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
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
ignorant of the falshood of it or dyed with contrition And then considering that you cannot know whether or no all things considered they were convinc'd sufficiently of the truth of your Religion and the falshood of their own you are oblig'd by Charity to judge the best and hope they are not Considering again that notwithstanding their Errors they may dye with contrition that it is no way improbable that they doe so the contrary you cannot be certain of You are bound in Charity to judge and hope they doe so Considering thirdly and lastly that if they dye not with Contrition yet it is very probable they may dye with Attritiō that this pretence of yours that Contrition will serve without actuall Confession but Attrition will not is but a nicety or phancy or rather to give it the true name a Device of your own to serve ends and purposes God having no where declared himselfe but that wheresoever he will accept of that repentance which you are pleased to call Contrition he will accept of that which you call Attrition For though he like best the bright flaming holocaust of Love yet he rejects not he quenches not the smoaking flaxe of that repentance if it be true and effectuall which proceeds from hope and fear These things I say considered unlesse you will have the Charity of your doctrine rise up in judgement against your uncharitable practise you must not only not be peremptory in damning Protestants but you must hope well of their Salvation and out of this hope you must doe for them as well as others those as you conceive Charitable offices of Praying giving Almes and offering Sacrifice which usually you doe for those of whose Salvation you are well and charitably perswaded for I believe you will never conceive so well of Protestants as to assure your selves they goe directly to heaven These things whē you doe I shall believe you think as charitably as you speak But untill then as he said in the Comedy Quid verba audiam cum facta videam so may I say to you Quid verba audiam cum facta non videam To what purpose should you give us charitable words which presently you retract again by denying us your charitable actions And as these things you must doe if you will stand to and make good this pretended Charity so must I tell you again and again that one thing you must not doe I mean you must not affright poore people out of their Religion with telling them that by the confession of both sides your way is safe but in your judgement ours undoubtedly damnable Seeing neither you deny Salvation to Protestants dying with repentance nor we promise it to you if ye dye without it For to deal plainly with you I know no Protestant that hath any other hope of your salvation but upon these grounds that unaffected ignorance may excuse you or true repentance obtain pardon for you neither doe the heavy censures which Protestants you say passe upon your errors any way hinder but they may hope as well of you upon repentance as I doe For the fierce doctrine which God knowes who teaches that Christ for many ages before Luther had no visible Church upon earth will be mild enough if you conceive them to mean as perhaps they doe by no visible Church none pure and free from corruptions which in your judgement is all one with no Church But the truth is the corruption of the Church and the destruction of it is not all one For if a particular man or Church may as you confesse they may hold some particular Errors and yet be a member of the Church universall why may not the Church hold some universall Error and yet be still the Church especially seeing you say it is nothing but opposing the doctrine of the Church that makes an error damnable and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church I mean that the present Church should oppose it selfe And then for the English Protestants though they censure your Errors deeply yet by your favour with their deepest censures it may well consist that invincible ignorance may excuse you from damnation for them For you your selfe confesse that ignorance may excuse Errors even in Fundamentall Articles of faith so that a man so erring shall not offend at all in such his ignorance or error they are your own words p. 19. And againe which their heaviest censures it may well consist that your Errors though in themselves damnable yet may prove not damning to you if you dye with true repentance for all your sinnes known and unknown 5 Thus much Charity therefore if you stand to what you have said is interchangeably granted by each Side to the other that Neither Religion is so fatally destructive but that by ignorance or repentance salvation may be had on both Sides though with a difference that keeps Papists still on the more uncharitable side For whereas we conceive a lower degree of repentance that which they call Attrition if it be true and effectuall and convert the heart of the penitent will serve in them They pretend even this Author which is most charitable towards us that without Contrition there is no hope for us But though Protestants may not obtain this purchase at so easy a rare as Papists yet even Papists being Iudges they may obtain it and though there is no entrance for them but at the only doore of Contrition yet they may enter Heaven is not inaccessible to them Their errors are no such impenetrable Istmus's between them and Salvation but that Contrition may make a way through them All their Schisme and Heresy is no such fatall poison but that if a man ioyne with it the Antidote of a generall repentance he may dye in it and live for ever Thus much then being acknowledged I appeal to any indifferent reader whether C. M. be not by his Hyperaspist forsaken in the plain field and the point in question granted to D. Potter viz. That Protestancy even without a particular repentance is not destructive of Salvation so that all the Controversy remaining now is not simply whether Protestancy unrepented destroies salvation as it was at first proposed but Whether Protestancy in it selfe that is abstracting from ignorance and contrition destroies Salvation So that as a foolish fellow who gave a Knight the Lye desiring withall leave of him to set his Knighthood aside was answered by him that he would not suffer any thing to be set aside that belonged unto him So might we justly take it amisse that conceiving as you doe ignorance and repentance such necessary things for us you are not more willing to consider us with them then without them For my part such is my charity to you that considering what great necessity You have as much as any Christian society in the World that these sanctuaries of Ignorance and Repentance should alwaies stand open I can very hardly perswade my selfe
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
may justly decline his sentence for feare temporall respects should either blinde his judgement or make him pronounce against it 20 Seaventhly In Civill Controversies it is impossible Titius should hold the land in question and Sempronius too and therefore either the Plaintiffe must injure the Defendant by disquieting his possession or the Defendant wrong the Plaintiffe by keeping his right from him But in Controversies of Religion the Case is otherwise I may hold my opinion and doe you no wrong and you yours and doe mee none Nay we may both of us hold our opinion and yet doe our selues no harme provided the difference be not touching any thing necessary to salvation and that we loue truth so well as to bee diligent to informe our Conscience and constant in following it 21 Eightly For the ending of Civill Controversies who does not see it is absolutely necessary that not only Iudges should bee appointed but that it should be known and unquestioned who they are Thus all the Iudges of our Land are known men known to be Iudges and no man can doubt or question but these are the Men. Otherwise if it were a disputable thing who were these Iudges and they had no certain warrant for their Authority but only some Topicall congruities would not any man say such Iudges in all likelyhood would rather multiply Controversies then end them 22 Ninthly and lastly For the deciding of Civill Controversies men may appoint themselues a judge But in matters of Religion this office may be given to none but whom God hath designed for it who doth not alwaies giue us those things which we conceiue most expedient for our selues 23 So likewise if our Saviour the King of Heaven had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some Visible Iudge finally determined who can doubt but in plaine termes hee would haue expressed himselfe about this matter He would haue said plainely The Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all emergent Controversies For that our Saviour design'd the Bishop of Rome to this Office yet would not say so nor cause it to be written ad Rei memoriam by any of the Evangelists or Apostles so much as once but leaue it to bee drawn out of uncertain Principles by thirteen or fourteen more uncertain consequences He that can beleiue it let him All these Reasons I hope will convince you that though