Victor had excommunicated and so they came to be ranked among Heretiques vnder the name of Quartadecimam You may know what opinion S. Irenaeus had of Popes by these words Euery Church ought to haue recourse (h) Aduers Haeres lib. 3. cap. 3. to Rome by reason of her more powerfull Principality And euen in this your instance Eusebius doth only say that Irenaeus did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he should not cut off all the Churches of God which held this ancient Tradition Which exhortation doth necessarily imply that Pope Victor had Power to do it as I said already And now I pray you reflect vpon your precipitation in saying of Vactor and Stephen Their Censures (i) Pag. 50. were much sleighted and their Pride and Schisme in troubling the peace of the Church much condemned For they did nothing which was not approued by the vniuersall Church of God and the Doctrines which they condemned were no lesse then hereticall And therfore to answere also to what you obiect pag. 52. If the British and Scotish Bishops did adhere to the Churches of Asta in their Celebration of Easter after the matter was knowne to be defined by the Church their example can only be approued by such as your selfe nor can it either impeach the Authority or darken the proceeding of the Pope You cite Baronius (l) Aun 604. in the Margent who directly against you relates out of Bede that when our Apostle S. Augustine could neither by Arguments nor by Miracles wrought in their presence bow their stifnes he prophefied that they should perish by the English as afterwards it hapned But you are a fit Champion for such men and they no lesse fit examples to be alleaged against the Authority of the Roman Church 33. Your other example that S. Augustine and diuers other Bishops of Africa and their Successours for one hundred yeares together were senered from the Roman Communion is manifestly vntrue in S. Augustine and some other chiefe Bishops For when king Thrasimundus had banished into Sardinia almost all the Bishops to wit two hundred and twenty Pope Symmachus maintained them at his owne charges as persons belonging to his Communion To the Epistle of Boniface the second to Eulalius Bishop of Alexandria and the Epistle of Eulalius to the same Boniface recited by you out of which it is gathered that after the sixt Councell of Carthage for the space of one hundred yeares the Bishops of Carthage were separated from the Communion of the Roman Church that in the end they were reconciled to her Eulalius submitting himselfe to the Apostolique Sea and anathematizing his Predecessors Bellarmine (m) de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 25. answereth that these Epistles may iustly be suspected to be Apochryphall for diuers reasons which he alleageth and it seemeth also by your owne words that you do doubt of them For you say If their owne Records (n) Pag. 50 be true Yet if they be authenticall their meaning cannot be that all the Predecessors of Eulalius were for so long space diuided from the Roman Church the contrary being most manifest not only in S. Augustine who kept most strict amity with Zozimus Innocentius and Celestinus Popes but also in S. Fulgentius and others but it must be vnderstood only of some Bishops of Carthage and in particular of Eulalius himselfe till he being informed of the truth submitted himselfe to the Roman Church And you ought rather to haue alleaged his submission and condemnation of his Predecessors to proue the Popes Authority ouer the African Church then to obiect against it the example of some of his Predecessors of himselfe who afterward repented and condemned his owne fact You do well only to mention the Protensions and forgeries of the sea of Rome in the matter of Appeales For you may know that Bellarmine (o) Vbisup doth so fully answere that point as nothing can be more effectuall to proue the Popes Supremacy in Africa then the right of Appeales from Africa to Rome in causes of greater moment 34. Your last instance about three Chapters of the Councell of Chalcedon condemned by the fifth Generall Councell the Bishop of Rome at length consenting for which diuers Bishops of Italy and also the Bishops of Ireland did ioyntly depart from the Church of Rome is like to your former Obiections For Baronius whome you cite in your Margent hath these words as coÌ„trary to your purpose as may be Hence was it that the (q) Ann. 553. num 14. apud Spond Bishops of Venice the adicyning Regions did gathâ—â— together a Councell at Aquileia agaynst the Fifth Synode and the diuisions at length went as farre as â—reland for all these relying on the Decree of Vigilius Pope persuaded themselues that they might doe it Is this to depart from the Pope or the Roman Church to oppose that which he is thought to oppose formally because he is thought to oppose it Now as for the thing it selfe when Vigilius had afterward condeÌ„ned the three Chapters which at the first he refused to doe and had confirmed the fifth Councell which had coÌ„demned them whosoeuer opposed that Condemnation were accounted Schismatiques by the whole Catholique Church which plainly shewes the Popes Authority and therefore whatsoeuer Bishops had opposed Vigilius their example could proue no more then the faction of rebellious persons can preiudice the right of a lawfull King And in fine all this Controuersy did nothing concerne any matter of faith but only in fact and not doctrine but persons as may be seen at large in Baronius Neither was it betwixt