say to know whether he belieue all fundamentall points of fayth For if he doe his fayth for point of beliefe is sufficient for saluation though he erre in a hundred things of lesse moment But how shall I know whether he hold all fundamentall points or no For til you tel me this I cannot know whether or no his beliefe be sound in all fundamentall points Can you say the Creed Yes And so can many damnable Heretikes But why doe you aske me this question Because the Creed containes all fundamentall points of fayth Are you sure of that not sure I hould it very probable (y) pag. 241. Shall I hazard my soule on probabilities or euen wagers This yields a new cause of despaire But what doth the Creed contayne all points necessary to be belieued whether they rest in the vnderstanding or else do further extend to practise No. It was cōposed to deliuer Credenda not Agenda to vs Fayth not Practise How then shall I know what points of beliefe which direct my practise be necessary to saluation Still you chalke out new pathes for Desperation Well are all Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter fundamentall I cannot say so How then shall I know which in particuler be and which be not fundamentall Read my Answere to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. there you shall find that fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertaine (z) pag. 211.213.214 to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly belieued by euery Christian that will be saued They are those grand and capitall doctrines which make vp our Fayth in Christ that is that common fayth which is alike precious in all being one the same in the highest Apostle the meanest belieuer which the Apostle else-where cals the first principles of the oracles of God and the forme of sound words But how shall I apply these generall definitions or descriptions or to say the truth these only varied words and phrases for I vnderstand the word fundamentall as well as the words principall essentiall grand and capitall doctrines c. to the particular Articles of the Creed in such sort as that I may be able precisely exactly particularly to distinguish fundamentall Articles from points of lesse moment You labour to tell vs what fundamentall points be but not which they be and yet vnlesse you do this your Doctrine serues onely either to make men despaire or els to haue recourse to those whom you call Papists and who giue one certaine Rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of Fayth in such sense as that to deny any one cannot stand with saluation And seing your selfe acknowledges that these men do not erre in points fundamentall I cannot but hold it most safe for me to loyne with them for the securing of my soule and the auoyding of desperation into which this your doctrine must cast all them who vnderstand and belieue it For the whole discourse and inferences which heer I haue made are either your owne direct Assertions or euident consequences cleerly deduced from them 20. But now let vs answere some few Obiections of D. Potters against that which we haue said before to auoid our argument That the Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed he sayth The Creed is an abstract of such (a) pag. 234. necessary Doctrines as are deliuered in Scripture or collected out of it and therfore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes 21. This answere makes for vs. For by giuing a reason why it was needles that Scripture should be expressed in the Creed you grant as much as we desire namely that the Apostles iudged it needles to expresse all necessary points of fayth in their Creed Neither doth the Creed suppose or depend on Scripture in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence infer from the Articles of the Creed that there is any Canonicall Scripture at all and much lesse that such Bookes in particular be Canonicall Yea the Creed might haue been the same although holy Scripture had neuer been written and which is more the Creed euen in priority of time was before all the Scripture of the new Testament except the Gospell of S. Mathew And so according to this reason of his the Scripture should not mention Articles conteined in the Creed And I note in a word how little connexion D. Potters arguments haue while he tels vs that the Creed (b) pag. 234. is an Abstract of such necessary doctrines as are deliuered in Scripture or collected out of it and therfore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes it doth not follow The Articles of the Creed are deliuered in Scripture therfore the Creed supposeth Scripture For two distinct writings may well deliuer the same truths and yet one of them not suppose the other vnlesse D. Potter be of opinion that two Doctours cannot at one time speake the same truth 22. And notwithstanding that D. Potter hath now told vs it was needles that the Creed should expresse Scripture whose Authority it supposes he comes at length to say that the Nicene Fathers in their Creed confessing that the holy Ghost spake by the Prophets doth therby sufficiently auow the diuine Authority of all Canonicall Scripture But I would aske him whether the Nicene Creed be not also an Abstract of Doctrines deliuered in Scripture as he said of the Apostles Creed and thence did infer that it was needles to expresse Scripture whose authority it supposes Besides we do not only belieue in generall that Canonicall Scripture is of diuine authority but we are also bound vnder paine of damnation to belieue that such and such particular Bookes not mentioned in the Nicene Creed are Canonicall And lastly D. Potter in this Answere grants as much as we desire which is that all points of fayth are not contained in the Apostles Creed euen as it is explained by other Creeds For these words who spake by the Prophets are no wayes contained in the Apostles Creed and therfore containe an Addition not an Explanation therof 23. But how can it be necessary sayth D. Potter for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the (c) pag. 221. Apostles had and the Church of their tymes I answere You trifle not distinguish betweene the Apostles beliefe and that abridgement of some Articles of fayth which we call the Apostles Creed and withall you begg the question by supposing that the Apostles belieued no more then is contained in their Creed which euery vnlearned person knowes and belieues and I hope you will not deny but the Apostles were endued with greater knowledge then ordinary persons 24. Your pretended proofe out of the Acts that the Apostles reuealed to the Church the whole Counsell of God keeping (d) Act. 20.27
credit of Turkes or Infidels And therefore not the Assertion of Bellarmine but the contrary to it is a plaine principle of Atheisme Doe not you proue the necessity of a perpetuall visible true Church because other wise men should want that ordinary meanes which God hath appointed for our instruction Direction Saluation Now if we might haue Scriptures and true Fayth from a false Church your more zealous Brethren who deny a perpetuall visible true Church might easily answere all your Arguments and tell you that a true Church is not necessery for fayth and Saluation And besides is it not in effect all one to say for as much as concernes our instruction Christ hath no visible Church to say that we cānot know which is the true visible Church of Christ All the infallibility which we ascribe to the Church is acknowledged to proceed from the assistance of God how can he be said not to belieue a God who belieues the Church because she is assisted by God Remēber that euen now I told you that according to your owne affirmation the Church is the ordinary meanes wherby Diuine Truth is conueyed to the vnderstāding and yet you thinke your selfe free from Atheisme The Apostles of themselues were but mortal frayle subiect to errour and yet I hope you will not thinke it a Principle of Atheisme to say that all our fayth depends on them 12. You taxe vs for teaching that much of the Matter or Obiect of fayth is not contayned in Scripture any way But I haue already more then once sayd that we belieue nothing but what is contained in Scripture in some sort eyther in it selfe or from some Principle from which it may be certaynely deduced or in those places of Scripture which recōmend the Church vnwritten Traditions to vs as if one should in his last Testament expresse diuers particulars and should in the same Testament referre the rest to some third person whome be had fully instructed concerning his further will meaning whatsoeuer things were performed according to the direction of that third person might truly be sayd to be contayned in the Testament although they might also be saye not to be cōtained therin because they are not mētioned in particular And according to this explication Canus and Stapleton whome you cite and other Catholikes are to be vnderstood when they teach that we belieue diuers things not comprehended in Scripture 13. But you aske with what ingenuity (y) Pag. 146. or conscience doe they pretend Scripture in ech Controuersy agaynst vs since by their owne Confession many of their Assertions are meere vnwritten Traditions leaning only on the Authority of their Church I answere that some points of faith are expresly contained in Scripture yet not so enforcingly as they might not be colourably eluded if we tooke away the declaration of the Church Some others are not contained in Scripture any other way then in the generall principles of the Churches authority and diuine Traditions as for example that such Bookes in particular are Canonicall writings Some others ar◠comprehended in Scripture only probably Others are contained so cleerly that they may seeme sufficiently euident to a man not peruerse and according to these diuersities we do more or lesse alledge Scripture If one were disposed to vse such Arguments as you bring I might aske on the other side to what purpose do you alledge Councels Fathers Reasons if out of Scripture alone you can conuince all errors against your doctrine May not diuerse arguments be rightly alledged to proue the selfe same Conclusion 14. Once againe you returne to the sufficiency of only Scripture that is you returne to speake nothing which concernes the Question in hand which you proue out of Bellarmine though heerin say you as not seldome (z) 〈◊〉 14. contradicting both himseife and his fellowes How consonant the writings of Bellarmine are both to themselues and to the common doctrine of other Catholique Authors this may serue for a sufficient proofe that all his Aduersaries could neuer shew yet in all his works any one contradiction but such as themselues had first forged and then obiected And although in this generall cause I do not willingly meddle with personall things yet that you may learne heerafter to speake with more circumspection but chiefly for the merit of a person so eminent in learning and dignity and yet more eminent in sanctity I will not forbeare to assure the world and you that when some yeares since a perion of high authority in the world had made himselfe beneue that he had discouered many contradictions in Bellarmine D. Dunne in a conference that he had with a person of Honour Worth from whom I receiued it though I hold it not fit heer to giue his name declared that there was no ground for this but that all his works were so consonant and coherent to one another as if he had been able to write them all in one houres space And if you D. Potter be of another opinion you shall do well to produce some instāce to the contrary which may shew a reall contradiction betweene some passage and some other of his works wherin it is odds that you will be answered and he be defended Let vs see also for the present what you bring to make good your asseueration The Cardinall say you grants (a) Bellarm. deverb Dei interpret cap. 10. ad arg 1◠that a Proposition is not de fide vnles it be concluded in this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer God (b) pag. 145. reuealed in the Scripture is true but this or that God hath reuealed in Scripture ergo it is true If matters of fayth must be reuealed in Scripture as this reason supposes then the Proposall of the Church cannot make any vnwritten Verity to become matter of fayth yet to salue the soueraigne power of his Church he makes all the strength and truth in this Syllogisme to depend on the Testimony of the Church and by consequence the truth of the Conclusion which euer resembles the weaker premisse So as if this be true there is no truth in the Scriptures or in our Religion without the attestation of the Church But now how many corruptions sleights and vntruths are couched in these lines Let vs examine them a little Bellarmine hauing taught and proued at large that the interpretation of holy Scripture belongs not to priuate persons but to the Church of God which in respect of vs is to iudge of Scripture and of all other Controuersies in Religion and hauing made this Obiection against himselfe If our fayth depend (c) Vbi supra vpon the Iudgment of the Church then it depends vpon the word of men and therfore doth rely vpon a most weake foundation he giues this answere The word of the Church that is of the Councell or Pope when he teacheth as out of his Chaire is not meerly the word of man that is a word subiect to error
or conuiction of things not euident 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 vnderstanding Neuer theles their owne similitudes and instances make against themselues For suppose a man had neuer read or heard of Sunne Moone Fire Candle c. and should be 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 an one by only beholding the light certainly know whether it were produduced by the Sunne or Moone c Or if one heare a voyce and had neuer known the speaker could he know from whome in particuler that voyce proceeded They who looke vpon Scripture may well see that some one wrote it but that it was written by diuine inspiration how shall they know Nay they cannot so much as know who wrote it vnles they first know the writer and what hand he writes as likewise I cānot know whose voice it is which I heare vnles I first both know the person who speakes with what voice he vseth to speake and yet euen all this supposed I may perhaps be deceyued For there may be voyces so like and Hand so counterfaited that men may be deceyued by them as birds were by the grapes of that skillfull 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 voyce or writing because they cannot know from whome a writing or voyce proceeds vnle first they know the person who speaketh or writeth Nay I say more By Scripture alone they cannot so much as know that any person doth in it or by it speake any thing at all because one may write without intent to signify or affirme any thing but only 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 writinge which himselfe vnderstands not or when one writes what another dictates and in other such cases wherein it is cleere that the writer speakes or signifies nothing in such his writing therefore by it we cannot heare or vnderstand his voyce With what certainty then can any man affirme that by Scripture it self they can see that the writers did intēd to signify any thing at all that they were Apostles or other Canonical Authours that they wrote their owne sense and not what was dictated by some other man and finally especially that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost 12. But let vs be liberall and for the present suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporall light by it selfe alone able to determine moue our vnderstanding to assent yet the similitude proues against thēselues 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 cleere only to those who are endewed with the eye of fayth or as D. Potter aboue cited sayth to all that haue (a) Pag. 141. eyes to discerne the shining beames thereof that is to the belieuer as immediatly after he speaketh Fayth then must not originally proceed from Scripture but is to be presupposed before we can see the light thereof and consequently there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Fayth which can be no other then the Church 13. Others affirme that they know Canonicall Scriptures to be such by the Title of the Bookes But how shall we know such Inscriptions or Titles to be infallibly true From this their Answere our argument is strengthned because diuers Apocryphall writings haue appeared vnder the Titles and Names of sacred Authours as the Ghospell of Thomas mentioned by S (b) Cont. Adimantum c. 17. Augustine the Ghospell of Peter which the Nazaraei did vse as (c) l. 2. haeretic fab Theodoret witnesseth with which Scraphion a Catholique Bishop was for sometyme deceiued as may be read in (d) lib. 6. cap. 10. Eusebius who also speaketh of the Apocalyps of (e) lib. 6. cap. 11. Peter The like may be sayd of the Ghospells of Barnabas Bartholomew and other such writings specifyed by Pope (f) Dist. Can. Sancta Romana Gelasius Protestants reiect likewise some part of Esther and Daniel which beare the same Titles with the rest of those Bookes as also both wee and they hould for Apochryphall the third and fourth Bookes which go vnder the name of Esdras and yet both of vs receiue his first and second booke Wherefore Titles are not sufficient assurances what bookes be Canonicall which (h) In his defence art 4. Pag. 31. D. Couell acknowledgeth in these words It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we doe well to thinke it is the word of God the first outward motion leading men so to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church which teacheth vs to receiue Marks Ghospell who was not an Apostle and to refuse the Ghospell of Thomas who was an Apostle and to retaine Lukes Ghospell who saw not Christ and to reiect the Ghospell of Nicodemus who saw him 14. Another Answere or rather Obiection they are wont to bring That the Scripture being a principle needs no proofe among Christians So D. (i) Pag 234 Potter But this neither a plaine begging of the question or manifestly vntrue and is directly against their owne octrine and practise If they meane that Scripture is one of those principles which being the first and the most knowne in all Sciences cannot be demonstrated by other Principles they suppose that which is in question whether there be not some principle for example the Church wherby we may come to the knowledge of Scripture If they intend that Scripture is a Principle but not the first and most knowne in Christianity then Scripture may be proued For principles that are not the first nor knowne of themselues may ought to be proued before we can yield assent either to them or to other verities depending on them It is repugnant to their owne doctrine and practise in as much as they are wont to affirme that one part of Scripture may be knowne to be Canonicall and may be interpreted by another And since euery scripture is a principle sufficient vpon which to ground diuine faith they must grant that one Principle may and sometime must be proued by another Yea this their Answere vpon due ponderation falls out to proue what we affirme For since all Principles cannot be proued we must that our labour may not be endles come at length to rest in some principle which may not require any other proofe Such is Tradition which inuolues an euidence of fact and
be some vniuersall Iudge which the ignorant may vnderstand and to whom the greatest Clerks must submit Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such 20. Now the inconueniences which follow by referring all Controuersies to Scripture alone are very cleare For by this principle all is finally in very deed and truth reduced to the internall priuate Spirit because there is really no middle way betwixt a publique externall and a priuate internall voyce whosoeuer refuseth the one must of necessity adhere to the other 21. This Tenet also of Protestants by taking the office of Iudicature from the Church comes to conferre it vpon euery particuler maÌ„ who being driuen from submission to the Church cannot be blamed if he trust himselfe as farre as any other his conscience dictating that wittingly he meanes not to cozen himself as others maliciously may do Which inference is so manifest that it hath extorted from diuers Protestants the open Confession of so vast an absurdity Heare Luther The Gouernours (a) Tom. 2. Wittemberg fol. 375. of Churches and Pastours of Christs sheep haue indeed power to teach but the sheep ought to giue Iudgment whether they propound the voyce of Christ or of Aliens Lubbertus sayth As we haue (b) In lib. de principiâ—s Christian. dogm lib. 6. cap. 13. demonstrated that all publique Iudges may be deceiued in interpreting so we affirme that they may erre in iudging All faythfull men are prinate Iudges and they also haue power to Iudge of doctrines and interpretations Whitaker euen of the vnlearned sayth They (c) De Sacra Scriptura pag. 529. ought to haue recourse vnto the more learned but in the meane tyme we must be carefull not to attribute to them ouer-much but so that still we retaine our owne freedome Bilson also affirmeth that The people (d) In his true difference part 2. must be discerners and Iudges of that which is taught This same pernicious doctrine is deliuered by Brentius Zanchius Cartwright and others exactly cited by (e) Tract 2. cap. 1. Sect. 1. Brereley nothing is more common in euery Protestants mouth then that he admits of Fathers Councells Church c. as far as they agree with Scripture which vpon the matter is himselfe Thus Heresy euer fals vpon extremes It pretends to haue Scripture alone for Iudge of Controuersies and in the meane time sets vp as many Iudges as there are men and women in the Christian world What good Statesmen would they be who should idëate or fancy such a Common wealth as these men haue framed to themselues a Church They verify what S. Augustine obiecteth against certaine Heretiques You sce (f) lib 32. cont Faust that you goe about to ouerthrow all authority of Scripture and that euery mans mind may be to himselfe a Rule what he is to allow or disallow in euery Scripture 22. Moreouer what coÌ„fusion to the Church what danger to the Common wealth this deniall of the authority of the Church may bring I leaue to the consideration of any Iudicious indifferent man I will only set downe some words of D. Potter who speaking of the Proposition of reuealed Truths sufficient to proue him that gaine saith them to be an Heretique sayth thus This Proposition (g) pag. 247 of reuealed truths is not by the infallible determination of Pope or Church Pope and Church being excluded let vs heare what more secure rule he will prescribe but by whatsoeuer meanes a man may be conuinced in conscience of diuine reuelation If a Preacher do cleare any point of fayth to his Hearers if a priuate Christian do make it appeare to his Neighbour that any conclusion or point of faith is deliuered by diuine reuelation of Gods word if a man himselfe without any Teacher by reading the Scriptures or hearing them read be conuinced of the truth of any such coclusion this is a sufficient proposition to proue him that gain saith any such proofe to be an Heretique and obstinate opposer of the faith Behold what goodly safe Propounders of fayth arise in place of Gods vniuersall visible Church which must yield to a single Preacher a Neighbour a man himselfe if he can read or at least haue eares to heare Scripture read Verily I do not see but that euery well gouerned Ciuill Common-wealth ought to concur towards the exterminating of this doctrine whereby the Interpretation of Scripture is taken from the Church and conferred vpon euery man who whatsoeuer is pretended to the contrary may be a passionate seditions creature 23. Moreouer there was no Scripture or written word for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses whom all acknowledge to haue been the first Author of Canonicall Scripture And againe for about two thousand yeares more from Moyses to Christ our Lord holy Scripture was only among the people of Israel and yet there were Gentils endewed in those dayes with diuine Faith as appeareth in Iob and his friends Wherefore during so many ages the Church alone was the decider of Controuersies and Instructor of the faithfull Neither did the Word written by Moses depriue that Church of her former Infallibility or other qualities requisite for a Iudge yea D. Potter acknowledgeth that besides the Law there was a liuing Iudge in the Iewish Church endewed with an absolutly infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to diuine Faith are Now the Church of Christ our Lord was before the Scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one time but successiuely vpon seuerall occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles after they were written they were not presently knowne to all Churches and of some there was doubt in the Church for some Ages after our Sauiour Shall we then say that according as the Church by little and little receiued holy Scripture she was by the like degrees deuested of her possessed Infallibility and power to decide Controuersies in Religion That some Churches had one Iudge of Controuersies and others another That with moneths or yeares as new Canonicall Scripture grew to be published the Church altered her whole Rule of faith or Iudge of Controuersies After the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures Heresies would be sure to rise requiring in Gods Church for their discouery and condemnation Infallibility either to write new Canonicall Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emergent heresies or infallibility to interpret Scriptures already written or without Scripture by diuine vn written Traditions and affistance of the holy Ghost to determine all Controuersies as Tertullian saith The soule is (h) De test antm cap. 5. before the letter and speach before Bookes and sense before stile Certainly such addition of Scripture with derogation or subtraction from the former power and infallibility of the Church would haue brought to the world diuision in matters of faith and the Church had rather lost then
