and of infallible Verity By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remaine the same Question still how it can proue it selfe to be infallibly true Neyther can there euer be an end of the like multiplyed demands till we rest in the externall Authority of some person or persons bearing witnes to the world that such or such a booke is Scripture and yet vpon this point according to ProtestaÌ„ts all other Controuersies in fayth depend 7. That Scripture cannot assure vs that it selfe is Canonicall Scripture is acknowledged by some Protestants in expresse words and by all of them in deeds M. Hooker whome D. Potter ranketh (a) Pag. 131. among men of great learning and iudgement sayth Of thinges (b) In his first booke of Eccles Policy Sect. 14. pag. 6â— necessary the very chiefest is to know what bookes we are to esteeme holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this he proueth by the same argument which we lately vsed saying thas It is not (c) Ibid. lib. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102. the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we doe well to thinke it his word For if any one Booke of Scripture did giue testimony of all yet still that Scripture which giueth testimony to the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it Neyther could we come to any pause whereon to rest vnles besids Scripture there were something which might assure vs c. And this he acknowledgeth to be the (d) l. 3. Sect. 8. pag. 1. 146. alibi Church By the way If Of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by Scripture as this man of so great learning and iudgment affirmeth and demonstratiuely proueth how can the Protestant Clergy of England subscribe to their sixth Article Wherein it is sayd of the Scripture Whatsoeuer is not read therein nor may be proued thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be belieued as an Article of the fayth or be thought requisite or necessary to saluation and concerning their beliefe and profession of this Article they are particulerly examined when they be ordayned Priests and Bishops With Hooker his defendant Couell doth punctually agree Whitaker likewise confesseth that the question about Canonicall Scriptures is defined to vs not by testimony of the priuate spirit which sayth he being priuate and secret is (e) Aduersus Stapl. l. 2. cap. 6. pag. 270 pag. 357. vnfit to teach and refell others but as he acknowledgeth by the (f) Aduersus Stapl. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 300. Ecclesiasticall Tradition An argument sayth he whereby may be argued and conuinced what bookes be Canonicall and what be not Luther sayth This (g) lib. de capt Babyl tom 2. Wittomb fol. 8â— indeed the Church hath that she can discerne the word of God from the word of men as Augustine confesseth that he belieued the Ghospell being moued by the authority of the Church which did preach this to be the Gospell Fulke teacheth that the Church (h) In his answere to a countefaite Catholique pag. 5. hath iudgment to discerne true writings from counterfaite and the word of God from the writing of men and that this iudgment she hath not of herselfe but of the Holy Ghost And to the end that you may not be ignorant from what Church you must receiue Scriptures heare your first Patriarch Luther speaking against theÌ„ who as he saith brought in Anabaptisme that so they might despight the Pope Verily saith he these (i) Epist coÌ„t Anabap. ad dnos Parochos tom 2 Germ. Wittemb men build vpon a weake foundation For by this meanes they ought to deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For all these we haue from the Pope otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture 8. But now in deedes they all make good that without the Churches authority no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall while they cannot agree in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Of the Epistle of S. Iames Luther hath these words The (k) Praefat. in epist. lac inedit Ienensi Epistle of â—ames is contentions swelling dry strawy and vnworthy of an Apostolicall Spirit Which censure of Luther Illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth Kemnitius teacheth that the second Epistle (l) In Enchirid pag. 63. of Peter the second and third of Iohn the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of Iames the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall as not hauing sufficient Testimony (m) In exa min. Conc. Trid. part 1. pag. 55. of their authority and therefore that nothing in controuersy can be proued out of these (n) Ibid. Bookes The same is taught by diuers other Lutherans and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since Luthers time I wonder what new infallible ground they can alleadge why they leaue their Maister and so many of his prime Schollers I know no better ground then because they may with as much freedome abandon him as he was bould to alter that Canon of Scripture which he found receiued in Gods Church 9. What Bookes of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonicall is not easy to affirme In their sixt Article they say In the name of the Holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonicall Bookes of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubâ—â— in