Catholiques and Heretiques but among Catholiques themselues The rest of your Section needs no answere at all Only whereas you say Whosoeuer willfully opposeth (r) Pag. 57 any Catholique Verity maintayned by the Catholique Visible Church as doe Heretiques or peruersly diuides himselfe from the Catholique Communion as doe Schismatiques the Condition of both them is damnable What vnderstand you by Catholique verities of the Catholique Church Are not all Verityes mayntayned by the Catholique Church Catholique Verities or how do you now distinguish Heresy and Schisme from the Catholique Communion You tells vs pag. 76. that it is the property of Schisme to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Saluation the Church from which it separats and is it not an Heresy to cut off from the Body of Christ hope of Saluation the Catholike Church How then can one according to your principles be a Schismatique from the Catholique Church not be iointly an Heretique CHAP. III. THE Protestants (a) Pag. 59. neuer intended to erect a new Church but to purge the Old The Reformation did not change the substaÌ„ce of Religion but only cleansed it from corrupt and impure Qualities Therfore say we the visible Church extaÌ„t before those your cleansing dayes had still hath the substance of Religion and so according to your owne ground we are safe if
from hand to hand and age to age bringing vs vp to the times and persons of the Apostles and our Sauiour himselfe cōmeth to be confirmed by all those miracles and other arguments whereby they conuinced their doctrine to be true Wherefore the ancient Fathers auouch that we must receiue the sacred Canon vpon the credit of Gods Church S. (k) In Synopsi Athanasius saith that only foure Gospels are to be receiued because the Canons of the Holy and Catholique Church haue so determined The third Councell of (l) Can. 47. Carthage hauing set downe the Bookes of holy Scripture giues the reason because We haue receiued from our Fathers that these are to be read in the Church S. Augustine (m) Cont. ep Funaam c. 5. speaking of the Acts of the Apostles saith To which booke I must giue credit if I giue credit to the Gospel because the Catholique Church doth a like recōmend to me both these Bookes And in the same place he hath also these words I would not belieue the Gospell vnles the authority of the Catholique Church did moue me A saying so plaine that Zuinglius is forced to cry out Heere I (n) Tom. 1. fol. 135. implore your equity to speake freely whether this saying of Augustine seeme not ouerbould or els vnaduisedly to haue fallen from him 15. But suppose they were assured what Bookes were Canonicall this will little auaile them vnles they be likewise certaine in what language they remaine vncorrupted or what Translations be true Caluin (o) Instit c. 6. §. 11. acknowledgeth corruption in the Hebrew Text which if it be taken without points is so ambiguous that scarcely any one Chapter yea period can be securely vnderstood without the help of some Translation If with points These were after S. Hierom's time inuented by the persidious Iewes who either by ignorance might mistake or vpon malice force the Text to fauour their impieties And that the Hebrew Text still retaines much ambiguity is apparent by the disagreeing Translations of Nouellists which also proues the Greeke for the New Testament not to be void of doubtfulnes as Caluin (p) Instit. ca. 7. §. 12. confesseth it to be corrupted And although both the Hebrew and Greeke were pure what doth this help if only Scripture be the rule of faith and so very few be able to examine the Text in these languages All then must be reduced to the certainty of Translations into other tongues wherin no priuate man hauing any promise or assurance of infallibility Protestants who rely vpon Scripture alone will find no certaine ground for their faith as accordingly Whitaker (q) lib. de sancta Scriptura p. 523. affirmeth Those who vnderstand not the Hebrew and Greeke do erre often and vnauoydably 16. Now concerning the Translations of Protestants it will be sufficient to set downe what the laborious exact and iudicious Author of the Protestants Apology c. dedicated to our late King Iames of famous memory hath to this (r) Tract 1. Sect. 10. subd 4. ioyned with tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 10. subd 2. purpose To omit saith he particulers whose recitall would be infinite to touch this point but generally only the Translation of the New Testament by Luther is condemned by Andreas Osiander Keckermannus and Zuinglius who sayth hereof to Luther Thou dost corrupt the word of God thou art seene to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy Scriptures how much are we ashamed of thee who haue hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure and now proue thee to be such a man And in like māner doth Luther reiect the Translation of the Zuinglians terming them in matter of diuinity fooles Asses Antichrists deceauers and of Asse-like vnderstanding In so much that when Proscheuerus the Zwinglian Printer of Zurich sent him a Bible translated by the diuines there Luther would not receyue the same but sending it backe reiected it as the Protestant Writers Hospinians and Lauatherus witnesse The translation set forth by Oecolampadius and the Deuines of Basil is reproued by Beza who affirmeth that the Basil Translation is in many places wicked and altogeather differing from the mynd of the Holy Ghost The translation of Castalio is