gained by holy Scripture which ought to be far from our tongues and thoughts it being manifest that for decision of Controuersies infallibility setled in a liuing Iudge is incomparably more vsefull and fit then if it were conceiued as inherent in some inanimate writing Is there such repugnance betwixt Infallibility in the Church and Existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Must the Church wax dry by giuing to her Children the milke of sacred Writ No No. Her Infallibility was and is deriued from an inexhausted fountaine If Protestants will haue the Scripture alone for their Iudge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof Infallibility went out of the Church D. Potter may remember what himselfe teacheth That the Church is stil endewed with infallibility in points fundamentall and consequently that infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the truth the sanctity yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to Saluation I would therfore glaâ—ly know out of what Text he imagineth that the Church by the comming of Scripture was depriued of infallibility in some points not in others He affirmeth that the Iewish Synagogue retained infallibility in her selfe notwithstanding the writing of the Old Testament and will he so vnworthily and vniustly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibility by reason of the New Testament Especially of we consider that in the Old Testament Lawes Ceremonies Rites Punishments iudgments Sacraments Sacrifices c. were more particulerly and minutely deliuered to the Iewes then in the New Testament is done our Sauiour leauing the determination or declaration of particulers to his Spouse the Church which therefore stands in need of Infallibility more then the Iewish Synagogue D. Potter (i) Pag. 24. against this argument drawne from the power and infallibility of the Synagogue obiects that we might as well infer that Christians must haue one soueraigne Prince ouer all because the Iewes had one chiefe Iudge But the disparity is very cleare The Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ not so their ciuill gouernmeÌ„t of Christian Common-wealths or kingdomes The Church succeeded to the Synagogue but not Christian Princes to Iewish Magistrates And the Church is compared to a howse or (k) Heb. 13. family to an (l) Cant. 2. Army to a (m) 1. Cor. 10. Ephes 4. body to a (n) Matt. 12 kingdome c. all which require one Maister one Generall one head one Magistrate one spirituall King as our blessed Sauiour with fiet Vnum ouile (o) Ioan. c. 10. ioyned Vnus Pastor One sheepefold one Pastour But all distinct kingdomes or Common-wealths are not one Army Family c. And finally it is necessary to saluation that all haue recourse to one Church but for temporall weale there is no need that all submit or depend vpon one temporall Prince kingdome or Common-wealth and therefore our Samour hath left to his whole Church as being One one Law one Scripture the same Sacraments c. Whereas kingdomes haue their seuerall Lawes disterent gouernments diuersity of Powers Magistracy c. And so this obiection returneth vpon D. Potter For as in the One Community of the Iewes there was one Power and Iudge to end debates and resolue difficulties so in the Church of Christ which is One there must be some one Authority to decide all Controuersies in Religion 24. This discourse is excellently proued by ancient S. Irenaeus (p) lib. 3. c. 4 in these words What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they deliuered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many Nations yield assent who belieue in Christ hauing saluation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or Inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receiue the truth from God's Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich Storehowse all things belonging to truth For what if there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question 25 Besides all this the doctrine of Protestants is destructiue of it selfe For either they haue certaine and infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting Scripture or they haue not If not then the Scripture to them cannot be a sufficient grouÌ„d for infallible faith nor a meete Iudge of Controuersies If they haue certaine infallible meanes and so cannot erre in their interpretations of Scriptures then they are able with infallibility to heare examine and determine all controuersies of faith and so they may be and are Iudges of Controuersies although they vse the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their owne doctrine they constitute an other Iudge of Controuersies besides Scripture alone 26. Lastly I aske D. Potter whether this Assertion Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controuersies in faith be a fundamentall point of faith or no He must be well aduised before he say that it is a fundamentall point For he will haue against him as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone it is impossible to know what Bookes be Scripture which yet to Protestants is the most necessary and chiefe point of all other D. Couell expressely saith Doubtles (q) In his defence of M. Hokers bookes art 4. p. 31. it is a tolerable opinion in the Church of Rome if they goe no further as some of them do not he should haue said as none of them doe to affirme that the Scriptures are holy and diuine in themselues but so esteemed by vs for the authority of the Church He will likewise oppose himselfe to those his Brethren who grant that Controuersies cannot be ended without some externall liuing authority as we noted before Besides how can it be in vs a fundamentall errour to say the Scripture alone is not Iudge of Controuersies seing notwithstanding this our beliefe we vse for interpreting of Scripture all the meanes which they prescribe as Prayer Conferring of places Consulting the Originals c. and to these add the Instruction and Authority of God's Church which euen by his Confession cannot erre damnably and may affoard vs more help then can be expected from the industry learning or wit of any priuate person finally D Potter grants that the Church of Rome doth not maintaine any fundamentall error against faith and consequently he cannot affirme that our doctrine in this present Controuersy is damnable If he answere that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only Iudge of Controuersies is not a fundamentall point of faith then as he teacheth that the vniuersall Church may erre in points not fundamentall so I hope he will not deny but particuler Churches and priuate men are much more obnoxious to error in such
consequeÌ„ce because if once we doubt of one Booke receiued for Canonicall the whole Canon is made doubtfull and vncertayne and therefore the Infallibility of Scripture must be vniuersall and not confined within compasse of points fundamentall 15. I answere For the thing it selfe it is very true that if I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture receaued for such I may doubt of all And thence by the same parity I inferre that if we did doubt of the Churches Infallibility in some points we could not belieue her in any one and consequently not in propounding Canonicall Bookes or any other points fundamentall or not fundamentall which thing being most absurd and withall most impious we must take away the ground thereof belieue that she cannot erre in any point great or small and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intended to proue Yet I add that Protestants cannot make vse of this reply with any good coherence to this their distinction and some other doctrines which they defend For if D. Potter can tell what points in particuler be fundamentall as in his 7. Sect. he pretendeth then he may be sure that whensoeuer he meets with such points in Scripture in them it is infallibly true although it might erre in others not only true but cleere because Protestants teach that in matters necessary to Saluation the Scripture is so cleere that all such necessary Truths are eyther manifestly contayned therein or may be cleerely deduced from it Which doctrines being put togeather to wit That Scriptures cannot erre in points fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such points and that they can tell what points in particuler be such I meane fundamentall it is manifest that it is sussicieÌ„t for Saluation that Scripture be infallible only in points fundamentall For supposing these doctrines of theirs to be true they may be sure to find in Scripture all points necessary to saluation although it were fallible in other points of lesse moment Neyther will they be able to auoyde this impiety against holy Scripture till they renounce their other doctrines and in particuler till they belieue that Christs promises to his Church are not limited to points fundamentall 16. Besides from the fallibility of Christs Catholique Church in some points it followeth that no true Protestant learned or vnlearned doth or can with assurance belieue the vniuersall Church in any one point of doctrine Not in points of lesser momeÌ„t which they call not fundamentall because they belieue that in such points she may erre Not in fundamentalls because they must know what points be fundamentall before they go to learne of her least other wise they be rather deluded then instructed in regard that her certaine and infallible direction extends only to points fundamentall Now if before they addresse themselues to the Church they must know what points are fundamentall they learne not of her but will be be as fit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously vpon so dreadfull menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Sauiour himselfe counselled and commaunded to seeke to heare to obey the Church S. Augustine was of a very different mind from Protestants If sayth he the (s) Epist. 118. Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madnes And in another place he sayth That which (t) lib. 4. de Bapt. c. 24. the whole Church holds and is not ordained by CouÌ„cels but hath alwaies beene kept is most rightly belieued to be deliuered by Apostolicall authority The same holy Father teacheth that the custome of baptizing children cannot be proued by Scripture alone and yet that it is to be belieued as deriued from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the (u) lib. 10. de Genesi ad liter cap. 23. Church saith he in baptizing infants is in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be belieued vnles it were an Apostolicall Tradition And elsewhere Christ (w) Serm. 54. de verbis Apost c. 18. is of profit to Children baptized Is he therefore of profit to persons not belieuing But God forbid that I should say Infants doe not belieue I haue already sayd he belieues in another who sinned in another It is sayd he belieues it is of force and he is reckoned among the faythfull that are baptized This the authority of our Mother the Church hath against this stâ—eÌ„gth against this inuincible wal whosoeuer rusheth shal be crushed in pieces To this argument the Protestants in the CoÌ„ference at Ratisbon gaue this round answer Nos ab Augustino (x) See Protocoll Monac edit 2. pag. 367. hac in parte liberè dissentimus In this we plainely disagree from Augustine Now if this doctrine of baptizing Infants be not fundamentall in D. Potters sense then according to S. Augustine the infallibility of the Church extends to points not fundamentall But if on the other side it be a fundamentall point then according to the same holy Doctour we must rely on the authority of the Church for some fundamentall point not contained in Scripture but deliuered by Tradition The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not rebaptizing of those who were baptized by Heretiques whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner We follow (y) lib. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. 33. indeed in this matter euen the most certaine authority of Canonicall Scriptures But how Consider his words Although verily there be brought no example for this point out of the Canonicall Scriptures yet euen in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by vs while we do that which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend that so because the holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs whosoeuer is afraid to be deceiued by the obscurity of this question must haue recourse to the same Church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate to vs. AmoÌ„g many other points in the aforesaid words we are to obserue that according to this holy Father when we proue some points not particulerly contained in Scripture by the authority of the Church euen in that case we ought not to be said to belieue such points without Scripture because Scripture it selfe recommends the Church and therfore relying on her we rely on Scripture without danger of being deceiued by the obscurity of any question defined by the Church And else where he sayth Seing this is (z) De vnit Eccles c. 19. written in no Scripture we must belieue the testimony of the Church which Christ declareth to speake the truth But it seemes D. Potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not rebaptizing such as were baptized by Heretiques is no necessary point of faith nor the contrary an heresy wherin he coÌ„tradicteth S. Augustine from whom we haue now
is persuaded that his owne opinions be true and that he hath vsed such meanes as are wont to be prescribed for vnderstanding the Scripture as Prayer Conferring of diuers Texts c. and yet their disagreements shew that some of them are deceiued And therefore it is cleer that they haue no one certaine ground whereon to relye for vnderstanding of Scripture And seeing they hold all the Articles of Fayth euen concerning fundamentall points vpon the selfe same ground of Scripture interpreted not by the Churches Authority but according to some other Rules which as experience of their contradictions teach do sometymes fayle it is cleere that the ground of their fayth is infallible in no point at all And albeit sometyme it chance to hit on the truth yet it is likewise apt to leade them to errour As all Arch-heretiques belieuing some truths and withall diuers errours vpon the same ground and motiue haue indeed no true diuine infallible fayth but only a fallible humane opinion and persuasion For if the ground vpon which they rely were certaine it could neuer produce any errour 28. Another cause of Vncertainty in the fayth of Protestants must rise from their distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall For since they acknowledge that euery errour in fundamentall points destroieth the substance of fayth and yet cannot determine what points be fundamentall it followeth that they must remaine vncertayne whether or no they be not in some fundamentall errrour so want the substance of fayth without which there can be no hope of Saluation 24. And that he who erreth against any one reuealed truth as certainly some Protestants must doe because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true doth loose all Diuine fayth is a very true doctrine deliuered by Catholique Deuines with so generall a consent that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious The Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas proposeth this Question Whether (o) 2.2 q. 3. ar 3. in â—orp he who denyeth one Article of fayth may retayne fayth of other Articles and resolueth that he caÌ„not which he proueth Argumenta sed contra because As deadly sinne is opposite to Charity so to deny one Article of fayth is opposite to fayth But Charity doth not remaine with any one deadly sinne therefore faith doth not remaine after the denyall of any one Article of fayth Whereof he giues this further reason Because sayth he the nature of euery habit doth depend vpon the formall Motiue Obiect therof which Motiue being taken away the nature of the habit cannot remayne But the formall Obiect of faith is the supreme truth as it is manifested in Scriptures and in the doctrine of the Church which proceeds froÌ„ the same supreme verity Whosoeuer therefore doth not rely vpon the doctrine of the Church which proceeds from the supreme Verity manifested in Scriptures as vpon an infallible Rule he hath not the habit of fayth but belieues those things which belong to fayth by some other meanes then by fayth as if one â—hould remember some Conclusion and not know the reason of that demonstration it is cleere that he hath not certaine knowledge but only Opinion Now it is manifest that he who relies on the doctrine of the Church as vpon an infallible Rule will yield his assent to all that the Church teacheth For if among those things which she teacheth he hold what he will and doth not hold what he will not he doth not rely vpon the doctrine of the Church as vpon an infallible Rule but only vpon his owne will And so it is cleere that an Heretique who with pertinacity denieth one Article of fayth is not ready to follow the doctrine of the Church in all things And therfore it is manifest that whosoeuer is an Heretique in any one Article of fayth concerning other Articles hath not fayth but a kind of Opinion or his owne will Thus far S. Thomas And afterward A man doth belieue (q) Ad 2. all the Articles of fayth for one and the selfe same reason to wit for the Prime Verity proposed to vs in the Scripture vnderstood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church and therfore whosoeuer fals from this reason or motiue is totally depriued of fayth From this true doctrine we are to infer that to retaine or want the substance of fayth doth not consist in the matter or multitude of the Articles but in the opposition against Gods diuine Testimony which is inuolued in euery least error against Fayth And since some Protestants must needs erre and that they haue no certaine Rule to know why rather one then another it manifestly followes that none of them haue any Certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point Moreouer D. Potter being forced to confesse that the Roman Church wants not the substance of fayth it followes that she doth not erre in any one point against fayth because as we haue seen out of S. Thomas euery such error destroyes the substance of fayth Now if the Roman Church did not erre in any one point of fayth it is manifest that Protestants erre in all those points wherin they are contrary to her And this may suffice to proue that the fayth of Protestants wants Infallibility 30. And now for the second Condition of fayth I say If Protestants haue Certainty They want the second Condition of Fayth Obscurity they want Obscurity and so haue not that fayth which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or not necessitating our Vnderstanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the fayth of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Bookes are Canonicall Scripture And the sense and meaning of these Canonicall Scriptures is cleere and euident at least in all points necessary to Saluation Now these Principles being once supposed it cleerly followeth that what Protestants belieue as necessary to Saluation is euidently knowne by them to be true by this argument It is certayne and euident that whatsoeuer is contayned in the word of God is true But it is certaine and euident that these Bookes in particular are the word of God Therefore it is certaine and euident that whatsoeuer is contayned in these Bookes is true Which Conclusion I take for a Maior in a second Argument and say thus It is certaine and euident that whatsouer is contayned in these Bookes is true but it is certayne and euident that such particular Articles for example the Trinity Incarnation Originall sinne c. are coÌ„tained in these Bookes Therfore it is certaine and euident that these particular Obiects are true Neyther will it auaile you to say that the sayd Principles are not euident by naturall discourse but only to the eye of reason cleered by grace as you speake For supernaturall euidence no lesse yea rather more drawes and excludes obscurity then naturall euidence doth neyther can the party so enlightned be sayd voluntarily to captiuate his vnderstanding to that
Spirits be remoued And Let vs (x) cap. 3. not heare These things I say These things thou saist but let vs heare These things our Lord sayth And What are our words (y) cap. 2. wherin we must not seeke her c. All that we obiect one against another of the giuing vp of the holy Bookes of the Sacrificing to Idols and of the persecution are our words these words you fraudulently conceale although you cite other in the selfe same Chapter because they plainly shew what S. Augustin vnderstands by Humane Testimonies they answere all your Obiections And The Question betweene vs (z) cap. 2. is where the Body of Christ that is the Church is What then are we to do Shall we seeke her in our words or in the words of our Lord Iesus-Chris̄t her head Surely we ought rather to seeke her in his words who is Truth and best knowes his owne Body And Let this Head (a) cap. 4. of which we agree shew vs his Body of which we disagree that our dissentions may by his words be ended Which words plainely declare the reason why he appealed to Scriptures because both parts agreed about them but disagreed concerning the Church And That we are in the (b) cap. 19. True Church of Christ and that this Church is vniuersally spread ouer the earth we proue not by OVR Doctours or Councels or Miracles but by the diuine Scriptures The Scriptures are the only this word only put by you in a different letter as if it were S. Augustines is your owne addition Document and foundation of our cause These are the places by you alleaged so vnfaithfully And will you in good earnest infer from them that we must reiect all Councels neuer so lawfull all Doctors neuer so Orthodox all Miracles neuer so authenticall euen those which were wrought in the Primitiue Church particularly in S. Augustines time which he himselfe published (c) De ciuit Det lib. 22. çap. 8. approued and admired And aboue all will you infer that after we haue found out the true Church by Markes set downe in Scripture her voyce for other particular points of doctrine is not to be heard but to be esteemed a meere humane testimony of Notaries c. as S. Augustine vnderstood humane Testimony when he writ against the Donatists Or will you infer that we must learne from Scripture all that which we are obliged to belieue This you pretend but with such successe as you are wont that is to plead for your Aduersary against your selfe Which is manifestly proued by the other Question of Rebaptization controuerted with the Donatists for which they were properly and formally Heretiques and yet S. Augustine confesseth that for this point of beliefe he could not produce Scripture as appeares by his words which I cited in the first (d) Chap. ◠num 16. Part and desire the Reader to saue me the labour of repeating them heere and then he will easily see that there is great difference betwixt the generall question of the Church and Questions concerning particular Doctrines deliuered by the Church in which this holy Father sayth not we must haue recourse to Scripture alone but that we ought to belieue the Church which is recommended to vs by Scripture And this he teacheth in that very booke De vnitate Ecclesiae out of which you brought the aforesaid places to proue that all Controuersies must be decided by Scripture With what modesty then do you say The Mistaker was ill aduised to send vs to this (e) pag. 33. Treatise which both in the generall ayme and in the quality of the Arguments and proofes is so contrary to his pretensions 7. You leaue (f) pag. 33. a passage taken out of S. Augustine to Charity Mistaken to ruminate vpon Whosoeuer (g) S. Aug. de vnit Eççles çap. 4. will belieue aright in Christ the Head but yet doth so dissent from his Body the Church that their Communion is not with the whole whersoeuer diffused but with themselues seuerall in some part it is manifest that such are not in the Catholique Church Well suppose all were done as you desire what other thing could be concluded then this But when Luther appeared Protestantisme was not with the whole whersoeuer diffused but with himselfe alone What will follow from hence you haue so much Logicke that you cannot Mistake Wherefore at this day and for euer we must say of the Catholique Church as Saint Augustine sayd Euery one of those he speakes of Heretiques is not (g) De Vnit Eççles ç. 3. to be found where she is to be found but she who is ouer All is to be found in the selfe same places where the others are 8. You made an ill choyce of S. Epiphanius to proue by his example that the Fathers were wont to confute Heresies by the only Euidence of Scripture For he not only approues Traditions as necessary but also proues them out of Scripture We ought sayth he to vse also (h) Haeres 61. Tradition for all things cannot be taken from the holy Scripture the holy Apostles therfore deliuered some things in writing and some things by Tradition as the holy Apostle sayth As I deliuered to you And in another place So I teach and so I deliuered in the Churches And the same Father as we shall see anon doth most cleerly approue Traditiōs yea and confutes Aērius by Tradition alone without any Scripture It is then no wonder if you corrupt S. Epiphanius to make men belieue that he speakes of Heresies in generall whereas his words concerne some few in particular as the Samosatenians Arians c. His wordes as you translate them are these The Diuine (k) Haeres 65. Goodnes hath forewarned vs agaynst Heresies by his Truth for God foreseeing the Madnes Impiety Fraude of the Samosatenians Arians Manichees and other Heretiques hath secured vs by his diuine Word against all their subtilities But the true Translation of S. Epiphanius is this Therfore the holy Scripture doth make vs secure of euery word That is hath secured vs how we are to speake or what words to vse against the deceipts of the Samosatenians Arians and of other Heresies concerning the blessed Trinity as it is cleere by these words immediatly following which you thought fittest to conceale For he doth not say the Father is the Only-begotten For how can he be the Only begotten who is not Begotten But he calls the Sonne the only begotten that the Sonne may not be thought to be the Father c. Where you see he speakes of Words or manner of speaking and concerning particular Heresies which yet is made more cleere by the words immediatly precedent to the sentence by you cited which words you also thought good to leaue out For he first proues out of Scripture that the Word is begotten of the Father but that the Father is not Begotten and therfore the Only-Begotten is the Sonne And then
