions but these only which are damnable errors But I pray good Sir give me your opinion of these The Snow is black the Fire is cold that M. knot is Archbishop of Toledo that the whole is not greater then a part of the whole that twise two make not foure In your opinion good Sir are these damnable Haeresies or because they are not so have we no certainty of the falshood of them I beseech you Sir to consider seriously with what strange captions you have gone about to delude your King and your Country and if you be convinced they are so give glory to God and let the world know it by your deserting that Religion which stands upon such deceitfull foundations 162 Besides you say among publique conclusions defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. to the Questions Whether the Church have authority to determine controversies of Faith And to interpret holy Scripture The answere to both is affirmative But what now if I should tell you that in the year 1632. among publique Conclusions defended in Doway one was That God predeterminates men to all their Actions good bad and indifferent Will you think your selfe obliged to be of this opinion If you will say so If not doe as you would be done by Again me thinkes so subtil a man as you are should easily apprehend a wide difference between Authority to doe a thing and Infallibility in doing it againe between a conditionall infallibility an absolute The former the Doctor together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion that is an Authority of determining controversies of faith according to plain and evident Scripture and Vniversall Tradition and Infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule As if there should arise an Heretique that should call in Question Christs Passion and Resurrection the Church had Authority to decide this Controversy and infallible direction how to doe it and to excommunicate this man if he should persist in errour I hope you will not deny but that the Iudges have Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversies and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely Infallible in their determinations Infallible while they proceed according to Law and if they doe so but not infallibly certain that they shall ever doe so But that the Church should be infallibly assisted by Gods spirit to decide rightly all emergent Controversies even such as might be held diversly of divers men Salva compage fidei and that we might be absolutely certain that the Church should never faile to decree the truth whether she used meanes or no whether she proceed according to her Rule or not or lastly that we might be absolutely certain that she would never fail to proceed according to her Rule this the defender of these conclusions said not and therefore said no more to your purpose then you have all this while that is just nothing 163 Ad § 27. To the place of S. Austin alleaged in this paragraph I Answer First that in many things you will not bee tried by S. Augustines judgement nor submit to his authority not concerning Appeals to Rome not concerning Transubstantiation not touching the use and worshiping of Images not concerning the State of Saints soules before the day of judgement not touching the Virgin Maries freedome from actuall and originall sinne not touching the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants not touching the damning Infants to hell that dye without Baptisme not touching the knowledge of Saints departed not touching Purgatory not touching the fallibility of Councells even generall Councells not touching perfection and perspicuity of Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation not touching Auricular Confession not touching the halfe Communion not touching Prayers in an unknown tongue In these things I say you will not stand to S. Austines judgement and therefore can with no reason or equity require us to doe so in this matter 2. To S. Augustine in heat of disputation against the Donatists and ransacking all places for arguments against them we oppose S. Austine out of this heat delivering the doctrine of Christianity calmely and mode rately where he saies In iis quae apertè posita sunt in sacris Scripturis omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent â—idem mores'que vivendi 3 Wee say he speaks not of the Roman but the Catholique Church of farre greater extent and therefore of farre greater credit and authority then the Roman Church 4 He speaks of a point not expressed but yet not contradicted by Scripture whereas the errors we charge you with are contradicted by Scripture 5 He saies not that Christ has recommended the Church to us for an Infallible definer of all emergent controversies but for a credible witnesse of Ancient Tradition Whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the practise of the Church understand of all places and ages though he be thought to resist our Saviour what is that to us who cast off no practises of the Church but such as are evidently post-nate to the time of the Apostles and plainly contrary to the practise of former and purer times Lastly it is evident and even to impudence it selfe undeniable that upon this ground of beleiving all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ Error was held for example the necessity of the Eucharist for infants and that in S. Austines time and that by S. Austine himselfe and therefore without controversy this is no certain ground for truth which may support falshood as well as
it seem uniust As if I be cast wrongfully in a suit at law and sentenced to pay an hundred pound I am bound to pay the mony yet I know no law of God or man that binds me in conscience to acquit the Iudge of errour in his sentence The question therefore being only what men ought to think it is vain for you to tell us what M. Hooker saies at all For M. Hooker though an excellent man was but a man And much more vain to tell us out of him what men ought to doe for point of externall obedience When in the very same place he supposeth and alloweth that in their private opinion they may think this sentence to which they yeeld a passive obedience to swarve utterly from that which is right If you will draw his words to such a construction as if he had said they must think the sentence of iudiciall and finall decision iust and right though it seem in their private opinion to swarue utterly from what is right It is manifest you make him contradict himselfe make him say in effect They must think thus though at the same time they think the contrary Neither is there any necessity that hee must either acknowledge the universall infallibility of the Church or driue men into dissembling against their conscience seeing nothing hinders but I may obey the sentence of a Iudge paying the mony he awards me to pay or forgoing the house or land which hee hath judged from me and yet withall plainly professe that in my conscience I conceive his judgement erroneous To which purpose they haue a saying in France that whosoever is cast in any cause hath liberty for ten daies after to rayle at his Iudges 110 This answer to this place the words themselves offered mee even as they are alleaged by you But upon perusall of the place in the Author himselfe I finde that here as elsewhere you and M. Brerely wrong him extremely For mutilating his words you make him say that absolutely which he there expresly limits to some certain cases In litigious and controverted causes of such a quality saith he the will of God is to haue them doe whatsoever the sentence of iudiciall and finall decision shall determine Obserue I pray He saies not absolutely and in all causes this is the will of God But only in litigious causes of the quality of those whereof he there entreats In such matters as haue plaine Scripture or reason neither for them nor against them and wherein men are perswaded this or that way Vpon their own only probable collection In such cases This perswasion saith he ought to bee fully setled in mens hearts that the will of God is that they should not disobey the certain commands of their lawfull superiors upon uncertain grounds But doe that which the sentence of iudiciall and finall decision shall determine For the purpose a Question there is whether a Surplice may be worne in Divine service The authority of Superiors injoynes this Ceremony and neither Scripture nor reason plainely forbids it Sempronius notwithstanding is by some inducements which he confesses to be onely probable lead to this perswasion that the thing is unlawfull The quaere is whether he ought for matter of practise follow the injunction of authority or his own private and only probable perswasion M. Hooker resolves for the former upon this ground that the certain commands of the Church we liue in are to be obeyed in all things not certainly unlawfull Which rule is your own and by you extended to the commands of all Superiors in the very next Section before this in these words In cases of uncertainty we are not to leaue our Superiour nor cast off his obedience or publiquely oppose his decrees And yet if a man should conclude upon you that either you make all Superiours universally infallible or else driue men into perplexities and labyrinths of doing against conscience I presume you would not think your self fairely dealt with but alleage that your words are not extended to all cases but limited to cases of uncertainty As little therefore ought you to make this deduction from M. Hookers words which are apparently also restrained to cases of uncertainty For as for requiring a blind and an unlimited obedience to Ecclesiasticall decisions universally and in all cases even when plain Text or reason seemes to controule them M. Hooker is as far from making such an Idol of Ecclesiasticall Authority as the Puritans whom he writes against I grant saith he that proof derived from the authority of mans iudgement is not able to worke that assurance which doth grow by a stronger proofe And therefore although ten thousand Generall Councels would set down one and the same definitiue sentence concerning any point of religion whatsoever yet one demonstrative reason alleaged or one manifest testimony cited from the word of God himselfe to the contrary could not choose but over-weigh them all in as much as for them to be deceived it is not impossible it is that Demonstrative Reason or Divine Testimony should deceiue And again Whereas it is thought that especially with the Church and those that are called mans authority ought not to prevail It must and doth prevaile even with them yea with them especially as far as equity requireth and farther we maintain it not For men to be tied and led by authority as it were with a kinde of captivitie of iudgement and though there bee reason to the contrary not to listen to it but to follow like beasts the first in the Heard this were brutish Again that authority of men should prevaile with men either against or aboue reason is no part of our beliefe Companies of learned men be they never so great and reverend are to yeeld unto reason the weight whereof is no whit preiudic'd by the simplicity of his person which doth alleage it but being found to be sound and good the bare opinion of men to the contrary must of necessitie stoop and giue place Thus M. Hooker in his 7. Sect. of his Second Book which place because it is far distant from that which is alleaged by you the oversight of it might be excusable did you not impute it to D. Potter as a fault that he cites some clauses of some Books without reading the whole But besides in that very Section out of which you take this corrupted sentence he hath very pregnant words to the same effect As for the Orders established sith equity and reason favour that which is in being till orderly iudgement of decision be given against it it is but iustice to exact of you and perversnesse in you it should be to deny thereunto your willing obedience Not that I iudge it a thing allowable for men to obserue those Lawes which in their hearts they are stedfastly perswaded to bee against the Law of God But your perswasion in this case yee are all bound for the time to suspend and in otherwise doing
direct contradictions viz. that conformity to the Roman Church was necessary in all points and not necessary in this or else so horribly impious as believing this doctrine of the Roman Church true and her power to receive Appeales derived from divine Authority notwithstanding to oppose and condemne it and to Anathematize all those Africans of what condition soever that should appeale unto it I say of what condition soever For it is evident that they concluded in their determination Bishops as well as the inferior Clergy and Laity And Cardinall Perrons pretence of the contrary is a shamelesse falshood repugnant to the plaine words of the Remonstrance of the African Bishops to Celestine Bishop of Rome 34 Your allegation of Tertullian is a manifest conviction of your want of syncerity For you produce with great ostentation what he saies of the Church of Rome but you and your fellowes alwaies conceale and dissemble that immediatly before these words he attributes as much for point of direction to any other Apostolique Church and that as he sends them to Rome who lived neare Italy so those neare Achaia hee sends to Corinth those about Macedonia to Philippi and Thessalonica those of Asia to Ephesus His words are Goe to now thou that wilt better imploy thy curiosity in the businesse of thy salvation run over the Apostolicall Churches wherein the Chaires of the Apostles are yet sate upon in their places wherein their Authentique Epistles are recited sounding out the voyce and representing the face of of every one Is Achaia neere thee there thou hast Corinth If thou art not farre from Macedonia thou hast Philippi thou hast Thessalonica If thou canst goe into Asia there thou hast Ephesus If thou be adjacent to Italy thou hast Rome whose Authority is neere at hand to us in Africk A happy Church into which the Apostles powred forth all their Doctrine together with their blood c. Now I pray Sir tell me if you can for blushing why this place might not have been urg'd by a Corinthian or Philippian or Thessalonian or an Ephesian to shew that in the judgment of Tertullian separation from any of their Churches is a certain mark of Heresie as iustly and rationally as you alleadge it to vindicate this priviledge to the Roman Church only Certainly if you will stand to Tertullians judgment you must either grant the authority of the Roman Church though at that time a good Topicall Argument and perhaps a better then any the Heretiques had especially in conjunction with other Apostolique Churches yet I say you must grant it perforce but a fallible Guide as well as that of Ephesus and Thessalonica and Philippi and Corinth or you must maintain the Authority of every one of these infallible as well as the Roman For though he make a Panegyrick of the Roman Church in particular and of the rest only in generall yet as I have said for point of direction he makes them all equall and therefore makes them choose you whether either all fallible or all infallible Now you will and must acknowledge that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the Churches of Ephesus or Corinth or if he did that as experience shewes he erred in doing so and what can hinder but then we may say also that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the Roman Church or if he did that he erred in doing so 35 From the saying of S. Basil certainly nothing can be gathered but only that the Bishop of Rome may discerne betweene that which is counterfeit and that which is lawfull and pure and without any diminution may preach the faith of our Ancestours Which certainly he might doe if ambition and covetousnesse did not hinder him or else I should never condemne him for doing otherwise But is there no difference betweene may and must Beleeve hee may doe so and he cannot but doe so Or doth it follow because he may doe so therefore he alwayes shall or will doe so In my opinion rather the contrary should follow For he that saith you may doe thus implies according to the ordinary sense of words that if he will he may doe otherwise You certainly may if you please leave abusing the world with such Sophistry as this but whether you will or no of that I have no assurance 36 Your next Witnesse I would willingly have examined but it seemes you are unwilling he should be found otherwise you would have givē us your direction where we might have him Of that Maximianus who succeeded Nestorius I can find no such thing in the Councels Neither can I beleeve that any Patriarch of Constantinople twelve hundred yeares agoe was so base a parasite of the Sea of Rome 37 Your last Witnesse Iohn of Constantinople I confesse speaks home and advanceth the Roman sea even to heaven But I feare it is that his owne may goe up with it which hee there professes to bee all one sea with the sea of Rome and therefore his Testimony as speaking in his own case is not much to be regarded But besides I have litle reason to be confident that this Epistle is not a forgery for certainly Binius hath obtruded upon us many a hundred such This though written by a Graecian is not extant in Greek but in Latine only Lastly it comes out of a suspicious place an old book of the Vatican Library which Library the world knowes to have been the Mint of very many impostures 38 Ad § 20. 21. 22. 23. The summe of your discourse in the 4. next Sections if it be pertinent to the Question in agitation must be this Want of succession of Bishops and Pastours holding alwayes the same doctrine and of the formes of ordaining Bishops and Priests which are in use in the Roman Church is a certain mark of Heresie But Protestants want all these things Therefore they are Heretiques To which I Answer That nothing but want of truth and holding errour can make or prove any man or Church hereticall For if he be a true Aristotelian or Platonist or Pyrrhoniā or Epicurean who holds the doctrine of Aristotle or Plato or Pirrho or Epicurus although he cannot assigne any that held it before him for many Ages together why should I not be made a true and orthodox Christian by beleeving all the doctrine of Christ though I cannot derive my descent from a perpetuall Successiō that beleev'd it before me By this reason you should say as well that no man can be a good Bishop or Pastour or King or Magistrate or Father that succeeds a bad one For if I may conforme my will and actions to the Commandements of God why may I not embrace his doctrine with my understanding although my predecessour doe not so You have aboue in this Chapter defin'd Faith a free Infallible obscure supernaturall assent to divine Truths because they are revealed by God sufficiently propounded This definition is very phantasticall but for the present I