we haue and haue great necessity of Iudges in Civill and Criminall causes yet you may not conclude from thence that there is any publique authoriz'd Iudge to determine Controversies in Religion nor any necessity there should be any 24 But the Scripture stands in need of some watchfull and unerring eye to guard it by meanes of whose assured vigilancy we may undoubtedly receiue it syncere and pure Very true but this is no other then the watchfull eye of divine providence the goodnesse whereof will never suffer that the Scripture should be depraved and corrupted but that in them should be alwaies extant a conspicuous and plain way to eternall happinesse Neither can any thing be more palpably unconsistent with his goodnesse then to suffer Scripture to be undiscernably corrupted in any matter of moment and yet to exact of men the beliefe of those verities which without their fault or knowledge or possibility of prevention were defac'd out of them So that God requiring of men to belieue Scripture in its purity ingages himselfe to see it preserv'd in sufficient purity and you need not feare but he will satisfie his ingagement You say we can haue no assurance of this but your Churches Vigilancie But if we had no other we were in a hard case for who could then assure us that your Church has been so vigilant as to guard Scripture from any the least alteration There being various Lections in the ancient copies of your Bibles what security can your new rail'd Office of Assurance giue us that that reading is true which you now receiue and that false which you reject Certainly they that anciently received and made use of these divers Copies were not all guarded by the Churches vigilancy from having their Scripture alter'd from the puritie of the Originall in many places For of different readings it is not in nature impossible that all should bee false but more then one cannot possibly be true Yet the want of such a protection was no hinderance to their salvation and why then shall the having of it be necessary for ours But then this Vigilancy of your Church what meanes haue we to be ascertain'd of it First the thing is not evident of it selfe which is evident because many doe not belieue it Neither can any thing be pretended to giue evidence to it but only some places of Scripture of whose incorruption more then any other what is it that can secure me If you say the Churches vigilancy you are in a Circle proving the Scriptures uncorrupted by the Churches vigilancy the Churches vigilancy by the incorruption of some places of Scripture and againe the incorruption of those places by the Churches vigilancy If you name any other meanes then that meanes which secures mee of the Scriptures incorruption in those places will also serue to assure me of the same in other places For my part abstracting from Divine Providence which will never suffer the way to Heaven to bee block'd up or made invisible I know no other meanes I meane no other naturall and rationall meanes to be assured hereof then I haue that any other Book is uncorrupted For though I haue a greater degree of rationall and humane Assurance of that then this in regard of divers considerations which make it more credible That the Scripture hath been preserv'd from any materiall alteration yet my assurance of both is of the same kinde and condition both Morall assurances and neither Physicall or Mathematicall 25 To the next Argument the Reply is obvious That though we doe not belieue the books of Scripture to be Canonicall because they say so For other books that are not Canonicall may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it yet we belieue not this upon the authority of your Church but upon the Credibilitie of Vniversall Tradition which is a thing Credible of it selfe and therefore fit to bee rested on whereas the Authority of your Church is not so And therefore your rest thereon is not rationall but meerly voluntary I might as well rest upon the judgement of the next man I meet or upon the chance of a Lottery for it For by this meanes I only know I might erre but by relying on you I know I should erre But yet to returne you one suppose for another suppose I should for this and all other things submit to her direction how could shee assure mee that I should not be mis-led by doing so She pretends indeed infallibility herein but how can she assure us that she hath it What by Scriptureâ—
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
things Take the alleaged places of S. Athanasius and S. Austine in this sense which is your own and they will not presse us any thing at all We will say with Athanasius That only foure Gospels are to be received because the Canons of the Holy and Catholique Church understand of all Ages since the perfection of the Canon haue so determined 54 We will subscribe to S. Austin and say That we also would not belieue the Gospell unlesse the Authority of the Catholique Church did moue us meaning by the Church the Church of all Ages and that succession of Christians which takes in Christ himselfe and his Apostles Neither would Zwinglius haue needed to cry out upon this saying had he conceived as you now doe that by the Catholique Church the Church of all Ages since Christ was to be understood As for the Councell of Carthage it may speak not of such Books only as were certainly Canonicall and for the regulating of Faith but also of those which were onely profitable and lawfull to be read in the Church Which in England is a very slender Argument that the book is Canonicall where every body knowes that Apocryphall books are read as well as Canonicall But howsoever if you understand by Fathers not only their immediate Fathers and Predecessors in the Gospell but the succession of them from the Apostles they are right in the Thesis that whatsoever is received from these Fathers as Canonicall is to be so esteem'd Though in the application of it to this or that particular book they may happily erre and think that Book received as Canonicall which was only received as Profitable to be read and think that Book received alwaies and by all which was rejected by some and doubted of by many 55 But we cannot be certain in what language the Scriptures remaine uncorrupted Not so certain I grant as of that which wee can demonstrate But certain enough morally certain as certain as the nature of the thing will beare So certain we may be and God requires no more We may be as certain as S. Austin was who in his second book of Baptisme against the Donatists c. 3. plainly implies the Scripture might possibly be corrupted He meanes sure in matters of little moment such as concerne not the Covenant between God and Man But thus he saith The same S. Austin in his 48. Epist. cleerly intimates That in his judgement the only preservatiue of the Scriptures integritie was the translating it into so many Languages and the generall and perpetuall use and reading of it in the Church for want whereof the works of particular Doctors were more exposed to danger in this kinde but the Canonicall Scripture being by this meanes guarded with universall care and diligence was not obnoxious to such attempts And this assurance of the Scripture's incorruption is common to us with him we therefore are as certain hereof as S. Austin was that I hope was certain enough Yet if this does not satisfie you I say farther We are as certain hereof as your own Pope Sixtus Quintus was He in his Preface to his Bible tells us That in the pervestigation of the true and genuine Text it was perspicuously manifest to all men that there was no Argument more â—â—rme and certain to be relied upon then the Faith of Ancient Books Now this ground wee haue to build upon as well as He had and therefore our certainty is as great and stands upon as certain ground as his did 56 This is not all I haue to say in this matter For I will adde moreover that we are as certaine in what Language the Scripture is uncorrupted as any man in your Church was untill Clement the 8th set forth your own approved Edition of your Vulgar translation For you doe not nor cannot without extreme impudence deny that untill then there was great variety of Copies currant in divers parts of your Church and those very frequent in various lections all which Copies might possibly be false in some things but more then one sort of them could not possibly be true in all things Neither were it lesse impudence to pretend that any man in your Church could untill Clement's time haue any certainty what that one true Copie and reading was if there were any one perfectly true Some indeed that had got Sixtus his Bible might after the Edition of that very likely think them selues cock-sure of a perfect true uncorrupted Translation without being beholding to Clement but how fowly they were abused and deceived that thought so the Edition of Clemens differing from that of Sixtus in a great multitude of places doth sufficiently demonstrate 57 This certainty therefore in what language the Scripture remaines uncorrupted is it necessary to haue it or is it not If it be not I hope we may doe well enough without it If it be necessary what became of your Church for 1500 yeares together All which