the Church What meane they by these words That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall This were to make the Church Iudge and not Scriptures alone Do they only vnderstand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of fayth By this rule of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church the whole booke of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church haue excluded it from the Canon as (o) Apud Eusâ—b l. 4. hist. cap. 26. Melito Asianus (p) in Synop. Athanaâ—us and (q) In câ—rm de genuâ—â—â—s Scripturis Gregory Nazianzen And Luther if Prote stants will be content that he be in the Church saith The Iewes (r) lib de seruo arbitrâ—o contra Eras tom 2. Witt. fol. 471. place the booke of Esther in the Canon which yet if I might be Iudge doth rather deserue to be put out of the Canon And of Ecclesiastes he saith This (s) In latinis Sermonibus conuiuialibus Francof in 8. impr Anno 1571. booke is not full there are in it many abrupt things he wants boots and spurs that is he hath no perfect sentence he rides vpon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him who (t) In Germanicis colloq Lutheri ab Aurtfabro editis Francofurti tit de libris veteris noui Test fol. 379. sayth further that the said booke was
not written by Salomon but by Syrach in the tyme of the Machabees and that it is like to the Talmud the Iewes bible out of many bookes heaped into one worke perhaps out of the Library of king Ptolomous And further he sayth that (u) Ibid. tit de Patriarchis Prophet fol. 282. he doth not be lieue all to haue been donne as 〈◊〉 is â—â—t downe And he teacheth the (w) Tit de lib. Vet. â—out Test. booke of Iob to be as it were an argument for a fable or Comedy to set before vs an example of Patience And he (x) Fol. 380. deliuers this generall censure of the Prophets Bookes The Sermons of no Prophet were written whole and perfect but their disciples and Auditors snatched now one sentence and then another and so put them all into one booke and by this meanes the Bible was conserued If this were so the Bookes of the Prophets being not written by themselues but promiscuously and casually by their Disciples will soone be called in question Are not these errours of Luther fundamentall and yet if Protestants deny the infallibility of the Church vpon what certaine ground can they disproue these Lutherian and Luciferian blasphemies ô godly Reformer of the Roman Church But to returne to our English Canon of Scripture In the New Testament by the aboue mentioned rule of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church diuers Bookes of the New Testament must be discanonized to wit all those of which some Ancients haue doubted and those which diuers Lutherans haue of late denied It is worth the obseruation how the before mentioned sixt Article doth specify by name all the Bookes of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonicall but those of the New without naming any one they shuffle ouer with this generality All the Bookes of the New Testameâ—â—â— as they are commonly receiued we do receiue and account them Canonicall The mystery is easily to be vnfolded If they had descended to particulers they must haue contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren As they are commonly receiued c. I aske By whom By the Church of Rome Then by the same reason they must receiue diuers Bookes of the Old Testament which they reiect By Lutherans Then with Lutherans they may deny some Bookes of the New Testament If it be the greater or lesse number of voyces that must cry vp or downe the Canon of Scripture our Roman Canon will preuaile and among Protestants the Certainty of their Fayth must be reduced to an Vncertaine Controuersy of Fact whether the number of those who reiect or of those others who receiue such and such Scriptures be greater Their faith must alter according to yeares and dayes When Luther first appeared he and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church and so this claime Of being commonly receiued stood for them till Zvinglius Caluin grew to some equall or greater number then that of the Lutherans and then this rule of Commonly receaued will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans I would gladly know why in the former part of their Article they say both of the Old and New Testament In the name of the Holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonicall Bookes of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church and in the latter part speaking againe of the New Testament they giue a far different rule saying All the Bookes of the New Testament as they are commonly receiued we do receiue and account them Canonicall This I say is a rule much different from the former Of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church For some Bookes might be said to be Commonly receiued although they were sometime doubted of by some If to be Commonly receiued passe for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament why not of the Old Aboue all we desire to know vpon what infallible ground in some Bookes they agree with vs against Luther and diuers principall Lutherans and in others iump with Luther against vs But seeing they disagree among themselues it is euident