heare examine and determine all controversies of faith and so they may be and are Iudges of Controversies although they use the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their own doctrine they constitute another Iudge of Controversies besides Scripture alone 26 Lastly 〈◊〉 D. Potter whether this Assertion Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controversies in saith be a fundamentall point of faith or no He must be well advised before he say that it is a fundamentall point For he will haue against him as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone it is impossible to knowe what Bookes be Scripture which yet to Protestants is the most necessary and chiefe point of all other D. Covell expresly saith Doubtlesse it is a tolerable opinion in the Church of Rome if they goe no further as some of them doe not hee should haue said as none of them doe to affirme that the Scriptures are holy divine in themselves but so esteemed by us for the authority of the Church He will likewise oppose himselfe to those his Brethren who grant that Controversies cannot be ended without some externall living authority as we noted before Besides how can it be in us a fundamentall errour to say the Scripture alone is not Iudge of Controversies seeing notwithstanding this our beliefe wee use for interpreting of Scripture all the meanes which they prescribe as Prayer Conferring of places Consulting the Originals c and to these adde the Instruction and Authority of Gods Church which even by has confession cannot erre damnaâ—ly and may afford us more help then can be expected from the industry learning or wit of any private person and finally D. Potter grants that the Church of Rome doth not maintain any fundamentall errour against faith and consequently he cannot affirme that our doctrine in this present Controversie is damnable If he answer that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only Iudge of Controversies is not a fundamentall point of faith then as he â—eacheth that the universall Church may erre in points not fundamentall so I hope he will nâ—t deny but particular Churches and private men are much more obnoxious to errour in such points and in particular in this that Scripture alone is Iudge of Controversies And so the very principle upon which their whole faith is grounded remaines to them uncertaine and on the other side for the selfe same reason they are not certaine but that the Church is Iudge of Controversies which if she be then their case is lamentable who in generall deny her this authority in particular controversies oppose her definitions Besides among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. to the questions Whether the Church haue authority to determine controversies in faith And To interpret holy Scripture The answer to both is Affirmatiue 27 Since then the visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Meanes whereby the revealed truth of Almighty God are conveyed to our understanding it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himselfe which blessed S. Augustine plainly affirmeth when speaking of the Controversy about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques he saith Tâ—is is neither openly nor evidently read neither by you nor by me yet if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to performe what he should say least we might seem to gainsay not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witnesse to his Church And a little after Whosoever refuseth to follow the practise of the Church doth resist our Saviour himselfe who by his testimony recommends the Church I conclude therefore with this argument Whosoever resisteth that meanes which infallibly proposeth to us Gods Word or Râ—velation commits a sinne which unrepented excludes salvation But whosoever resisteth Christs visible Church doth resist that meanes which infallibly proposeth Gods word or revelation to us Therefore whosoever resisteth Christs visible Church commits a sinne which unrepented excludes salvation Now what visible Church was extant when Luther began his pretended Reformation whetheâ— it were the Roman or Protestant Church and whether he and other Protestants doe not oppose that visible Church which was spread over the world before and in Luthers time is easy to be determined and importeth every one most seriously to ponder as a thing whereon eternall salvation dependeth And because our Adversaries doe here most insist upon the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall and in particular teach that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall it will be necessary to examine the truth and weight of this evasion which shall be done in the next Chapter ANSVVER TO THE SECOND CHAPTER Concerning the meanes whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion AD § 1. He that would usurpe an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people need not put himselfe to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disanulling the Lawes made to maintain the common liberty for he may frustrate their intent and compasse his own designe as well if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases and adde to them what he pleases and to have his interpretations and additions stand for Lawes if he can rule his people by his lawes and his Lawes by his Lawyers So the Church of Rome to establish her tyranny over mens consciences needed not either to abolish or corrupt the holy Scriptures the Pillars and supporters of Christian liberty which in regard of the numerous multitude of copies dispersed through all places translated into almost all languages guarded with all sollicitous care and industry had been an impossible attempt But the more expedite way and therefore more likely to be successefull was to gain the opinion and esteem of the publique and authoriz'd interpreter of them and the Authority of adding to them what doctrine she pleas'd under the title of Traditions or Definitions For by this meanes she might both serve her selfe of all those clauses of Scripture which might be drawen to cast a favourable countenance upon her ambitious pretences which in case the Scripture had been abolished shee could not have done and yet be secure enough of having either her power limited or her corruptions and abuses reformed by them this being once setled in the mindes of men that unwritten doctrines if proposed by her were to be receiv'd with equall reverence to those that were written and that the sense of Scripture was not that which seem'd to mens reason and understanding to be so but that which the Church of Rome should declare to be so seem'd it never so unreasonable and incongruous The matter being once thus ordered and the holy Scriptures being made in effect not your directors and Iudges no farther then you please but your
Ancient and Primitive Church Which though it be but a highly probable inducement and no demonstrative enforcement yet me thinks you should not denie but it may be a sufficient ground of faith Whose Faith even of the Foundation of all your Faith your Churches Authority is built lastly and wholly upon Prudentiall Motives 36 But by this Rule the whole booke of Esther must quit the Canon because it was excluded by some in the Church by Melito Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen Then for ought I know he that should thinke he had reason to exclude it now might be still in the Church as well as Melito Athanasius Nazianzen were And while you thus inveigh against Luther and charge him with Luciferian heresies for doing that which you in this very place confesse that Saints in Heaven before him have done are you not partiall and a Iudge of evill thoughts 37 Luther's censures of Ecclesiastes Iob and the Prophets though you make such tragedies with them I see none of them but is capable of a tolerable construction and far from having in them any fundamentall heresie He that condemnes him for saying the booke of Ecclesiastes is not full That it hath many abrupt things condemnes him for ought I can see for speaking truth And the rest of the censure is but a bold and blunt expression of the same thing The booke of Iob may be a true History and yet as many true stories are and haue been an Argument of a Fable to set before us an example of Patience And though the books of the Prophets were not written by themselves but by their Disciples yet it does not follow that they were written casually Though I hope you will not damne all for Heretikes that say some books of Scripture were written casually Neither is there any reason they should the sooner be call'd in question for being written by their Disciples seeing being so written they had attestation from themselues Was the Prophesie of Ieremie the lesse Canonicall for being written by Baruch Or because S. Peter the Master dictated the Gospell and S. Marke the Scholler writ it is it the more likely to be called in Question 38 But leaving Luther you returne to our English Canon of Scripture And tell us that in the new testament by the above mentioned rule of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church divers books must be canoniz'd Not so For I may believe even those questioned bookes to have been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall but I cannot in reason believe this of them so undoubtedly as of those books which were never questioned At least I have no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excuse such their doubting or deniall 39 You observe in the next place that our sixt Article specifying by name all the bookes of the Old Tstament shâ—ffles over these of the New with this generality All the books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we doe receive and account them Canonicall And in this you phansy to your selfe a mystery of iniquity But if this be all the shuffling that the Church of England is guilty of I believe the Church as well as the King may give for her Motto Honi soit qui mal â— pense For all the Bibles which since the composing of the Articles have been used and allowed by the Church of England doe testify and even proclaime to the World that by CoÌ„monly received they meant received by the Church of Rome and other Churches before the Reformation I pray take the paines to look in them and there you shall finde the bookes which the Church of England counts Apocryphall marked out and severed from the rest with this title in the begining The bookes called Apocrypha and with this close or seal in the end The end of the Apocrypha And having told you by name and in particular what bookes only shee esteemes Apocryphall I hope you will not put her to the trouble of telling you that the rest are in her judgement Canonicall 40 But if by Commonly received shee meant by the Church of Rome Then by the same reason must she receive divers books of the old Testament which she reiects 41 Certainly a very good consequence The Church of England receives the Bookes of the New Testament which the Church of Rome receives Therefore she must receive the bookes of the old Testament which she receives As if you should say If you will doe as we in one thing you must in all things If you will pray to God with us ye must pray to Saints with us If you hold with us when we have reason on our side you must doe so when we have no reason 42 The discourse following is but a vaine declamation No man thinks that this Controversie is to be tryed by most voices but by the Iudgement and Testimony of the ancient Fathers and Churches 43 But with what Coherence can we say in the former part of the Article That by Scripture we mean those Bookes that were never doubted of and in the latter say We receive all the bookes of the new Testament as they are commonly received whereas of them many were doubted I answere When they say of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church They mean not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any time doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not universall yet at least sufficient to make considering men receive them for Canonicall In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and authority was not so great as to prevaile against the contrary suffrages 44 But if to be commonly received passefor a good rule to know the Canon of the new Testament by why not of the Old You conclude many times very well but still when you doe so it is out of principles which no man grants For who ever told you that to be commonly received is a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by Have you been train'd up in Schooles of subtilty and cannot you see a great difference between these two We receive the bookes of the new Testament as they are commonly received and we receive those that are commonly received because they are so To say this were indeed to make being commonly received a Rule or Reason to know the Canon by But to say the former doth no more make it a Rule then you should make the Church of England the rule of your receiving them if you should say as you may The bookes of the New Testament we receive for Canonicall as they are received by the Church of England 45 You demand upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther against