happines in body soule when they shall once haue attained it after the generall Resurrection which were a Request sauouring of Infidelity as if the Saints could be depriued of Beatitude once enioyed Now as for Azor he proues in the place cited by you that the Grecians do not altogether take away some kind of Purging fire but only seeme to deny a certaine determinate punishment of corporall fire Because sayth he they do truly offer Sacrifice and Prayers to God for the dead surely not for the Blessed nor for those which be damned in Hell which were plainely absurd and impious it must therfore be for them who are deceased with fayth and Piety but haue not fully satisfied for the temporall punishment due to their sinnes Is this to condemne the doctrine of Antiquity as absurd and impious Did Antiquity offer Sacrifice and Prayers for the damned Ghosts or for the Saints to satisfy for the paine due to their sinnes as Azor meanes speakes and therfore doth truly say it were absurd and impious Is not this to corrupt Authors 24. Wherfore vpon the whole matter we must conclude that Aërius was condemned by the Church and was reckoned among Heretiques and particularly by S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine for the selfe same Error which you maintaine To which Maior Proposition if we adde this Minor which Charity Mistaken expressely notes (m) Pag. 27. and you conceale But S. Augustine sayth Whosoeuer should hold any one of the Heresies by him recounted wherof this of Aërius is one were not a Christian Catholique The Conclusion will follow of it selfe 25. Would to God your selfe and all Protestants did seriously consider what accompt will be exacted at the last day of those who by their erroneous doctrine and opposition to the visible Church of Christ depriue the soules of faythfull people deceased of the many Prayers Sacrifices and other good deeds which in all rigour of Iustice are due to them by Title of founding Colledges Chanonryes Chantries Hospitals c. Lesse cruelty had it been to rob them of their Temporall goods or to bereaue them of their corporall liues then to haue abandoned them to the Torment of a fier which although as S. Augustine sayth (n) In Psal 37. is sleighted by worldly men yet indeed is more grieuous then whatsoeuer can be endured in this world Consider I say whether this manifest Iniustice though it did not proceed as it doth from hereticall perswasion were not alone sufficient to exclude saluation And so much of this point concerning Prayer for the dead 26. The words of S. Thomas whom you cite pag. 40. to strengthen your distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall do directly ouerthrow that sense and purpose for which you make vse of them For as much sayth he as belongs to the prime (o) 2.2 q. 2. art 5. in corpor Obiects of Beliefe which are the Articles of Fayth a man bound explicitely to belieue them as he is bound to haue Fayth But as for other Obiects of fayth a man is not bound to belieue them explicitely but only implicitely or in readines of mind for as much as he is ready to belieue whatsoeuer the holy Scripture containes But he is bound to belieue them explicitely only when it appeares to him that it is contained in the doctrine of fayth Now our Question is not about nescience or ignorance of some points of fayth but of disagreeing concerning them one denying what another affirmes in which case according to the aforesaid doctrine of S. Thomas there is neither explicite nor implicite Beliefe of such points but positiue direct error in them and therfore such disagreement cannot stand with Vnity of fayth It is strange Diuinity to confound as you do points secundary or not fundamentall with probable points For how many millions of Truths are there contained in Scripture which are not of their owne nature prime Articles Will you therfore infer that they are but probable Primary and secundary respect the matter which we belieue Probable and certaine are deriued from the formall reason or motiue for which we belieue Let two disagree in some points euen fundamentall yet not sufficiently propounded as reuealed Truths they still retaine the same fayth and contrarily put case that two agree in all fundamentall points if they disagree in any secundary point sufficiently applied to their vnderstanding as a reuealed truth then the one must be an Heretique and differ from the other in the very nature and substance of fayth For as in a Musicall Consort say you a discord (p) pag. 40. now and then so it be in the Descant and depart not from the ground sweetens the Harmony so say I retorting your own sweet similitude because euery least error opposing a reuealed Truth is not in the Descant but departs from the ground of fayth which is the attestation of God it doth not sweeten the Harmony but destroyes the substance of Fayth And heerafter it shal be shewed that you wrong Stapleton no lesse (q) Infra chap. 5. num 17. then you do S. Thomas 27. That Variety of Opinions or Rites in parts of the Church doth rather commend then preiudice the Vnity of the whole you pretend to proue out of (s) Epist. 75. apud Cypr. Farmilianus in an Epistle to S. Cyprian which doctrine though it be true in some sense yet according to your application it is pernicious as if it were sufficient to Vnity of Fayth that men agree in certaine fundamentall points though they vary in other matters concerning fayth And you should haue obserued that Firmilianus who wrote that Epistle in fauour of S. Cyprians error about Rebaptization speakes in that place of the Custome of keeping Easter which point after it was once defined remained no more indifferent but grew to be a necessary Obiect of Beliefe in so much that the Heretiques called Quartadecimani were for that point condemned and anathematized by the Vniuersall Church in the Councels of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus Wherby it is euident that though some point be not in it selfe fundamentall yet if it be once defined by the Church the Errour degenerates into Heresy Your Charity is alwayes Mistaken aduantaging your Aduersary by your owne Arguments 28. I said already that to be separate from the Church for Heresy or Schisme destroies Saluation because persons lyable to those crimes are in the Church neither in re nor in voto neither in fact nor in effectuall desire as Cathecumens are and as Excommunicate persons may be if repenting their former Obstinacy they cannot by reason of some extrinsecall impediment obtaine Absolution from the Censure 29. You extend your Charity so far to Infidels as to forget fidelity in relating what Catholique Deuines teach concerning them not telling whether they require some supernaturall fayth at lest for some Obiect and quoting Authors with so great affected confusion that a man would thinke them to maintaine the opinion which they
but in some sort the word of God that is vttered by the assistance and direction of the holy Ghost nay I say that the Heretiques are those who indeed leane on a rotten staffe And then he comes to the words which you cited For we must know that a Proposition of Fayth is concluded in this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer God hath reuealed in Scripture is true God hath reuealed this in Scripture ergo it is true Of the premisses in this Syllogisme the first is most certaine among all the second is most firme or certaine among Catholiques for it relies on the Testimony of the Church Councell or Pope heere you breake off but Bellarmine ads of which we haue in holy Scripture manifest promises that they cannot erre Act. 15. It hath seemed to the Holy Ghost to vs And Luke 22. I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth may not faile But amongst Heretiques it doth rely only vpon coniectures or the Iudgement of ones own spirit which for the most part seemeth good and is ill and since the Conclusion followes the weaker part it necessarily followes that the whole fayth of Heretiques is but coniecturall and vncertayne Thus farre Bellarmine And now wherein I pray you consists his contradicting both himselfe and his fellowes Perhaps you meane because heere he teacheth that euery Proposition of fayth must be reuealed in Scripture and therefore contradicts his other doctrine that besids Scripture there are vnwritten Traditions But the vanity of this obiection will by and by appeare among your other corruptions which now I set down First you see Bellarmines speakes not of fayth in generall but only of matters of fayth contayned in Scripture his whole question being about the Interpretation thereof that is Whether we are to rely on the priuate spirit or humane industry of conferring places c. or els vpon the Church And therefore Secondly he sayth not as you cite him in a different letter by way of an vniuersal negation that a Proposition is not de fide or not belonging to fayth vnles it be concluded in this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer God hath reuealed in the Scripture is true but this or that God hath reuealed in Scripture c. from whence it would follow that nothing at all could be belieued which is not contained in Scripture but he onely sayth that a Proposition of fayth is cōcluded in this Syllogisme which includes no vniuersall negation but is meant onely of those Propositions of fayth which depend on the interpretation of Scripture which was the subiect of his discourse And therefore I wonder why you should say in generall this reason supposes that matters of fayth must be reuealed in Scripture For to teach that some matters of faith are in Scripture doth not suppose that all matters of fayth must be contayned in Scripture and yet all the contradiction that heere you find in Bellarmine must be this Such Propositions of fayth as are contayned in Scripture are concluded in this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer God hath reuealed in the Scripture c. Ergo all Propositions of fayth must be concluded in this Syllogisme Ergo there are no vnwritten Traditions A goodly contradiction Thirdly where did Bellarmine euer teach that the Proposall of the Church can make any vnwritten Verity to become matter of fayth as you speake The Church doth not make Verities to be matter of fayth but only declares them to be such Fourthly you leaue out the words which cleerly explicate in what sense the Testimony of the Church may be sayd to be humane or diuine by which your Argument to proue that the declaration of the Church cannot be a sufficient ground of fayth had been answered and your fallacy discouered Fifihly Bellarmine neuer affirmed as you say he did that the strength and truth of the Minor in the sayd Syllogisme depends on the Testimony of the Church but only that it is most certaine among Catholiques by the Testimony of the Church because as I haue often said the Church cannot make any one Article to be true but only by her declaration can make it certaine to all Catholiques as Bellarmine said Sixtly you leaue out Bellarmines words wherby he proues the infallibility of Church and Pope out of Scripture and accordingly in the Scauenth place that which he expresly sayth of the vncertaine coniecturall ground of Heretiques which can produce only a coniecturall and vncertaine Fayth because the Conclusion followes the weaker part you make him apply to the Testimony of the Church as if it were vncertaine which contrarily in the words by you omitted he proues to be most certaine infallible and therfore the Conclusion which relies vpon a Proposition deliuered by her is not subiect to error Eighthly you returne to the slaunder that if Bellarmines doctrine be true there is no truth in the Scriptures or in our Religion without the attestation of the Church as if Bellarmine had taught that the truth of Scripture and of all Christian Religion depends on the attestation of the Church which could not in you proceed from ignorance but from a purpose to deceiue your Reader For Bellarmine in that very place which you cite declares himselfe so fully and cleerly that you cannot be excused from wilfull slaunder I will put downe the place at large that heerafter you and your Brethren may either cease to make the same Obiection or els endeauour to confute the Cardinalls answere Bellarmine then makes this obiection against himselfe If the Pope iudge of Scriptures it followes that the Pope or Councell is aboue the Scripture and if the meaning of Scripture without the Pope or Councell be not authenticall it followes that the word of God takes his force and strength from the word of men And then he giues this Answere I answere that this Argument of which Heretiques make greatest account consists in a meere Equiuocation For it may be vnderstood two manner of wayes that the Church doth iudge of Scriptures the one That she should iudge whether that which the Scripture teaches be true or false The other That putting for a most certaine ground that the words of Scripture are most true she should iudge what is the true interpretation of them Now if the Church did iudge according to the former way she should indeed be aboue the Scripture but this we do not say though we be calumniated by the Heretiques as if we did who euery where cry out that we put the Scripture vnder the Popes Feet But that the Church or Pope doth iudge of Scriptures in the latter sense which we affirme is not to say that the Church is aboue Scripture but aboue the sudgment of priuate persons For the Church doth not iudge of the Truth of Scripture but of the vnderstanding of thee and mee and others Neither doth the word of God receiue strength therby but only my vnderstanding receiues it For the Scripture is not more true or certaine because it is so expounded by the Church but my Opinion
learned man doth dissent from them Are not I pray you these and the like Traditions vpon which your Hierarchy depends of some consequence and worth your labour to put them in a Catalogue Or doe you not hold the Traditions of the Apostles to be infallible true 23. It is but a Calumny to affirme that (l) pag. 163. we receiue the definitions of the Church with no lesse deuotion then the holy Scriptures For you cite (m) pag. 169. that very place of Bellarmine where he (n) De Cont. l. 2. cap. 12. setteth downe at large fiue singular Prerogatiues of the holy Scriptures aboue the definitions of the Church in which respect your fault is lesse excusable It is your owne doctrine that the Church is infallible in all fundamentals and yet you will not euen in respect of such points equall her Authority with that of holy Scripture 24. At length you come to teach that Generall Councels may erre euen damnably and yet you also teach that their authority is immediately (o) Pag. 162 deriued from Christ and that their decrees (p) Ibid. binde all persons to externall Obedience But will you haue men in matters of fayth externally belieue themselues dissemble against their conscience And thinke that they do so by authority from Christ The truth is that you might as well say the Church is inuisible as to say that her infallibility consists not in Generall Councels but in this that euery member of the Church cannot erre damnably For towards the effect of instructing men in doubts concerning fayth all comes to one effect And with what colour of truth doe you say pag. 164.165 that you giue Generall Councells much more respect then do most of our Aduersaries since Catholiques belieue thē to be infallible which you deny 25. But you would gladly proue that Councels are fallible because they are discoursiue in their deliberations and (r) Pag. 167. vse the weights moments of reason for the drawing out of Conclusions from their Principles wherin it is confessed they may mistake 26. It is true we grant that the Church coynes no new Reuelations but only declares such to vs as haue been already deliuered in the written or vnwritten word of God to finde which out she vseth meanes by searching out true Records of Antiquity by discussing the writings of Fathers by consulting the holy Scriptures Traditions c. because it is the will of God that she vse such meanes But the thing vpon which she finally relyes in her Definitions ex parte Obiecti is the Reuelation or attestation of God which is the Formall and last Motine of fayth and exparte Subiecti in behalfe of herselfe she relies vpon the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost directing her not to propound any falshood insteed of a reuealed truth Thus we read in the first Councell Act. 15. Cùm magna disquisitio sieret After great search examination of the Case by citing Scriptures relating Miracles and the blessing of God declared by the good successe and conuersion of so many Gentiles the final determination did not rely vpon these industries but Visum est Spiritui sancto nobis It hath seemed to the Holy Ghost and vs Which words expresse both the formall Motiue and chiefe efficient Cause of fayth as also the free and voluntary concurring of the Apostles assisted by the Holy Ghost And yet I hope you will not out of these diligences discourses of the Apostles inferre that this Councell was fallible Or that there was no more certainty in the Conclusion then in the Arguments themselues of which some abstracting from the assistance of the holy Ghost and the Authority of the Apostles were but as the Deuines speake Arguments of Credibility and dispositions to fayth as Miracles c. Or will you perhaps with your first Patriarch Luther reprehend euen this Councell of the Apostles and say with him That Iames whose (s) In Assert art 29. opinion the whole Councell followed changed the verdict of peter whose iudgment that the Gentiles should not be constrained to obserue the Iewish Ceremonics was most true cōsequently the opinion of Iames and the Councell could not be true You grant as I must often put you in mind that the Church is infallible in fundamentall points must she therfore vse no industry to attaine to the knowledge of such points And Protestants who hold Scripture to be the only Rule of fayth vse meanes of conferring Text consulting the Originals Prayer c. for attayning the true meaning of Scripture and yet you will not grant that your fayth is fallible because you will say it doth not rely vpon those said fallible meanes but finally as you apprehend it rests in the word of God And if any Catholique Author equall the definitions of the Church with the holy Scripture his meaning is that both the one and the other are so infallible that they cannot deliuer any vntruth For in other respects we grāt many singular Prerogatiues to the holy Scripture more then to the definitions of Councels as may partly beseen in (t) De Conc. lib. 2. cap. 12. Bellarmine 27. Your obiection that the great Councell (u) Pag. 170. of Chalcedon corrected the Second of Ephesus and that S. Augustine sayth Prouinciall Councels (w) De Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 2. cap. 3. may be corrected by Plenary and Plenary Councels the former by the latter hath beene answered a hundred times and I doubt not but that you haue read Bellarmine who (x) De Couc lib. 1. cap. 6. shewes that the second Councell of Ephesus proceeded vnlawfully wherin S. Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople was murthered by the faction of Dioscorus and the Popes Legates were driuen away and finally the Eutichian Heresy was confirmed for which causes that Councell was annulled by Pope Leo. You haue pickt out a pretty example to proue that lawfull Councels confirmed by the Pope may erre To the words of S. Augustine Bellarmine answers that (y) De Consul lib. 2. c. 7. §. Respondeo Primò either they are vnderstood of vnlawfull Councels such as was the second of Ephesus or els they are to be vnderstood of Questions concerning matter of fact as whether Caecilianus had deliuered vp the Bible or finally that latter Councels may be said to correct the former because some decrees which concerne manners may by change of circumstāces proue inconuenient although in the beginning they were very holy and fit Which interpretation is gathered out of S. Augustine himselfe who sayth That Councels may be corrected when Experience doth manifest something which before did not appeare Now experience hath no place in vniuersall doctrines but in particular facts or lawes which respect particular circumstāces of time and place c. Your second Citation in your Margent out of S. Augustine (a) Lib. 3. cōt Maxim whose words you did not recite Bellarmine answeres in the place which I haue cited
This is my Body This is my bloud translates This signifies my Body This signifies my bloud And heere let Protestants consider duely of these points Saluation cannot be hoped for without true faith Faith according to them relies vpon Scripture alone Scripture must be deliuered to most of them by the Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certaine then a most certaine possibility to erre and no greater euidence of Truth then that it is euident some of them imbrace falshood by reason of their contrary translations What then remaineth but that truth faith saluation all must in them rely vpon a fallible and vncertaine ground How many poore soules are lamentably seduced while from preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of Texts of diuine Scripture but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therfore if they will be assured of true Scriptures fly to the alwayes visible Catholique Church against which the gates of hell can neuer so far preuaile as that she shall be permitted to deceiue the Christian world with false Scriptures And Luther himselfe by vnfortunate experience was at length forced to confesse thus much saying If the (s) lib cont Zwingl de verit corp Christi in Euchar. world last longer it will be againe necessary to receiue the Decrees of Councels to haue recourse to them by reason of diuers interpretations of Scripture which now raigne On the contrary side the Translation approued by the Roman Church is commended euen by our Aduersaries and D. Couell in particuler sayth that it was vsed in the Church one thousand (t) In his answere vnto M. John Burges pag. 94. three hundred yeares agoe and doubteth not to prefer (u) Ibid. that Translation before others In so much that whereas the English translations be many and among themselues disagreeing he concludeth that of all those the approued translation authorized by the Church of England is that which commeth nearest to the vulgar and is commonly called the Bishops Bible So that the truth of that translation which we vse must be the rule to iudge of the goodnesse of their Bibles and therefore they are obliged to maintaine our Translation if it were but for their owne sake 17. But doth indeed the source of their manifold vncertainties stop heer No! The chiefest difficulty remaines concerning the true meaning of Scripture for attayning whereof if Protestants had any certainty they could not disagree so hugely as they do Hence M. Hooker saith We are (w) In his Preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiasticall Policy Sect. 6. 26. right sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience haue all taught the world to seeke for the ending of contentions by submitting it selfe vnto some iudiciall and definitiue sentence whereunto neither part that contendeth may vnder any pretence refuse to stand D. Fields words are remarkable to this purpose Seeing saith he the controuersies (x) In his Treatise of the Church In his Epistle dedicatory to the L. Archbishop of Religion in our times are growne in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure fewer strength of vnder standing to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societyes in the world is that blessed Company of holy Ones that houâ—â—â—ould of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the liuing God which is the Pillar and ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her iudgment 18. And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture ought to be receiued from the Church it is also proued by what we haue already demonstrated that she it is who must declare what Bookes be true Scripture wherein if she be assisted by the Holy Ghost why should we not belieue her to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them Let Protestants therfore eyther bring some proofe out of Scripture that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost in discerning true Scripture and not in deliuering the true sense thereof Or els giue vs leaue to apply against them the argument which S. Augustine opposed to the Manicheans in these words I would not (y) Cont. ep Fund cap. 5. belieue the Gospel vnles the authority of the Church did moue me Them therfore whom I obeyed saying Belieue the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me Do not belieue Manichaeus Luther Caluin c. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say Belieue the Catholiques They warne me not to giue any credit to you If therefore I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say Do not belieue the Catholiques thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus because by the preaching of Catholiques I belieued the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them Catholiques commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommending Manichaeus Dost thou thinke me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should belieue what thou wilts not belieue what thou wilts not And do not ProtestaÌ„ts perfectly resemble these men to whom S. Augustine spake when they will haue men to belieue the Roman Church deliuering Scripture but not to belieue her condemning Luther and the rest Against whom when they first opposed themselues to the Roman Church S. Augustine may seeme to haue spoken no lesse prophetically then doctrinally when he said Why should I not most (z) lib. de vtil cre cap. 14. diligenily inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose authority I was moued to belieue that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he said whom I would not haue thought to haue been or to be if the beliefe thereof had been recommended by thee to me This therefore I belieued by fame strengthned with celebrity consent Antiquity But euery one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deseruing authority What madnes is this Belieue them Catholiques that wrought to belieue Christ but learne of vs what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ then that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I belieued him If therefore we receiue the knowledge of Christ and Scriptures from the Church from her also must we take his doctrine and the interpretation thereof 19. But besides all this the Scriptures cannot be Iudge of Controuersies who ought to be such as that to him not only the learned or Veterans but also the vnlearned and Nouices may haue recourse for these being capable of saluation and endued with faith of the same nature with that of the learned there must