that they haue no certaine rule to know the Canon of Scripture in assigning wherof some of them must of necessity erre because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true 10. Moreouer the letters syllables words phrase or matter contained in holy Scripture haue no necessary or naturall connexion with diuine Reuelation or Inspiration and therefore by seeing reading or vnderstanding them we cannot inferre that they proceed from God or be confirmed by diuine authority as because Creatures inuolue a necessary relation connexion and dependance on their Creator Philosophers may by the light of naturall reason demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things In Holy Writ there are innumerable truths not surpassing the spheare of humane wit which are or may be deliuered by Pagan Writers in the selfe same words and phrase as they are in Scripture And as for some truths peculiar to Christians for Example the mystery of the Blessed Trinity c. the only setting them downe in Writing is not inough to be assured that such a Writing is the vndoubted word of God otherwise some sayings of Plato Trismegistus Sybills Ouid c. must be esteemed Canonicall Scripture because they fall vpon some truths proper to Christian Religion The internall light and inspiration which directed moued the Authors of Canonicall Scriptures is a hidden Quality infused into their vnderstanding and will and hath no such particuler sensible influence into the externall Writing that in it we can discouer or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is diuine we cannot know from it selfe alone but by some other extrinsecall authority 11. And heere we appeale to any man of Iudgement whether it be not a vaine brag of some Protestants to tell vs that they wot full well what is Scripture by the light of Scripture it selfe or as D. Potter word's it by (y) Pag. 14â— that glorious beame of diuine light which shines therein euen as our eye distinguisheth light from darknes without any other help then light it selfe and as our eare knowes a voyce by the voyce it selfe alone But this vanity is refuted by what we sayd euen now that the externall Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connexion with diuine inspiration or reuelation Will D. Potter hold all his Brethren for blind men for not seing that glorious beame of diuine light which shines in Scripture about which they cannot agree Corporall light may be discerned by it selfe alone as being euident proportionate connatural to our faculty of seeing That Scripture is diuine and inspired by God is a truth exceeding the naturall capacity and compasse of maÌ„s vnderstanding to vs obscure and to be belieued by diuine fayth which according to the Apostle is argumentum (z) Heb. v. 1 non apparentium an argument
1. epist 3. Ibid. ep 6. and others And I pray you if one vtter some Heresy in presence of his brother doth he not in a very high degree offend his Brother and consequently is he not comprehended in those words of our Sauiour If thy Brother offend thee c. Now if the Church were fallible how could we be obliged vnder payne of being reckoned Pagans and Publicans to obey her Decrees and Declarations concerning matters of fayth which is a Vertue that necessarily inuolues infallibility But when did you euer heare any Catholique say what you impose vpon Charity Mistaken that absolute obedience is due vnto the Church no appeale being allowed no not (r) pag. 28. to Scriptures though expounded in a Catholike sense and consonantly to the iudgment of the most ancient and famous members of the Church With what face can you vtter such stuffe You know we belieue that the Church cannot oppose Scripture 5. As for those corruptions of the Text of S. Cyprian in his Booke de vnitate Ecclesiae which you charge Pamelius to haue committed in fauour of S. Peters Primacy it is but an old obiection borrowed of others and purposely answered by Pamelius in his notes vpon that Booke where for his iustification he cites diuers ancient Copies and one more then nine hundred yeares old And as for the phrase maine point it selfe that Christ built the Church vpon Peter it is expressely affirmed by S. Cyprian in many other places which I quote in the (s) De exhort Mart. c. 11. ep 55.69.73 which last is cited by S. Augustin de Bapt. lib. 3. c. 17. as he cites the like wordes out of epist 71. ad Quint. Margent whereby it manifestly appeareth what S. Cyprian belieued about the Authority of Saint Peter and how much his Booke de Vnitate Ecclesiae maketh for the Roman Church neyther can you in all S. Cyprians workes or in this place in particular shew any thing to the contrary as you are pleased to (t) Pag. 30. affirme To proue that our vnworthy fashion is to alter raze many records and Monuments of Antiquity you cite a moderne English Writer Sixtus Senensis But both of them are alledged after your fashion for the first speakes onely of Bookes writen in fauour of the Popes Power in temporall things wherein neuertheles we can in no wise allow of his saying nor is he in this point a competent witnes and the second directly falsifyed For you say he highly commends (u) Epist dedie ad Pium 5. Pope Pius the fifth for the care which he had to extinguish all dangerous Bookes and to purge the writings of all