time you must confesse she had no such certainty no one man being able truly and upon good ground to say This or that Copy of the Bible is pure and perfect and uncorrupted in all things And now at this present though some of you are growne to a higher degree of Presumption in this point yet are you as farre as ever from any true and reall and rationall assurance of the absolute purity of your Authentique Translation which I suppose my selfe to haue prou'd unanswerably in divers places 58 In the sixteenth Division It is objected to Protestants in a long discourse transcrib'd out of the Protestants Apologie That their translations of the Scripture are very different and by each other mutually condemned Luthers Translation by Zwinglius and others That of the Zwinglians by Luther The Translation of Oecolampadius by the Divines of Basill that of Castalio by Beza That of Beza by Castalio That of Calvin by Carolus Molinaeus That of Geneva by M. Parks King Iames. And lastly one of our Translations by the Puritans 59 All which might haue been as justly objected against that great variety of Translations extant in the Primitive Church mâ—de use of by the Fathers and Doctors of it For which I desire not that my word but S. Austin's may be taken They which haue translated the Scriptures out of the Hebrew into Greek may be numbred but the Latine Interpreters are innumerable For whensoever any one in the first times of Christianity met with a Greek Bible and seem'd to himselfe to haue some ability in both Languages he presently ventur'd upon an Interpretation So He in his second book of Christian doctrine Cap. 11. Of all these that which was called the Italian Translation was esteemed best so we may learne from the same S. Austin in the 15. Chap. of the same book Amongst all these Interpretations saith he let the Italian be preferr'd for it keeps closer to the Letter and is perspicuous in the sense Yet so farre was the Church of that time
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
left them is and hath been the only fountaine of all the Schismes of the Church and that which makes them continue the common incendiary of Christendome and that which as I said before teares into pieces not the coat but the bowels and members of Christ Ridente Turcâ nec dolente Iudae◠Take away these Wals of separation and all will quickly be one Take away this Persecuting Burning Cursing Damning of men for not subscribing to the words of men as the words of God Require of Christians only to believe Christ and to call no man master but him only Let those leave claiming Infallibility that have no title to it and let them that in their words disclaime it disclaime it likewise in their actions In a word take away tyranny which is the Divels instrument to support errours and superstitions and impieties in the severall parts of the world which could not otherwise long withstand the power of Truth I say take away tyranny and restore Christians to their just and full liberty of captivating their understanding to Scripture only and as Rivers when they have a free passage runne all to the Ocean so it may well be hoped by Gods blessing that Vniversall Liberty thus moderated may quickly reduce Christendome to Truth and Vnitie These thoughts of peace I am perswaded may come from the God of peace and to his blessing I commend them and proceed 18 Your fift and last obiection stands upon a false and dangerous supposition That new Heresies may arise For an Heresie being in it selfe nothing else but a Doctrine Repugnant to some Article of the Christian Faith to say that new Heresies may arise is to say that new Articles of Faith may arise and so some great ones among you stick not to professe in plaine tearmes who yet at the same time are not ashamed to pretend that your whole Doctrine is Catholique and Apostolique So Salmeron Non omnibus omnia dedit Deus ut quaelibetaetas suis gaudeat veritatibus quas prior aetas ignoravit God hath not given all things to All So that every age hath its proper verities which the former age was ignorant of Disp. 57. In Ep. ad Rom And againe in the Margent Habet Vnumquodque saeculum peculiares revelationes divinas Every age hath its peculiar Divine Revelations Where that he speaks of such Revelations as are or may by the Church be made matters of Faith no man can doubt that reads him an example whereof he gives us a little before in these words Vnius Augustini doctrina Assumptionis B. Deiparae cultum in Ecclesiam introduxit The Doctrine of Augustine only hath brought in to the Church the Worship of the Assumption of the Mother of God c. Others againe mince and palliate the matter with this pretence that your Church undertakes not to coyne new Articles of faith but only to declare those that want sufficient declaration But if sufficient declaration be necessary to make any doctrine an Article of Faith then this doctrine which before wanted it was not before an Article of faith and your Church by giving it the Essentiall forme and last complement of an Article of faith makes it though not a Truth yet certainly an Article of faith But I would faine know whether Christ and his Apostles knew this Doctrine which you pretend hath the matter but wants the forme of an Article of faith that is sufficient declaration whether they knew it to be a necessary Article of the faith or no! If they knew it not to be so then either they taught what they knew not which were very strange or else they taught it not and if not I would gladly be informed seeing you pretend to no new Revelations from whom you learn't it If they knew it then either they conceal'd or declar'd it To say they conceal'd any necessary part of the Gospell is to charge them with farre greater sacriledge then what was punished in Ananias and Saphira It is to charge these glorious Stewards and dispensers of the Mysteries of Christ with want of the great vertue requisite in a Steward which is Fidelity It is to charge them with presumption for denouncing Anathema's even to Angels in case they should teach any other doctrine then what they had received from thē which sure could not merit an Anathema if they left any necessary part of the Gospell untaught It is in a word in plaine tearmes to give them the lye seeing they professe plainly and frequently that they taught Christians the whole doctrine of Christ. If they did know and declare it then was it a full and formall Article of faith and the contrary a full and formall Heresie without any need of further declaration and then their Successours either continued the declaration of it or discontinued If they did the latter how are they such faithfull depositaries of Apostolique Doctrine as you pretend Or what assurance can you give us that they might not bring in new and false Articles as well as suffer the old and true ones to be lost If they did continue the declaration of it and deliver it to their Successours and they to theirs and so on perpetually then continued it still a full and formall Article of faith and the repugnant doctrine a full and formall Heresie without and before the definition or declaration of a Councell So that Councells as they cannot make that a truth or falshood which before was not so so neither can they make or declare that to be an Article of Faith or an Heresie which before was not so The supposition therefore on which this argument stands being false and runious whatsoever is built upon it must together with it fall to the ground This explication therefore and restriction of this doctrine whereof you make your advantage was to my understanding unnecessary The Fathers of the Church in after times might have just cause to declare their judgmēt touching the sense of some generall Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receave their declarations under paine of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all Ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some Ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confesse the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farre directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sinne to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publique peace-sake 19 Ad § 7. 8. 9. Were I not peradventure more fearefull then I need to be of the imputation of tergiversation I might very easily rid my hands of the remainder of this Chapter For in the Question there discussed you grant for ought I see as much as D. Potter desires and D. Potter grants as much as you desire and therefore that I should
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
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