you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it selfe no more apparently reasonable then our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say your Churches infallibility is your ground I demand againe some infallible ground both for the Churches infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands untill you settle me upon a Rock I mean giue such an Answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Vniversall Tradition I reply your Churches infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receiue it is For wee doe not professe our selues so absolutely and and undoubtedly certain neither doe we urge others to be so of those Books which haue been doubted as of those that never haue 46 The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it selfe alone but by some extrinsecall authority Which you need not proue for no wise man denies it But then this authority is that of Vniversall Tradition not of your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospell of Saint Mathew is the word of God as that all which your Church saies is true 47 That Believers of the Scripture by considering the divine matter the excellent precepts the glorious promises contained in it may be confirmed in their faith of the Scriptures divine Authority that among other inducements and inforcements hereunto internall arguments haue their place and force certainly no man of understanding can deny For my part I professe if the doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the fountain of goodnesse as the Miracles by which it was confirm'd were great I should want one main pillar of my faith and for want of it I feare should be much stagger'd in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Belieuer sees by that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is hee is moved to and strengthned in his beliefe of it and by this partly not wholly by this not alone but with the concurrence of other Arguments He that will quarrell with him for saying so must finde fault with the Master of the Sentences and all his Schollers for they all say the same The rest of this Paragraph I am as willing it should be true◠as you are to haue it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholy unconcern'd You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffred you to haue said so much Truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose 48 In the next Division out of your liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporall light is by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposall Faith still you say must goe before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that haue eyes so the Scripture onely to those that haue the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture doe moue and determine our Vnderstanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must bee before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else then the Vnderstanding's assent And therefore upon this supposall Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presuppos'd before the assent of faith unto which it moues and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it selfe being able as here you suppose to determine and moue the understanding to assent that is to belieue them and the Verities contained in them Neither is this to say that the eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceiue that in this comparison Faith answers to the Eye But if you will not pervert it the Analogie must stand thus◠Scripture must answer to light The eye of the soule that is the Vnderstanding or the faculty of assenting to the bodily eye And lastly assenting or believing to the act of seeing As therefore the light determining the Eye to see though it presupposes the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the object on which it is imployed yet it selfe is presuppos'd and antecedent to the act of seeing as the cause is alwaies to its effect So if you will suppose that Scripture like light moues the understanding to assent The Vnderstanding that 's the eye and object on which it works must bee before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the beliefe whereto the Scripture moues and the understanding is mov'd which answers to the act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already to what purpose should the Scripture doe that which was done before Nay indeed how were it possible it should be so any more then a Father can beget a Sonne that he hath already Or an Architect build an house that is built already Or then this very world can bee made againe before it be unmade Transubstantiation indeed is fruitfull of such Monsters But they that haue not sworne themselues to the defence of Errour will easily perceiue that I am factum facere and Factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digresse 49 The close of this Paragraph is a fit cover for such a dish There you tell us That if there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget faith this can be no other then the Church By the Church we know you doe and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can haue faith but he must bee mou'd to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants to whom you write though they verily think they are Christians belieue the Gospell because they assent to the truth of it and would willingly dye for it yet indeed are Infidels and belieue nothing The Scripture tells us The heart of man knoweth no man but the spirit of man which is in him And who are you to take upon you to make us belieue that we doe not belieue what we know we doe But if I may think verily that I belieue the Scripture and yet not belieue it how know you that you belieue the Roman Church I am as verily and as
strongly perswaded that I belieue the Scripture as you are that you belieue the Church And if I may be deceived why may not you Againe what more ridiculous and against sense and experience then to affirme That there are not millions amongst you and us that belieue upon no other reason then their education and the authority of their Parents and Teachers and the opinion they haue of them The tendernesse of the subject and aptnesse to receiue impressions supplying the defect and imperfection of the Agent And will you proscribe from heaven all those believers of your own Creed who doe indeed lay the foundation of their Faith for I cannot call it by any other name no deeper then upon the Authority of their Father or Master or parish Priest Certainly if these haue no true faith your Church is very full of Infidels Suppose Xaverius by the holynesse of his life had converted some Indians to Christianity who could for so I will suppose haue no knowledge of your Church but from him and therefore must last of all build their Faith of the Church upon their Opinion of Xaverius Doe these remain as very Pagans after their conversion as they were before Are they brought to assent in their soules and obey in their liues the Gospell of Christ only to be Tantaliz'd and not saved and not benefited but deluded by it because forsooth it is a man and not the Church that begets faith in them What if their motiue to beleeue be not in reason sufficient Doe they therefore not belieue what they doe belieue because they doe it upon insufficient motiues They choose the Faith imprudently perhaps but yet they doe choose it Vnlesse you will haue us belieue that that which is done is not done because it is not done upoÌ„ good reason which is to say that never any man living ever did a foolish action But yet I know not why the Authority of one holy man which apparently has no ends upon me joyn'd with the goodnesse of the Christian faith might not be a far greater and more rationall motiue to me to imbrace Christianity then any I can haue to continue in Paganisme And therefore for shame if not for loue of Truth you must recant this fancie when you write again and suffer true faith to be many times where your Churches infallibility has no hand in the begetting of it And be content to tell us hereafter that we belieue not enough and not goe about to perswade us we belieue nothing for feare with telling us what we know to be manifestly false you should gain only this Not to be believed when you speak truth Some pretty sophismes you may happily bring us to make us belieue we belieue nothing but wise men know that Reason against Experience is alwaies Sophisticall And therefore as he that could not answer Zenoe's subtilities against the existence of Motion could yet confute them by doing that which he pretended could not be done So if you should giue me a hundred Arguments to perswade me because I doe not belieue Transubstantiation I doe not believe in God and the Knots of them I could not untie yet I should cut them in peeces with doing that and knowing that I doe so which you pretend I cannot doe 50 In the thirteenth division we haue again much adoe about nothing A great deal of stirre you keep in confuting some that pretend to know Canonicall Scripture to be such by the Titles of the Books But these men you doe not name which makes me suspect you cannot Yet it is possible there may be some such men in the world for Gusman de Alfarache hath taught us that the Fooles hospitall is a large place 51 In the fourteenth § we haue very artificiall jugling D. Potter had said That the Scripture hee desires to bee understood of those books wherein all Christians agree is a principle and needs not be proved among Christians His reason was because that needs no farther proofe which is believed already Now by this you say he meanes either that the Scripture is one of these first Principles and most known in all sciences which cannot be proved which is to suppose it cannot be proved by the Church and that is to suppose the Question Or hee meanes That it is not the most known in Christianity then it may be prov'd Where we see plainly That two most different things Most known in all Sciences Most known in Christianity are captiously confounded As if the Scripture might not be the first and most knowne Principle in Christianity and yet not the most knowne in all Sciences Or as if to be a First Principle in Christianity and in all Sciences were all one That Scripture is a Principle among Christians that is so received by all that it need not be proved in any emergent Controversie to any Christian but may be taken for granted I think few will deny You your selues are of this a sufficient Testimony for urging against us many texts of Scripture you offer no proofe of the truth of them presuming we will not question it Yet this is not to deny that Tradition is a Principle more knowne then Scripture But to say it is a principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men 52 But it is repugnant to our practice to hold Scripture a Principle because we are wont to affirme that one part of Scripture may be knowne to be Canonicall and may be interpreted by another Where the former device is againe put in practice For to be known to be Canonicall and to be interpreted is not all one That Scripture may be interpreted by Scripture that Protestants grant and Papists doe not deny neither does that any way hinder but that this assertion Scripture is the word of God may be among Christians a common Principle But the first â—That one part of Scripture may proue another part Canonicall and need no proofe of its own being so for that you haue produc'd divers Protestants that deny it but who they are that affirme it nondum Constat 53 It is superfluous for you to proue out of S. Athanasius S. Austine that we must receiue the sacred Canon upon the credit of Gods Church Vnderstanding by Church as here you explaine your selfe The credit of Tradition And that not the Tradition of the Present Church which we pretend may deviate from the Ancient but such a Tradition which involues an evidence of Fact and from hand to hand from age to age bringing us up to the times and persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe commeth to be confirm'd by all these Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinc'd their doctrine to be true Thus you Now proue the Canon of Scripture which you receive by such Tradition and we will allow it Proue your whole doctrine or the infallibility of your Church by such a Tradition we will yeeld to you in all
Church which hath delivered at severall times Scriptures in many places different and repugnant for Authenticall Canonicall Which is most evident out of the place of Malachie which is so quoted for the Sacrifice of the Masse that either all the ancient Fathers had false Bibles or yours is false Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of Iacob in Genesis with that which is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrewes according to the vulgar Edition But aboue all to any one who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtus and Clement so evident that the wit of man cannot disguise it 93 And thus you see what reason we haue to belieue your Antecedent That your Church it is which must declare what Books bee true Scripture Now for the consequence that certainty is as liable to exception as the Antecedent For if it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige Him or would it follow from hence that He had oblig'd himselfe to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of Scripture God is not defectiue in things necessary neither will he leave himselfe without witnesse nor the World without meanes of knowing his will and doing it And therefore it was necessary that by his Providence he should preserve the Scripture from any undiscernable corruptiō in those things which he would haue known otherwise it is apparent it had not been his will that these things should be known the only meanes of continuing the knowledge of them being perished But now neither is God lavish in superfluities and therefore having given us meanes sufficient for our direction and power sufficient to make use of these meanes he will not constraine or necessitate us to make use of these meanes For that were to crosse the end of our Creation which was to be glorified by our free obedience whereas necessity and freedome cannot stand together That were to reverse the Law which he hath prescribed to himselfe in his dealing with men and that is to set life and death before him and to leaue him in the hands of his own Counsell God gaue the Wisemen a Starre to lead them to Christ but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this starre that was left to their liberty God gaue the Children of Israel a Fire to lead them by night and a Pillar of Cloud by day but he constrained no man to follow them that was left to their liberty So he giues the Church the Scripture which in those things which are to be believed or done are plain and easie to be follow'd like the Wise men's Starre Now that which he desires of us on our part is the Obedience of Faith and loue of the Truth and desire to finde the true sense of it and industry in searching it and humility in following and Constancy in professing it all which if he should work in us by an absolute irresistible necessity he could no more require of us as our duty then he can of the Sunne to shine of the Sea to ebb flowe and of all other Creatures to doe those things which by meere necessity they must doe and cannot choose Besides what an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture whereas there are thousands of places of Scripture which you doe not pretend certainly to understand and about the Interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themselues If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture why doe not your Doctors follow her infallible direction And if they doe how comes such difference among them in their Interpretations 94 Again why does your Church thus put her candle under a Bushell and keep her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in napkins Why sets she not forth Infallible Commentaries or Expositions upon all the Bible Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians that Scripture should be Interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The Scripture it selfe tells us All Scripture is profitable And the Scripture is not so much the Words as the Sense And if it be not profitable why does shee imploy particular Doctors to interpret Scriptures fallibly unlesse we must think that fallible Interpretations of Scripture are profitable and infallible interpretations would not be so 95 If you say the Holy Ghost which assists the Church in interpreting will move the Church to interpret when he shall think fit and that the Church will doe it when the Holy Ghost shall move her to doe it I demand whether the Holy Ghost's moving of the Church to such works as these be resistible by the Church or irresistible If resistible then the Holy Ghost may move and the Church may not be moved As certainly the Holy Ghost doth alwaies move to an action when he shewes us plainly that it would be for the good of men and honour of God As he that hath any sense will acknowledge that an infallible exposition of Scripture could not but be and there is no conceivable reason why such a work should be put off a day but only because you are conscious to your selves you cannot doe it and therefore make excuses But if the moving of the Holy Ghost be irresistible and you are not yet so mov'd to goe about this work then I confesse you are excused But then I would know whether those Popes which so long deferred the calling of a Councell for the Reformation of your Church at length pretended to be effected by the Councell of Trent whether they may excuse themselves for that they were not moved by the Holy Ghost to doe it I would know likewise as this motion is irresistible when it comes so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your Church to any such publique Action that it cannot possibly move without it That is whether the Pope now could not if he would seat himselfe in Cathedra and fall to writing expositions upon the Bible for the directions of Christians to the true sense of it If you say he cannot you will make your selfe ridiculous If he can then I would know whether he should be infallibly directed in these expositions or no If he should then what need he to stay for irresistible motion Why does he not goe about this noble worke presently If he should not How shall we know that the calling of the Councell of Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion or upon humane importunity and suggestion and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost And consequently how shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no seeing he assists none but what he himselfe moves to And whether he did move the Pope to call this Councell is a secret thing which we cannot possibly know nor perhaps the Pope himselfe 96 If you say your meaning is only