condemned by Beza as being sacrilegious wicked and Ethnicall As concerning Caluins translation that learned Protestant Writer Carolus Molinaeus saith thereof Caluin in his Harmony maketh the Text of the Gospell to leape vp and downe he vseth violence to the letter of the Gospell and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Beza's translation to omit the dislike had therof by Seluccerus the German Protestant of the Vniuersity of Iena the foresaid Molinaeus saith of him de facto mutat textum he actually changeth the text and giueth further sundry instances of his corruptions as also Castalio that learned Caluinist and most learned in the tongues reprehendeth Beza in a whole booke of this matter and saith that to note all his errours in translation would require a great volume And M. Parkes saith As for the Geneua Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors which are both in the text and in the margent or els vtterly prohibited All which confirmeth your Maiesties graue and learned Censure in your thinking the Geneua translation to be worst of all and that in the Marginall notes annoxed to the Geneua translation some are very partiall vntrue seditious c. Lastly concerning the English Translations the Puritanes say Our translation of the Psalmes comprized in our Booke of Common Prayer doth in addition subtraction and alteration differ from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least In so much as they do therefore professe to rest doubtfull whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereto And M. Caerlile saith of the English Translators that they haue depraued the sense obscured the truth and deceiued the ignorant that in many places they do detort the Scriptures from the right sense And that they shew themselues to loue darknes more then light falshood more then truth And the Ministers of Lincolne Diocesse giue their publike testimony terming the English Translation A Translation that taketh away from the Text that addeth to the Text and that sometime to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost Not without cause therefore did your Maiesty affirme that you could neuer yet see a Bible well translated into English Thus far the Author of the Protestants Apology c. And I cannot forbeare to mention in particuler that famous corruption of Luther who in the Text where it is said Rom. 3. v. 28. We accompt a man to be instified by faith without the works of the Law in fauour of Iustification by faith alone translateth Iustified by faith A LONE As likewise the falsification of Zuinglius is no lesse notorious who in the Gospels of S. Mathew Mark and Luke and in S. Paul in place of
world amongst all men of the world elected him he speakes of S. Peter to whom he granted the Chaire of Doctour to be principally possessed by a perpetuall right of Priuiledge that whosoeuer is desirous to know any diuine and profound thing may haue recourse to the Oracle and Doctrine of this instruction Iohn Patriarck of Constantinople more then eleauen hundred yeares agoe in an Epistle to Pope Hormisda writeth thus Because (u) Epist ad Hormis PP the beginning of saluation is to conserue the rule of right Fayth in no wise to swarue from the tradition of our for-Fathers because the words of our Lord cannot faile saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke I will build my Church the proofes of deeds haue made good those words because in the Sea Apostolicall the Catholique Religion is alwayes conserued inuiolable And againe We promise heerafter not to recite in the sacred Mysteries the names of them who are excluded from the Communion of the Catholique Church that is to say who consent not fully with the Sea Apostolique Many other Authorities of the ancient Fathers might be produced to this purpose but these may serue to shew that both the Latin Greeke Fathers held for a Note of being a Catholique or an Heretique to haue been vnited or diuided from the Sea of Rome And I haue purposely alledged only such Authorities of Fathers as speake of the priuiledges of the Sea of Rome as of things permament and depending on our Sauiours promise to S. Peter from which a generall rule and ground ought to be taken for all Ages because Heauen and Earth shall (w) Matt. 24.35 passe but the word of our Lord shall remaine for euer So that I heere conclude that seing it is manifest that Luther and his followers diuided themselues from the Sea of Rome they beare the inseparable Marke of Heresy 20. And though my meaning be not to treate the point of Ordination or Succession in the Protestants Church because the Fathers alledged in the last reason assigne Succession as one marke of the true Church I must not omit to say that according to the grounds of Protestants themselues they can neyther pretend personall Succession of Bishops nor Succession of doctrine For whereas Succession of Bishops signifies a neuer-interrupted line of Persons endued with an indeleble Quality which Deuines call a Character which caÌ„not be taken away by deposition degradation or other meanes whatsoeuer and endued also with Iurisdiction and Authority to teach to preach to gouerne the Church by lawes precepts censures c. ProtestaÌ„ts cannot pretend SuccessioÌ„ in either of these For besids that there was neuer Protestant Bishop before Luther and that there can be no continuance of Succession where there was no beginning to succeed they coÌ„monly acknowledge no Character consequently must affirme that when their pretended