of a more powerfull principality there is a necessity that all the Churches that is all the faithfull round about should resort in which the Apostolique Tradition hath been alwaies observed by those who were round about If any man say I have been too bold a Critick in substituting observata instead of conseruata I desire him to know that the conjecture is not mine and therefore as I expect no praise for it so I hope I shall be farre from censure But I would intreat him to consider whether it be not likely that the same greek word signifying observo and conservo the Translater of Irenaeus who could hardly speak Latine might not easily mistake and translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conservata est instead of observata est Or whether it be not likely that those men which ancienly wrote Books and understood them nor might not easily commit such an error Or whether the sense of the place can be salved any other way if it can in Gods name let it if not I hope he is not to be condemned who with such a little alteration hath made that sense which he found non sense 30 But whether you will have it Observata or Conservata the new sumpsimus or the old mumpsimus possibly it may be something to Irenaus but to us or our cause it is no way materiall For if the rest be rightly translated neither will Conservata afford you any argument against us nor Observata helpe us to any evasion For though at the first hearing the glorious attributes here given and that justly to the Church of Rome the confounding Heretiques with her tradition and saying it is necessary for all Churches to resort to her may sound like Arguments for you yet hee that is attentive I hope will easily discover that it might be good and rationall in Irenaeus having to doe with Heretiques who somewhat like those who would be the only Catholiques declining a tryall by Scripture as not contayning the Truth of Christ perfectly and not fit to decide Controversies without recourse to Tradition I say he will easily perceive that it might be rationall in Iraeneus to urge them with any Tradition of more credit then their own especially a Tradition consonant to Scripture and even contain'd in it and yet that it may be irrationall in you to urge us who doe not decline Scripture but appeale to it as a perfect rule of faith with a Tradition which we pretend is many wayes repugnant to Scripture and repugnant to a Tradition far more generall then it self which gives Testimony to Scripture and lastly repugnant to it self as giving attestation both to Scripture and to Doctrines plainly contrary to Scripture Secondly that the Authority of the Roman Church was then a far greater Argument of the Truth of her Tradition when it was Vnited with all other Apostolique Churches then now when it is divided from them according to that of Tertullian Had the Churches erred they would have varied but that which is the same in all cannot be errour but Tradition and therefore though Irenaeus his Argument may be very probable yet yours may be worth nothing Thirdly that foureteen hundred yeares may have made a great deale of alteration in the Roman Church as Rivers though neere the fountain they may retaine their native and unmixt syncerity yet in long progresse cannot but take in much mixture that came not from the fountain And therefore the Roman Tradition though then pure may now be corrupt and impure and so this Argument being one of those things which are the worse for wearing might in Irenaeus his time be strong and vigorous and after declining and decaying may long since have fallen to nothing Especially considering that Irenaeus plaies the Historian only and not the Prophet and saies only that the Apostolique Tradition had been alwayes there as in other Apostolique Churches conserved or observed choose you whether but that it should be alwayes so he saies not neither had he any warrant He knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the Churches of Christ to Anti-christ that the Roman Church in particular was forewarned that she also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles might fall if they look not to their standing and therefore to secure her that she should stand for ever he had no reason nor Authority Fourthly that it appeares manifestly out of this book of Irenaeus quoted by you that the doctrine of the Chiliasts was in his judgment Apostolique Tradition as also it was esteemed for ought appeares to the contrary by all the Doctors and Saints and Martyrs of or about his time for all that speak of it or whose judgments in the point are any way recorded are for it and Iustine Martyr professeth that all good and Orthodoxe Christians of his time beleeved it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques Now I demand was this Tradition one of those that was conserved and observed in the Church of Rome or was it not If not had Irenaeus known so much he must have retracted this commendation of that Church If it was then the Tradition of the present Church of Rome contradicts the Ancient and accounts it Hereticall and then sure it can be no certain note of Heresie to depart from them who have departed from themselves and prove themselves subject unto Errour by holding contradictions Fiftly and lastly that out of the Story of the Church it is as manifest as the light at noone that though Irenaeus did esteem the Roman Tradition a great Argument of the doctrine which he there delivers and defends against the Heretiques of his time viz that there was one God yet he was very far from thinking that Church was and ever should be a safe keeper and an infallible witnesse of Tradition in generall Inasmuch as in his own life his action proclaim'd the contrary For when Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunication and damnation Irenaeus and all the other Western Bishops though agreeing with him in his observation yet sharply reprehended him for excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their disagreeing plainly shewing that they esteemed that not a necessary doctrine and a sufficient ground of excommunication which the Bishop of Rome and his adherents did so account of For otherwise how could they have reprehended him for excommunicating them had they conceived the cause of his excommunication just and sufficient And besides evidently declaring that they esteemed not separation from the Roman Church a certain mark of Heresie seeing they esteemed not them Heretiques though separated and cut off from the Roman Church Cardinall Perron to avoyd the stroak of this conuincing argument raiseth a cloud of eloquent words which because you borrow them of him in your Second part I will here insert and with short censures dispell and let his Idolaters see that Truth is
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
Pictures to picture the Trinity to invocate Saints and Angels to deny Law-men the Cup in the Sacrament to adore the Sacrament to prohibite certain Orders of men and woemen to marry to celebrate the publique service of God in a language which the assistants generally understand not and you will not choose but confesse that in all these you are on the more dangerous side for the committing of sin and we on that which is more secure For in all these things if we say true you doe that which is impious on the other side if you were in the right yet we might be secure enough for we should only not doe something which you confesse not necessary to be done We pretend and are ready to justifie out of principles agreed upon between us that in all these things you violate the manifest commandements of God and alleage such texts of Scripture against you as if you would weigh them with any indifference would put the matter out of question but certainly you cannot with any modesty deny but that at least they make it questionable On the other side you cannot with any face pretend and if you should know not how to goe about to proue that there is any necessity of doing any of these things that it is unlawfull not to worship pictures not to picture the Trinity not to invocate Saints Angels not to giue all men the entire Sacrament not to adore the Eucharist not to prohibite marriage not to celebrate divine service in an unknown tongue I say you neither doe nor can pretend that there is any law of God which enjoynes us no nor so much as an Evangelicall Counsell that advises us to doe any of these things Now where no law is there can be no sin for sin is the transgression of the law It remaines therefore that our forbearing to doe these things must be free from all danger suspicion of sin whereas your acting of them must be if not certainly impious without all contradiction questionable and dangerous I conclude therefore that which was to be concluded that if the safer way for avoiding sin be also as most certainly it is the safer way for avoiding damnation then certainly the way of Protestants must bee more safe and the Roman way more dangerous You will say I know that these things being by your Church concluded lawfull we are obliged by God though not to doe yet to approue them at least in your iudgement we are so and therefore our condition is as questionable as yours I answer The Authority of your Church is no common principle agreed upon between us and therefore upon that you are not to dispute against us We might presse you with our judgement as well and as justly as you doe us with yours Besides this very thing that your Church hath determin'd these things lawfull and commanded the approbation of them is that whereof she is accused by us and we maintain you haue done wickedly or at least very dangerously in so determining because in these very determinations you haue forsaken that way which was secure from