Catholique Authours especially of the Ancient Fathers from the silth and poyson of Heresy there you end the sentence But Sixtus Senensis hath faecibus haereticorum aetatis nostrae from the dregs of the Heretiques of our tymes vnderstanding nothing else but that the sayd holy Pope cause the false Annotations Glosses Marginall notes c. of Erasmus and moderne Heretiques to be blotted or taken out of the Bookes of the holy Fathers Is not this playne falsification And so much lesse excusable because it could not be done but wittingly and willingly for that in the Margent you cite the Latin when you come to those wordes especially of the ancient Fathers you breake off with an c. leauing out that which did directly ouerthrow the purpose for which you alledged those wordes For want of better matter you tell vs of an Edition of Isidorus Pelusiotes his Greeke Epistles approued because they contayned nothing contrary to the Catholique Roman Religion wherein what great harme is there If the Approbator had left out Roman would you haue made this obiection To vs Catholique and Roman are all one as heertofore I explicated But it seemes say you that they had not passed but vpon that Condition This is but a poore Consequence in Logicke For one effect may be produced by some cause yet in such manner as that the effect would follow though that cause were taken away accordingly you grant that the aforesayd clause of Approbation is left out in another Edition Neyther can you be ignorant that Catholiques do print and reprint the writings of ancient Authours although they contayne Heresies as the workes of Tertullian Origen c And therfore you are lesse excusable both for making this Obiection in generall and also for falsifying Sixtus Senensis in particular 6. The places alledged by you out of S. Augustin against the Donatists come far short of prouing that (u) pag. 32. Scripture alone is the Iudge or rather as you correct your selfe Rule of Cōtrouersies your bringing thē to that purpose is directly against S. Augustins words meaning as will appeare by what now I am about to say Two Questions were debated between the Catholiques Donatists the one concerning the Church whether or no she were confined to that corner of the world where the faction of Donatus did reside The other whether such as were baptized by Heretiques ought to be rebaptized We grant that S. Augustine in the former Question pressed the Donatists with manifest Scripture to proue the exeternall apparant Notes or Markes of the Church as Visibility Perpetuity Amplitude Vniuersality c. And no wonder that he appealed to Scripture For that very Questiō being whether the Catholiques or Donatists were the true Church to suppose the Catholiques to be the true Church and vpon that supposition to alledge their Authority against the Donatists had been but to beg the Question as if there were Controuersy whether some particular Booke were Canonical Scripture or no it were an idle thing to alledge that very writing in question to proue it selfe Canonicall and on the other side both the Catholikes and Donatists did acknowledge belieue the same Scriptures which as S. Augustine is wont to say speake more cleerely of the Church then of Christ himselfe and therfore he had good reason to try that Question concerning the Church by cleer not doubtfull Testimonies of holy Writ wheras the Donatists had recourse eyther to obscure Texts as that of the Canticles Shew me where thou feedest where thou liest in the mid day to proue that the Church was cōfined to Africa or els to humane Testimonies as Acts of Notaries or Scriueners to proue that the Catholiques had been Traditores that is had giuē vp the holy Bible to be burned Or that they had sacrificed to Idols Or had been cause of persecution against Christians and that either for these crimes or for communicating with such as had committed them the Church had perished from among Catholiques Or els they produced their owne bare affirmation or mock-Miracles false Councels of THEIR OWNE All which proofes being very partiall insufficient and impertinent S. Augustin had reason to say Let these fictions (w) De vnïe Eccles cap. 19. of lying men or fantasticall wonders of deceiptfull
belieue infallible vnwritten Traditions And wheras you say Bellarmine is resolute that the Article of the descēt is euery where in Scripture and in Latin Scripturae passim hoc docent Bellarmines wordes are All men agree that Christ descended into Hell aliquo modo in some māner or sense because Scripture euery where teaches so much Why did you leaue out aliquo modo which words might well haue shewed that there was no contrariety betweene Bellarmine Stapleton S. Thomas doth not purposely dispute whether all Articles of the Creed be contayned in Scripture but onely vpon an other occasion teaches that the Creed is not an Addition to Scripture out of which it is taken that the truths belieued by fayth are contained in Scripture diuers wayes and in some obscurely which doth in no wise exclude the Authority of the Church to declare the meaning of the Creed For if some be contayned in Scripture but obscurely who shall declare them to vs but the Church 13. As for the sense of that (f) pag. 240. Article some hold that Christ descended really into Hell Others virtually