Bishops or Priests are depriued of Iurisdiction or degraded they remaine meere lay Persons as before their Ordination fulfilling what Tertâ—â—â—lian obiects as a marke of Heresy To day a Priest to morrow (x) Praeser çap. 41. a Lay-man For if there be no immoueable Character their power of Order must consist onely in Iurisdiction and authority or in a kind of morall deputation to some function which therefore may be taken away by the same power by which it was giuen Neither can they pretend Succcession in Authority or Iurisdiction For all the Authority or Iurisdiction which they had was conferred by the Church of Rome that is by the Pope Because the whole Church collectiuely doth not meet to ordayne Bishops or Priests or to giue them Authority But according to their owne doctrine they belieue that the Pope neyther hath or ought to haue any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme which they sweare euen when they are ordained Bishops Priests and Deacons How then can the Pope giue Iurisdiction where they sweare he neyther hath nor OVGHT to haue any Or if yet he had how could they without Schisme withdraw themselues from his obedience Besides the Roman Church neuer gaue them Authority to oppose Her by whome it was giuen But grant their first Bishops had such Authority from the Church of Rome after the decease of those men who gaue Authority to their pretended Successours The Primate of England But from whome had he such Authority And after his decease who shall conferre Authority vpon his Successours The temporall Magistrate King Henry neyther a Catholique nor a Protestant King Edward a Child Queene Elizabeth a Woman An Infant of one houres Age is true King in case of his Predecessours decease But shal your Church lye fallow till that Infant-King and greene Head of the Church come to yeares of discretion Doe your Bishops your Hierarchy your Succession your Sacraments your being or not being Heretiques for want of Succession depeÌ„d on this new-found Supremacy-doctrine brought in by such a man meerely vpon base occasions and for shamefull ends impugned by Caluin and his followers derided by the Christian world euen by chiefe Protestants as D. Andrewes Wotton c. not held for any necessary point of fayth And from whome I pray you had Bishops their Authority when there were no Christian Kinges Must the Greeke Patriarks receiue spirituall Iurisdiction from the Greeke Turke Did the Pope by the Baptisme of Princes loose the spirituall Power he formerly had of conferring spirituall Iurisdiction vpon Bishops Hath the temporall Magistrate authority to preach to assoile from sinnes to inflict excommunications and other Censures Why hath he not Power to excommunicate as well as to dispense in Irregularity as our late Soueraigne Lord King Iames either dispensed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury or els gaue commission to some Bishops to doe â—t and since they were subiect to their Primate and not he to them it is cleere that they had no Power to dispense with him but that power must proceed from the Prince as Superiour to them all and head of the Protestants Church in England If he haue no such authority how can he giue to others what himselfe hath not Your Ordination or Consecration of Bishops and Priests imprinting no Character can only consist in giuing a Power Authority Iurisdiction or as I said before some kind of Deputation to exercise Episcopall or Priestly functions If then the temporall Magistrate confers this Power c. he can nay he cannot chuse but Ordaine and consecrate Bishops and Priests as often as he confers Authority or Jurisdiction and your Bishops as soone as they are designed and confirmed by the King must ipso faclo be Ordained and Consecrated by him without interuention of Bishops or Matter and Forme of Ordination Which absurdities you will be more vnwilling to grant then well able to auoid if you will be true to your owne doctrines The Pope from whom originally you must beg your Succession of Bishops neuer receiued nor will nor can acknowledge to
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
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
doe not separate themselues from the Society of the infected persons how do they free themselues depart from the common disease Do they at the same tyme remaine in the company and yet depart from those infected creatures We must then say that they separate themselues from the persons though it be by occasion of the disease Or if you say they free their owne persons frō the common disease yet so that they remaine still in the Company infected subiect to the Superiours and Gouernours thereof eating drinking keeping publique Assemblies with them you cannot but know that Luther and your Reformers the first pretended free persons from the supposed common infectiō of the Roman Church did not so for they endeauoured to force the Society whereof they were parts to be healed and reformed as they were and if it refused they did when they had forces driue them away euen their Superiours both spirituall and temporall as is notorious Or if they had not power to expell that supposed infected Community or Church of that place they departed from them corporally whome mentally they had forsaken before So that you cannot deny but Luther forsooke the external Cōmunion and Company of the Catholique Church for which as your selfe (z) Pag. 75. confesse There neyther was nor can be any iust cause no more then to depart from Christ himselfe We do