sinne and haue chosen that which you cannot but know to be very questionable and doubtfull consequently haue forsaken the safe way to heaven and taken a way which is full of danger And therefore although if your obedience to your Church were questioned you might fly for shelter to your Churches determinations yet when these very determinations are accused me thinks they should not be alleag'd in defence of themselues But you will say your Church is infallible therefore her determinations not unlawfull Ans. They that accuse your Church of error you may be sure doe question her infallibility shew therefore where it is written that your Church is infallible and the dispute will be ended But till you doe so give mee leaue rather to conclude thus your Church in many of her determinations chooses not that way which is more secure from sin and therefore not the safest way to salvation then vainly to imagine her infallible and there upon to belieue though she teach not the securest way to avoid sin yet shee teaches the certainst way to obtain salvation 10 In the close of this Number you say as followes If it may appeare though not certain yet at least probable that Protestancy unrepented destroies salvation and withall that there is a safer way it will follow that they are obliged by the law of Charity to that safe way Ans. Make this appear and I will never perswade any man to continue a Protestant for if I should I should perswade him to continue a fool But after all these prolix discourses still we see you are at If it may appeare From whence without all Ifs and An ds that appeares sufficiently which I said in the beginning of the Chapter that the foure first Paragraphs of this Chap. are wholly spent in an unnecessary introduction unto that which never by any man in his right wits was denied That men in wisdome and charity to themselves are to take the safest way to eternall salvation 11 Ad § 5. In the fift you begin to make some shew of arguing tells us that Protestants haue reason to doubt in what case they stand from what you have said about the Churches universall infallibility of her being Iudge of Controversies c. Ans. From all that which you haue said they have reason only to conclude that you haue nothing to say They haue as much reason to doubt whether there can bee any Motion from what Zeno saies in Aristotles Physicks as to doubt from what you haue said whether the Roman Church may possibly erre For this I dare say that not the weakest of Zeno's arguments but is stronger then the strongest of yours and that you would be more perplext in answering any one of them then I haue been in answering all yours You are pleas'd to repeat two or three of them in this Section and in all probability so wise a man as you are if he would repeat any would repeat the best and therefore if I desire the Reader by these to judge of the rest I shall desire but ordinary justice 12 The first of them being put into form stands thus Every least errour in faith destroies the nature of faith It is certain that some Protestants doe erre and therefore they want the substance of Faith The Major of which Syllogisme I haue formerly confuted by unanswerable argumēts out of one of your own best Authors who shewes plainly that he hath amongst you as strange as you make it many other abettors Besides if it were true it would conclude that either you or the Dominicans haue no faith in as much as you oppose one another as much as Arminians and Calvinists 13 The second Argument stands thus Since all Protestants pretend the like certainty it is clear that none of them haue any certainty at all Which argument if it were good then what
of the New Testament they giue a farre different rule saying All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we doe receiue and account them Canonicall This I say is a rule much different from the former Of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church For some Books might be said to be Commonly received although they were sometime doubted of by some If to be Commonly received passe for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament why not of the Old Aboue all we desire to know upon what infallible ground in some Bookes they agree with us against Luther and divers principall Lutherans and in others jump with Luther against us But seeing they disagree among themselues it is evident that they haue no certaine rule to know the Canon of Scripture in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity erre because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true 10 Moreover the letters syllables words phrase or matter contained in holy Scripture haue no necessary or naturall connection with divine Revelation or Inspiration and therefore by seeing reading or understanding them we cannot inferre that they proceed from God or be confirmed by divine authoritie as because Creatures involve a necessary relation connection and dependance on their Creator Philosophers may by the light of naturall reason demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things In Holy Wrâ—â— there are innumerable truths not surpassing the spheare of humane wit which are or may be delivered by Pagan Writers in the selfe same words and phrase as they are in Scripture And as for some truths peculiar to Christians for Example the mystery of the blessed Trinitie c. The only setting them down in Writing is not enough to be assured that such a Writing is the undoubted word of God otherwise some sayings of Plato Trisâ—egistus Sybils Ovid c. must be esteemed Canonicall Scripture because they fall upon some truths proper to Christian Religion The internall light and inspiration which directed and moved the Authors of Canonicall Scriptures is a hidden Qualitie infused into their understanding and will and hath no such particular sensible influence into the externall Writing that in it we can discover or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is divine we cannot know from it selfe alone but by some other extrinsecall authority 11 And here we appeale to any man of judgement whether it be not a vaine brag of some Protestants to tell us that they wot full well what is Scripture by the light of Scripture it selfe or as D. Potter words it by that glorious beame of divine light which shines therein even as our eye distinguisheth light from darknesse without any other help then light it selfe and as our eare knowes a voice by the voice it selfe alone But this vanity is refuted by what we said even now that the externall Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connection with divine inspiration or revelation Will D. Poiter hold all his Bretheren for blinde men for not seeing that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture about which they cannot agree Corporall light may be discerned by it selfe alone as being evident proportionate and connaturall to our faculty of seeing That Scripture is Divine and inspired by God is a truth exceeding the naturall capacity and compasse of mans understanding to us obscure and to be believed by divine faith which according to the Apostle is argumentum non apparentium an argument or conviction of things not evident and therefore no wonder if Scripture doe not manifest it selfe by it selfe alone but must require some other meanes for applying it to our understanding Neverthelesse their own similitudes and instances make against themselues For suppose a man had never read or heard of Sunne Moone Fire Candle c. and should bee brought to behold a light yet in such sort as that the Agent or Cause efficient from which it proceeded were kept hidden from him could such a one by only beholding the light certainly know whether it were produced by the Sunne or Moone c. Or if one heare a voice and had never known the speaker could he know from whom in particular that voice proceeded They who look upon Scripture may well see that some one wrote it but that it was written by divine inspiration how shall they know Nay they cannot so much as know who wrote it unlesse they first know the writer and what hand he writes as likewise I cannot know whose voice it is which I heare unlesse I first both know the person who speakes and with what voice he useth to speak and yet even all this supposed I may perhaps be deceaved For there may be voices so like and Hand so counterfeited that men may be deceaved by them as birds were by the grapes of that skilfull Painter Now since Protestants affirme knowledge concerning God as our supernaturall end must be taken from Scripture they cannot in Scripture alone discerne that it is his voice or writing because they cannot know from whom a writing or vioce proceeds unlesse first they know the person who speakeâ— ' or writeth Nay I say more By Scripture alone they cannot so much as know that any person doth in it or by it speak any thing at all because one may write without intent to signifie or affirme any thing but onely to set downe or as it were paint such characters syllables and words as men are wont to set copies not caring what the signification of the words imports or as one transcribes a writing which himselfe understands not or when one writes what another dictates and in other such cases wherein it is cleare that the writer speakes or signifies nothing in such his writing and therefore by it we cannot heare or understand his voice With what certainty then can any man affirme that by Scripture it selfe they can see that the writers did intend to signifie any thing at all that they were Apostles or other Canonicall Authors that they wrote their own sense and not what was dictated by some other man and finally and especially that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost 12 But let us be liberall and for the present suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporall light by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our understanding to assent yet the similitude proues against themselues For light is not visible except to such as haue eyes which are not made by the light but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause And therefore to hold the similitude Scripture can be cleare onely to those who are endued with the eye of faith or as D. Potter aboue cited saith to all that haue eyes to discerne the shining beames thereof that is to the believer as immediatly after he speaketh Faith then must not originally proceed from Scripture but
