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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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