propounded as a diuine truth and that there is in this sense no distinction betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall And if any should chance to imagine that it is against the foundation of faith not to belieue points Fundamentall although they be not sufficiently propounded D. Potter doth not admit of this (f) Pag. 246. difference betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall For he teacheth that sufficient proposition of reuealed truth is required before a man can be conuinced and for want of sufficient conuiction he excuseth the Disciples from heresy although they belieued not our Sauiours Resurrection (g) pag. 246. which is a very fundamentall point of faith Thus then I argue out of D. Potters owne confesson No error is damnable vnles the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God Euery error is damnable if the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God Therfore 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 therfore conclude with this Argument According to all Philosophy and Diuinity the Vnity and distinction of euery thing followeth the Nature Essence thereof and therfore if the Nature and being of fayth be not taken from the matter which a man belieues but from the motiue for which he belieues which is God's word or Reuelation we must likewise affirme that the Vnity and Diuersity of faith must be measured by God's reuelation which is alike for all obiects and not by the smalnes or greatnes of the matter which we belieue Now that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatnes or smallnes of the things belieued is manifest because otherwise one who belieues only fundamentall points and another who together with them doth also belieue points not fundamentall should haue faith of different natures yea there should be as many differences of faith as there are different points which men belieue according to differēt capacities or instruction c. all which consequences are absurd therfore we must say that Vnity in Fayth doth not depend vpō points fundamentall or not fundamentall but vpon God's reuelation equally or vnequally proposed and Protestants pretending an Vnity only by reason of their agreement in fundamentall points do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different obiects which are belieued by them since they disagree in things Equally reuealed by Almighty God it is euident that they forsake the very Formall motiue of faith which is Gods reuelation and consequently loose all Faith and Vnity therin 6. The first part of the Title of this Chapter That the distinction of points fundamentall not fundamentall in the sense of Protestants is both impertinent and vntrue being demonstrated let vs 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 proue by these reasons 7. It hath beene shewed in the prcedent Chapter that the Church is Iudge of Controuersies in Religion which she could not be if she could erre in any one point as Doctor Potter would not deny if he were once persuaded that she is Iudge Because if she could erre in some points we could not rely vpon her Authority and Iudgment in any one thing 8. This same is proued by the reason we alledged before that seeing the Church was infallible in all her definitions ere Scripture was written vnles we will take away all certainty of fayth for that tyme we cannot with any shew of reason affirme that she hath been depriued thereof by the adioined comfort help of sacred Writ 9. Moreouer to say that the Catholique Church may propose any false doctrine maketh her lyable to damnable sinne and errour yet D. Potter teacheth that the Church cannot erre damnably For if in that kind of Oath which Deuines call Assertorium wherin God is called to witnes euery falshood is a deadly sinne in any priuate person whatsoeuer although the thing be of it selfe neither materiall nor preiudiciall to any because the quantity or greatnes of that sinne is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed as by the manner authority whereby it is auouched and by the iniury that is offered to Almighty God in applying his testimony to a falshood in which respect it is the vnanimous consent of all Deuines that in such kind of Oaths no leuitas materiae that is smallnes of matter can excuse from a mortall sacriledge agaynst the morall vertue of Religiō which respects worship due to God If I say euery least falshood be deadly sinne in the foresayd kind of Oath much more pernicious a sinne must it be in the publique person of the Catholique Church to propound vntrue Articles of fayth thereby fastning Gods prime Verity to falshood and inducing and obliging the world to doe the same Besids according to the doctrine of all Deuines it is not only iniurious to Gods Eternall Verity to disbelieue things by him reuealed but also to propose as reuealed truths thinges not reuealed as in commonwealths it is a haynous offence to coyne eyther by counterfeyting the mettall or the stamp or to apply the Kings seale to a writing counterfeyt although the contents were supposed to be true And whereas to shew the detestable sinne of such pernicious fictions the Church doth most exemplarly punish all broachers of faygned reuelations visions miracles prophecies c. as in particuler appeareth in the Councell of (h) Sub Leon 10. Sess 11. Lateran excommunicating such persons if the Church her selfe could propose false reuelations she herselfe should haue beene the first and chiefest deseruer to haue been censured and as it were excommunicated by herselfe For as they holy Ghost sayth in (i) Cap. 13. v. 7. Iob doth God need your lye that for him you may speake deceypts And that of the Apocalyps is most truly verifyed in fictitious reuelations If any (k) Cap. vlt. v. 18. shal s add to these things God will add vnto him the plagues which are written in this Booke D. Potter sayth To add (l) pag. 222. to it speaking of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract frō it And therfore to say the Church may add false Reuelations is to accuse her of high presumption and of pernicious errour excluding saluation 10. Perhaps some will heere reply that although the Church may erre yet it is not imputed to her for sinne by reason she doth not erre vpon malice or wittingly but by ignorance or mistake 11. But it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cānot serue 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 certaine that she cānot erre therfore cannot be excused from headlong
pernicious temerity in proposing points not fundamētall to be belieued by Christians as matters of faith wherin she can haue no certainty yea which alwayes imply a falshood For although the thing might chance to be true and perhaps also reuealed yet for the matter she for her part doth alwaies expose herselfe to danger of falshood error and in fact doth alwayes erre in the manner in which she doth propound any matter not fundamentall because she proposeth it as a point of faith certainly true which yet is alwayes vncertaine if she in such things may be deceiued 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 els erre in keeping and conseruing from corruptions such Scriptures as are already belieued to be Canonicall For I will suppose that in such Apocryphall Scripture as she deliuers there is no fundamentall error against faith or that there is no falshood at all but only want of diuine testification in which case D. Potter must either grant that it is a fundamentall error to apply diuine reuelation to any point not reuealed or els must yield that the Church may erre in her Proposition or Custody of the Canon of Scripture And so we cannot be sure whether she haue not been deceiued already in Bookes recommended by her and accepted by Christians And thus we shall haue no certainty of Scripture if the Church want certainty in all her definitions And it is worthy to be obserued that some Bookes of Scripture which were not alwayes knowne to be Canonicall haue been afterward receiued for such but neuer any one Booke or syllable defined by the Church to be Canonicall was afterward questioned or reiected for Apocryphall A signe that God's Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost neuer to propose as diuine truth any thing not reuealed by God that Omission to define points not sufficiently discussed is laudable but Commission in propounding things not reuealed inexcusable into which precipitation our Sauiour Christ neuer hath nor neuer will permit his Church to fall 13. Nay to limit the generall promises of our Sauiour Christ made to his Church to points only fundamētall namely that the gates (m) Matt. 16.18 of hell shall not preuaile against her and that the holy Ghost (n) Ioan. 16.13 shall lead her into all truth c. is to destroy all Faith For we may by that doctrine and manner of interpreting the Scripture limit the Infallibility of the Apostles words preaching only to points fundamentall and whatsoeuer general Texts of Scripture shall be alleadged for their Infallibility they may by D. Potters example be explicated restrained to points fundamentall By the same reason it may be further affirmed that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting downe points fundamentall For if it be vrged that all Scripture is diuinely inspired that it is the word of God c. D. Potter hath affoarded you a ready answere to say that Scripture is inspired c. only in those parts or parcels wherin it deliuereth fundamentall points In this manner D. Fotherby sayth The Apostle (o) In his Sermōsserm 2. pag. 50. twice in one Chapter professed that this he speaketh not the Lord He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the expresse word of God that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man D. Potter also speakes very dangerously towards this purpose Sect. 5. where he endeauoureth to proue that the infallibility of the Church is limited to points fundamētall because as Nature so God is neither defectiue in (p) pag. 150. necessaries nor lauish in superfluities Which reason doth likewise proue that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to points necessary to saluation that so God be not accused as defectiue in necessaries or lauish in superfluities In the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose where speaking of these words The Spirit shall leade you into all truth and shall abide with (q) Joan. c. 16.13 c. 14.16 you for euer he sayth Though that promise was (r) Pag. 151.152 directly and primarily made to the Apostles who had the Spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner then any since them yet it was made to them for the behoofe of the Church and is verified in the Church Vniuersall But all truth is not simply all but all of some kind To be led into all truths is to know and belieue them And who is so simple as to be ignorant that there are many millions of truths in Nature History Diuinity whereof the Church is simply ignorant How many truths lye vnrouealed in the infinite treasury of God's wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted c. so then the truth it selfe enforceth vs to vnderstand by all truths not simply all not all which God can possibly reueale but all pertayning to the substance of faith all truth absolutely necessary to saluation Marke what he sayth That promise The spirit shall lead you into all truth was made directly to the Apostles is verified in the vniuersall Church but by all truth is not vnderstood simply all but all appertayning to the substance of faith and absolutely necessary to saluation Doth it not hence follow that the promise made to the Apostles of being led into all truth is to be vnderstood only of all truth absolutly necessary to saluation consequently their preaching and writing were not infallible in points not fundamentall or if the Apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as diuine truth the like must be affirmed of the Church because D. Potter teacheth the sayd promise to be verifyed in the Churh And as he limits the aforesayd wordes to points fundamentall so may he restrayne what other text soeuer that can be brought for the vniuersall infallibility of the Apostles or Seriptures So he may and so he must least otherwise he receiue this answere of his owne from himseife How many truths lye vnreuealed in the infinite treasury of Gods wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted And therefore to verify such generall sayings they must be vnderstood of truths absolutely necessary to Saluation Are not these fearefull cōsequences And yet D. Potter will neuer be able to auoyd them till he come to acknowledge the Infallibility of the Church in al points by her proposed as diuine truths thus it is vniuersally true that she is lead into al truth in regard that our Sauiour neuer permits her to define or teach any falshood 14. All that with any colour may be replied to this argument is That if once we call any one Booke or parcell of Scripture in question although for the matter it containe no fundamentall errour yet it is of great importance and fundamentall by reason of the
of eternall damnation to be belieued and obeyed in some things wherin confessedly she is endewed with infallibility I cannot in wisdome suspect her credit in matters of lesse moment For who would trust another in matters of highest consequence and be afraid to rely on him in things of lesse moment Thirdly since as I said we are vndoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest or fundamentall points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those fundamentall points be I cannot without hazard of my soule leaue her in any one point lest perhaps that point or points wherin I forsake her proue indeed to be fundamentall and necessary to saluation Fourthly that visible Church which can not erre in points fundamentall doth without distinction propound all her Definitions concerning matters of faith to be belieued vnder Anathema's or Curses esteeming all those who resist to be deseruedly cast out of her Communion and holding it as a point necessary to saluation that we belieue she cannot erre wherin if she speake true then to deny any one point in particuler which she defineth or to affirme in generall that she may erre puts a man into state of damnation Wheras to belieue her in such points as are not necessary to saluation can not endanger saluation as likewise to remaine in her Communion can bring no great harme because she cannot maintaine any damnable error or practise but to be deuided frō her she being Christs Catholique Church is most certainely damnable Fifthly the true Church being in lawfull and certaine possession of Superiority and Power to command require Obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grieuous sinne withdraw my obedience in any one vnles I euidently know that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better informe me how far God's Church can proceed then God's Church herselfe Or to what Doctor can the Children and Schoollers with greater reason and more security fly for direction then to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused then in cleauing to any particuler Sect or Person teaching or applying Scriptures against her doctrine or interpretation Sixtly the fearefull examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the Church vpon pretence of her errours haue failed euen in fundamentall points and suffered ship wracke of their Saluation ought to deter all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practise as to omit other both ancient and moderne heresies we see that diuers chiefe Protestants pretending to reforme the corruptions of the Church are come to affirme that for many Ages she erred to death and wholy perished which D. Potter cannot deny to be a fundamentall Errour against that Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church as he affirmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the vniuersall Church within Afirica or some other small tract of soile Least therefore I may fall into some fundamentall errour it is most safe for me to belieue al the Decrees of that Church which cānot erre fundamentally especially if we add That according to the Doctrine of Catholique Deuines one errour in fayth whether it be for the matter if selfe great or small destroyes fayth as is hewed in Charity Mistaken and cōsequently to accuse the Church of any one Errour is to affirme that the lost all fayth and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because at leaues Christ no visible Church on earth 21. To all these arguments I add this demōstration D. Potter teacheth that there neyther was (c) pag. 75. nor can be any iust cause to depart frō the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe But if the Church of Christ can erre in some points of fayth men not only may but must forsake her in those vnles D. Potter will haue them to belieue one thing and professe another and if such errours and corruptions should fall out to be about the Churches Liturgy publique Seruice administration of Sacraments the like they who perceiue such errours must of necessity leaue her externall Cōmunion And therefore if once we grant the Church may erre it followeth that men may and ought to forsake her which is against D. Potters owne wordes or else they are inexcusable who left the Communion of the Roman Church vnder pretence of Errors which they grant not to be fundamentall And if D. Potter thinke good to answere this argument he must remember his owne doctrine to be that euen the Catholique Church may erre in points not fundamentall 22. An other argument for the vniuersall infallibility of the Church I take out of D. Potters owne words If sayth he we (d) pag. 97. did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true vnlesse he presuppose that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmeth to erre only in points not fundamentall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundamentall Therfore either he must acknowledge a plaine contradiction in his owne words or else must grant that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall which is what we intended to proue 23. If Words cannot perswade you that in all Controuersies you must rely vpon the infallibility of the Church at least yield your assent to Deeds Hither to I haue produced Arguments drawne as it were ex naturâ rei from the Wisdome and Goodnes of God who cannot faile to haue left some infallible meanes to determine Controuersies which as we haue proued can be no other except a Visible Church infallible in all her Definitions But because both Catholiques and Protestants receiue holy Scripture we may thence also proue the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concerne Faith and Religion Our Sauiour speaketh cleerely The gates of Hell (e) Matt. 16. shall not preuaile against her And I will aske my (f) Ioan. 14. Father and he will giue you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for euer the Spirit of truth And But when he the Spirit of (g) Ioan. 16. truth cometh he shall teach you all truth The Apostle sayth that the Church is the Pillar and ground (h) 1. Tim. cap. 3. of Truth And He gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Euangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the Ministery vnto the edifying of the body of Christ vntill we meete all into the vnity of faith and knowledge of the Sonne of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the fulnes of Christ that now we be not Children wauering and carried about with euery wind of dectrine
in the wiekednes of men in craftines to the circumuention (i) Ephes 4. of Errour All which wordes seeme cleerely inough to proue that the Church is vniuersally infallible without which Vnity of faith could not be conserued agaynst euery wind of Doctrine And yet Doctor Potter (k) pag. 151.153 limits these promises priuiledges to fundamentall points in which he grants the Church cannot erre I vrge the wordes of Scripture which are vniuersall and doe not mention any such restraint I alleadge that most reasonable and receaued Rule that Scripture is to be vnderstood literally as it soundeth vnlesse some manifest absurdity force vs to the contrary But all will not serue to accord our different interpretations In the meane tyme diuers of Doctor Potters Brethren steppe in and reiect his limitation as ouer large and som what tasting of Papistry And therfore they restraine the mentioned Texts either to the Infallibility which the Apostles and other sacred Writers had in penning of Scripture or else to the inuisible Church of the Elect and to them not absolutely but with a double restriction that they shall not fall damnably finally and other men haue as much right as these to interpose their opinion interpretation Behold we are three at debate about the selfe same words of Scripture We confer diuers places and Text We consult the Originals We examine Translations We endeauour to pray hartily We professe to speake sincerely To seeke nothing but truth and saluation of our owne soules that of our Neighbours and finally we vse all those meanes which by Protestants themselues are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture Neuertheles we neither do or haue any possible meanes to agree as long as we are left to our selues and when we should chance to be agreed the doubt would still remaine whether the thing it selfe be a fundamentall point or no And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God the Louer of soules hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or vpon any other occasion Our remedy therfore in these contentions must be to consult and heare God's Visible Church with submissiue acknowledgment of her Power and Infallibility in whatsoeuer she proposeth as a reuealed truth according to that diuine aduice of S. Augustine in these words If at length (l) De vtil pred oap 8. thou seeme to be sufficiently tossed and hast a desire to put an end to thy paines follow the way of the Catholique Discipline which from Christ himselfe by the Apostles hath come downe euen to vs and from vs shall descend to all posterity And though I conceiue that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall hath now beene sufficiently confuted yet that no shadow of difficulty may remaine I will particulerly refell a common saying of Protestants that it is sufficient for saluation to belieue the Apostles Creed which they hold to be a Summary of all fundamentall points of Fayth CHAP. IIII. To say that the Creed containes all points necessarily to be belieued is neyther pertinent to the Question in hand nor in it selfe true ISAY neyther pertinent nor true Not pertinent Because our Question is not what points are necessary to be explicitely belieued but what points may be lawfully disbelieued or reiected after sufficient Propositiō that they are diuine Truths You say the Creed cōtaynes all points necessary to be belieued Be it so But doth it likewise containe all points not to be disbelieued Certainly it doth nor For how many truths are there in holy Scripture not contayned in the Creed which we are not obliged distinctly and particulerly to know belieue but are bound vnder paine of damnation not to reiect as soone as we come to know that they are found in holy Scripture And we hauing already shewed that whatsoeuer is proposed by Gods Church as a point of fayth is infallibly a truth reuealed by God it followeth that whosoeuer denyeth any such point opposeth Gods sacred testimony whether that point be contayned in the Creed or no. In vaine then was your care imploied to proue that al points of fayth necessary to be explicitely belieued are contained in the Creed Neyther was that the Catalogue which Charity Mistaken demanded His demand was and it was most reasonable that you would once giue vs a list of all fundamentals the denyall whereof destroyes Saluation whereas the denyall of other points not fundamentall may stand with saluation although both these kinds of points be equally proposed as reuealed by God For if they be not equally proposed the difference will arise from diuersity of the Proposall and not of the Matter fundamentull or not fundamentall This Catalogue only can shew how farre Protestants may disagree without breach of Vnity in fayth and vpon this many other matters depend according to the ground of Protestants But you will neuer aduenture to publish such a Catalogue I say more You cannot assigne any one point so great or fundamentall that the denyall thereof will make a man an Heretique if it be not sufficiently propounded as a diuine Truth Nor can you assigne any one point so small that it can without heresy be reiected if once it be sufficiently represented as reuealed by God 2. Nay this your instance in the Creed is not only impertinent but directly agaynst you For all points in the Creed are not of their own nature fundamentall as I shewed (a) Chap. 3. n. 3. before And yet it is damnable to deny any one point contayned in the Creed So that it is cleere that to make an errour damnable it is not necessary that the matter be of it selfe fundamentall 3. Moreouer you cannot ground any certainty vpon the Creed it selfe vnlesse first you presuppose that the authority of the Church is vniuersally infallible and consequently that it is damnable to oppose her declarations whether they concerne matters great or small cōtayned or not contained in the Creed This is cleere Because we must receaue the Creed it selfe vpon the credit of the Church without which we could not know that there was any such thing as that which we call the Apostles Creed and yet the arguments whereby you endeauour to proue that the Creed contaynes all fundamentall points are grounded vpon supposition that the Creed was made eyther by the Apostles themselues or by the (b) pag. 216 Church of their tymes from them which thing we could not certainly know if the succeeding and still continued Church may erre in her Traditions neyther can we be assured whether all fundamentall Articles which you say were out of the Scriptures summed and contracted into the Apostles Creed were faythfully summed and cōtracted and not one pretermitted altered or mistaken vnlesse we vndoubtedly know that the Apostles composed the Creed and that they intended to contract all fundamentall points of faith into it or at least that
backe nothing with your glosse needfull for our saluatiō is no proofe vnlesse you still beg the question and doe suppose that whatsoeuer the Apostles reuealed to the Church is contayned in the Creed And I wonder you do not reflect that those words were by S. Paul particularly directed to Pastors and Gouernours of the Church as is cleere by the other wordes He called the Ancients of the Church And afterward Take heed to your selues and to the whole flocke wherin the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church And your selfe say that more knowledge is (e) pag. 244 necessary in Bishops and Priests to whom is committed the gouernment of the Church and the care of soules then in vulgar Laickes Do you thinke that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed Said they nothing of the Sacraments Cōmandments Duties of Hope Charity c 25. Vpon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other obiection To say the whole fayth of those times (f) pag. 222.223 is not contained in the Apoles Creed is all one as if a man should say this is not the Apostles Creed but a part of it For the fayth of the Apostles is not all one with that which we commōly call their Creed Did not I pray you S. Mathew and S. Iohn belieue their writings to be Canonicall Scripture and yet their writinges are not mentioned in the Creed It is therfore more then cleere that the Fayth of the Apostles is of a larger extent then the Apostles Creed 26. To your demaund why amongst many things of equall necessity to be belieued the Apostles should (g) pag. 225. so distinctly set downe some and be altogether silent of others I answere That you must answere your owne demaund For in the Creed there be diuers points in their nature not fundamentall or necessary to be explicitely and distinctly belieued as aboue we shewed why are these points which are not fundamentall expressed rather then other of the same quality Why our Sauiours descent to Hell Buriall expressed and not his Circumcision his manifestation to the three Kings working of Miracles c Why did they not expresse Scriptures Sacraments and all fundamentall points of Fayth tending to practise as well as those which rest in beliefe Their intention was particularly to deliuer such Articles as were fittest for those times concerning the Deity Trinity and Messias as heretofore I haue declared leauing many things to be taught by the Catholique Church which in the Creed we all professe to belieue Neither doth it follow as you infer That as well nay better they might haue giuen no Article but that of the Church and sent vs to the Church for all the rest For in setting downe others besides that and not all they make vs belieue we haue all when (h) pag. 223. we haue not all For by this kind of arguing what may not be deduced One might quite contrary to your inference say If the Apostles Creed containe all points necessary to saluation what need we any Church to teach vs and consequently what need of the Article concerning the Church What need we the Creeds of Nice Constantinople c. Superfluous are your Catechisms wherin beside the Articles of the Creed you add diuers other particulars These would be poore consequences and so is yours But shall I tell you newes For so you are pleased to esteeme it We grant your inference thus far That our Sauiour Christ referred vs to his Church by her to be taught by her alone For she was before the Creed and Scriptures And she to discharge this imposed office of instructing vs hath deliuered vs the Creed but not it alone as if nothing els were to be belieued We haue besides it holy Scripture we haue vnwritten diuine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions It were a childish argument The Creed containes not all things which are necessary to be belieued Ergo it is not profitable Or The Church alone is sufficient to teach vs by some conuenient meanes Ergo she must teach vs without all meanes without Creeds without Councels without Scripture c. If the Apostles had expressed no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must haue taught vs the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other meanes as in fact we haue euen the Apostles Creed from the Tradition of the Church If you will belieue you haue all in the Creed when you haue not all it is not the Apostles or the Church that makes you so belieue but it is your owne error wherby you will needs belieue that the Creed must containe all For neither the Apostles nor the Church nor the Creed it selfe tell you any such matter and what necessity is there that one meanes of instruction must inuolue whatsoeuer is contained in all the rest We are not to recite the Creed with anticipated perswasion that it must containe what we imagine it ought for better maintayning some opinions of our owne but we ought to say and belieue that it containes what we find in it of which one Article is to belieue the Catholique Church surely to be taught by her which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the Creed and in particuler we may learne of her what points be contained in the Creed what otherwise and so we shall not be deceiued by belieuing we haue all in the Creed when we haue not all and you may in the same manner say As well nay better the Apostles might haue giuen vs no Articles at all as haue left out Articles tending to practise For in setting down one sort of articles not the other they make vs belieue we haue all whē we haue not all 27 To our argument that Baptisme is not contayned in the Creed D. Potter besides his answere that Sacraments belong rather to practise then fayth which I haue already confuted and which indeed maketh agaynst himselfe and serueth only to shew that the Apostles intended not to comprize all points in the Creed which we are bound to belieue adds that the Creed of (i) pag. 237. Nice expressed Baptisme by name confesse one Baptisme for the remissiō of Sinne Which answere is directly against himselfe and manifestly proues that Baptisme is an Article of fayth and yet is not contained in the Apostles Creed neyther explicitely nor by any necessary consequence from other Articles expressed therein If to make it an Article of fayth be sufficient that it is contayned in in the Nicene Councell he will find that Protestants maintayne many errours against faith as being repugnant to definitions of Generall Councels as in particuler that the very Councell of Nice which sayth M. Whitgift (k) In his defence pag. 330. is of all wise and learned men reuerenced esteemed imbraced next vnto the Scriptures themselues decreed that to those who were chosen to the Ministry vnmarryed it was not lawfull to take any wife afterward is affirmed by Protestants And