every one is obliged not to believe the contrary of any one point known to be testified by God For that were in fact to affirme that God could be deceived or would deceive which were to overthrow the whole certainty of our faith wherein the thing most principall is not the point which we believe which Divines call the Materiall Object but the chiefest is the Motive for which we believe to wit Almighty Gods infallible revelation or authority which they terme the Formall Object of our faith In two senses therefore and with a double relation points of faith may be called fundamentall and necessary to salvation The one is taken with reference to the Affirmative Precept when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and believe them explicitely and severally In this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith which D. Potter to no purpose laboureth to prove against his Adversary who in expresse words doth grant and explicate it But the Doctor thought good to dissemble the matter and not to say one pertinent word in defence of his distinction as it was impugned by Charity Mistaken and as it is wont to be applied by Protestants The other sense according to which points of faith may be called Fundamentall and necessary to salvation with reference to the Negative precept of faith is such that we cannot without grievous sinne and forfeiture of salvation disbelieve any one point sufficiently propounded as revealed by Almighty God And in this sense we avouch that there is no distinction in points of faith as if to reject some must bee damnable and to reject others equally proposed as Gods word might stand with salvation Yea the obligation of the Negative precept is farre more strict then is that of the Affirmative which God freely imposed and may freely release But it is impossible that he can dispense or give leave to disbelieue or deny what he affirmeth in this sense sin damnation are more inseparable from error in points not fundamentall then from ignorance in Articles fundamentall All this I shew by an example which I wish to be particularly noted for the present and for divers other occasions hereafter The Creed of the Apostles containes divers fundamentall points of faith as the Deity Trinity of Persons Incarnation Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour Christ c. It containes also some points for their matter and nature in themselves not fundamentall as under what Iudge our Saviour suffered that he was buried the circumstance of the time of his Resurrection the third day c. But yet neverthelesse whosoever once knowes that these points are contained in the Apostles Creed the deniall of them is damnable and is in that sense a fundamentall error and this is the precise point of the present question 3 And all that hitherto hath been said is so manifestly true that no Protestant or Christian if he doe but understand the termes and state of the Question can possibly deny it In so much as I am amazed that men who otherwise are endued with excellent wits should so enslave themselves to their Predecessors in Protestantismeâ— as still to harp on this distinction and never regard how impertinently untruly it was implied by them at first to make all Protestants seem to be of one fayth because forsooth they agree in fundamentall points For the difference among Protestants consists not in that some believe some points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressely to know as the distinction ought to be applied but that some of them disbelieve and directly wittingly and willingly oppose what others doe believe to be testified by the word of God wherein there is no difference between points fundamentall and not fundamentall Because till points fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God it is not against faith to reject them or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to believe them and the like is of points not fundamentall which assoone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine Truths they can no more be denyed then points fundamentall propounded after the same manner Neither will it avayle them to their other end that for preservation of the Church in being it is sufficient that she doe not erre in points fundamentall Foâ— if in the mean time she maintain any one Errour against Gods revelation be the thing in it selfe never so small her Errour is damnable and destructive of salvation 4 But D. Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make use of their distinction doth finally overthrow it and yields to as much as we can desire For speaking of that measure Quantity of faith without which none can be saved he sayth It is enough to believe some things by a vertuall faith or by a generall and as it were a negative faith whereby they are not denyed or contradicted Now our question is in case that divine truths although not fundamentall be denied and contradicted aad therefore even according to him all such deniall excludes salvation After he speaks more plainly It is true saith he whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propoundid by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamentall in regard of the divine authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be deâ—ied or contradicted without Infidelity such as every Christian is bound with humility and reverence to believe whensoever the knowledge thereof is offered to him And further Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of error and he who is thus convinced is an Heretique and Heresie is a work of the flesh which excludeth from heaven Gal. 5. 20. 21. And hence it followeth that it is FVNDAMENTALL to a Christians FAITH and necessary for his salvation that he believe all revealed Truths of God whereof he may be convinced that they are from God Can any thing be spoken more clearly or directly for us that it is a Fundamentall error to deny any one point though never so small if once it be sufficiently propounded as a divine truth and that there is in this sense no distinction betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall And if any should chance to imagine that it is against the foundation of faith not to believe points Fundamentall although they be not sufficiently propounded D. Potter doth not admit of this difference betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall For he teacheth that sufficient proposition of revealed truth is required before a man can be convinced and for want of sufficient conviction he excuseth the Disciples from heresy although they believed not our Saviours Resurrection which is a very fundamentall point of faith Thus then I argue out of D. Potters own confession No error is damnable unlesse the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Every error is
damnable if the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Therefore all errors are alike for the generall effect of damnation if the difference arise not from the manner of being propounded And what now is become of their distinction 5 I will therefore conclude with this Argument According to all Philosophy and Divinity the Vnity and distinction of every thing followeth the Nature and Essence thereof and therefore if the Nature and being of faith be not taken from the matter which a man believes but from the motive for which he believes which is Gods word or Revelation we must likewise affirme that the Vnity and Diversity of faith must be measured by Gods revelation which is alike for all objects and not by the smalnesse or greatnesse of the matter which we believe Now that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatnesse or smalnesse of the things believed is manifest because otherwise one who believes only fundamentall points and another who together with them doth also believe points not fundamentall should have faith of different natures yea there should be as many differences of faith as there are different points which men believe according to different capacities or instruction c. all which consequences are absurd and therefore we must say that Vnity in Faith doth not depend upon points fundamentall or not fundamentall but upon Gods revelation equally or unequally proposed and Protestants pretending an Vnity only by reason of their agreement in fundamentall points doe indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them and since they disagree in things Equally revealed by Almighty God it is evident that they forsake the very Formall motive of faith which is Gods revelanon and consequently loose all Faith and Vnity therein 6 The first part of the Title of this Chapter That the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall in the sense of Protestants is both impertinent and untrue being demonstrated let us now come to the second That the Church is infallible in all her definitions whether they concerne points fundamentall or not fundamentall And this I prove by these reasons 7 It hath been shewed in the precedent Chapter that the Church is Iudge of Controversies which she could not be if she could erre in any one point as Doctor Potter would not deny if he were once perswaded that she is Iudge Because if the could erre in some points we could not rely upon her Authority and Iudgment in any one thing 8 This same is proved by the reason we alleadged before that seeing the Church was infallible in all her definitions ere Scripture was written unlesse we will take away all certainty of faith for that time we cannot with any shew of reason affirme that shee hath been deprived thereof by the adjoyned confort and helpe of sacred writ 9 Moreover to say that the Catholique Church may propose any false doctrine maketh her lyable to damnable sinne and error and yet D. Potter teacheth that the Church cannot erre damnably For if in that kind of Oath which Divines call Assertorium wherein God is called to witnesse every falshood is a deadly sinne in any private person whatsoever although the thing be of it selfe neither materiall nor prejudiciall to any because the quantity or greatnesse of that sinne is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed as by the manner and authority whereby it is avouched and by the injury that is offered to Almighty God in applying his testimony to a falshood in which respect it is the unanimous consent of all Divines that in such kind of Oathes no levitas materiae that is smallnes of matter can excuse from a morall sacriledge against the morall vertue of Religion which respects worship due to God If I say every least falshood be deadly sinne in the foresaid kind of Oath much more pernicious a sinne must it be in the publique person of the Catholique Church to propound untrue Articles of faith thereby fastning Gods prime Verity to falshood and inducing and obliging the world to doe the same Besides according to teh doctrine of all Divines it is not only injurious to Gods Eternall Verity to disbelieve things by him revealed but also to propose as revealed truths things not revealed as in common wealths it is a haynous offence to coyne either by counterfeiting the metall or the stamp or to apply the Kings seale to a writing counterfeit although the contents were supposed to be true And whereas to shew the detestable sinne of such pernitious fictions the Church doth most exemplarly punish all broachers of fained revelations visions miracles prophecies c. as in particular appeareth in the Councell of Lateran excommunicating such persons if the Church her selfe could propose false revelations she herselfe should have been the first chiefest deserver to have been censured and as it were excommunicated by herselfe For as the holy Ghost saith in Iob doth God need your lye that for him you may speak deceipts And that of the Apocalyps is most truly verified in fictitious revelations If any shall adde to these things God will adde unto him the plagues which are written in this book and D. Potter saith to adde to it speaking of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract from it And therefore to say the Church may addefalse Revelations is to accuse her of high presumption and of pernitious errour excluding salvation 10 Perhaps some will here reply that although the Church may erre yet it is not imputed to her for sinne by reason shee doth not erre upon malice or wittingly but by ignorance or mistake 11 But it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cannot serve For if the Church be assisted only for points fundamentall she cannot but know that she may erre in points not fundamentall at least she cannot be certain that she cannot erre and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernitious temerity in proposing points not fundamentall to be believed by Christians as matters of faith wherein she can have no certainty yea which alwaies imply a falshood For although the thing might chance to be true and perhaps also revealed yet for the matter she for her part doth alwaies expose her selfe to danger of falshood and error and in fact doth alwaies erre in the â—anner in which she doth propound any matter not fundamentall because shee proposeth it as a point of faith certainly true which yet is alwaies uncertain if she in such things may be deceived 12 Besides if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall she may erre in proposing some Scripture for Canonicall which is not such or else not erre in keeping and conserving from corruptions such Scriptures as are already believed to be Canonicall For I will suppose that in such Apocryphaâ—â— Scripture as she delivers there is no fundamentall error against faith or
be what can it be but curiosity to desire to know it Neither may you think to mend your selfe herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call Papists for they are as farre to seek as wee in this point which of the Articles of the Creed are for their nature and matter fundamentall and which are not Particularly you will scarce meet with any amongst their Doctors so adventurous as to tell you for a certain whether or no the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost his being born of a Virgin his Buriall his descent into Hell and the Communion of Saints be points of their own nature and matter fundamentall Such I mean as without the distinct and explicite knowledge of them no man can be saved 63 But you will say at least they give this certain rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of faith in such sense as to deny any such cannot stand with Salvation So also Protestants give you this more certain rule That whosoever believes heartily those books of Scripture which all the Christian Churches in the world acknowledge to be Canonicall and submits himselfe indeed to this as to the rule of his belief must of necessity believe all things fundamentall and if he live according to his faith cannot fail of Salvation But besides what certainty have you that that rule of Papists is so certain By the visible Church it is plain they mean only their own and why their own only should be the Visible Church I doe not understand and as little why all points defined by this Church should belong to the foundation of faith These things you had need see well and substantially proved before you rely upon them otherwise you expose your selfe to danger of imbracing damnable errors instead of Fundamentall truth's But you will say D. Potter himselfe acknowledges that we doe not erre in Fundamentalls If he did so yet me thinkes you have no reason to rest upon his acknowledgement with any security whom you condemne of errour in many other matters Perhaps excesse of Charity to your persons may make him censure your errors more favourably then he should doe But the truth is and so I have often told you though the Doctor hope that your errors are not so unpardonably destructive but that some men who ignorantly hold them may be saved yet in themselves he professes and proclaimes them damnable and such as he feares will be certainly destructive to such as you are that is to all those who have eyes to see and will not see them 64 Ad § 20. 21. 22. 23. In the Remainder of this Chapter you promise to answer D. Potters Arguments against that which you said before But presently forgetting your selfe in stead of answering his Arguments you fall a confuting his Answers to your own The arguments objected by you which here you vindicate were two 1. The Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed therefore the Creed containes not all things necessary to be believed 2. Baptisme is not contained in the Creed therefore not all things necessary To both which Arguments my Answer shortly is this that they prove something but it is that which no man here denies For D. Potter as you have also confessed never said not undertook to shew that the Apostles intended to comprize in the Creed all points absolutely which we are bound to believe or after sufficient proposall not to disbelieve which yet here and every where you are obtruding upon him But only that they purposed to comprize in it all such doctrines purely speculative all such matters of simple belief as are in ordinary course necessary to be distinctly and explicitly believed by all men Neither of these objections doe any way infringe or impeach the truth of this Assertion Not the first because according to your own doctrine all men are not bound to know explicitely what books of Scripture are Canonicall Nor the second because Baptisme is not a matter of Faith but practise not so much to be believed as to be given and received And against these Answers whether you have brought any considerable new matter let the indifferent Reader judge As for the other things which D. Potter rather glanceth at then builâ—s upon in answering these objections as the Creed's being collected out of Scripture and supposing the Authority of it which Gregory of Valentia in the place above cited seemes to me to confesse to have been the Iudgement of the Ancient Fathers and the Nicene Creed's intimating the authority of Canonicall Scripture and making mention of Baptisme These things were said ex abundanti and therefore I conceive it superfluous to examine your exceptions against them Prove that D. Potter did affirme that the Creed containes all things necessary to be believed of all sorts and then these objections will be pertinent and deserve an answer Or produce some point of simple belief necessary to be explicitly believed which is not contained either in termes or by consequence in the Creed and then I will either answer your Reasons or confesse I cannot But all this while you doe but trifle and are so farre from hitting the marke that you rove quite beside the But. 65 Ad § 23. 