for the Authority which you would have them follow you will let them see reason why they should follow it And is not this to goe a little about to leave reason for a short turne and then to come to it again and to doe that which you condemne in others It being indeed a plain impossibility for any man to submit his reason but to reason for he that does it to Authority must of necessity think himselfe to have greater reason to believe that Authority Therefore the confession cited by Brerely you need not think to have been extorted from Luther and the rest It came very freely from them and what they say you practise as much as they 115 And whereas you say that a Protestant admits of Fathers Councells Church as farre as they agree with Scripture which upon the matter is himselfe I say you admit neither of them nor the Scripture it selfe but only so farre as it agrees with your Church and your Church you admit because you think you have reason to doe so so that by you as well as by Protestants all is finally resolved into your own reason 116 Nor doe Heretiques only but Romish Catholiques also set up as many judges as there are men and women in the Christian world For doe not your men and women judge your Religion to be true before they believe it as well as the men and women of other Religions Oh but you say They receive it not because they think it agreeable to Scripture but because the Church tells them so But then I hope they believe the Church because their own reason tells them they are to doe so So that the difference between a Papist and a Protestant is this not that the one judges and the other does not judge but that the one judges his guide to be infallible the other his way to be manifest This same pernitious Doctrine is taught by Brentius Zanchius Cartwright and others It is so in very deed But it is taught also by some others whom you little think of It is taught by S. Paul where he saies Try all things hold fast that which is good It is taught by S. Iohn in these words Belieue not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they be of God or no. It is taught by S. Peter in these Bee yee ready to render a reason of the hope that is in you Lastly this very pernitious Doctrine is taught by our Saviour in these words If the blinde lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch And why of your selues iudge you not what is right All which speeches if they doe not advise men to make use of their Reason for the choice of their Religion I must confesse my selfe to understand nothing Lastly not to bee infinite it is taught by M. Knot himselfe not in one page only or chapter of his Book but all his Book over the very writing and publishing whereof supposeth this for certaine that the readers are to be Iudges whether his Reasons which he brings be strong and convincing of which sort wee haue hetherto met with none or else captious or impertinences as indifferent men shall as I suppose haue cause to judge them 117 But you demand What good Statesmen would they be who should ideate or fancy such a Commonwealth as these men haue framed to themselues a Church Truly if this be all the fault they haue that they say Every man is to use his own iudgement in the choice of his Religion and not to belieue this or that sense of Scripture upon the bare Authority of any Learned man or men when he conceiues he has reasons to the contrary which are of more weight then their Authority I know no reason but notwithstanding all this they might be as good Statesmen as any of the Society But what has this to doe with Common-wealths where men are bound only to externall obedience unto the Laws and judgements of Courts but not to an internall approbation of them no nor to conceale their Iudgment of them if they disapprove them As if I conceiued I had reason to mislike the law of punishing simple theft with death as St Thomas Moore did I might professe lawfully my judgement and represent my Reasons to the King or Common-wealth in a Parliament as S â— Thomas Moore did without committing any fault or fearing any punishment 118 To the place of S. Austin wherewith this Paragraph is concluded I shall need giue no other Reply but onely to desire you to speak like an honest man and to say whether it be all one for a man to allow and disallow in every Scripture what he pleases which is either to dash out of Scripture such Texts or such Chapters because they crosse his opinionâ— or to say which is worse Though they be Scripture they are not true Whether I say for a man thus to allow and disallow in Scripture what he pleases be all one and no greater fault then to allow that sense of Scripture which he conceiues to be true and genuine and deduc'd out of the words and to disallow the contrary For Gods sake Sr tell me plainly In those Texts of Scripture which you alleage for the infallibility of your Church doe not you allow what sensâ— you think true and disallow the contrary And doe you not this by the direction of your private reason If you doe why doe you condemne it in others If you doe not I pray you tell me what direction you follow or whether you follow none at all If none at all this is like drawing Lots or throwing the Dice for the choice of a Religion If any other I beseech you tell me what it is Perhaps you will say the Churches Authority and that will be to dance finely in a round thus To belieue the Churches Infallible Authority because the Scriptures avouch it to belieue that Scriptures say and mean so because they are so expounded by the Church Is not this for a Father to beget his Sonne and the Sonne to beget his Father For a foundation to support the house and the house to support the foundation Would not Campian haue cryed out at it Ecce quos gyros quos Maeandros And to what end was this going about when you might as well at first haue concluded the Church infallible because she saies so as thus to put in Scripture for a meere stale and to say the Church is infallible because the Scripture saies so and the Scripture meanes so because the Church saies so which is infallible Is it not most evident therefore to every intelligent man that you are enforced of necessity to doe that your selfe which so tragically you declaime against in others The Church you say is infallible I am very doubtfull of it How shall I know it The Scripture you say affirmes it as in the 59. of Esay My spirit that is in thee c. Well I confesse I finde there these words but I am still
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
Paule and that the communion in both kindes was taught by our Saviour The twelfth and last is this that your Church was in peaceable possession you must mean of her doctrine and the Professors of it and enjoyed prescription for many ages For besides that doctrine is not a thing that may be possessed And the professors of it were the Church it selfe and in nature of possessors If we may speak improperly rather then the thing possessed with whom no man hath reason to be offended if they think fit to quit their own possession I say that the possession which the governors of your Church held for some ages of the party governed was not peaceable but got by fraude and held by violence 108 These are the Falshoods which in this answer offer themselves to any attentive Reader and that which remaines is meere impertinence As first that a pretence of conscience will not serve to iustifie separation from being Schismaticall Which is true but little to the purpose seeing it was not an erroneous perswasion much lesse an Hypocriticall pretence but a true and well grounded conviction of conscience which D. Potter alleaged to justifie Protestants from being Schismaticall And therefore though seditious men in Church and State may pretend conscience for a cloak of their rebellion yet this I hope hinders not but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience rather then the unjust commands of his tyrannous Superiours Otherwise