your grand Reformer Luther lib. de Concilijs part prima sayth that he vnderstands not the Holy Ghost in that Councell For in one Canon it sayth that those who haue gelded themselues are not fit to be made Priests in another it forbids them to haue wiues Hath sayth he the Holy Ghost nothing to doe in Councells but to binde and loade his Ministers which impossblie dangerous and vnnecessary lawes I forbeare to shew that this very Article I confesse one Baptisme for the remission of sinnes wil be vnderstood by Protestants in a farre different sense from Catholiques yea Protestants among themselues doe not agree how Baptisme forgiues sinnes nor what grace it confers Only concerning the Vnity of Baptisme against rebaptization of such as were once baptized which I noted as a point not contained in the Apostles Creed I cannot omit an excellent place of S. Augustine where speaking of the Donatists he hath these words They are so bold as (m) lib. de Haeres in 69. to rebaptize Catholiques wherein they shew themselues to be the greater Heretiques since it hath pleased the vniuersall Catholique Church not to make Baptisme void euen in the very Heretiques thēselues In which few words this holy Father deliuereth agaynst the Donatists these points which doe also make against Protestants That to make an Heresy or an Heretique knowne for such it is sufficient to oppose the definition of Gods Church That a proposition may be Hereticall though it be not repugnant to any Texts of Scripture For S. Augustine teacheth that the doctrine of rebaptization is hereticall and yet acknowledgeth it cannot be cōuinced for such out of Scripture And that neyther the Heresy of rebaptization of those who were baptized by Heretiques nor the contrary Catholique truth being expressed in the Apostles Creed it followeth that it doth not containe all points of fayth necessary to saluation And so we must conclude that to belieue the Creed is not sufficient for Vnity of fayth and Spirit in the same Church vnles there be also a totall agreement both in beliefe of other points of fayth and in externall profession and Communion also wherof we are to speake in the next Chapter according to the saying of S. Augustine You are (n) Aug. ep 48. with vs in Baptisme and in the Creed but in the Spirit of Vnity and bond of peace and lastly in the Catholique Church you are not with vs. CHAP. V. That Luther Caluin their associates and all vvho began or continue the separation from the externall Cōmunion of the Roman Church are guilty of the proper and formall sinne of Schisme THE Searcher of all Hearts is witnesse with how vnwilling mindes we Catholiques are drawne to fasten the denomination of Schismatiques or Heretiques on them for whoses soules if they employed their best bloud they would iudge that it could not be better spent If we reioyce that they are contristated at such titles our ioy riseth not from their trouble or griefe but as that of the Apostles did from the fountaine of Charity because they are contristated to repentance that so after vnpartiall examination they finding themselues to be what we say may by Gods holy grace beginne to dislike what themselues are For our part we must remember that our obligation is to keep within the meane betwixt vncharitable bitternes pernicious flatery not yielding to worldly respects nor offending Christian Modesty but vttering the substance of truth in so Caritable manner that not so much we as Truth and Charity may seeme to speake according to the wholesome aduise of S. Gregory Nazianzen in these diuine words We doe not affect peace with (a) Orat. 32. preiudice of the true doctrine that so we may get a name of being gentle and milde yet we seeke to conserue peace fighting in a lawfull manner and contayning our selues within our compasse and the rule of Spirit And of these thinges my iudgement is and for my part I prescribe the same Law to all that deale with soules and treate of true doctrine that neyther they exasperate mens minds by harshnes nor make thē haughty or insolent by submission but that in the cause of fayth they behaue themselues prudently and aduisedly and doe not in eyther of these things exceed the meane With whome agreeth S. Leo saying It be houeth vs in such causes to be (b) Epist 8. most carefull that without noise of contentions both Charity be conserued and Truth maintayned 2. For better Methode we will handle these points in order First we will set downe the nature and essence or as I may call it the Quality of Schisme In the second place the greatnes grieuousnes or so to terme it the Quantity thereof For the Nature or Quality will tell vs who may without iniury be iudged Schismatiques and by the greatnes or quantity such as find themselues guilty therof will remaine acquainted with the true state of their soule and whether they may conceiue any hope of saluation or no. And because Schisme wil be found to be a diuision from the Church which could not happen vnles there were alwayes a visible Church we wil Thirdly proue or rather take it as a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath been such a Visible Congregation of Faythfull People Fourthly we will demonstrate that Luther Caluin and the rest did separate themselues from the Communion of that alwayes visible Church of Christ and therfore were guilty of Schisme And fifthly we will make it euident that the visible true Church of Christ out of which Luther and his followers departed was no other but the Roman Church consequently that both they and all others who persist in the same diuision are Schismatiques by reason of their separation from the Church of Rome 3. For the first point touching the Nature 1. Point or Quality of Schisme as the naturall perfection of man consists in his being the image of God his Creator by the powers of his soule so his supernaturall perfection is placed in similitude with God as his last End and Felicity The nature of Schisme and by hauing the said spirituall faculties his Vnderstanding and Will linked to him His Vnderstanding is vnited to God by Fayth his Will by Charity The former relies vpon his infallible Truth The latter carrieth vs to his infinite Goodnes Fayth hath a deadly opposite Heresy Contrary to the Vnion or Vnity of Charity is Separation and Diuision Charity is twofold As it respects God his Opposite Vice is Hatred against God as it vniteth vs to our Neighbour his contrary is Separation or diuision of affections and will from our Neighbour Our Neighbour may be considered either as one priuate person hath a single relation to another or as all concur to make one Company or Congregation which we call the Church and this is the most principall reference and Vnion of one man with another because the chiefest Vnity is that
proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others but left them to their liberty Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding Did they censure no man much lesse any Church S. Cyprian belieued his owne Opinion to be true but belieued not that it was necessary and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others You belieue the points wherin Luther differs from vs not to be fundamentall or necessary and why do you not thence infer the like THEREFORE he should not haue proceeded to censure others In a word since their disagreement from vs concerned only points which were not fundamentall they should haue belieued that they might haue been deceaued as well as the whole visible Church which you say may erre in such points and therefore their doctrines being not certainely true and certainely not necessary they could not giue sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church 42. In other places you write so much as may serue vs to proue that Luther and his followers ought to haue deposed and rectified their consciences As for example when you say When the Church (m) pag. 103. hath declared her selfe in any matter of opinion or of Rites her declaration obliges all her children to peace and externall obedience Nor is it fit or lawfull for any priuate man to oppose his iudgement to the publique as Luther and his fellowes did He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with euidence or great probability of Scripture or reason and very modestly still contayning himselfe within the dutifull respect which he oweth but if he will factiously aduāce his own conceyts his owne conceyts and yet grounded vpō euidence of Scripture despise the Church so farre as to cut of her Communion he may be iustly branded and condemned for a Schismatique yea and an Heretique also in some degree in foro exteriori though his opinion were true and much more if it be false Could any man euen for a Fee haue spoken more home to condemne your Predecessors of Schisme or Heresy Could they haue stronger Motiues to oppose the doctrine of the Church and leaue her Communion then euidence of Scripture And yet according to your owne words they should haue answered and rectifyed their conscience by your doctrine that though their opinion were true and grounded vpon euidence of Scripture or reason yet it was not lawfull for any priuate man to oppose his iudgment to the publique which obligeth all Christians to peace and externall obedience and if they cast of the communion of the Church for maintayning their owne Conceits they may be branded for Schismatiques and Heretiques in some degree and in foro exteriori that is all other Christians ought so to esteeme of them and why then are we accounted vncharitable for iudging so of you and they also are obliged to behaue themselues in the face of all Christian Churches as if indeed they were not Reformers but Schismatiques and Heretiques or as Pagans and Publicans I thanke you for your ingenuous confession in recompence wherof I will do a deed of Charity by putting you in mind into what labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of fayth and yet that it is not lawfull for any man to oppose his iudgment or leaue her Communion though he haue euidence of Scripture against her Will you haue such a man dissemble against his conscience or externally deny a truth knowne to be contained in holy Scripture How much more coherently do Catholiques proceed who belieue the vniuersall infallibility of the Church and from thence are assured that there can be no euidence of Scripture or reason against her definitions nor any iust cause to forsake her Cōmunion M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man yields as much as we haue alledged out of you The will of God is sayth he to haue (n) In his Preface to his bookes of Ecclesiastical policy Sect. 6. pag. 28. them do whatsoeuer the sentence of iudiciall and finall docision shall determine yea though it seeme in their priuate opinion to swarue vtterly from that which is right Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was which he transgressing must of necessity be guilty of Schisme And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the vniuersall infallibility of the Church or else driue men into the perplexities and labyrinths of distembling against their conscience wherof now I spake Not vnlike to this is your doctrine deliuered elsewhere Before the Nicene Councell say you many (o) pag. 131. good Catholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists that the Baptisme of Heretiques was ineffectuall and with the Nouatians that the Church ought not to absolue some grieuous sinners These errors therfore if they had gone no further were not in themselues Hereticall especially in the proper and most heauy or bitter sense of that word neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration Her intention was to silence all disputes and to settle peace and Vnity in her gouernment to which all wise and peaceable men submitted whatsoeuer their opinion was And those factious people for their vnreasonable and vncharitable opposition were very iustly branded for Schismatiques For vs the Mistaker will neuer proue that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church c. and therfore he doth vniustly charge vs either with Schisme or Heresy These words manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her declarations Doctrines and Commaunds imposed vpon them for silencing all disputes and setling peace and Vnity in the gouernment and therfore they still remayning obstinately disobedient are iustly charged with Schisme and Heresy And it is to be obserued that you grant the Donatists to haue been very iustly branded for Schismatiques although their opposition against the Church did concerne as you hold a point not fundamentall to the Fayth and which according to S. Augustine cannot be proued out of Scripture alone and therfore either doth euidently conuince that the Church is vniuersally infallible euen in points not fundamentall or else that it is Schisme to oppose her declarations in those very things wherin she may erre and consequently that Luther and his fellowes were Schismatiques by opposing the visible Church for points not fundamentall though it were vntruly supposed that she erred in such points But by the way how come you on the suddaine to hold the determination of a Generall Councell of Nice to be the declaration of the Catholique Church seeing you teach That Generall Councels may erre euen fundamentally And do you now say with vs that to oppose the declaration of the Church is sufficient that one may be branded with Heresy which is a point so often impugned by you 43. It is therfore most euident that no pretended scruple of conscience could excuse Luther which he might and
And therefore eyther Christ had no visible Church vpon Earth or else you must grant that it was the Church of Rome A truth so manifest that those ProtestaÌ„ts who affirme the Roman Church to haue lost the Nature being of a true Church do by ineuitable Consequence grant that for diuers Ages Christ had no visible Church on Earth from which errour because D. Potter disclaymeth he must of necessity maintaine that the Roman Church is free from fundamentall and damnable errour and that she is not cut of from the Body of Christ and the Hope of Saluation And if saith he any Zelots amongst vs haue proceeded (h) Jhid to heauier censures their zeale may be excused but their Charity and wisedome cannot be iustifyed 48. And to touch particulars which perhaps some may obiect No man is ignorant that the Grecians euen the Schismaticall Grecians do in most points agree with Roman Catholiques disagree from the Protestant Reformation They teach Transubstantiation which point D. Potter also (i) Pag. 229. confesseth Inuocation of Saints and Angels veneration of Reliques and Images Auricular Confession enioyned Satisfaction Confirmation with Chrisme Extreme-vnction All the seauen Sacraments Prayer Sacrifice Almes for the dead Monachisme That Priests may not marry after their Ordination In which points that the Grecians agree with the Roman Church appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Deusnes of Wittemberg intituled Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium Icremiae Patriarchae Constantinop de Augustana Confesaone c. Wittembergae anno 1584. by the Protestant (k) De statu Eccles pag. 233. Crispinus by Syr Edwin Sands in the Relation of the State of Religion of the West And I wonder with what colour of truth to say no worse D. Potter could affirme that the Doctrines debated between the Protestats (l) pag. 22â— Rome are only the partiall particular fancies of the Roman Church vnlesse happily the opinion of TransubstaÌ„tiation may be excepted wherin the latter Grecians seene to agree with the Romanists Beside the Protestant Authors already cited Petrus Arcudius a Grecian and a learned Catholique Writer hath published a large Volume the Argument and Title wherof is Of the agreement of the Roman and Greeke Church in the seauen Sacraments As for the Heresy of the Grecians that the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Sonne I suppose that Protestants disauow them in that errour as we doe 49. D. Potter will not I thinke so much wrong his reputation as to tell vs that the Waldenses Wicctiffe Husse or the like were Protestants because in some things they disagreed from Catholiques For he well knowes that the example of such men is subiect to these manifest exceptions They were not of all Ages nor in all Countries but confined to certaine places and were interrupted in Time against the notion and nature of the word Catholique They had no Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy nor Succession of Bishops Priests and Pastours They differed among themselues and from Protestants also They agreed in diuers things with vs against Protestants They held doctrines manifestly absurd and damnable heresies 50. The Waldenses begun not before the yeare 1218. so far were they from Vniuersality of all Ages For their doctrine first they denied all Iudgments which extended to the drawing of bloud and the Sabbaoth for which cause they were called In-sabbatists Secondly they taught that Lay men and women might consecrate the Sacrament and preach no doubt but by this meanes to make their Maister Waldo a meere lay man capable of such functions Thirdly that Clergy men ought to haue no possessions or proprieties Fourthly that there should be no diuision of Parishes nor Churches for a walled Church they reputed as a barne Fiftly that men ought not to take an oath in any case Sixtly that those persons sinned mortally who accompanied without hope of issue Seauenthly they held all things done aboue the girdle by kissing touching words compression of the breasts c. to be done in Charity and not against Continency Eightly that neither Priest nor ciuill Magistrate being guilty of mortall sinne did enioy their dignity or were to be obeyed Ninthly they condemned Princes and Iudges Tenthly they affirmed singing in the Church to be an hellish clamor Eleauenthly they taught that men might dissemble their Religion and so accordingly they went to Catholique Churches dissembling their Fayth and made Offertories confessions and communions after a dissembling manner Waldo was so vnlearned that sayth (m) Act. Mon. pag. 628. Fox he gaue rewards to certaine learned men to translate the holy Scripture for him and being thus holpen did as the same Fox there reporteth confer the forme of religion in his time to the infallible word of God A godly example for such as must needs haue the Scripture in English to be read by euery simple body with such fruit of godly doctrine as we haue seen in the foresaid grosse heresies of Waldo The followers of Waldo were like their Maister so vnlearned that some of them sayth (n) Ibid. Fox expounded the words Ioan. 1. Suieum non receperunt Swyne did not receiue him And to conclude they agreed in diuers things with Catholiques against Protestants as may be seene in (o) Tract 2. cap. 2. sect subd 3. Brereley 51. Neither can it be pretended that these are slanders forged by Catholiques For besides that the same things are testified by Protestant Writers as Illyrâ—cus Cowper others our Authours cannot be suspected of partiality in disfauour of Protestants vnles you will say perhaps that they were Prophets and some hundred yeares agoe did both foresee that there were to be Protestants in the world and that such Protestants were to be like the Waldenses Besides from whence but from our Histories are Protestants come to know that there were any such men as the Waldenses and that in some points they agreed with the Protestants and disagreed from them in others And vpon what ground can they belieue our Authours for that part wherin the Waldenses were like to Protestants and imagine they lyed in the rest 52. Neither could Wicliffe continue a Church neuer interrupted from the time of the Waldenses after whom he liued more then one hundred and fifty yeares to wit the yeare 1371. He agreed with Catholiques about the worshipping of Reliques and Images and about the Intercession of our blessed Lady the euer Immaculate Mother of God he went so far as to say It seemes to me (p) In serm de Assump Marte impossible that we should be rewarded without the intercession of the Virgin Mary He held seauen Saciaments Purgatory and other points And against both Catholiques and Protestants he maintained sundry damnable doctrines as diuers Protestant Writers relate As first If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not indeed either giue Orders Consecrate or Baptize Secondly That Ecclesiasticall Ministers ought not to haue any temporall possessions nor propriety in any thing but should
light but rather his vnderstanding is by a necessity made captiue and forced not to disbelieued what is presented by so cleere a light And therefore your imaginary fayth is not the true fayth defined by the Apostle but an inuention of your owne 31. That the fayth of Protestants wanteth the third Condition which was Prudence Their faith wants Prudence is deduced from all that hitherto hath beene sayd What wisdome was it to forsake a Church cōfessedly very ancient and besids which there could be demonstrated no other visible Church of Christ vpon earth A Church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Saluatiō endued with Succession of Bishops with Visibility and Vniuersality of Tyme and Place A Church which if it be not the true Church her enemies cannot pretend to haue any Church Ordination Scriptures Succession c. and are forced for their owne sake to maintaine her perpetuall Existence and Being To leaue I say such a Church frame a Community without eyther Vnity or meanes to procure it a Church which at Luthers first reuolt had no larger extent then where his body was A Church without Vniuersality of place or Tyme A Church which can pretend no Visibility or Being except only in that former Church which it opposeth A Church void of Succession of Persons or Doctrine What wisdome was it to follow such men as Luther in an opposition against the visible Church of Christ begun vpon meere passion What wisdome is it to receiue from Vs a Church Ordination Scriptures Personall Succession and not Succession of Doctrine Is not this to verify the name of Heresy which signifieth Election or Choyce Wherby they cannot auoid that note of Imprudency or as S. Augustine cals it Foolishnes set downe by him against the Manichees and by me recited before I would not sayth he belieue (r) Cont. ep Fund ç. 5. the Gospell vnles the Authority of the Church did moue me Those therfore whom I obeyed saying Belieue the Gospell why should I not obey the same men saying to me Do not belieue Manichaeus Luther Caluin c. Chuse what thou pleasest If thou say Belieue the Catholiques they warne me not to belieue thee Wherfore if I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say Do not belieue the Catholiques thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the fayth of Manichaeus because by the Preaching of Catholiques I belieued the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them Catholiques commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommending Manichaeus dost thou thinke me so very FOOLISH that without any reason at all I should belieue what thou wilt and not belieue what thou wilt not Nay this holy Father is not content to call it Foolishnes but meere Madnes in these words Why should I not most diligently enquire (s) Lib. de vtil Cred. ç. 14. what Christ commaunded of those before all others by whose Authority I was moued to belieue that Christ commaunded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he said whom I would not haue thought to haue been or to be if the Beliefe therof had been recommended by thee to me This therfore I belieued by fame strengthned with Celebrity Consent Antiquity But euery one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing which deserues Authority What MADNES is this Belieue them Catholiques that we ought to belieue Christ but learne of vs what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ then I should learne any thing concerning him from any other then those by whom I belieued him Lastly I aske what wisdome it could be to leaue all visible Churches and consequently the true Catholique Church of Christ which you confesse cannot erre in points necessary to saluation and the Roman Church which you grant doth not erre in fundamentalls and follow priuate men who may erre euen in points necessary to saluation Especially if we add that when Luther rose there was no visible true Catholique Church besides that of Rome and them who agreed with her in which sense she was is the only true Church of Christ and not capable of any Error in fayth Nay euen Luther who first opposed the Roman Church yet comming to dispute against other Heretiques he is forced to giue the Lye both to his owne words and deeds in saying We freely confesse (t) In epist cont Anab. ad duos Paerochos to 2 Germ. Witt. fol. 229. 230. that in the Papacy there are many good things worthy the name of Christian which haue come from them to vs. Namely we confesse that in the Papacy there is true Scripture true Baptisme the true Sacrament of the Aultar the true keyes for remission of sinnes the true Office of Preaching true Catechisme as our Lords Prayer Ten Commandements Articles of fayth c. And afterward I auouch that vnder the Papacy there is true Christianity yea the Kernel and Marrow of Christianity and many pious and great Saints And againe he affirmeth that the Church of Rome hath the true Spirit Gospells Fayth Baptisme Sacraments the Keyes the Office of Preaching Prayer Holy Scripture and whatsoeuer Christianity ought to haue And a litle before I heare and see that they bring in Anabaptisme onely to this end that they may spight the Pope as men that will receiue nothing from Antichrist no otherwise then the Sacramentaries doe who therefore belieue only Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament meerely in hatred against the Bishop of Rome and they thinke that by this meanes they shall ouercome the Papacy Verily these men rely vpon a weake ground for by this meanes they must deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For we haue all these things from the Pope otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture O Truth more forcible as S. Augustine sayes to wring out (x) Contra Donat. post collat cap. 24. Confession then is any racke or torment And so we may truly say with Moyses Inimici nostri sunt Iudices Our very Enemies giue (y) Deut. c. 32. 31. sentence for vs. 32. Lastly since your fayth wanteth Certainty and Prudence it is easy to inferre that it wants the fourth Condition Supernaturality Their faith wants Supernaturality For being but an Humane persuasion or Opinion it is not in nature or Essence Supernaturall And being imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from diuine Motion and Grace and therefore it is neyther supernaturall in it selfe or in the Cause from which it procedeth 33. Since therefore we haue proued that whosoeuer erres agaynst any one point of faith looseth all diuine fayth euen concerning those other Articles wherein he doth not erre and that although he could still retayne true fayth for some points yet any one errour in whatsoeuer other matter