24. 25. Potterâ—emands â—emands How it can be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their times You Answer That he trifles not distinguishing between the Apostles belief and that abridgement of some Articles of faith which we call the Apostles Creed I reply that it is you which trifle affectedly confounding what D. Potter hath plainly distinguished the Apostles belief of the whole Religion of Christ as it comprehends both what we are to doe and what we are to believe with their belief of that part of it which containes not duties of obedience but only the necessary Articles of siâ—ple â—aith Now though the Apostles Beleife be in the former sense a larger thing then that which we call the Apostles Creed yet in the latter sense of the word the Creed I say is a full comprehension of their belief which you your selfe have formerly confessed though somewhat fearfully and inconstantly and here again unwillingnesse to speak the truth makes you speak that which is hardly sense and call it an abridgement of some Articles of Faith For I demand these some Articles which you speak of which are they Those that are out of the Creed or those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therefore it is not an abridgement of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therefore it is not an abridgement of them If you would call it now an abridgement of the Faith this would be sense and signify thus much That all the necessary Articles of the Christian faith are compriz'd in it For this is the proper duty of abridgements to leave out nothing
those who goe out to be Schismatiques but not those from whom they depart That to forsake the Chaire of Peter is Schisme yea that it is Schisme to erect a Chaire which had no origen or as it were predecessouâ— before it self That to continue in a division begun by others is to be Heires of Schismatiques and lastly that to depart from the Communion of a particular Church as that of S. â—yprian was is sufficient to make a man incur the guilt of Schisme and consequently that although Protestants who deny the Pope to be supreme Head of the Church doe think by that Heresy to cleere Luther from Schisme in disobeying the Pope Yet that wâ—ll not serve to free him from Schisme as it importeth a division from the obedience or Communion of the particular Bishop Diocesse Church and Country where he lived 36 But it is not the Heresy of Protestants or any other Sectaries that can deprive S. Peter and his Successours of the authority which Christ our Lord conferred upon them over his whole militant Church which is a point confessed by learned Protestants to be of great Antiquity and for which the judgement of divers most ancient holy Fathers is reproved by them as may be seen at large in Brerely exactly citing the places of such chiefe Protestants And we must say with S. Cyprian Heresies have sprung and Schismes been bred from no other cause then for that the Priest of God is not obeyed nor one Priest and Iudge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God Which words doe plainely condemne Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Vniversall or of every particular Church For he withdrew himselfe both from the obedience of the Pope and of all particular Bishops and Churches And no lesse cleere is the said Optatus Milevitanus saying Thou caust not deny but that thou knowest that in the City of Rome there was first an Episcopall Chaire placed for Peter wherein Peter the head of all the Apostles sate whereof also he was called Cephas in which one Chaire Vn was to be kept by all least the other Apostles might attribute to themselves each one his particular chaire and that he should be a Schismatique and sinner who against that one single Chaire should erect another Many other Authorities of Fathers might be alleaged to this purpose which I omit my intention being not to handle particular controversies 37 Now the arguments which hitherto I have brought prove that Luther and his followers were Schismatiques without examining for as much as belongs to this point whether or no the Church can erre in any one thing great or small because it is universally true that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the Visible Church of Christ according to S. Augustine saying It is not possible that any may have just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations upon just cause But since indeed the Church cannot erre in any one point of doctrine nor can approve any corruption in manners they cannot with any colour avoid the just imputation of eminent Schisme according to the verdict of the same holy Father in these words The most manifest sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there was no cause of separation 38 Lastly I prove that Protestants cannot avoid the note of Schisme at least by reason of their mutuall separation from one another For most certain it is that there is very great difference for the outward face of a Church and profession of a different faith between the Lutherans the rigid Calvinists and the Protestants of England So that if Luther were in the right those other Protestants who invented Doctrines far different from his and divided themselues from him must be reputed Schismatiques and the like argument may proportionably be applyed to their further divisions subdivisions Which reason I yet urge more strongly out of D. Potter who affirmes that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the errors of the Roman Church a reconciliation is impossible and damnable And yet he teacheth that their difference from the Roman Church is not in fundamentall points Now since among Protestants there is such diversity of beliefe that one denieth what the other affirmeth they must be convicted in conscience that one part is in errour at least not fundamentall and if D. Potter will speak consequently that a reconciliation between them is impossible daÌ„nable what greater division or Schisme can there be then when one part must judge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible daÌ„nable 39 Out of all which premisses this Conclusion followes That Luther his followers were Schismatiques from the universall visible Church from the Pope Christs Vicar on earth Successour to S. Peter from the particular Diocesse in which they received Baptisme from the Countrey or Nation to which they belonged from the Bishop under whom they lived many of them from the Religious Order in which they were professed from one another And lastly from a mans selfe as much as is possible because the selfe same Protestant to day is convicted in conscience that his yesterday's Opinion was an error as D. Potter knows a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant with whom therefore a reconciliation according to D. Potters grounds is both impossible and damnable 40 It seemes D. Potters last refuge to excuse himselfe and his Brethren from Schisme is because they proceeded according to their conscience dictating an obligation under damnation to forsake the errours maintained by the Church of Rome His words are Although we confesse the Church of Rome to be in some sense a true Church and her errors to some men not damnableâ— yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she erres in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors 41 I answer It is very strange that you judge us extreamly Vncharitable in saying Protestants cannot be saved while your selfe avouch the same of all learned Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse If this your pretence of conscience may serue what Schismatique in the Church what popular seditious brain in a kingdome may not alledge the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from Schisme or Sedition No man wishes them to doe any thing against their conscience but we say that they may and ought to rectifie and depose such a conscience which is easie for them to doe even according to your own affirmation that wee Catholiques want no meanes necessary to salvation Easie to doe Nay not to doe so to any man in his right wits must seem impossible For how can these two apprehensions stand together In the Roman Church I enjoy all meanes necessary to
out of Principles received by them are all peremptory that though novelty be a certain note of falshood yet no antiquity lesse then Apostolicall is a certain note of truth Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend that Protestants did confesse the Fathers against them in this point For the point here issuable is not whether S. Peter were head of the Church Nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church Nor whether he had authority over it given him by the Church But whether by Divine right and by Christs appointment he were Head of the Catholique Church Now having perused Brerely I cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with you in this point And the Reader hath reason to suspect that you also out of all the Fathers could not finde any one authority pertinent to this purpose for otherwise you were much to blame citing so few to make choice of such as are impertinent For let the understanding Reader peruse the 55. Epist. of S. Cyprian with any ordinary attention out of which you take your first place and I am confident hee shall finde that he meanes nothing else by the words quoted by you But that in one particular Church at one time there ought to bee but one Bishop and that he should be obeyed in all things lawfull The non-performance whereof was one of the most ordinary causes of heresies against the Faith and Schisme from the Communion of the Church Vniversall He shall finde secondly and that by many convincing Arguments that though he write to Cornelius Bishop of Rome yet hee speaks not of him but of himselfe then Bishop of Carthage against whom a faction of Schismatiques had then set up another And therefore here your ingenuitie is to bee commended aboue many of your side For whereas they ordinarily abuse this place to prove that in the whole Church there ought to be but one Priest and one Iudge you seem somewhat diffident hereof and thereupon say that these words plainly condemne Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Vniversall or of every particular Church But whether they condemne Luther is another Question The question here is whether they plainly proue the Popes Supremacy over al other Bishops which certainly they are as far from proving as from proving the supremacy of any other Bishop seeing it is evident they were intended not of one Bishop over the whole Catholique Church but of one Bishop in one particular Church 99 And no lesse impertinent is your saying out of Optatus if it be well lookt into though at the first sight it may seem otherwise because Optatus his scene happened to be Rome whereas S. Cyprians was Carthage The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular Now Optatus going upon S. Cyprians aboue mentioned ground of one Bishop in one Church proves them Schismatiques for so doing and he proves it by this Argument S. Peter was first Bishop of Rome neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chaire understand in that Citty for in other places others I hope had Chaires besides S. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatique who against that one single Chaire erects another understand as before in that place making another Bishop of that Diocesse besides him who was lawfully elected to it 100 But yet by the way he stiles S. Peter head of the Apostles and saies that from thence he was called Cephas Ans. Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a head whereas it is a Syriack word and signifies a stone Besides S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not have supreme Authority over them And indeed that S. Peter should have authority overall the Apostles and yet exercise no one act of Authority over any one of them and that they should shew to him no signe of subjection me thinkes is as strange as that a King of England for twenty five yeares should doe no Act of Regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it As strange me thinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to doe and that the Apostles after that those words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof S. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them S. Peter was the man but rather confirme it by saying the Kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them but it should not be so among them No lesse a wonder was it that S. Paul should so farre forget S. Peter and himselfe as that first mentioning him often he should doe it without any title of Honour Secondly speaking of the severall degrees of men in the Church he should not give S. Peter the highest but place him in equipage with the rest of the Apostles and say God hath appointed not first Peter then the rest of the Apostles but first Apostles secondly Prophets Certainly if the Apostles were all first to me it is very probable that no one of them was before the rest For by First all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sense the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must have been before every one of the rest And therefore they must be First in the other sense And therefore No man and therefore not S. Peter must be before any of them Thirdly and Lastly that speaking of himselfe in particular and perhaps comparing himselfe with S. Peter in particular rather then any other he should say in plain termes I am in nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles But besides all this Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but in your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farre from shewing that in the judgement of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much lesse by divine right successor to S. Peter in this his Headship Authority For what incōgruity is there if we say that he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church Vniversall Especially seeing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundations of the