with what colour can you defend either your own refusing the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy Or the ancient Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets who oftentimes disobeyed the commands of men in authority and for their disobedience made no other but this Apologie Wee must obey God rather then men It is therefore most apparent that this answer must be meerly impertinent seeing it will serve against the Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets even against your selues as well as against Protestants To as little purpose is your rule out of Lyrinensis against them that followed Lâ—ther seeing they pretend and are ready to justify that they forsook not with the Doctors the faith but only the corruption of the Church As vain altogether is that which follows That in cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our Superiour or cast off his obedience nor publiquely oppose his decrees From whence it will follow very evidently that seeing it is not a matter of faith but a disputed question among you whether the Oath of Allegiance be lawfull that either you acknowledge not the King your Superiour or doe against conscience in opposing his and the kingdomes decree requiring the taking of this Oath This good use I say may very fairely bee made of it and is by men of your own religion But then it is so far from being a confutation that it is rather a confirmation of D. Potters assertion For hee that useth these words doth he not plainly import and such was the case of Protestants that we are to leaue our Superiours to cast off obedience to them and publiquely to oppose their Decrees when we are certain as Protestants were that what they command God doth countermand Lastly S. Cyprians example is against Protestants impertinently and even ridiculously alleaged For what if S. Cyprian holding his opinion true but not necessary condemned no man much lesse any Church for holding the contrary Yet me thinks this should lay no obligation upon Luther to doe so likewise seeing he held his own opinions not onely true but also necessary the doctrine of the Roman Church not only false but damnable And therefore seeing the condition and state of the parties censured by S. Cyprian and Luther was so different no marvell though their censures also were different according to the supposed merit of the parties delinquent For as for your obtruding again upon us that we believe the points of difference not Fundamentall or nenessary you have been often told that it is a calumny We hold your errors as damnable in themselves as you doe ours only by accident through invincible ignorance we hope they are not unpardonable and you also professe to think the same of ours 109 Ad § 42. The former part of this discourse grounded on D. Potters words p. 105. I haue already in passing examined confuted I adde in this place 1. That though the Doctor say It is not fit for any private man to oppose his iudgement to the publique That is his own judgement and bare authority yet he denies not but occasions may happen wherein it may be very warrantable to oppose his reason or the authority of Scripture against it And is not then to be esteem'd to oppose his own judgement to the publique but the judgment of God to the judgement of men Which his following words seem to import He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason Secondly I am to tell you that you haue no ground from him to enterline his words with that interrogatory His own conceits and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture For these things are in his words opposed and not confounded and the latter not intended for a repetition as you mistake it but for an Antithesis of the former He may offer saith he his opinion to be considered of so he doe it with evidence of Scripture But if hee will factiously advance his own conceits that is say I clean contrary to your glosse Such as have not evident nor very probable ground in Scripture for these conceits are properly his own he may iustly bee branded c. Now that this of the two is the better glosse it is proved by your own interrogation For that imputes absurdity to D. Potter for calling them a mans own conceits which were grounded upon evidence of Scripture And therefore you have shewed little candour or equity in fastning upon them this absurd construction They not only bearing but even requiring another more faire and more sensible Every man ought to be presum'd to speak sense rather then non-sense coherently rather then contradictiously if his words be fairely capable of a better construction For M. Hooker if writing against Puritans he had said something unawares that might give advantage to Papists it were not inexcusable seeing it is a matter of such extreme difficulty to hold such a temper in opposing one extreme opinion as not to seem to favour the other Yet if his words be rightly consider'd there is nothing in them that will doe you any service For though he saies that men are bound to doe whatsoever the sentence of finall decision shall determine as it is plain men are bound to yeeld such an obedience to all Courts of civill judicature yet he saies not they are bound to think that determination lawfull and that sentence just Nay it is plain hee saies that they must doe according to the Iudges sentence though in their private opinion
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
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
Tradition Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us Therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our beliefe Now then to come up closer to you and to answer to your Question not as you put it but as you should haue put it I say That this position Scripture alone is the rule whereby they which belieue it to be Gods Word are to judge all Controversies in Faith is no fundameÌ„tall point Though not for your Reasons For your first and strongest reason you see is plainly voided and cut off by my stating of the Question as I haue done and supposing in it that the parties at variance are agreed about this That the Scripture is the word of God and consequently that this is none of their Controversies To your second That Controversies cannot be ended without some living Authority We haue said already that necessary Controversies may be are decided And if they be not ended this is not through defect of the Rule but through the default of Men. And for these that cannot thus be ended it is not necessary they should be ended For if God did require the ending of them he would have provided some certain meanes for the ending of them And to your Third I say that your pretence of using these meanes is but hypocriticall for you use them with prejudice and with a setled resolution not to believe any thing which these meanes happily may suggest into you if it any way crosse your pre-conceav'd persuasion of your Churches infallibility You give not your selves liberty of judgement in the use of them nor suffer your selves to bee led by them to the Truth to which they would lead you would you but be as willing to believe this consequence Our Church doth oppose Scripture therefore it doth erre therefore it is not Infallible as you are resolute to believe this The Church is infallible therefore it doth not erre and therefore it doth not oppose Scripture though it seem to doe so never so plainly 157 You pray but it is not that God would bring you to the true Religion but that he would confirm you in your own You conferre places but it is that you may confirm or colour over with plausible disguises your erroneous doctrine not that you may judge of them forsake them if there be reason for it You consult the Originalls but you regard them not when they make against your Doctrine or Translation 158 You adde not only the Authority but the Infallibility not of Gods Church but of the Roman a very corrupt and degenerous part of it whereof D. Potter never confessed that it cannot erre damnably And which being a company made up of particular men can afford you no help but the industry learning and wit of private men and that these helps may not help you out of your errour tell you that you must make use of none of all these to discover any errour in the Church but only to maintaine her impossibility or erring And lastly D. Potter assures himselfe that your Doctrine and practises are damnable enough in themselves Only he hopes and spes est rei incertae nomen he hopes I say that the Truths which you retain especially the necessity of repentance and faith in Christ will bee as an antidote to you against the errours which you maintain and that your superstructions may burne yet they amongst you Qui sequun tur Absalonem in simplicitate cor dis may be saved yet so as by fire Yet his thinking so is no reason for you or me to think so unlesse you suppose him infallible and if you doe why doe you write against him 159 Notwithstanding though not for these reasons yet for others I conceive this Doctrine not Fundamentall Because if a man should believe Christian Religion wholly and entirely and live according to it such a man though he should not know or not believe