argument of the Donatists which you say is all one with Ours but refer vs to S. Augustin there to read it as if euery one caried with him a Library or were able to examine the places in S. Augustine and yet you might be sure your Reader would be greedy to see some solid answere to an Argument so often vrged by vs and which indeed vnles you can confute it ought alone to moue euery one who hath care of his soule to take the safest way by incorporating himselfe in our Church But we may easily imagine the true reason of your silence For the answere which S. Augustine giues to the Donatists is directly against your selfe and the same which I haue giuen Namely that Catholiques (o) Ad lit Petil. lib. 2. cap. 108. approue the Baptisme of Donatists but abhor their heresy of Rebaptization And that as gold is good which is the similitude vsed by (p) Contrae Cresc lib. 1. cap. 21. S. Augustin yet not to be sought in company of theeues so though Baptisme be good yet it must not be sought for in the Conuenticle of Donatists But you free vs from damnable heresy and yield vs saluation which I hope is to be imbraced in whatsoeuer Company it is found or rather that Company is to be imbraced before all other in which all sides agree that saluation may be found We therfore must infer that it is safest for you to seeke saluation among vs. You had good reason to conceale S. Augustins answere to the Donatists 10. You frame another argument in our behalfe make vs speake thus If Protestants belieue the (q) pag. 79. Religion of Catholiques to be a safe way to Heauen why do they not follow it Which wise argument of your owne you answere at large and confirme your answere by this instance The Iesuits and Dominicans hold different Opinions touching Predetermination and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Yet so that the Iesuits hold the Dominicans way safe that is his errour not damnable and the Dominicans hold the same of the Iesuits Yet neither of them with good Consequence can presse the other to belieue his opinion because by his owne Confession it is no damnable error 11. But what Catholique maketh such a wise demaund as you put into our mouths If our Religion be a safe way to heauen that is not dānable why do you not follow it As if euery thing that is good must be of necessity imbraced by euery body But what thinke you of the Argument framed thus Our Religion is safe euen by your Confession therfore you ought to grant that all may imbrace it And yet further thus Among different Religions and contrary wayes to heauen one only can be safe But Ours by your owne Confession is safe wheras we hold that in yours there is no hope of saluation Therfore you may and ought to imbrace ours This is our Argument And if the Dominicans and Iesuits did say one to another as we say to you then one of them might with good consequence presse the other to belieue his opinion You haue still the hard fortune to be beaten with your owne weapon 12. It remaineth then that both in regard of Fayth and Charity Protestants are obliged to vnite themselues with the Church of Rome And I may add also in regard of the Theologicall Vertue of Hope without which none can hope to be saued and which you want either by excesse of Confidence or defect by Despaire not vnlike to your Fayth which I shewed to be either deficient in Certainty or excessiue in Euidence as likewise according to the rigid Caluinists it is either so strong that once had it can neuer be lost or so more then weake and so much nothing that it can neuer be gotten For the true Theologicall Hope of Christians is a Hope which keepes a meane betweene Presumption and Desperation which moues vs to worke our saluation with feare and trembling which conducts vs to make sure our saluation by good workes as holy Scripture aduiseth But contrarily Protestants do either exclude Hope by Despaire with the Doctrine that our Sauiour died not for all and that such want grace sufficient to saluation or else by vaine Presumption groūded vpon a fantasticall persuasion that they are Predestinate which Fayth must exclude all feare and trembling Neither can they make their Calling certaine by good workes who do certainly belieue that before any good workes they are iustified and iustified euen by Fayth alone and by that Faith wherby they certainly belieue that they are iustifyed Which points some Protestants do expresly affirme to be the soule of the Church the principall Origen of saluatiō Of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest as already I haue noted Chap. 3. n. 19. And if some Protestants do now relent from the rigour of the aforesaid doctrine we must affirme that at least some of them want the Theologicall Vertue of Hope yea that none of them can haue true Hope while they hope to be saued in the Communion of those who defend such doctrines as doe directly ouerthrow all true Christian Hope And for as much as concernes Fayth we must also infer that they want Vnity therin and consequently haue none at all by their disagreement about the soule of the Church the principall Origen of saluation of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest And if you want true Fayth you must by consequence want Hope or if you hold that this point is not to be so indiuisible on either side but that it hath latitude sufficient to imbrace all parties without preiudice to their saluation notwithstanding that your Brethren hold it to be the soule of the Church c. I must repeate what I haue said heertofore that euen by this Example it is cleere you cannot agree what points be fundamentall And so to whatsoeuer answere you fly I presse you in the same manner and say that you haue no Certainty whether you agree in fundamentall points or Vnity and substance of Fayth which cannot stand with difference in fundamentall And so vpon the whole matter I leaue it to be considered whether Want of Charity can be iustly charged on vs because we affirme that they cannot without repentance be saued who want of all other the most necessary meanes to saluation which are the three Theologicall Vertues FAITH HOPE and CHARITY 13. And now I end this first Part hauing as I conceiue complyed with my first designe in that measure which Tyme Commodity scarcity of Bookes and my owne small Abilities could affoard which was to shew that Amongst men of different Religions one side onely can be saued For since there must be some infallible Meanes to decide all Controuersies concerning Religion and to propound truth reuealed by Almighty God and this Meanes can be no other but the Visible Church of Christ which at the tyme of Luthers appearance was only the Church of
But we can tell you when and who first began to oppose Indulgences namely the Waldenses who appeared about the yeare 1170. And therfore the marke of Nouelty Heresy must fall not vpon the defenders but the impugners of IndulgeÌ„ces 12. You say out of Bellarmine that Leo the Third was the first that euer Canonized any Saint as before pag. 72. you alleaged out of him that the worship of Saints was brought into the Church rather by Custome then by any Precept and in your Margent you cite him in Latin saying Saints began to be (z) De Saitctorum beat lib. 1. cap. 8. § vâ—â— worshipped in the vniuersall Church rather by Custome then by Precept But Bellarmine doth not there treate in generall of worship of Saints but only handling the Question Cuius sit c. To whom doth it belong to Canonize Saints and prouing that it belongs to the Pope to Canonize them for the whole Church and not for some particular Diocesse alone in answere to an Obiection that there are many worshipped for Saints who were not Canonized by the Pope he hath these words I answere that the Ancient Saints began to be worshipped in the Vniuersall Church not so much by any Law as by Custome Where you breake off But Bellarmine goeth forward and sayth But as other Customes haue the force of a Law by the tacite Consent of the Prince without which they are of no force c. So the Worship of any Saint generally introduced by the Custome of the Churches hath force from the tacite or expresse Approbation of the Pope First then you conceale the Question of which Bellarmine treated Secondly you leaue out Veteres Ancient Saints and say only Saints and yet Ancient sheweth he spoke not of all Saints but of some who were not expresly Canonized or Commaunded to be held for Saintes wheras diuers others haue been Canonized by direct commaund to belieue that they are happy Thirdly in your Translation you leaue out Vniuersall only put Church wheras Bellarmine § Primo modo expresly teacheth That in ancient time euery Bishop might Canonize Saints for his particular Diocesse and de facto they did command some Feasts to be kept as Bellarmine proues which shewes that the worship of Saints was held both to be lawfull and was to some particular persons coÌ„manded Fourthly you leaue out Bellarmines words That the Worship of some Saint generally introduced by the custome of the Churches growes to haue the force of a Law or Precept by the tacite or expresse Approbation of the Pope which is contrary to that which you cited out of Bellarmine The worship and Inuocation of Saints was brought into the Church rather by Custome then any Precpt And now to come to your former Obiection out of Bellarmine what is it to your purpose if he affirme that Leo the third was the first that euer Canonized any Saint Doth he affirme that Leo was the first that taught Worship and Inuocation of Saints Or that such worship was not practised by Custome yea by Precept before his Time as we haue seeme out of his words it was Bellarmine speakes only of such forme and solemnity of Canonization as afterwards was vsed Which makes nothing for your purpose to proue that our doctrine of Worship or Inuocation of Saints is a Nouelty If one should affirme that the soleÌ„nity of Crowning Kings was not vsed in all places or tymes alike should he therfore deny the Antiquity of Kings or that Obedience is due to them You may see not onely the errour but the danger also of such discourse 13. When one reades in your Booke these words in a different letter Not any one ancient Writer (b) Pag. 78. reckons precisely seauen Sacraments the first Authour that mentions that number is Peter Lombard and the first Councell that of Florence and in your Margent the names of Valentia and Bellarmine Who would not thinke that in the opinion of these Authors no ancient Writer before Lombard belieued that there were seauen Sacraments neither more nor fewer Which is most vntrue and against their formall words expresse intentioÌ„s For thus saith Valentia in the very same place which you (c) Tom. 4. disp 3. q. 6. p. 2. § Tertie probatur cite The same Assertion that there are seauen Sacraments is proued by the Authority of Fathers For although the more ancient Writers do not number seauen Sacraments all together in one place yet it may be easily shewed especially by the testimony of S. Augustine that they did acknowledge euery one of these Ceremonies to be a Sacrament Thus Valentia in generall and then he proues euery one of the seauen Sacraments out of particular places of S. Augustine S. Cyprian S. Ambrose Innocentius the first Chrysostome Bode and Dionysius Areopagita Now tell me whether Valentia say Not any one Ancient Writer reckons precisely seauen Sacraments Doth he not proue out of S. Augustine euery one of the seauen Sacraments in particular as you could not but see in the very place cited by you Is it all one to say Not any one Ancient Writer reckons precisely seauen Sacraments as you corrupt these Authors and to say The Ancient Writers do not number seauen Sacraments all togeather in one place Neither is your falsifying of Bellarmine lesse remarkable who hauing said that the number of seauen Sacraments is proued out of Scriptures and ancient Fathers premiseth this Obseruation That Our Aduersaries ought not to require of vs that (d) Bellarm. de Sacram. lib. 2. ç. 25. we shew in Scriptures and Fathers the NAME of seauen Sacraments For neither can they shew the Name of two or three or fower for the Scriptures and Fathers did not write a Catechisme as now we do by reason of the multitude of Heresies but only deliuered the things themselues in diuers places Neither is this proper to Sacraments but common to many other things For the Scripture reckons the miracles of our Sauiour but neuer reckons how many there be It deliuers the Articles of Fayth but neuer sayth how many they be The Apostles afterward published the Creed of twelue Articles for some particular causes In like manner they cannot know out of Scripture how many Canonicall Brokes there be But Councels afterward set downe the Canon and the particular number which they had learned by Tradition And afterward he notes That it is sufficient if we can shew out of Fathers and Scriptures that the Definition of a Sacrament doth agree neither to more nor fewer Rites then seauen By which words it is cleere that when Bellarmine sayth Lombard was the first that named the number of seauen SacrameÌ„ts he only meaneth as he explicates himselfe of the name of Seauen as Protestants will not find in all Antiquity the name of two SacrameÌ„ts So that from the words of Valentia and Bellarmine as they are indeed nothing can be gathered except your very vnconscionable Dealing 14. What you cite out of Bellarmine
the same points the Scripture is also sufficient and cleere Which cuidently sheweth that you cannot deny but that the Infallibility of the Church may well stand with the sufficiency of Scripture consequently to oppose either the Scripture or Church is sufficient to make one an Heretique and this is sufficient for our purpose Yea since you cannot deny but that it is Heresy to oppose the Scripture and that you also grant that the Scripture affirmes the Church to be infallible in fundamentall points it followes that euen according to you euery one who opposeth the Church in such points is an Heretique euen because he opposeth the Church although the further reason heerof be because he opposeth the Scripture which recommends the Church So that all which you haue said about the sufficiency of Scripture alone is in diuers respects nothing to the purpose 5. You affirme that (d) Pag. 136 Eckius Pighius Hosius Turrianus Costerus do euery where in their writings speake wickedly and contumeliously of the holy Scriptures And because this is a common slander of Protestants against Catholique Writers I do heere challenge you to produce but one I say but one only place either out of any one of these whome you name or any other Catholique Doctor who speakes wickedly or contumeliously against holy Scriptures But be sure you do not confound speaking against Scripture it selfe with speaking against the abuse therof or against the letter of Scripture wrested to some hereticall sense against which our Authors speake and cannot speake too much And S. Hierome with other Father do the same 6. You proceed and say The Testimony (e) Pag. 139. of the present Church workes very powerfully probably first vpon Infidels to winne them to a Reuerend opinion of Fayth and Scriptures c. Secondly vpon Nouices weaklings and doubters in the fayth to instruct confirme them till they may acquaint themselues with and vnderstand the. Scriptures which the Church deliuers as the word of God Thirdly vpon all within the Church to prepare induce and perswade the Mind as an outward meanes to imbrace the fayth to read and belieue the Scriptures But the fayth of a Christian findes not in all this any sure ground wheron finally to rest or settle it selfe Because diuine Fayth requires a Testimony absolutely diuine and yet our Aduersaries yield that the Testimony of the present Church is not absolutely diuine to which purpose you cite in your Margent some of our Authors and therfore it cannot rely vpon the Church 7. This your discourse is neither pertinent nor true For the Question is not as I haue often told you whether or no our fayth be resolued into the Authority of the Church but whether we may not truly infer that whosoeuer resisteth the Church in those points which she doth infallibly propose as reuealed by God which infallibility you yield to her for all fundamentall points be not an Heretique because at lest by resisting the Church he consequently comes to oppose the Testimony or Reuclation of God which is the formall obiect of Fayth Besides if the Testimony of the Church worke but probably vpon Infidels and Nouices who by you are taught to belieue that she may erre vnles you will circumuent them by dissembling her fallibility they will haue wit inough to tell themselues that since she may erre and speakes but probably she cannot worke so powerfully vpon them but that they may still doubt whether she do not actually erre and deceiue them And how can the Church worke vpon all within her to prepare induce and perswade the mind to imbrace the fayth to read and belieue Scriptures Are they within the Church before they haue imbraced the Fayth Or must they want fayth till they read and belieue the Scriptures Or rather since according to your Principles all fayth depends on Scripture must they not belieue the Scripture before they imbrace the fayth and consequently before they be in the Church How then doth the Church prepare induce and perswade them that are within her to imbrace the fayth and to read and belieue the Scriptures If our fayth must rest and settle only vpon the Written Word of God how doth S. Irenaeus (f) Lib. 3. cap. 4. affirme that many Nations haue been conuerted to Christ without Scriptures Were they conuerted only to an humane fayth 8. And wheras you say that the Authority of the Church is not absolutely diuine and therfore cannot be the last and formall Obiect of fayth it is but an Equiuocation and you infer that which we do not deny Coninck whom you cite in your Margent and translated by halues answeres your Obiection in the very wordes which you alleage Although sayth he the Church (g) Disp 9. dub 5. conel 2. be directed by the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost and in that sense her Testimony do in some sort rely vpon the diuine Authority and receiue from it strength all which words you do not translate yet it is not truly or properly the Testimony or word and reuelation of God but properly it is a humane Testimony You see then that the Testimony of the Church in some sense is Diuine that is infallibly directed by the holy Ghost which is inough for our purpose although it be not Diuine in another sense that is her words are not the immediate voyce of God as Scriptures are because she doth not propose any new Reuelations made immediately to her but only infallibly declares what Reuelations haue beene made to Prophets Apostles c. Your selfe affirme that the Church is infallible in Fundamentall points and consequently her Testimony is not meerly humane and fallible and yet it is not absolutely diuine and so you must answere your owne Argument and you must grant that the Church being infallible in some points may be to vs a ground sufficient for our infallible assent or beliefe for such Articles And if you will tell vs that fayth must be resolued into some Authority which is absolutely Diuine as Diuine signifies that which is distinct from all things created you will find your selfe gone too far For Scripture it selfe being a thing created and not a God is not Deuine in that sense And the Apostles who receiued immediate Reuelations from God when afterwards they did preach and declare them to others those Declarations which supposed the Reuelations already made were not in the opinion of many Deuines the testimony or word of God but of men infallibly assisted by God And yet I hope you will not hence inferre that it had not been Heresy to oppose the Declarations of the Apostles although they did not preach new Reuelations but only declare and propound such as had been already made to them 9. Your wordes which are indeed but words That Scripture (h) Pag. 141. is of diuine Authority the Belieuer sees by that glorious beam of diuine light which shines in Scripture I confuted heeretofore And what greater
coÌ„futation can there be then by your own words the Belieuer sees For if he see how doth he belieue Or if he belieues how doth he see Especially since you say he belieues and sees vpon the same formall obiect or motiue Yet that Scripture is knowne by it selfe you proue out of Bellarmine who saych That the Scriptures (i) De verb. Deilib 1. çap. 2. which are contayned in the Propheticall and Apostolicall Writings be most certayne and diuine Scripture it selfe witnesseth But these words will proue to be against your selfe For Bellarmine in that place disputing agaynst the Swenckfeldian Heretiques who denyed all Scriptures sayth That he doth not alledge (k) Ibid. Testimonies of Scripture as if he thought that his Aduersaries made any great account of them but lest the Scriptures the Authority whereof his Aduersaries did sometymes abuse agaynst vs who reuerence them may be thought to fauour their doctrine Is this to affirme that Scripture is certainely and euidently knowne by Scripture Or rather contrarily to say that it must first be belieued before it be powerfull to persuade And therefore immediatly after the wordes by you cited which are The Scripture selfe witnesseth he adds these which you as you are wont leaue out whose predictions of things to come if they were true as the euent afterward did manifest why should not the Testimonies of things present be true Where you see that he proues not the Scripture by that beame of light which euidenly shines in Scripture but by predictions which we grant to be a good inducement or as Diuines speake an Argument of credibility and yet no infallible ground of fayth to belieue that Scriptures are diuine and much lesse a beame of light cleerly conuincing vs that Scripture is Scripture For one may be inspired to prophesy or speake truth in some point and for others be left to humane discourse or error as it hapned in Balam and the friends of Iob. And therfore Bellarmine in that very place brings other extrinsecall Argumentes as Miracles exemplar and visible strange punishments of such as presumed to abuse holy Scripture c. Which euidently shewes that he intended to bring Arguments of Credibility and not infallible grounds of fayth wherby we belieue that Scripture is Scripture which we must take from the infallible Testimony of the Church by meanes of Tradition wherof Bellarmine sayth This so necessary a point to wit that (m) Deverb Dei nonseripro lib. 4. c. 4. there is some diuine Scripture cannot be had from Scripture it selfe Wherby it is manifest that you plainely corrupt Bellarmines meaning when you go about to proue out of him that Scripture can be proued by Scripture alone the contrary wherof he affirmes and proues at large against the Heretiques of these times The place which you cite of Origen only proues that those who already belieue the Canonicall Bookes of Scripture may proue out of them that Scripture is diuinely inspired as S. Peter (n) Epist. 2. vers 21. sayth Neither doth the Authority of Saluianus proue any thing els 10. Your saying that we yield to the Church an absolute (o) Pag. 144.145 vnlimited Authority to propound what she pleaseth and an vnlimited power to supply the defects of Scripture I let passe as meere slaunders As also that the Authority of the Church is absolute not (p) Pag. 144. depending on Scripture but on which the Scripture it selfe depends And you cannot be ignorant of that which hath been so often inculcated by Catholique Writers that the Scriptures in themselues do not depend on the Church but only in respect of vs who learno from her what Bookes be Canonical Scripture which is to say not the Scriptures but our weake vnderstanding and knowledge of Scripture relies on the Church which our Sauiour Christ commandes vs to heare And your selfe grant that the Church (q) Pag. 142.143 is the ordinary outward meanes to present and propound diuine verities to our Fayth You will not deny that your knowledge of the Trinity Incarnation c. depends on Scripture will you thence in fer that the Blessed Trinity Incarnation c. in themselues depend on Scripture as if God had not been God vnlesse Scripture had beene written Besides to such as belieue Scripture we may proue the Church herselfe by Scripture and she in all her definitions doth consult examine and submit herselfe to Scripture against which she neuer did nor euer can define any thing in this sense also she depends on Scripture But to make good your slaunder you (r) Pag. 144. cite Bellarmine after your wonted fashion If we take away (s) De effect Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 25. § Tertium testimonium the Authority of the present Church of Rome this of Rome is your addition and of the Trent-Councell the decrees of all other Ancient Councels and the whole Christian fayth may be questioned as doubtfull for the strength of all doctrines and of all Councels depends vpon the Authority of the present Church Would not one thinke by these words that the strength of all doctrines depeÌ„ds on the Church wheras Bellarmine only sayth that we could not infallibly know that there were such Generall Councels and that they were law full Councels and that they defined this or that but because the present Church which cannot erre doth so belieue and teach vs. Which words demonstrate that Bellarmine doth not speake of fayth or doctrines in themselues but in respect of vs. And do not you your selfe teach that it is the Church which directs vs to Scripture and that she likewise is the ordinary outward meanes to present and propound diuine Verities without which Propesition no obiect can be conueyed to our (t) Pag. 142.143 fayth And what is this but to acknowledge that in the ordinary way without the guidance direction and Proposition of the Church we haue no fayth at all 11. You â—ikewise cite these words out of (u) De Eccles mil. lib. 3. cap. 10 §. Ad haec necesse est Bellarmine The Scriptures Traditions and all doctrines whatsoeuer depend on the Testimony of the Church he meanes say you that of Rome without which all are wholy vncertayne But Bellarmines words are these Since the Scriptures Traditions and all doctrines whatsoeuer depend vpon the Testimony of the Church all things will be vncertaync vnles we be most assured which is the true Church You see Bellarmine speakes not of the particular Church of Rome as you in your PareÌ„thesis would make him seeme to speake And as for the Vniuersall true Church what principle of Atheis me is it as you very exorbitantly (w) pag. 145 affirme to say that if we did not know which were the true Church we could haue no certainty of Scriptures Traditions or any thing els Do you thinke that it were safe to take the Scriptures vpon the credit of a false Church As wel might you take them vpon the