Ordination or Succession in the Protestants Church because the Fathers alleaged in the last reason assigne Succession as one mark of the true Church I must not omit to say that according to the grounds of Protestants themselves they can neither pretend personall Succession of Bishops nor Succession of doctrine For whereas Succession of Bishops signifies a never-interrupted line of Persons endued with an indelible Quality which Divines call a Character which cannot be taken away by deposition degradation or other meanes whatsoever and endued also with Iurisdiction and Authority to teach to preach to govern the Church by lawes precepts censures c. Protestants cannot pretend Succession in either of these For besides that there was never Protestant Bishop before Luther and that there can be no continuance of Succession where there was no beginning to succeed they commonly acknowledge no Character and consequently must affirme that when their pretended Bishops or Priests are deprived of Iurisdiction or degraded they remain meer lay Persons as before their Ordination fulfilling what Tertullian objects as a mark of Heresie To â—ay a Priest to morrow a Lay-man For if here be no immoveable Character their power of Order must consist only in Iurisdiction and authoritie or in a kinde of morall deputation to some function which therefore may be taken away by the same power by which it was given Neither can they pretend Succession in Authority or Iurisdiction For all the Authority or Iurisdiction which they had was conferred by the Church of Rome that is by the Pope Because the whole Church collectively doth not meet to ordain Bishops or Priests or to giue them Authority But according to their own doctrine they believe that the Pope neither hath or ought to haue any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiassicall or Spirituall within this Realme which they sweare even when they are ordained Bishops Priests and Deacons How then can the Pope giue Iurisdiction where they sweare he neither hath nor OVGHT to haue any Or if yet he had how could they without Schisme withdraw themselves from his obedience Besides the Roman Church never gaue them Authority to oppose Her by whom it was given But grant their first Bishops had such Authority from the Church of Rome after the decease of those men who gaue Authority to their pretended Successours The Primate of England But from whom had he such Authority And after his decease who shall confer Authority upon his Successours The temporall Magistrate King Henry neither a Catholique nor a Protestant King Edward a Child Queen Elizabeth a Woman An Infant of one houres Age is true King in case of his Predecessours decease But shall your Church lye fallow till that Infant-King and green Head of the Church come to yeares of discretion Doe your Bishops your Hierarchy your Succession your Sacraments your being or not being Heretiques for want of Succession depend on this new-found Supremacy-doctrine brought in by such a man meerly upon base occasions and for shameful ends impugned by Calvin and his followers derided by the Christian world and even by chiefe Protestants as D. Andrewes Wotton c. not held for any necessary point of faith And from whoÌ„ I pray you had Bishops their Authority when there were no Christian Kings Must the Greeke Patriarchs receiue spirituall Iurisdiction from the Greek Turk Did the Pope by the Baptisme of Princes loose the spirituall Power he formerly had of conferring spirituall Iurisdiction upon Bishops Hath the temporall Magistrate authority to preach to assoile from sinnes to inflict excommunications and other Censures Why hath he not Power to excommunicate as well as to dispense in Irregularity as our late Soveraign Lord King Iames either dispensed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury or else gaue commission to some Bishops to doe it and since they were subject to their Primate and not he to them it is cleer that they had no Power to dispense with him but that power must proceed from the Prince as Superiour to them all and head of the Protestants Church in England If he haue no such authority how can he giue to others what himselfe hath not Your Ordination or Consecration of Bishops and Priests imprinting no Character can only consist in giving a Power Authority Iurisdiction or as I said before some kind of Deputation to exercise Episcopall or Priestly functions If then the temporall Magistrate conferres this Power c. he can nay he cannot chuse but Ordain and consecrate Bishops Priests as often as he confers Authority or Iurisdiction and your Bishops as soone as they are designed confirmed by the King must ip so facto be Ordained and Consecrated by him without intervention of Bishops or Matter and Form of Ordination Which absurdities you will bee more unwilling to grant then well able to avoid if you will be true to your own doctrines The Pope from whom originally you must beg your Succession of Bishops never received nor will nor can acknowledge to receiue any Spiriâ—uall Iurisdiction from any Temporall Prince and therefore if Iurisdiction must be derived from Princes he hath none at all and yet either you must acknowledge that hee hath true spirituall Iurisdiction or that yourselves can receiue none from him 21 Moreover this new Reformation or Reformed Church of Protestants will by them be pretended to be Catholique or Vniversall and not confined to England alone as the Sect of the Donatists was to Africa and therefore it must comprehend all the Reformed Churches in Germany Holland Scotland France c. In which number they of Germany Holland and France are not governed by Bishops nor regard any personall succession unlesse of such fat-benefiâ—ed Bishops as Nicolaus Amsfordius who was consecrated by Luther though Luther himselfe was never Bishop as witnesseth Dresserus And though Scotland hath of late admitted some Bishops I much doubt whether they hold them to be necessary or of divine Institution and so their enforced admitting of them doth not so much furnish that kingdome with personall Succession of Bishops as it doth convince them to want Succession of Doctrine since in this their neglect of Bishops they disagree both from the milder Protestants of England and the true Catholique Church And by this want of a continued personall Succession of Bishops they retaine the note of Schisme and Heresy So that the Church of Protestants must either not be Vniversall as being confined to England Or if you will needs comprehend all those Churches which want succession you must confesse that your Church doth not only communicate with Schismaticall and Hereticall Churches but is also compounded of such Churches and your selves cannot avoid the note of Schismatiques or Heretiques if it were but for participating with such hereticall Churches For it is impossible to retain Communion with the true Catholique Church and yet agree with them who are divided from her by Schisme or Heresy because that were to affirme that for the
nature of the habit cannot remain But the formall Obiect of faith is the supreme truth as it is manifested in Scriptures and in the doctrine of the Church which proceeds from the same supreme verity Whosoever therefore doth not rely upon the doctrine of the Church which proceeds from the supreme verity manifested in Scripture as upon an infallible Rule hee hath not the habit of faith but belieues those things which belong to faith by some other me anes then by faith as if one should remember some Conclusion and not know the reason of that demonstration it is cleer that hee hath not certain knowledge but only Opinion Now it is manifest that hee who relies on the doctrine of the Church as upon an infallible Rule will yeeld his assent to all that the Church teacheth For if among those things which she teacheth he hold what he will and doth not hold what he will not hee doth not rely upon the doctrine of the Church as upon an infallible Rule but only upon his own will And so it is cleer that an Heretique who with pertinacity denieth one Article of faith is not ready to follow the doctrine of the Church in all things And therefore it is manifest that whosoever is an Heretique in any one Article of faith concerning other Articles hath not saith but a kind of Opinion or his own will Thus far S. Thomas And afterward A man doth belieue all the Articles of faith for one and the selfe same reason to wit for the Prime Verity proposed to us in the Scripture understood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church and therefore whosoever fals from this reason or motiue is totally deprived of faith From this true doctrine wee are to infer that to retain or want the substance of faith doth not consist in the matter or multitude of the Articles but in the opposition against Gods divine testimony which is involved in every least error against faith And since some Protestants must needs erre and that they haue no certain rule to knowe why rather one then another it manifestly follows that none of them haue any Certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point Moreover D. Potter being forced to confesse that the Roman Church wants not the substance of faith it follows that she doth not erre in any one point against faith because as we haue seen out of S. Thomas every such errour destroies the substance of faith Now if the Roman Church did not erre in any one point of faith it is manifest that Protestants erre in all those points wherein they are contrary to her And this may suffice to prove that the faith of Protestants wants Infallibility 30 And now for the second Condition of faith I say If Protestants haue Certainty they want Obscurity and so haue not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or not necessiâ—ating our Vnderstanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonicall Scripture And the sense and meaning of these Canonicall Scriptures is cleer and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation Now these Principles being once supposed it cleerly followeth that what Protestants belieue as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true by this argument It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in the word of God is true But it is certain and evident that these Books in particular are the word of God Therefore it is certaine and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true Which Conclusion I take for a Maior in a second Argument and say thus It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true but it is certain and evident that such particular Articles for example the Trinity Incarnation Originall sin c. are contained in these Books Therefore it is certain and evident that these particular Objects are true Neither will it avail you to say that the said Principles are not evident by naturall discourse but onely to the eye of reason cleered by grace as you speak For supernaturall evidence no lesse yea rather more drawes and excludes obscurity then naturall evidence doth neither can the party so enlightned be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light but rather his understanding is by a necessity made captive and forced not to disbelieve what is presented by so cleare a light And therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the Apostle but an invention of your own 31 That the faith of Protestants wanteth the third Condition which was Prudence is deduced from all that hitherto hath been said What wisdome was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient and besides which there could be demonstrated no other visible Church of Christ upon earth A Church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation endued with Succession of Bishops with Visibility and Vniversality of Time and Place A Church which if it bee not the true Church her enemies cannot pretend to have any Church Ordination Scriptures Succession c. and are forced for their own sake to maintain her perpetuall Existence and Being To leave I say such a Church and frame a Community without either Vnity or means to procure it a Church which at Luthers first revolt had no larger extent then where his body was A Church without Vniversality of place or Time A Church which can pretend no Visibility or Being except only in that former Church which it opposeth A Church void of Succession of Persons oâ— Doctrine What wisedome was it to follow such men as Luther in an opposition against the visible Church of Christ begun upon meer passion What wisdome is it to receive from Vs a Church Ordination Scriptures Personall Succession and not Succession of Doctrine Is not this to verifie the name of Heresie which signifieth Election or Choice Whereby they cannot avoid that note of Imprudency or as S. Augustine calls it Foolishnesse set down by him against the Manichees and by me recited before I would not saith he belieue the Gospell unlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me Those therefore whom I obeyed saying Belieue the Gospel why should I not obey the same meÌ„ saying to me Doe not belieue Manichaeus Luther Calvin c. Choose what thou pleasest If thou say Belieue the Catholiques they warne me not to belieue thee Wherefore if I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say Doe not belieue the Catholiques thou shalt not doe well in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus because by the Preaching of Catholiques I believed the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them Catholiques commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommending Manichaeus dost thou think me so very FOOLISH that without any reason at all I should belieue what
thou wilt and not belieue what thou wilt not Nay this holy Father is not content to call it Foolishnesse but meer Maâ—nesse in these words Why should I not most diligently enquire what Christ commanded of those before all others by whose Authority I was moved to belieue that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he said whom I would not haue thought to haue been or to be if the Beliefe thereof had been recommended by thee to me Thâ— therefore I believed by fame strengthned with Celebrity Consent Antiquitie But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing which deserues Authority What MADNESSE is this Belieue them Catholiques that we ought to belieue Christ but learne of us what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach mee any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ then I should learne any thing concerning him from other then those by whom I believed him Lastly I aske what wisedome it could bee to leaue all visible Churches and consequently the true Catholique Church of Christ which you confesse cannot erre in points necessary to salvation and the Roman Church which you grant doth not erre in fundamentalls and follow private men who may erre even in points necessary to salvation Especially if we adde that when Luther rose there was no visible true Catholique Church besides that of Rome and them who agreed with her in which sense she was and is the only true Church of Christ and not capable of any Error in faith Nay even Luther who first opposed the Roman Church yet comming to dispute against other Heretiques he is forced to give the Lye both to his own words and deeds in saying We freely confesse that in the Papacy there are many good things worthy the name of Christian which have come from them to us Namely we confesse that in the Papacy there is true Scripture true Baptisme the true Sacrament of the Altar the true keys for remission of sinnes the true office of Preaching true Catechisme as our Lords Prayer Ten Commandements Articles of faith c. And afterward I avouch that under the Papacy there is true Christianity yea the Kernell and Marrow of Christianity and many pious and great Saints And again he affirmeth that the Church of Rome hath the true Spirit Gospells Faith Baptisme Sacraments the Keyes the Office of Preaching Prayer Holy Scripture and whatsoever Christianity ought to have And a little before I heare and see that they bring in Anabaptisme only to this end that they may spight the Pope as men that will receive nothing from Antichrist no otherwise then the Sacramentaries doe who therefore believe only Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament meerely in hatred against the Bishop of Rome and they think that by this meanes they shall overcome the Papacy Verily these men rely upon a weak ground for by this meanes they must deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For we have all these things from the Pope otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture O Truth more forcible as S. Austine saies to wring out Confession then is any racke or torment And so we may truly say with Moyses Inimici nostri sunt Iudices Our very Enemies give sentence for us 32 Lastly since your faith wanteth Certainty and Prudence it is easy to inferre that it wants the fourth Condition Supernaturality For being but an Humane perswasion or Opinion it is not in nature or Essence Supernaturall And being imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from divine Motion and grace and therefore it is neither supernaturall in it selfe nor in the cause from which it proceedeth 33 Since therefore we have proved that whosoever erres against any one point of faith looseth all divine faith even concerning those other Articles wherein he doth not erre and that although he could still retaine true faith for some points yet any one errour in whatsoever other matter concerning faith is a grievous sinne it cleerely followes that when two or more hold different doctrines concerning faith and Religion there can be but one Part saved For declaring of which truth if Catholiques be charged with Want of Charity and Modesty and be accused of rashnesse ambition and fury as D. Potter is very free in this kind I desire every one to ponder the words of S. Chrysostome who teacheth that every least errour overthrowes all faith and whosoever is guilty thereof is in the Church like one who in the Common wealth forgeth false come Let them heare saith this holy Father what S. Paul saith Namely that they who brought in some small errour had overthrown the Gospell For to shew how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole he said that the Gospell was subverted For as he who clips a little of the stamp from the Kings mony makes the whole piece of no value so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound faith is wholly corrupted alwaies going from that beginning to worse things Where then are they who condemne us as contentious persons because we cannot agree with Heretiques and doe often say that there is no difference betwixt us and them but that our disagreement proceeds from Ambition to dominere And thus having shewed that Protestants want true Faith it remaineth that according to my first designe I examine whether they doe not also want Charity as it respects a mans selfe THE ANSVVER TO THE SIXTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not Heretiques HE that will accuse any one man much more any great multitude of men of any great and horrible crime should in all reason and justice take care that the greatnesse of his evidence doe equall if not exceed the quality of the crime And such an accusation you would here make shew of by pretending first to lay such grounds of it as are either already proved or else yeelded on all sides and after to raise a firme and stable structure of convincing arguments upon them But both these I find to be meere and vaine pretences and having considered this Chapter also without prejudice or passion as I did the former I am enforc'd by the light of Truth to pronounce your whole discourse a painted and ruinous Building upon a weak sandy Foundation 2 Ad § 2. 3. First for your grounds a great part of theÌ„ is falsely said to be either proved or granted It is true indeed that Man by his naturall wit or industry could never have attained to the knowledge of Gods will to give him a supernaturall and eternall happinesse nor of the meanes by which his pleasure was to bestow this happinesse upon him And therefore your first ground is good That it was requisite his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that end and meanes by a knowledge supernaturall I say this is good if you mean