therfore inferre that Luther and the rest who forsooke that visible Church which they found vpon earth were truly and properly Schismatiques 35. Moreouer it is euident that there was a diuision betweene Luther and that Church which was Visible when he arose but that Church cannot be sayed to haue deuided her selfe from him before whose tyme she was in comparison of whome she was a Whole and he but a part therefore we must say that he deuided himselfe went out of her which is to be a Schismatique or Heretique or both By this argument Optatus Meliuitanus proueth that not Caecilianus but Parmenianus was a Schismatique saying For Caecilianus went (a) Lib. 1. cont Parm. not out of Maiorinus thy Grandfather but Maiorinus from Caecilianus neyther did Caecilianus depart from the Chayre of Peter or Cyprian but Maiorinus in whose Chaire thou sittest which had no beginning before Maiorinus Since it manifestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manuer it is cleere that you are heyres both of the deliuerers vp of the holy Bible to be burned and also of Schismatiques The whole argument of this holy Father makes directly both against Luther and all those who continue the diuision which he begun and proues That going out conuinceth those who go out to be Scismatiques but not those from whome they depart That to forsake the Chaire of Peter is Schisme yea that it is Schisme to erect a Chaire which had no origen or as it were predecessour before it selfe That to continue in a diuision begun by others is to be Heires of Schismatiques and lastly that to depart from the Communion of a particuler Church as that of S. Cyprian was is sufficient to make a man incurre the guilt of Schisme and consequently that although Protestants who deny the Pope to be supreme Head of the Church do thinke by that Heresy to cleere Luther frō Schisme in disobeying the Pope Yet that will not serue to free him from Schisme as it importeth a diuision from the obedience or Communion of the particular Bishop Diocesse Church Countrey where he liued 36. But it is not the heresy of Protestants or any other Sectaries that can depriue S. Peter and his Successours of the authority which Christ our Lord conferred vpon them ouer his whole militant Church which is a point confessed by learned Protestants to be of great Antiquity and for which the iudgement of diuers most ancient holy Fathers is reproued by them as may be seen at large in Brereley (b) Tract 1. Sect. 3. subd 10. exactly citing the places of such chiefe Protestants And we must say with S. Cyprian Heresies (c) Epist. 55. haue sprung and Schismes been bred from no other cause then for that the Priest of God is not obeyed nor one Priest and Iudge is cōsidered to be for the time in the Church of God Which words do plainely condemne Luther whether he will vnderstand them as spoken of the Vniuersall or of euery particular Church For he withdrew himselfe both from the obedience of the Pope and of all particular Bishops and Churches And no lesse cleere is the sayd Optatus Meliuitanus saying Thou caust not deny (d) Lib 2. cont Parm. but that thou knowest that in the Citty of Rome there was first an Episcopall Chaire placed for Peter wherin Peter the head of all the Apost es sat wherof also he was called Cephas in which one Chaire Vnity was to be kept by all least the other Apostles might attribute to themselues ech one his particular Chaire and that he should be a Schismatique and sinner who against that one single Chaire should erect another Many other Authorities of Fathers might be alledged to this purpose which I omit my intention being not to handle particular controuersies 37. Now the arguments which hitherto I haue brought proue that Luther and his followers were Schismatiques without examining for as much as belonges to this point whether or no the Church can erre in any one thing great or small because it is vniuersally true that there can be no iust cause to forsake the Communion of the Visible Church of Christ according to S. Augustine saying It is not possible (e) Ep. 48. that any may haue iust cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world and call themselues the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselues from the Communion of all Nations vpon iust cause But since indeed the Church cannot erre in any one point of doctrine nor can approue any corruption in manners they cannot with any colour auoid the iust imputation of eminent Schisme according to the verdict of the same holy Father in these words The most manifest (f) De Bapt. Lib. 5. ç. 1. sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there was no cause of separation 38. Lastly I proue that Protestants cannot auoid the note of Schisme at least by reason of their mutuall separation from one another For most certaine it is that there is very great difference for the outward face of a Church and profession of a different fayth between the Lutherans the rigid Caluinists and the Protestants of England So that if Luther were in the right those other Protestants who inuented Doctrines far different from his and diuided themselues from him must be reputed Schismatiques the like argument may proportionably be applied to their further diuisions and subdiuisions Which reason I yet vrge more strongly out of D Potter (g) pag. 20. who affirmes that to him to such as are conuicted in conscience of the
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
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