question or practised by the Church is the Obiect of her infallibility which is the thing we intend to proue against Protestants that to oppose or question any one doctrine or practise of the Church is to resist an infallible Authority and consequently to be an Heretique And that Stapleton neuer dreamed of your imaginary restraining the infallibility of the Church to points fundamentall is cleere by another place which you (m) Pag. 40 cite as out of S. Thomas and him in this manner Some are primitiue Articles of the substance of Religion essentiall in the obiect of fayth Others are secundary probable accidentall or obscure points For Stapleton in that place sayth that certaine doctrines (n) Staplet Rel. controu 1. q. 3. art 6. are either primary Principles of fayth or els though not primary yet defined by the Church and so as if they were primary Others are Conclusions deduced from those principles but yet not defined Of the first kind are the Articles of fayth and whatsoeuer is defined in Councels against Heretiques c. Of the second are questions which either belong to the hidden works of God or to certaine most obscure places of Scripture which are beside the fayth and of which we may be ignorant without losse of fayth yet they may be modestly and fruitfully disputed of And afterward he teaches that whatsoeuer the Church doth vniuersally hold either in doctrine or manners belongs to the foundation of fayth and proues it out of S. Augustine (o) Serm. 14. de verbis Domini ep 28.89.96 who cals the Custome of the Church Ecclesiae morem fundatissimuÌ„ sidem fundatissimam consuâ—â—udinem Ecclesiae fundatissimaÌ„ authoritatem sta bilissimaÌ„ fundatissimae ecclesiae Could any thing be more cleere to shew that according to Stapleton the infallibility of the Church reacheth further then to those points which you call fundamentall and that it belongs to the very foundation of Fayth that we belieue whatsoeuer the Church holds And that it is not lawfull for any to dispute against such determinatioÌ„s of the Church Which doth ouerthrow your distinction of points fundamentall not fundamentall thogh you alledge the authority of S. Thomas and Stapleton in fauour thereof For S. Thomas (o) 2.2 q. 2. are 5. in the very place by you cited after he had sayd that there are some obiects of fayth which we are bound explicitely to belieue addeth that we are bound to belieue all other points when they are sufficiently propounded to vs as belonging to fayth You might gayne more reputation to your selfe and allow your aduersary more ease if you would once resolue to cite your Authours with more sincerity 18. To proue that the infallibility of the Church extends only to fundamentall points you also alledge Maldonatus who sayth That he will not repugne (p) In Joan. 24.26 if one will affirme that those words 10.14 vers 16. He shall teach you all things be referred to those other words Whatsoeuer I haue spoken to you as if our Sauiour did say that the holy Ghost was to teach theÌ„ nothing but that which he himselfe had taught them But do you in good earnest belieue that our Sauiour taught the Aposlles fundamentall points alone which all Christians are bound explicitely to belieue Or will you say the Apostles were infallibly assisted only when they deliuered fundamentall points of fayth So you must say if Christ did teach them only points fundamentall and the holy Ghost taught them onely those thinges which Christ had taught them vnles you will say they were infallible without the assistaÌ„ce of the holy Ghost You see he had good reason to say that (q) First Part. cap. 2. num 13. by denying the vniuersal infallibility of the Church limiting the promises of Christ made to her you opened a gap for men to say that the A postles in their Preaching and Writing were not vniuersally infallible And heer I aske whether it be not a fundamentall errour against fayth and Saluation to deny the truth of any one point sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God and since without question it is so you must eyther grant that the Church can erre fundamentally and damnably agaynst fayth which yet your self deny or els you must yield that her infallibility reaches to all points sufficiently propounded as diuine Truths whether they be in themselues fundamentall or not fundamentall which is as much as we desire 19. Agaynst the infallibility of the Church you bring a long argument pag. 157.158 the force whereof is this Nothing according to vs can be belieued by diuine fayth which hath not beene defined by the Church But the Church hath not defined that she is infallible in all her decrees Therfore we cannot belieue by diuine fayth that she is infallible in all her decrees 20. Before I answere your Argument I must reflect that you do not sincerely alledge these words out of Bellarmine Vntil (r) Lïb. 4. de Roman Pont. cap. 14 §. Respondeo inprimis a doctrine be declared or defined by the Church so loÌ„g it might be eyther doubted of or denyed without danger For Bellarmine makes no such generall Rule but only speaking of the opinioÌ„ of Pope Iohn the two and twentith That the Saints doe not see God before the Resurrection which is your owne errour he excuseth him from Heresy because at that tyme the Church had not defined the matter Where you see Bellarmine speakes only of a particular point which that Pope not conceauing to be contayned in Scripture and the thing hauing not been expressely defined by the Church nor euidently knowne to haue beene the vniuersall sense thereof it was not at that tyme a matter of fayth And he himselfe before his death retracted his errour But to come to your Argument I wish you would be carfull not to obiect against vs what your selfe must answer For doe not you teach that the Church workes vpon all (s) Pag. 139. within her to prepare induce and persuade the mind to imbrace the fayth to reade and belieue the Scriptures And that the ordinary meanes (t) Pag. 142.143 appointed by God to present and propound diuine Verities is the Church And therefore we cannot in the ordinary course belieue Scriptures or any other diuine Verity but by the Proposall of the Church But this doctrine that the Church is the first Inducer to imbrace the faith and the ordinary Meanes without which we cannot belieue is not proposed by the Church and therefore it is not a thing which we can belieue You likewise grant that the Church is infallible in all fundamentall points And I aske in what decree definition or declaration hath the Church proposed to vs that her selfe cannot erre in fundamentall points especially with your addition that she may erre in points not fundamentall Now to your Argument I an were First That it is not necessary that the Church should by any particular decree testify her owne
Peter died Bishop of Rome is so weake that himselfe sayth only suadere videtur it seemes to perswade This Bellarmine sayth only of one reason besides which he bringeth diuers other demonstrations neither is it necessary for the certainty of any truth that euery reason for it be euident And it is the doctrine of Philosophers that the best methode is to begin with probable Arguments and then to ascend to demonstrations Moreouer in this very subiect Vdalricus Velenus a Lutheran wrote a Booke to proue that S. Peter was neuer at Rome and to that purpose he brings eighteen reasons which he calls Persuasions yet he holds them for euident Demonstrations If then Bellarmine out of his great modesty say that his first reason seemes to persuade must you thence inferre that it doth not demonstrate And indeed it is a very good and solid argument After this you go forward and cite Bellarmine saying There God cōmanded him to fixe his Chaire to leaue his full Power to his heyres and Successours the Popes And then you adde But what certainty of this Indeed saith Bellarmine it is no where (r) De Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 12. §. Ob seruandum est tertiò expressed in Scripture that the Pope you should add of Rome as Bellarmine hath it succeeds Peter therefore happily it is not of diuine right that he succeeds him Yet it is not improbable that (s) Ibid. § Et quontam God commanded him to fasten his Seate at Rome and it may be deuoutly so belieued And it may be truly belieued that you corrupt Bellarmine First when you speake of Popes you leaue out of Rome in which word consisteth the maine point For Bellarmine teaches that it is most certaine and de iure diuino that S. Peter should haue Popes to succeed him but he holdeth it not so certaine whether it be of diuine institution that his Successour should be Pope of Rome that is haue his Seate fixed at Rome although de facto it be there Bellarmines wordes are It is not all one that a thing be a point of fayth and that it be of diuine institution For it was not a diuine Law that S. Paul should haue a cloake yet it is a point of fayth that S. Paul had a Cloake Though then it be not exprsly contained in Scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeed S. Peter thus far you goe and leaue out the words immediately following which explicate the whole matter Yet it is euidently deduced out of Scripture that some must succeed S. Peter but that he who succeeds him is the Bishop of Rome we know by the Apostolicall Tradition of S. Peter which Tradition Generall Councels Decrees of Popes and Consent of Fathers haue declared as heerafter shall be demonstrated And according to this cleere explication he said a little before Because S. Marcellus Pope in his Epistle ad Antiochenos writes that S. Peter came to Rome by the Commandment of our Lord and S. Ambrose (t) In Orat. cont Auxētium and S. Athanasius (u) In Apolog pro fuga sua affirme that S. Peter suffered Martyrdome at Rome by the commandment of Christ it is not improbable that our Lord did also expresly command that S. Peter should so settle his Seate at Rome that the Bishop of Rome should absolutely succeed him But howsoeuer this be at lest this manner of Succession proceeds not from the first institution of the Popedome which is deliuered in Scripture Do you not see what Bellarmine deliuers for certaine what for lesse certaine It is certaine that S. Peter must haue Successours it is certaine that in fact his Successour is the Bishop of Rome but it is not so certaine that by diuine institution his Successour is the Bishop of Rome but that might proceed from the act of S. Peter who actually liued and died Bishop of Rome though he might haue chosen some other particular Diocesse These things Bellarmine deliuers very cleerly but you do so inuolue his words as one would belieue that he held it for vncertaine whether actually the Pope of Rome be S. Peters Successour or whether it be certaine and of diuine institution that S. Peter left any Successour at all both which are plainely against his meaning and expresse words 31. Your other obiections are so old and triuiall that they deserue no Answere I sayd already that in time of Schisme the Church hath power to declare or elect a true and vndoubted Pope and in the meane tyme God in his Prouidence can gouerne his Church without new definitions of Popes of which there is not alwayes so precise necessity as that the Church may not subsist without thē for a time as for three hundred yeares from the Apostles tymes she was without any one Generall Councell and as the Iewes for two thousand yeares were without Scripture If any should enter symonically be accepted by the Churh as Pope God will eyther not permit him to define any matter of fayth or els will assist him not to erre perniciously not for his owne sake but in respect of the Church which cannot be ledde into errour as she might if that reputed Pope could define a falshood because the members are obliged to conforme themselues to one whome they esteeme their Head And you your selfe must say the same For since all the spirituall Power and Iurisdiction of your first Prelates was deriued from Rome you must affirme that a Pope accepted for such by the Church is sufficiently enabled for all necessary acts and functions notwithstanding that secret impediment For otherwise you might endanger the Authority of your owne Prelates And the same you must in proportion say of all publique Magistrates The same answere serues to your other Obiectiō that we are not sure whether he that is elected Pope be baptized For it belongs to Gods prouidence not to permit any whome the Church hath elected for her head to erre perniciously though indeed your suppositions are neuer to be admitted but we are to belieue that whosoeuer in a tyme free from Schisme is accepted by the Church for true Pope is such indeed And I wonder you doe not reflect that these obiections are also against your owne Bishops Or if you say that your spirituall Iurisdiction comes from the Temporall Prince the same difficulty wil remaine cōcerning him For I suppose you will not say that one who is not baptized and consequently not a Christian can meerly by vertue of his Temporall Power giue spirituall Iurisdiction And though you say that it is not want of intention in the Minister which can make voyde the Sacrament of Baptisme yet you will not deny but that there may be other essentiall defects hindring the validity therof as for example if by error the water be so mingled that it be not elementall water or if the forme of the words in Baptisme be not pronounced entierely c. For in your forme of Publique Baptisme
Rule of fayth is cleerly contayned in Scripture Whereas he rather sayth the contrary in these words The Verities of fayth (b) 2.2 〈◊〉 art 9. ad 1. are contayned in Scripture diffusedly in some things obscurely c. so that to draw the Verity of fayth out of Scripture there is required long study and exercise Is this to say the Scripture is cleere euen for fundamentall points 3. I see not how you can proue that the Creed containes all fundamentalls out of those Letters called Formatae formed the manner whereof is set downe by (c) Ann. 325. num 44. 407. num 3. apud Spond Baronius Among other things one was to write the first letter in Greke of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost of S. Peter the one saith Baronius being to professe their fayth against the Arrian Heretiques of those times the other to shew their Communion with the Catholique Church because he was esteemed truly Catholique who was ioyned in Communion with the Successour of S. Peter And this Baronius proues out of Optatus Wherby it appeares that the intention of those formed Letters was not to expresse all fundamentall points of fayth but particularly aymed at the Arrians besides the Articles of our Creed they contained the Primacy of S. Peter teaching vs that it is necessary for euery true Catholique to be vnited with the Sea of Peter You cite the circular letters of Sophronius Tarasius Pelagius Patriarch of Rome and Photius of Constantinople for those of Pelagius you cite Baronius Ann. 556. n. 33. But the letters of Pelagius which Baronius sets downe at large do not so much as mention the Apostles Creed and besides the foure six Generall Councels he professes to receiue the Canons which the Sea Apostolique that is the Romane Sea hath receiued the Epistles of the Popes Celestine Sixtus Leo Hilarius Simplicius Felix Gelasius the first Anastasius Hormisda Iohn Felix Boniface Iohn Agapetus and then adds This is my Fayth I wonder by what Logick you will inferre out of these Letters that the Creed alone explaned by the first Councells containes all Articles of fayth since Pelagius professes to receiue diuers other things not contained in the Creed Sophronius also Sext. Synod Act. 11. in his letters recites and condemnes by name a very great number of particular Heresies and Hetetiques which are not mentioned in any of the Creeds and adds a full condemnation of all Heretiques Neither are you more fortunate or faythfull in Tarasius who in his Confession of fayth doth expresly teach Inuocation of our blessed Lady Angels Apostles Prophets Martyrs Confessors c. as also worship of Images of which he was a most zealous defender against the Iconomacht and was the chiefe in the seauenth Synod who condemned those Heretiques And since he was a mā famous both for sanctity and miracles we may note by the way what persons they were who in ancient times opposed Protestants in those Iconomachi Photius likewise is by you misalledged For he in his Letter to Pope Nicholas set downe by Baronius ad Ann. 859. wherein he maketh a profession of his fayth fayth I receiue the seauen holy Generall Councels And hauing mentioned the six Councels and what Heretiques were condemned by them he adds I also receyue that holy and great Councell which was the second held at Nice which cast out and ouercame as filth the Iconomachi that is the oppugners of Images who therfore were Christomachi that is oppugners of Christ as also the impugners of Saints Tell me now I pray you by what art can you extract out of Photius his Letter an argument to proue that the Apostles Creed as it was explaned in the Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius comprehends a perfect Catalogue of fundamentall truths and implyes a full reiection of fundamentall heresies as you affirme pag. 217 since he expresly professes to receiue also the seauen Generall Councels and that in particular which condemned the Impugners of Images that is such as your selfe and other Protestants are Will you grant that the Creed implies a reiection of the errour of the Iconomachi or opposers of Images as of a Fundamentall Heresie Who will not wonder at your ill fortune in mis-alledging Authors Yet I grant that fraude can neuer be imployed better then to the disaduantage of him who vseth it 4. You say (d) pag. 226. to litle purpose that the learned Cardinall Peron thinks (e) Replique çap. 1. it probable that the Article of the Catholique Church and the Communion of Saints is all one the latter being only an Explication of the other But what is this for your purpose which was to proue that Articles not expressed in the Creed cannot be reduced to the Catholique Church Because no learned Romanist will say that the new doctrines of the Romane Church are contained in the Communion of Saints For Cardinall Peron only means what he sayth in expresse words That the Catholique Church consists not in the simple nūber of the faithfull euery one considered a part but in the ioynt Communion also of the whole body of the faythfull From whence it doth not follow that the Church is not she who ought to deliuer and propound diuine Verities to vs as she is the Mother and Teacher of all Christians Doth not Charity and Communion in the spirit of Loue include Fayth and consequently some infallible Propounder of the Articles therof The Explication of Azor concerning the Article of the Catholique Church which you bring maketh nothing in the world to your purpose I haue told you already that while we belieue the Vnity Vniuersality Perpetuity Sanctity of the Church we ioyntly belieue her Infallibility and freedome from all error in fayth But it is a meere slaunder to talke as if we held that she had soueraigne and infallible power to prescribe or define what she pleases You say that the Creed is a sufficient Rule of fayth to which nothing essentiall can be added or may be detracted As if the addition of Materiall obiects added any thing to the Essence of faith which is taken not from the materiall Obiect or the things which we belieue but from the Formall Obiect and Motiue which is the Testimony of Almighty God 5. Though it were granted that the Creed being rightly vnderstood contaynes all fundamentals yet doth it not follow that Protestants agree in them both because they may disagree in the meaning of some of those Articles as also because disagrement in any one point of Fayth though not fundamentall cannot stand with the Vnity and substance of fayth euen in such points as both of them belieue As for the Authour of the Examen pacifique I haue told you already that he is no Catholique 6. You set down your owne opinion about the necessity of good workes which you know is contrary to many of your prime Brethren yet this I will not vrge for the present but only say that you
if you answere me at all I beseech you forget not this demand and whether the obseruation of them be not holy and forasmuch as belongs to that particular obiect a perfect Cbristian fast and meritorious in that sense and degree according to which you grant that other works are meritorious or deseruing a reward For the other part of your obiection that he that eates flesh in Lent is punished with a more grieuous pennance then he that blasphemes c. you shew how modest a man you are and with all that you are little seene either in the Canon or Ciuill Law For the Ciuill Law commaunds that (t) In Authentiea vs non luxurientur homines Nouell 77. Blasphemers should be punished with death because sayth the Law Hunger and earthquakes and plagues come by reason of such crimes In the (u) Cap. Statuimus de matediçiâ—â— Canon Law Blasphemers beside other punishments are to stand as Penitents at the Church doore for the space of some Sundayes and for some fridayes to fast in bread water c. and by other decrees of Popes the same sinne is grieuously punished as in particular the Councell of Lateran vnder Leo the 10. commands That none be absolued from Blasphemy without a grieuous penance and to the same purpose Iulius III. and Pius V. haue made very seuere decrees Neuertheles it is also true that greater punishment may in foro externo be appointed for some sinnes which are lesse then other as S. Thomas doth (w) 1.2 q. 105. ar 2. ad 9. and 2.2 q. 39. art 2. ad 1. truly affirme Do not your selues more vsually punish such as without licence eate flesh in Lent then them who take the Name of God in vaine or abuse themselues by drunkennes or wrong their Neighbours by detraction And besides to eate flesh in Lent may be an act of Heresy which how grieuous a sinne it is hath been explicated heertofore 10. By occasion of mentioning the Manichees you charge your Margent as your fashion is with a deep peece of erudition that the name forsooth of their founder Manes is conforme to the Greeke word which signifies Madnes But if we delighted is take hold of such goodly occasions of Vanity we could say that he was a Persian and his name was first Cubricus which he changed into Mames which in the Babylonian Tongue signifies (x) Epiph. haeres 66. a Vessell But let vs leaue these toyes to Grammar Schollers 11. It seemes you are willing of set purpose to mistake the point in question which was whether the Creed containe all fundamentall points of fayth or no about which Charity Mistaken hauing instanced in some points of fayth not contained in the Creed as the Scriptures and Sacraments he adds these words Besides that there are (y) Pag. 86.87 some great differences betweene them meaning Protestants and vs about the vnderstanding of the Article of the descent of Christ our Lord into hell and that other of the Holy Catholique Church and that also of the Communion of Saints which we belieue and they deny to inuolue both Prayers for the dead and Prayers to Saints as that we should not be much better either for our knowing or confessing that the Creed containes all fundamentall points of Fayth vnles withall there were some certaine way how to vnderstand them aright and especially vnles vnder the Article which concernes the holy Catholique Church they would vnderstand it to be endued with so perfect infallibility and great Authority as that it might teach vs all the rest This solid discourse you mangle as you please still forgetting the promise you made in your Preface to the Reader not to omit any one thing of moment For you answere not a word to his particular instances of Prayer for the dead or to Saints nor to his generall exception that we should not be much better for knowing that the Creed containes all fundamentall points of fayth vnles withall there were some way of vnderstanding them aright If you answere that Prayers for the dead or to Saints are not Fundamentall points whether they be denied or affirmed then you must grant that you forsooke the Church of Rome for things indifferent and not fundamentall one way or other For these two points and such as these were the pretended errours wherewith you seeke to cloake your Schisme To the other you answere The Church of England (z) Pag. 240. questioneth not the sense of those Articles She takes them in the old Catholique sense and the words are so plaine they beare their meaning before them Why do you answere to these two points of the Catholique Church and our Sauiours descent into Hell rather then to the other which Charity-Mistaken doth mention And in these two of which you take notice why doe you vse so much tergiuersation Why doe you not plainely and honestly acquaint vs with the meaning of them If you say that by the Catholique Church is vnderstood a Church alwaies visible not capable of errour in fundamentall points many of your chiefe Brethren will contradict that which you iudge to be plaine and your Church of England speakes so generally Art 19. of the Church that as it is affirmed in the Preface men of all sorts may take that Article to be for them And as for the other Article of our Sauiours descent if it beso plaine as it beares the sense before it how comes Caluin to vnderstand it one way Brentius another Beza another and other Protestants in another differently from Catholiques with whome neuertheles some other Protestants agree who teach a Lymbus Patrum as Lascitius Oecolampadius Zwinglius Peter Martyr Bullinger and (a) Vide Brereley tract 3. Sect. 7. vnder M. num 26. Bilson and we may adde D. Pottâ—er as one different from all the rest who sayth the sense is plaine and yet he keeps it to himselfe 12. But the Roman Doctours (b) Pag. 2â—â— cannot agree among themselues about this Article Is there any Catholique that denies Lymbus Patrum or that Christ descended to Hell as it signifies Lymbus Yes because say you (c) Contr. 3 q. 5. art 1. Stapleton affirmes the Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell that there is a Catholique an Apostolique Church Bellarmine (d) 4. Dâ— Christo. cap. 6. 12. on the coÌ„trary is resolute that the Article of the descent is euery where in Scripture and Thomas grants (e) 2.2 q. 2. art 9. ad 1. as much for the whole Creed What is all this to the purpose It is one thing to disagree in the doctrine of Chists descent another whether that doctrine which they belieue be proued out of Scripture or deliuered by the Church out of Vnwritten Traditions Among ProtestaÌ„ts who hold Scripture only to be the Rule of faith it is all one not to be contained in Scripture not to be a point of faith but not so with Catholiques who besides Scripture