the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God my opinion is he may be saved and my reason is because he performes the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we believe the matter of the Gospell and not that it is contained in these or these Bookes So that the Bookes of Scripture are not so much the objects of our faith as the instruments of conveying it to our understanding and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrine as requisite to the well being of it Irenaeus tels us as M. K. acknowledgeth of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing But these barbarous people might be saved therefore men might be saved without believing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without believing it to be a Rule and a perfect Rule of Faith Neither doubt I but if the bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had been before received and had been doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous nations but still by the bare beliefe and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of us under pain of damnation only to believe the verities therein contained and not the divine Authority of the bookes wherein they are contained Not but that it were now very strange and unreasonable if a man should belieue the matter of these bookes and not the Authority of the bookes and therefore if a man should professe the not believing of these I should have reason to fear he did not believe that But there is not alwaies an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief whereof there is an equall reason We have I believe as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eight K. of England as that Iesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilaâ—â— yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt of or disbelieve that it were most unreasonably done of of him yet it were no mortall sinne nor no sinne at all God having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all which reason induceth them to believe Therefore as an Executor that should performe the whole will of the dead should fully satisfy the Law though he did not believe that Parchment to be his written Will which indeed is so So I believe that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles 160 This discourse whether it be rationall and concluding or no I submit to better judgement But sure I am that the corollary which you draw from this position that this point is not Fundamentaâ— is very inconsequent that is that we are uncertain of the truth
such Authorities as these and think you selves at liberty from them and that you should account them Fathers when they are for you and Children when they are against you Yet I would not you should interpret this as if I had not great assurance that it is not possible for you ever to gain this cause at the tribunall of the Fathers nay not of the Fathers whose sentences are here alleaged Let us consider them in order and I doubt not to make it appear that farre the greater part of them nay all of them that are any way considerable fall short of your purpose 23 S. Hierome you say writing to Pope Damasus saith I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter c. But then I pray consider he saith it to Pope Damasus and this will much weaken the Authority with them who know how great over-truths men usually write to one another in letters Consider againe that he saies only that he was then in Communion with the Chaire of Peter Nott hat he alwayes would or of necessity must be so for his resolution to the contrary is too evident out of that which he saith elswhere which shall be produced hereafter He saies that the Church at that present was built upon that Rock but not that only Nor that alwayes Nay his judgment as shall appeare is expresse to the contrary And so likewise the rest of his expressions if we meane to reconcile Hierome with Hierome must bee conceived as intended by him of that Bishop and Sea of Rome at that present time and in the present State and in respect of that doctrine which he there intreats of For otherwise had he conceiu'd it necessary for him and all men to conform their judgments in matters of faith to the judgment of the Bishop Church of Rome how came it to passe that he chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall upō the Authority of the Easterne Church then to reject it from the Canon upon the Authority of the Roman How comes it to passe that he dissented from the Authority of that Church touching the Canon of the Old Testament For if you say that the Church then consented with S. Hierome I feare you will loose your Fort by maintaining your Out-works and by avoyding this runne into a greater danger of being forc'd to confesse the present Roman Church opposite herein to the Ancient How was it possible that he should ever beleeue that Liberius Bishop of Rome either was or could haue been wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia and brought after two years banishment to subscribe Heresie Which Act of Liberius though some fondly question being so vain as to expect we should rather believe them that lived but yesterday thirteen hundred years almost after the thing is said to be done and speaking for themselves in their own Cause rather then the dis-interessed time-fellowes or immediate Successors of Liberius himselfe yet I hope they will not proceed to such a degree of immodesty as once to question whether S. Hierome thought so And if this cannot be denyed I demand then if he had lived in Liberius his time could he or would he have written so to Liberius as he does to Damasus would he have said to him I am in the Communion of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built upon this Rock Whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth Would he then have said the Roman faith and the Catholique were the same or that the Roman faith received no delusions no not from an Angell I suppose he could not have said so with any coherence to his own beleif and therefore conceive it undeniable that what he said then to Damasus he said it though perhaps he streyned too high only of Damasus and never conceiv'd that his words would have been extended to all his Predecessors and all his Successors 24 The same Answer I make to the first place of S. Ambrose viz. that no more can be certainly concluded from it but that the Catholique Bishops and the Roman Church were then at unity so that whosoever agreed with the latter could not then but agree with the former But that this Rule was perpetuall and that no man could ever agree with the Catholique Bishops but he must agree with the Roman Church this he saies not nor gives you any ground to conclude from him Athanasius when he was excommunicated by Liberius agreed very ill with the Roman Church and yet you will not gainsay but he agreed well enough with the Catholique Bishops The second I am uncertain what the sense of it is and what truth is in it but most certain that it makes nothing to your present purpose For it neither affirmes nor imports that separation from the Roman Church is a certain marke of Heresy For the Rights of Communion whatsoever it signifies might be said to flow from it if that Church were by Ecclesiasticall Law the head of all other Churches But unlesse it were made so by divine Authority and that absolutely Separation from it could not be a marke of Heresy 25 For S. Cyprian all the world knowes that he resolutely opposed a Decree of the Roman Bishop and all that adhered to him in the point of Re. baptizing which that Church at that time delivered as a necessary Tradition So necessary that by the Bishop of Rome Firmilianus and other Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia and generally all who persisted in the contrary opinion were therefore deprived of the Churches Communion which excōmunication could not but involve S. Cyprian who defended the same opinion as resolutely as Firmilianus though Cardinall Perron magisterially and without all colour of proofe affirme the contrary and Cyprian in particular so farre cast off as for it to be pronounc'd by Stephen a false Christ. Again so necessary that the Bishops which were sent by Cyprian from Africk to Rome were not admitted to the Communion of ordinary conference But all men who were subject to the Bishop of Romes Authority were cōmanded by him not only to deny them the Churches peace Communion but even lodging and entertainment manifestly declaring that they reckoned them among those whom S. Iohn forbids to receive to house or to say God speed to them All these terrors notwithstanding S. Cyprian holdes still his former opinion though out of respect to the Churches peace he judged no man nor cut off any man from the right of Communion for thinking otherwise then he held yet he conceived Stephen his adherents to hold a pernitious error And S. Austin though disputing with the Donatists he useth some Tergiversatiō in the point yet confesseth elsewhere that it is not found that Cyprian did ever change his opinion And so farre was he from conceiving any necessity of doing so in submitting to the judgement of the Bishop and Church of Rome that he plainly professeth that