no other Bishop but our Lord Iesus only had power to judge with authority of his judgement and as plainly intimates that Stephen for usurping such a power and making himselfe a judge over Bishops was little better then a Tyrant and as heavily almost he censures him and peremptorily opposes him as obstinate in error in that very place where he delivers that famous saying How can he have God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother little doubting it seemes but a man might have the Church for his Mother who stood in opposition to the Church of Rome and farre from thinking what you fondly obtrude upon him that to be united to the Roman Church and to the Church was all one and that separation from S. Peters Chaire was a marke I mean a certain marke either of Schisme or Heresy If after all this you will catch at a phrase or a complement of S. Cyprians and with that hope to perswade Protestants who know this story as well as their own name that S. Cyprian did believe that falsehood could not have accesse to the Roman Church and that opposition to it was the brand of an Heretique may we not well expect that you will the next time you write vouch Luther Caluin also for Abettors of this Phancy and make us poore men believe not only as you say that we have no Metaphysicks but that we have no sense And when you have done so it will be no great difficulty for you to assure us that we read no such thing in Bellarmine as that Cyprian was alwaies accounted in the number of Catholiques nor in Canisius that he was a most excellent Doctor and a most glorious Martyr nor in your Calendar that he is a Saint and a Martyr but that all these are deceptions of our sight and that you ever esteemed him a very Schismatique and an Heretique as having on him the Marke of the Beast opposition to the chaire of Peter Nay that he what ever he pretended knew and believed himselfe to be so in as much as he knew as you pretend and esteemed this opposition to be the Marke of Heresy and knew himselfe to stand and stand out in such an opposition 26 But we need not seeke so farre for matter to refute the vanity of this pretence Let the reader but peruse this very Epistle out of which this sentence is alleaged and he shall need no farther satisfaction against it For he shall finde first that you have helped the dice a little with a false or at least with a very bold and streined Translation for S. Cyprian saith not to whom falshood cannot have accesse by which many of your favourable Readers I doubt understood that Cyprian had exempted that Church from a possibility of error but to whom perfidiousnesse cannot have accesse meaning by perfidiousnesse in the abstract according to a common figure of speech those perfidious Schismatiques whom he there complaines of and of these by a Rhetoricall insinuation he saies that with such good Christians as the Romans were it was not possible they should finde favourable entertainment Not that he conceived it any way impossible they should doe so for the very writing this Epistle and many passages in it plainly shew the contrary But because he was confident or at least would seeme to be confident they never would and so by his good opinion and confidence in the Romans lay an obligation upon them to doe as he presum'd they would doe as also in the end of his Epistle he saies even of the people of the Church of Rome that being defended by the providence of their Bishop nay by their own Vigilance sufficiently guarded they could not be taken nor deceived with the poysons of Heretiques Not that indeed he thought either this or the former any way impossible For to what purpose but for prevention hereof did he write this long and accurate and vehement Epistle to Cornelius which sure had been most vainly done to prevent that which he knew or believed impossible Or how can this consist with his taking notice in the begining of it that Cornelius was somewhat moved and wrought upon by the attempts of his Adversaries with his reprehending him for being so and with his vehement exhorting him to courage and constancy or with his request to him in the conclusion of his Epistle that it should be read publiquely to the whole Clergy and Laity of Rome to the intent that if any contagion of their poisoned speech and pestiferous semination had crept in amongst them it might be wholly taken away from the eares and the hearts of the Brethren and that the entire and syncere charity of good men might be purged from all drosse of hereticall detraction Or lastly with his vehement perswasions to them to decline for the time to come and resolutely avoid their word and conference because their speech crept as a canker as the Apostle saith because evill communication would corrupt good natures because wicked men carry perdition in their mouthes and hide fire in their lips All which had been but vain and ridiculous pagentry had he verily believed the Romans such inaccessible Forts such immoveable Rocks as the former sentences would seeme to import if we will expound them rigidly and strictly according to the exigence of the words not allow him who was a professed Maister of the Art to have used here a little Rhetorique and to say That could not be whereof he had no absolute certainty but that it might be but only had or would seem to have a great confidence that it never would be ut fides habita fidem obligaret that he professing to be confident of the Romans might lay an obligation upon them to doe as he promist himselfe they would doe For as for joyning the Principall Church and the Chair of Peter how that will serve for your present purpose of proving separation from the Roman Church a marke of Heresy I suppose it is hard to understand Nor indeed how it will advantage you in any other designe against us who doe not altogether deny but that the Church of Rome might be called the Chaire of Peter in regard he is said to have preached the Gospell there and the principall Church because the City was the Principall and Imperiall City which Prerogative of the City if we believe the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon was the ground and occasion why the Fathers of former time I pray observe conferred upon this Church this Prerogative above other Churches 27 And as farre am I from understanding how you can collect from the other sentence that to communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome and to communicate with the Catholique Church is alwaies for that is your Assumpt one and the same thing S. Cyprian speaks not of the Church of Rome at all but of the Bishop only who when he doth communicate with the Catholique Church as Cornelius at
not afraid of Giants His words are these The first instance then that Calvin alleageth against the Popes censures is taken from Eusebius a an Arrian author and from Ruffinus b enemie to the Roman Church his translator who writ c that S. IRENEVS reprehended Pope Victor for having excommunicated the Churches of Asia for the question of the day of Pasche which they observed according to a particular tradition that S. IOHN had introduced d for a time in their Provinces because of the neighbourhood of the Iewes and to bury the Synagogue with honour and not according to the universall tradition of the Apostles Irenaeus saith Calvin reprehended Pope Victor bitterly because for a light cause he had moved a great and perillous contention in the Church There is this in the text that Calvin produceth He reprehended him that he had not done well to cut off from the body of unity so many and so great Churches But against whom maketh this but e against those that obiect it for who sees not that S. IRENEVS doth not there reprehend the Pope for the f want of power but for the ill use of his power and doth not reproach to the Pope that he could not excommunicate the Asians but admonisheth him that for g so small a cause he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church Iraeneus saith Eusebius did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he should not cut off all the Churches of God which held this ancient tradition And Ruffinus translating and envenoming Eusebius saith He questioned Victor that he had not done well in cutting off from the body of unity so many and so great Churches of God And in truth how could S. IRENEUS have reprehended the Pope for want of power he that cries To the Roman Church because of a more powerfull principality that is to say as aboue appeareth h because of a principality more powerfull then the temporall or as wee have expounded other where because of a more powerful Original i it is necessary that every Church should agree And k therefore also S. IRENEVS alleageth not to Pope Victor the example of him and of the other Bishops of the Gaules assembled in a councell holden expressely for this effect who had not excommunicated the Asians nor the example of Narcissus Bishop of Ierusalem and of the Bishops of Palestina assembled in an other Councell holden expressely for the same effect who had not excommunicated them nor the example of Palmas and of the other Bishops of Pontus assembled in the same manner and for the same cause in the Region of Pontus who had not excommunicated them but only alleadges to him the example of the Popes his predecessors The Prelates saith he who have presided before Soter in the Church where thou presidest Anisius Pius Hyginus Telesphorus and Sixtus have not observed this custome c. and neverthelesse none of those that observed it have been excommunicated And yet O admirable providence of God the l successe of the after ages shewed that even in the use of his power the Popes proceeding was iust For after the death of Victor the Councels of Nicea of Constantinople and of Ephesus excommunicated again those that held the same custome with the provinces that the Pope had excommunicated and placed them in the Catalogue of heretiques under the titles of heretiques Quarto decumans But to this instance Calvins Sect doe annex two new observations the first that the Pope having threatned the Bishops of Asia to excommunicate them Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of Asia despised the Popes threats as it appeares by the answer of the same Polycrates to Pope Victor which is inserted in the writings of Eusebius and of S. IEROM and which S. IEROM seemeth to approve when he saith he reports it to shew the spirit and authority of the man And the second that when the Pope pronounced anciently his excommunications he did no other thing but separate himself from the communion of those that he excommunicated and did not thereby separate them from the universall communion of the Church To the first then we say that so farre is this Epistle of Polycrates from abating and deminishing the Popes authority that contrary wise it greatly magnifies and exalts it For although Polycrates blinded with the love of the custome of his nation which he beleeved to be grounded upon the word of God who had assigned the fourteenth of the Moneth of March for the observation of the Pasche and upon the example of S. IOHNS tradition maintaines it obstinately Neverthelesse this that he answeres speaking in his own name and in the name of the Councell of the Bishops of Asia to whom he presided I feare not those that threaten us for my elders have said it is better to obey God then man Doth it not shew that had it not been that he beleeved the Popes threat was against the expresse word of God there had been cause to feare it and he had been obliged to obey him for m who knowes not that this answer it is better to obey God then men is not to be made but to those whom we were obliged to obey if their commandements were not contrary to the commandements of God And that he adds that he had called the Bishops of Asia to a Nationall Councell being n summoned to it by the Pope doth it not insinuate that the other Councels whereof Eusebius speaks that were holden about this matter through all the provinces of the Earth and particularly that of Palestina which if you beleeve the act that Beda said came to his hands Theophilus Archbishop of Cesarea had called by the auctority of Victor were holden at the instance of the Pope and consequently that the Pope was the first mover of the universall Church And that the Councels of Nicea of Constantinople of Ephesus embraced the censure of Victor and excommunicated those that observed the custome of Polycrates doth it not prove that it was not the Pope but o Polycrates that was deceived in beleeving that the Popes cōmandement was against Gods commandement And that S. IEROM himselfe celebrates the Paschall Homelies of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria which followed the order of Nicea concerning the Pasche Doth it not iustifie that when S. IEROM saith that he reports the Epistle of Polycrates to shew the spirit and authority of the man he intends by authority not authority of right but of fact that is to say the credit that Polycrates had amongst the Asians and other Quarto decimans These are the Cardinall words The most materiall and considerable passages whereof to save the trouble of repetition I have noted with letters of reference whereunto my answers noted respectively with the same letters follow now in order a If Eusebius were an Arrian author It is nothing to the purpose what he writes there is no Arrianisme
his sword to his Prefect with this commission that if he governed well he should use it for him if ill against him Whether the Roman Church gave not Authority to her Bishops and Priests to preach against her corruptions in manners And if so why not against her errors in doctrine if she had any Whether she gave them not authority to preach the whole Gospell of Christ and consequently against her doctrine if it should contradict any part of the Gospell of Christ Whether it be not acknowledged lawfull in the Church of Rome for any Lay man or woman that has ability to perswade others by word or by writing from error and unto truth And why this liberty may not be practised against their Religion if it be false as well as for it if it be true Whether any man need any other commission or vocation then that of a Christian to doe a work of charity And whether it be not one of the greatest works of Charity if it be done after a peaceable manner and without an unnecessary disturbance of order to perswade men out of a false unto a true way of eternall happinesse Especially the Apostle having assur'd us that he whosoever he is who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soule from death and shall hide a multitude of sinnes Whether the first Reformed Bishops died all at once so that there were not enough to ordain Others in the places that were vacant Whether the Bishops of England may not consecrate a Metropolitan of England as well as the Cardinalls doe the Pope Whether the King or Queen of England or they that have the government in their hands in the minority of the Prince may not lawfully commend one to them to be consecrated against whom there is no Canonicall exception Whether the Doctrine that the King is supream head of the Church of England as the Kings of Iudah the first Christian Emperors were of the Iewish and Christian Church be any new found doctrine Whether it may not be true that Bishops being made Bishops have their authority immediatly from Christ though this or that man be not made Bishop without the Kings authority as well as you say the Pope being Pope has authority immediatly from Christ and yet this or that man cannot be made Pope without the authority of the Cardinalls Whether you doe well to suppose that Christian Kings have no more authority in ordering the affaires of the Church then the great Turk or the Pagan Emperors Whether the King may not give authority to a Bishop to exercise his function in some part of his Kingdome and yet not be capable of doing it himselfe as well as a Bishop may give authority to a Physitian to practise Physick in his Diocesse which the Bishop cannot doe himselfe Whether if Ner◠the Emperour would have commanded S. Peter