not written by Salomon but by Syrach in the tyme 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 Ptolomous And further he sayth that (u) Ibid. tit de Patriarchis Prophet fol. 282. he doth not be lieue all to haue been donne as 〈◊〉 is â—â—t downe And he teacheth the (w) Tit de lib. Vet. â—out Test. booke of Iob to be as it were an argument for a fable or Comedy to set before vs an example of Patience And he (x) Fol. 380. deliuers this generall censure of the Prophets Bookes 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 booke and by this meanes the Bible was conserued If this were so the Bookes 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 vpon 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 neuer any doubt in the Church diuers Bookes of the New Testament must be discanonized to wit all those of which some Ancients haue doubted and those which diuers Lutherans haue of late denied It is worth the obseruation how the before mentioned sixt Article doth specify by name all the Bookes of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonicall but those of the New without naming any one they shuffle ouer with this generality All the Bookes of the New Testameâ—â—â— as they are commonly receiued we do receiue and account them Canonicall The mystery is easily to be vnfolded If they had descended to particulers they must haue contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren As they are commonly receiued c. I aske By whom By the Church of Rome Then by the same reason they must receiue diuers Bookes of the Old Testament which they reiect By Lutherans Then with Lutherans they may deny some Bookes of the New Testament If it be the greater or lesse number of voyces that must cry vp or downe the Canon of Scripture our Roman Canon will preuaile and among Protestants the Certainty of their Fayth must be reduced to an Vncertaine Controuersy of Fact whether the number of those who reiect or of those others who receiue such and such Scriptures be greater Their faith must alter according to yeares and dayes When Luther first appeared he and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church and so this claime Of being commonly receiued stood for them till Zvinglius Caluin grew to some equall or greater number then that of the Lutherans and then this rule of Commonly receaued 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 do vnderstand those Canonicall Bookes of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church and in the latter part speaking againe of the New Testament they giue a far different rule saying All the Bookes of the New Testament as they are commonly receiued we do 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 Bookes might be said to be Commonly receiued although they were sometime doubted of by some If to be Commonly receiued passe for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament why not of the Old Aboue all we desire to know vpon what infallible ground in some Bookes they agree with vs against Luther and diuers principall Lutherans and in others iump with Luther against vs But seeing they disagree among themselues it is euident that they haue no certaine rule to know the Canon of Scripture in assigning wherof some of them must of necessity erre because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true 10. Moreouer the letters syllables words phrase or matter contained in holy Scripture haue no necessary or naturall connexion with diuine Reuelation or Inspiration and therefore by seeing reading or vnderstanding them we cannot inferre that they proceed from God or be confirmed by diuine authority as because Creatures inuolue a necessary relation connexion 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 Writ there are innumerable truths not surpassing the spheare of humane wit which are or may be deliuered 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 Trinity c. the only setting them downe in Writing is not inough to be assured that such a Writing is the vndoubted word of God otherwise some sayings of Plato Trismegistus Sybills Ouid c. must be esteemed Canonicall Scripture because they fall vpon some truths proper to Christian Religion The internall light and inspiration which directed moued the Authors of Canonicall Scriptures is a hidden Quality infused into their vnderstanding and will and hath no such particuler sensible influence into the externall Writing that in it we can discouer or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is diuine we cannot know from it selfe alone but by some other extrinsecall authority 11. And heere we appeale to any man of Iudgement whether it be not a vaine brag of some Protestants to tell vs that they wot full well what is Scripture by the light of Scripture it selfe or as D. Potter word's it by (y) Pag. 14â— that glorious beame of diuine light which shines therein euen as our eye distinguisheth light from darknes without any other help then light it selfe and as our eare knowes a voyce by the voyce it selfe alone But this vanity is refuted by what we sayd euen now that the externall Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connexion with diuine inspiration or reuelation Will D. Potter hold all his Brethren for blind men for not seing that glorious beame of diuine light which shines in Scripture about which they cannot agree Corporall light may be discerned by it selfe alone as being euident proportionate connatural to our faculty of seeing That Scripture is diuine and inspired by God is a truth exceeding the naturall capacity and compasse of maÌ„s vnderstanding to vs obscure and to be belieued by diuine fayth which according to the Apostle is argumentum (z) Heb. v. 1 non apparentium an argument
as about the Canon of Scripture c. as also between Protestants and Puritans c. And I could put you in mind of your Brethren who teach that for diuers Ages the visible Church perished and yet S. Augustine teacheth that there is nothing more euident in Scripture then the Vniuersality of the Church as also who deny that Bishops are by diuine Institution who oppose your whole Hierarchy as Antichristian who differ from you in the forme of Ordination of Ministers all which are fundamental points But I will refer the Reader to the most exact Brereley who (z) Tract 3. Sect. 7. vnder ◠reckons no fewer then seauenty seauen differences amōg you punctually citing the Bookes and pages where you may find them And yet for the present I will set downe some words of Doctor Willet testifying your differences From this fountaine sayth he haue sprung (a) In his meditation vpō the 122. Psa pag. 91. forth these and such like whirle-points and bubbles of new doctrine as for example that the Scriptures are not meanes concerning God of all that profitably we know That they are not alone complete to euerlasting felicity That the word of God cannot possibly assure vs what is the word of God That there are works of Supererogation That the Church of Rome as it now standeth is the family of Christ That Idolaters and wicked Heretiques are members of the visible Church let D. Potter heere remember what himselfe sayth of the Roman Church and what he relateth about the opinion of M. Hooker and M. Morton that among Heretiques there may be a true Church That there is in Ordination giuen a indeleble Character That they haue power to make Christs body That Sacraments are necessary in their place and no lesse required then beliefe it selfe That the soules of Infants dying without Baptisme are damned c. Do you thinke that the necessity of Baptisme and other Sacraments the sufficiency of sole Scripture which your English Clergy professeth at their Ordination and those other points are but small matters But besides these and many more there are two other maine generall transcendent differences among you The one whether you do not differ in maine points which though you deny yet others affirme The other what be maine or fundamentall points Vpon which two differences i◠will necessarily follow that you cannot know whether you haue the same substance of fayth and hope of saluation or no. But though your differences were all reduced to one and that how small soeuer that one were sufficient to exclude Vnity of faith among you as I haue often said and proued I haue no mind to spend time in telling you how vn-scholler-like you say Two brothers (b) Pag. 87. in their choller may renounce ech other and disclaime their amity yet that heat cannot dissolue their inward and essentiall relation For when a mans Brother dyes doth he loose any essentiall relation I alwayes thought that essentiall relations were inseparable from the essence to which they belong and the essence from them and a man who still remaynes a man may yet cease to be a Brother It is therfore no essentiall relation 24. I grant that Differences in Ceremonies or discipline do not alwayes infer diuersity of fayth yet when one part condemnes the Rites and discipline of the other as Antichristian or repugnant to Gods word as it hapneth among Protestants then differences in Ceremontes redound to a diuersity in fayth 25. Luther tempered by (c) Pag. 93. mild Melancthon that honour of Germany did much relent and remit of his rigour agaynst Zwinglius and began to approue the good Counsels of peace If inconstancy concerning matters of Fayth be Mildnes Melancton was I grant extremely mild in which respect he was noted euen by Protestāts was disliked by Luther How much Luther relented of his rigour agaynst Zwinglius let himselfe declare in these words which you could not but read in Charity-Mistaken I hauing now one of my feet (d) Pag. 53. in the graue will carry this testimony and glory to the Tribunall of God That I will with all my heart condemne and eschew Carolostadius Zwinglius Oecolampadius and their disciples nor will I haue familiarity with any of them eyther by letter writing words nor deeds accordingly as the Lord hath commanded If in Polonia the followers of Luther and Caluin haue long liued together in concord as you would haue vs belieue the thing being really not true they must thanke the good Catholique King vnder whome they liue who is able and apt to punish when there is great excesse But if they had the raynes in their owne hand what greater concord could be hoped for amongst them in that Kingdome then is found in other places where they haue more power In Polonia there are many Arians and Trinitarians who liue in outward concord with the rest But will you acknowledge them for Brethren to Lutherans Caluinists and your selfe The answere will be hardly made if you sticke to your owne grounds and I may well passe on to the rest CHAP. IIII. YOVR very beginning promiseth small sincerity in that which followes For you make Charity-Mistaken say that Protestants be Heretiques at the lest if not Infidels wheras he only sayth substantially proueth that whosoeuer doth disbelieue any one Article of fayth doth not assent to all the rest by diuine infallible fayth but by an humane perswasion which is a point of great consideration and of which it seemes you are very loath to speake 2. You take much paines to proue what we do not deny For it maketh nothing to the purpose whether or no the Proposition of the Church belong to the formall Obiect of fayth as heertofore I haue told you Nor do we deny Scripture to containe all mattes of fayth if it be rightly vnderstood because Scripture among other Verities doth also recommend vnto vs the Church diuine Traditions though they be vnwritten And you egregiously falsify (a) Pag. 99. Edit 1. Bellarmine as if he excluded the Authority of the Church wheras in the place by you cited de verb. Dei lib. 1. c. 2. he only speakes against the priuate spirit and euen there proues out of S. Augustine that God will haue vs learne of other men We likewise teach that tho Church doth not make any new Articles of fayth but only propounds and declares to vs the old Only I would haue you heere consider that whether or no Scripture be the sole Rule of fayth or whether fayth be resolued into diuine Reuelation alone or els partly into the Proposition of the Church all is one for the maine Question whether persons of diuers Religions can be saued For this remaineth vndoubted that it cannot be but damnable to oppose any truth sufficiently declared to be contained in Scripture or reuealed by God 3. No lesse impertinent is your other discourse concerning the difficulty to know what is Heresy For
we grant that it is not alwayes easy to determine in particuler occasions whether this or that doctrine be such Because it may be doubtfull whether it be against any Scripture or diuine Tradition or Definition of the Church and much more whether the person be an Heretique which requireth certaine conditions as Capacity Pertinacy sufficient Proposition c. which are not alwayes so easily explicated and discerned and for these respects S. Augustine in the place cited (b) Pag. 102. by you had good reason to say That it is hard to know what makes an Heretique But it is strange that you should hold it to be so hard a matter to giue a generall definition of Heresy or Heretique since in this very Section you dispatch it quickly saying He is iustly (c) Pag. 98. esteemed an Heretique who yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded Or as you say else where It is fundamentall (d) Pag. 250. to a Christians Fayth and necessary for his saluation that he belieue all reuealed Truths of God wherof he may be conuinced that they are from God Nay if you will speake with coherence to your owne grounds it is easy for you to define in all particular cases what is damnable Heresy for you I say who measure all Heresy by opposition to Scripture and further affirme that Scripture is cleere in all fundamentall points For by this meanes it will be easy for you to discerne what error opposeth those fundamental Truths which are cleerly contained in Scripture 4. In your discourse concerning the Controuersy between Pope Stephen and S. Cyprian you shew a great deale of passion against the Roman Church which you impugne out of an Epistle of Firmilianus who at that time was a party against the Pope and who in particuler did afterward recant togeather with the other Bishops who once ioyned with S. Cyprian as we haue already shewed out of S. Hierome may be also seen in an Epistle of Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Eusch hist. l. 6. c. 7. wherin Firmilianus in particular is named therfore you are inexcusable who say they persisted in their opinion wheras the proceeding of S. Stephen was necessary to preuent a pernicious error of rebaptizing of such as had been baptized by Heretiques which afterward was condemned by the whole Church And as for S. Cyprians mild proceeding which you so much commend out of your ill will to S. Stephen because he was Pope S. Augustine saith The things which (e) De Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 25. Cyprian in anger hath spread against Stephen I will not suffer to passe vnder my pen. Wherfore you could not haue picked out an example more in fauour of Popes then this And you must giue vs leaue not to credit what you say That both Stephen and Cyprian erred in some sense For Stephen only affirmed that Baptisme was not inualide precisely because it is giuen by Heretiques as S. Cyprian affirmed it to be but yet if the Heretiques erred either in the Matter or Forme of Baptisme Stephen neuer affirmed such Baptisme to be valid which had been more then he granted euen to the Baptisme of Catholiques 5. Your Argument to proue that (f) Pag. 112. concerning our greater safety we dispute against you as the Donatists did against Catholiques I haue answered (g) Cap. 7. num 7. in the First Part. You would make men belieue that we are like the Donatists who washed Church wall and vestments of Catholiques broke their Chalices scraped their Altars c. But I pray you consider whether Chalices Vestments Palls or Corporals and Altars do expresse the Protestant Church of England Scotland Geneua Holland c. or the Church of Rome 6. You spend diuers pages in propounding Arguments for the opinion of M. Hooker and M. Morton That whersoeuer a company of men (h) Pag. 113. doe iointly professe the substance of Christian Religion which is fayth in Iesus Christ the Sonne of God and Sauiour of the world with submission to his doctrine in mynd and will there is a Church wherein Saluation may be had notwithstanding any corruption in ludgment or practise yea although it be of that nature that it seeme to fight with the very foundation and so haynous as that in respect thereof the people stayned with this corruption are worthy to be abhorred of all men and vnworthy to be called the Church of God But because these and such monstruous Assertions proceed from other errours which I haue already both cleerly and at large confuted to wit the Fallibility of the Church the Distinction of points fundamental and not fundamentall c. I referre you to those places and heere onely obserue into what precipices they fall who deny the vniuersall Infallibility of the Church And it is strange that you your selfe did not see the manifest contradictions inuolued in this wicked doctrine For how can it be a Church wherein Saluation may be had and yet be vnworthy to be called the Church of God How can that man haue fayth in Iesus Christ with submission to his doctrine in mind and will who is supposed to ioyne with his beliefe in Iesus Christ other errors sufficiently propounded to be repugnant against Gods word or Reuelation Can submission in mind or will or obseruation of his Commandments stand with actuall voluntary error against his word Is it not a prime Commandment to belieue Gods word Do not your selfe affirme that it is Infidelity to deny whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture How then can a Church be said to haue meanes for saluation and life wherin is wanting Fayth the first ground of saluation The Fathers sometimes called the Donatists Brethren by reason of their true Baptisme not for their possibility to be saued according as S. Augustine said to them The Sacraments of Christ (i) Epist 48. do not make thee an Heretique but thy wicked disagreement And Optatus sayth You cannot (k) Lib. 4◠but be our brethren whom the same Mother the Church hath begotten in the same bowels of Sacraments whom God our Father hath in the same manner receiued as adopted Children namely on his behalfe and for as much as concernes the vertue of Baptisme The Conclusion of your discourse may well beseeme the doctrine for which you bring it A learned man (l) Pag. 122. anciently was made a Bishop of the Catholique Church although he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our bodies You might haue added that he would not belieue that the world should euer haue an end and further absolutely refused to be baptized And that he would not as the History recoūteth liue a single life as other Priests but that he would liue with a wife For Synesius who is the man you meane publiquely protested all these things and you are wise inough to take only what might seeme to serue your turne as this concerning the single liues of Priests did not because it sheweth that in those
not rather as you speake by plaine (b) Pag. 112. Scripture indeterminable or by any other Rule of fayth 3. It is worthy to be obserued that after you had told vs that the dissentious of the Church of Rome are of greater importance then any among the Reformed you can name only two which may haue any colour of difficulty the rest being meere Scholasticall disputations in obscure points for the better explanations of the Mysteries of our Fayth against Infidels and Heretiques The one concernes the Popes Authority And in particular his Superiority aboue Councells to which we haue answered more then once all Catholiques agree that he is the Vicar of Christ the Successour of S. Peter the Visible Head of the Church to whom all particular persons and Churches are subiect The other is touching a Contrariety between Sixtus 5. and Clement the 8. about the Edition of the Bible which obiection Adamus Tannerus answeres (c) Adam Tanner tom 3. disp 1. q. 4. dub 6. â— 264. so fully that I haue thought good to set downe his words wherin he affirmes That this Question hauing been disputed in the Vniuersity of Ingolstad for being satisfied concerning the truth he wrote to F. Ferdinandus Alberus who afterward was Vicar Generall of the Society of IESVS and he by letters dated 28. Aug. 1610. answered in these words which I haue thoght best to set down in Latin as they lye the summe of them being this that the Decree of Sixtus was neuer sufficiently promulgated that such as haue not the Booke it selfe may read them heere Circa Biblia Sixtina post diligentem inquisitionem discussionem hanc denique responsionem dederunt ij qui huic rei incumbebant qua omnis tollitur difficultas cui omnes meritò acquiescent Responsio sic habet Certum est Bullam de ijs Biblijs non fuisse promulgatam cuius rei certissimum indicium est in Registro huiusmodi promulgationem non reperiri Illustrissimus Cardinalis Bellarminus testatur se cùm ex Gallia Romam redijsset à pluribus Cardinalibus audiuisse Bullam illaÌ„ non fuisse promulgatam id quidem illi se certissimè scire affâ—rmabant And the same F. Alberus addeth Sciat praetereà R. V. haec eadem ex S. D. N. Pope Paul the 5. habita fuisse vt tutò his adhaerere liceat oporteat And in his letters dated the 4. of September in the same yeare 1610. for confirmation of the same matter he adioyneth these words Item P. Azor â—o ipso tempore quo caeperunt typis publicari illa Biblia cùm instarent aliqui Papam posse errare quia videbatur iam errasse de facto in Biblijs Respondit publicè P. Azar Bullam illam non fuisse publicatam quamuis in impressione legeretur subscriptio Cursorum nam hoc factum fuisse per anticipationem Typographi ita iubente PoÌ„tifice ne impressio tardaretur Huius rei testis est P. Andraeas Eudaemon-Ioannes qui tunc aderat disputationi Thus he And besids all this Po. Sixtus himselfe marking that diuers things had crept in which needed a secoÌ„d Reuiew had declared that the whole worke should be re-examined though he could not do it by reason he was preuented by death as is affirmed in the Preface before the Bible set forth by Pope Clement the 8. 4. If any Catholique Writers teach absolutely that it is sufficient to belieue with an implicite faith alone you know and acknowledge pag. 198. and 71. and 241. they are reiected by the rest And yet that doctrine is neither so absurd nor dangerous as the opinion of M. Hooker and D. Morton as you relate with much shew of fauouring them Who yet not only grant that one may be ignorant of some fundamentall Articles but also may deny them without ceasing to be a member of the Church No nor so hurtfull as your owne doctrine who must if your distinction of points be to any purpose teach that an Error against a reuealed truth in points not fundamentall is not damnable Yea after you haue set downe the Creed as a perfect summary (d) Pag. 241. of those fundamentall truths wherin consists the Vnity of fayth and all men are bound actually to know necessitate praecepti you add but happily not so necessitate medij vel finis so that vpon the matter speaking of things to be belieued necessitate medij it will not be easy for you to free your selfe euen from that for which you impugne the Authors who do at least say that we must belieue all Articles implicitely in the explicite beliefe of the Article of the Catholique Church and yet that Article you do not belieue as you ought while you deny her vniuersall Infallibility in propounding diuine Truths 5. I will end with a notorious falsification which I find almost in the end of this your Section For in your first Edition pag. 65. Marg. you cite Tanner saying in Colloquio Ratisbon Sess 9. If the Prelates of the Church did erre in defining any doubt Christian people by vertue of such a gouernement might yea ought to erre And these words you bring to proue that whatsoeuer the Pope assisted with some few of his Cardinalls and Prelats shall define that must be receyued though it be false and erroneous wherein you discouer eyther intollerable ignorance or supine negligence or willfull malice For Tannerus in that place proues the infallibility of the Church that is of the Prelates of the Church because the people are obliged to belieue their Pastours and since it is absurd to say that they can be obliged to belieue that which is erroneous it followes that the Prelates of Gods Church cannot define any errour yea in expresse termes he sayth (f) Fol. 10â— I say not that the Pope is to be obeyed when he erres but say only that if the Superiour might erre yet were endued with publique authority the people might be led to errour And in this very same manner you falsify Bellarmine in your second Edition pag. 172 speaking to the same purpose as I shewed in this second (g) Cap. 5. num 28. Part. Lastly I must put you in mind that you leaue out the discourse of Charity Mistaken pag. 64. wherein he answers the vulgar obiection that we haue differences among vs of Thomists Scotists Benedictins c. and yet pag. 84. you bring this very same obiection as freshly as if it bad neuer beene answered CHAP. VII THE maine points treated in your seauenth Section are the distinction of points fundamentall and that the Creed is a perfect Summary of all fundamentall points of fayth In answere whereof I employed the third and fourth Chapter of the First Part. 2. You say that the Rule of fayth (a) Pag. 216. being cleerly but diffusedly set downe in the Scriptures hath beene afterward summed vp in the Apostles Creed and in the Margent you cite S. Thomas as if he did affirme that the