or S. Paul to preach the Gospell of Christ and to exercise the office of a Bishop of Rome whether they would have question'd his Authority to doe so Whether there were any Law of God or man that prohibited K. IAMES to give Commission to Bishops nay to lay his injunction upon them to doe any thing that is lawfull Whether a casuall irregularity may not be lawfully dispenc'd with Whether the Popes irregularities if he should chance to incurre any be indispensable And if not who is he or who are they whom the Pope is so subject unto that they may dispense with him Whether that be certain which you take for granted That your Ordination imprints a character and ours doth not Whether the power of consecrating and ordaining by imposition of hands may not reside in the Bishops and be derived unto them not from the King but God and yet the King have authority to command them to apply this power to such a fit person whom he shall commend unto them As well as if some Architects only had the faculty of architecture and had it immediatly by infusion from God himselfe yet if they were the Kings subjects he wants not authority to command them to build him a Palace for his use or a fortresse for his service Or as the King of France pretends not to have power to make Priests himselfe yet I hope you will not deny him power to command any of his subjects that has this power to ordaine any fit person Priest whom he shall desire to be ordained Whether it doe not follow that whensoever the King commands an house to be built a message to be delivered or a murtherer to be executed that all these things are presently done without intervention of the Architect messenger or executioner As well as that they are ipsofacto ordain'd and consecrated who by the Kings authority are commended to the Bishops to be ordained and consecrated Especially seeing the King will not deny but that these Bishops may refuse to doe what he requires to be done lawfully if the person be unworthy if worthy unlawfully indeed but yet de facto they may refuse and in case they should doe so whether justly or unjustly neither the King himselfe nor any body else would esteeme the person Bishop upon the Kings designation Whether many Popes though they were not consecrated Bishops by any temporall Prince yet might not or did not receive authority from the Emperor to exercise their Episcopall function in this or that place And whether the Emperors had not authority upon their desert to deprive them of their jurisdiction by imprisonment or banishment Whether Protestants doe indeed pretend that their Reformation is universall Whether in saying the Donatists Sect was confined to Africa you doe not forget your selfe and contradict what you said above in § 17. of this Chapter where you tell us they had some of their Sect residing in Rome Whether it be certain that none can admit of Bishops willingly but those that hold them of divine institution Whether they may not be willing to have them conceiving that way of government the best though not absolutely necessary Whether all those Protestants that conceive the distinction between Priests and Bishops not to be of divine institution be Schismaticall and Hereticall for thinking so Whether your forme of ordaining Bishops and Priests be essentiall to the constitution of a true Church Whether the formes of the Church of England differ essentially from your formes Whether in saying that the true Church cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests you have not overthrown the truth of your own Church wherein I have proved it plainly impossible that any man should be so much as morally certain either of his own Priesthood or any other mans Lastly whether any one kind of these externall formes and orders and government be so necessary to the being of a Church but that they may not be diverse in diverse places and that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to submit himself to the Government of the place where he lives
to Pappus who has collected out of Bellar their contradictions and set them down in his own words to the number of 237. to Flacius de Sect is controversiis Religionis Papisticae you making the very same use of M. Breerely against Protestants yet jeere and scorne D. Potter as if he offer'd you for a proofe the bare authority of Pappus and Flacius and tell him which is all the answer you vouchsafe him It is pretty that he brings Pappus and Flacius flat Heretiques to prove your many contradictions As if he had proved this with the bare authority the bare judgement of these men which sure he does not but with the formall words of Bellarmine faithfully collected by Pappus And why then might not we say to you Is it not pretty that you bring Breerly as flat an Heretique as Pappus or Flacius to prove the contradictions of Protestants Yet had he been so vain as to presse you with the meere authority of Protestant Divines in any point me thinkes for your own sake you should have pardon'd him who here and in many other places urge us with the judgement of your Divines as with weighty arguments Yet if the authority of your Divines were even Canonicall certainly nothing could be concluded from it in this matter there being not one of them who delivers for true doctrine this position of yours thus nakedly set down That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine faith For they all require not your selfe excepted that this truth must not only be revealed but revealed publiquely and all things considered sufficiently propounded to the erring Party to be one of those which God under pain of damnation commands all men to believe And therefore the contradiction of Protestants though this vaine doctrine of your Divines were supposed true is but a weak argument That any of them have no divine Faith seeing you neither have not ever can prove without begging the Question of your Churches infallibility that the truthes about which they differ are of this quality and condition But though out of curtesy wee may suppose this doctrine true yet we have no reason to grant it nor to think it any thing but a vain and groundlesse fancy and that this very weak and inartificiall argument from the authority of your Divines is the strongest pillar which it hath to support it Two reasons you alleage for it out of Thomas Aquinas the first whereof vainly supposeth against reason and experience that by the commission of any deadly sinne the habit of Charity is quite extirpated And for the second though you cry it up for an Achilles and think like the Gorgons head it will turne us all into stone and in confidence of it insult upon D. Potter as if he durst not come near it yet in very truth having considered it well I finde it a serious grave prolixe and profound nothing I could answer it in a word by telling you that it beggs without all proofe or colour of proofe the main question between us that the infallibility of your Church is either the formall motive or rule or a necessary condition of faith which you know we flatly deny and therefore all that is built upon it has nothing but wind for a foundation But to this answer I will adde a large confutation of this vain fancy out of one of the most rationall and profound Doctors of your own Church I mean Estius who upon the third of the Sent. the 23. dist the 13. § writes thus It is disputed saith he whether in him who believes some of the Articles of our faith and disbelieves others or perhaps someone there be faith properly so called in respect of that which he does believe In which question we must before all carefully distinguish between those who retaining a generall readinesse to believe whatsoever the Church believes yet erre by ignorance in some doctrine of faith because it is not as yet sufficiently declared to them that the Church does so believe and those who after sufficient manifestation of the Churches doctrine doe yet choose to dissent from it either by doubting of it or affirming the contrary For of the former the answer is easy but of these that is of Heretiques retaining some part of wholsome doctrine the question is more difficult and on both sides by the Doctors probably disputed For that there is in them true faith of the Articles wherein they doe not erre first experience seemes to convince For many at this day denying for example sake Purgatory or Invocation of Saints neverthelesse firmely hold as by divine revelation that God is Three and One that the Sonne of God was incarnate and suffered and other like things â—As anciently the Novatians excepting their peculiar error of denying reconciliation to those that fell in persecution held other things in common with Catholiques So that they assisted them very much against the Arrians as Socrates relates in his Eccl. Hist. Moreover the same thing is proved by the example of the Apostles who in the time of Christs passion being scandaliz'd lost their faith in him as also Christ after his resurrection upbraids them with their incredulity and calls Thomas incredulous for denying the Resurrection Ioh. 20. Whereupon S. Austine also in his preface upon the 96. Ps. saith That after the Resurrection of Christ the faith of those that fell was restored again And yet we must not say that the Apostles then lost the faith of the Trinity of the Creation of the world of Eternall life and such like other Articles Besides the Iewes before Christs comming held the faith of one God the Creator of Heaven and Earth who although they lost the true faith of the Messias by not receiving Christ yet we cannot say that they lost the faith of one God but still retained this Article as firmely as they did before Adde hereunto that neither Iewes nor Heretiques seeme to lye in saying they believe either the books of the Prophets or the four Gospels It being apparent enough that they acknowledge in them Divine Authority though they hold not the true sense of them to which purpose is that in the Acts. c. 20. Believest thou the Prophets I know that thou believest Lastly it is manifest that many gifts of God are found even in bad men and such as are out of the Church therefore nothing hinders but that Iewes and Heretiques though they erre in many things yet in other things may be so divinely illuminated as to believe aright So S. Austin seemes to teach in his book De Vnico Baptismo contra Peâ—ilianum c. 3. in these words When a Iew comes to us to be made a Christian we destroy not in him Gods good things but his own ill That he believes one God is to be worshipped that he hopes for eternall life that he doubts not of the Resurrection we approve and commend him we acknowledge that as he did believe these things so he
and Scripture and experience so you tell us out of M. Hooker to seek for the ending of them by submitting unto some Iudiciall sentence whereunto neither part may refuse to stand This is very true Neither should you need to persuade us to seek such a meanes of ending all our Controversies if we could tell where to finde it But this wee know that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a judiciall definitiue obliging sentence in Controversies of Religion but only such a Man or such a society of Men as is authoriz'd thereto by God And besides we are able to demonstrate that it hath not been the pleasure of God to giue to any Man or Society of Men any such authority And therefore though we wish heartily that all Controversies were ended as we doe that all sinne were abolisht yet we haue little hope of the one or the other till the World be ended And in the mean while think it best to content our selues with and to persuade others unto an Vnity of Charity and mutuall toleration seeing God hath authoriz'd no man to force all men to Vnity of Opinion Neither doe we think it fit to argue thus To us it seemes convenient there should be one Iudge of all Controversies for the whole world therefore God has appointed one But more modest and more reasonable to collect thus God hath appointed no such judge of Controversies therefore though it seemes to us convenient there should be one yet it is not so Or though it were convenient for us to haue one yet it hath pleased God for Reasons best known to himselfe not to allow us this convenience 86 D. Fields words which follow I confesse are somewhat more pressing and if he had been infallible and the words had not slipt unadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Book But yet it is evident out of his Book so acknowledg'd by some of your own That he never thought of any one company of Christians invested with such authority from God that all men were bound to receiue their Decrees without examination though they seem contrary to Scripture and Reason which the Church of Rome requires And therefore if he haue in his Preface strained too high in cōmendation of the subject he writes of as Writers very often doe in their Prefaces and Dedicatory Epistles what is that to us Besides by all the Societies of the World it is not impossible nor very improbable hee might meane all that are or haue been in the world and so include even the Primitiue Church and her Communion we shall embrace her Direction we shall follow her Iudgement we shall rest in if wee belieue the Scripture endeavour to finde the true sense of it and liue according to it 87 Ad 18. § That the true Interpretation of the Scripture ought to be receaved from the Church you need not prove for it is very easily granted by them who professe themselves very ready to receiue all Truths much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but from any societie of men nay from any man whatsoever 88 That the Churches Interpretation of Scripture is alwaies true that is it which you would haue said and that in some sense may bee also admitted viz. if your speake of that Church which before you spake of in the 14. § that is of the Church of all Ages since the Apostles Vpon the Tradition of which Church you there told us We were to receiue the Scripture and to belieue it to bee the Word of God For there you teach us that our Faith of Scripture depends on a Principle which requires no other proofe And that such is Tradition which from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the Times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe commeth to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true Wherefore the Ancient Fathers avouch that wee must receiue the sacred Scripture upon the Tradition of this Church The Tradition then of this Church you say must teach us what is Scripture and we are willing to belieue it And now if you make it good unto us that the same Tradition down from the Apostles hath delivered from age to age and from hand to hand any interpretation of any Scripture we are ready to embrace that also But now if you will argue thus The Church in one sense tells us what is Scripture we belieue therefore if the Church taken in another sense tell us this or that is the meaning of the Scripture we are to belieue that also this is too transparent Sophistrie to take any but those that are willing to be taken 89 If there be any Traditiue Interpretation of Scripture produce it and proue it to be so and we embrace it But the Tradition of all ages is one thing and the authority of the present Church much more of the Roman Church which is but a Part and a corrupted Part of the Catholique Church is another And therefore though we are ready to receiue both Scripture and the sense of Scripture upon the authority of Originall Tradition yet we receiue neither the one nor the other upon the Authority of your Church 90 First for the Scripture how can wee receiue them upon the Authority of your Church who hold now those Books to be Canonicall which formerly you rejected from the Canon I instance in the Book of Macchabees and the Epistle to the Hebrews The first of these you held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregories time or else hee was no member of your Church for it is apparent He held otherwise The second you rejected from the Canon in S. Hieroms time as it is evident out of many places of his Works 91 If you say which is all you can say that Hierom spake this of the particular Roman Church not of the Roman Catholique Church I answer there was none such in his time None that was called so Secondly what he spake of the Roman Church must be true of all other Churches if your Doctrine of the necessity of the Conformity of all other Churches to that Church were then Catholique Doctrine Now then choose whether you will either that the particular Roman Church was not then beleived to be the Mistresse of all other Churches notwithstanding Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est omnes qui sunt undique fideles which Card. Perron and his Translatresse so often translates false Or if you say shee was you will runne into a greater inconvenience and be forced to say that all the Churches of that time rejected from the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews together with the Roman Church And consequently that the Catholique Church may erre in rejecting from the Canon Scriptures truly Canonicall 92 Secondly How can we receive the Scripture upon the authority of the Roman