and by effect This virtuall descent is taught by one only namely Durand and therfore your Others is but an exaggeration and euen he doth not deny Lymbus Patrum or that the Fathers were there nor that Christ descended thither in some sort but only differeth frō others whether he descended secundum substantiam which doctrine or rather doubt of his for he leaueth the thing doubtfull is reiected by all other Deuines as erroneous 14. By Hell some (g) pag. 240. vnderstand the lowest pit or the place of the damned as Bellarmine at first others the Lymbus Patrum as Bellarmine at last Would not one conceiue by your words that in the opinion of Bellarmine Christ descended only into the place of the dāmned And yet your conscience cannot but tell you that Bellarmine neuer doubted but that Christ descended into Lymbus Patrum and only proposed it as doubtfull whether or no he descended into the Hell of the damned and resolued probabile est It is probable that the soule of Christ descended to all the infernall places or Hells But afterward in his Recognitions he retracted his opinions for as much as concerned the place of the damned whereby it is cleere that he neuer doubted of our Sauiours descent to Lymbus and that you affirming the contrary doe without doubt desire to deceiue your Reader 15. You say that it is the most important (h) pag. 242. and most fundamentall of all Articles in the Church to belieue that Iesus Christ the Sonne of God the Son of Mary is the only Sauiour of the world wherin you giue a deadly blow to D. Morton who teaches that the Arians denying our Sauiour to be God do notwithstanding make a true Church and if the opinion of M. Hooker for which you bring diuers Arguments be true you cannot exclude the Arians or Trinitarians from being members of a true Church 16. To cleere the cōfusednes of your Church in her 39. Articles you lay the fault vpon vs. But by your leaue if you read either Catholique Deuines or the Councell of Trent you will find that they speake most cleerly and distinctly But Charity Mistaken doth truly say that you are very carefull not to be too cleerly vnderstood and therefore in many Controuersies whereof that Booke of the 39. Articles speakes it comes not at all to the maine question between them and vs c. Which affirmation of his is most true both in the points by him specified in diuers others as for example The third of our Sauiours descent into Hell The 26. of the Nature and effect of Sacraments The 27. will haue the Baptisme of Children to be retained but doth not specify whether or no it be necessary The 28. about the Lords Supper is so generall and of so large a size that it may reach to Zuinglians Caluinists Lutherans who yet in this Article are known to be as farre asunder from ech other as East from West I omit other Articles and only vrge that which Charity Mistaken presseth and you wholy dissemble that Those Articles do not so much as say that the Articles of doctrine which they deliuer are fundamentall either all or halfe or any one therof or that they are necessarily to be belieued by them or the contrary damnable if it be belieued by vs. Is this to keep your promise not to omit without answere any thing of moment in all his discourse Certainly this which Charity Mistaken doth vrge heere is according to your principles the very quintessence of all other points I will not stand to examine how truly you affirme that our Wil is essentially free from all necessity Such motions of our Will as preuent the deliberation of reason are they not necessary The Will in good Philosophy cannot suffer coaction but it may be necessitated without changing the essence therof 17. To the demaund of Charity Mistaken Why do they not particularly enumerate all the Bookes which they acknowledge to be of the New Testament as they had done them of the Old but only because they must so haue named those Bookes of S. Iames and others for Canonicall which the Lutherans haue cast out of their Canon You answere that the Lutherans do now admit the Epistle of S. Iames and the rest as Canonicall which you proue by D. Gerhard a Lutherā But if this be so you do not answere his Question what the reason is why your Church doth not particularly enumerate all the Bookes which they acknowledge to be of the New Testament as she had done them of the old Besides what Authority had D. Gerhard to speak for all the Lutherans of which there be diuers sorts condemning one another If once you deny the infallibility of the Church what infallible ground hath D. Gerhard this day to admit of those Bookes which yesterday other Lutherans reiected In the Bibles of Luther to this day the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of S. Iames and S. Iude and the Apocalyps of S. Iohn are excluded from the Canon 18. Now that none of those Bookes which we hold for Canonicall be Apochryphall as you teach Bellarmine (m) De verbo Dei l. 1. per multa çapita proues at large and answers all your obiections And if any heertofore doubted of some of them the Authority of the Visible Catholique Church of Christ ought to preponderate all doubts of particular persons And it is strange that you cite S. Augustine against the Machabees who in that very place which you cite sayth The Scripture (n) Cont. ep Gaudent lib. 2. ç. 23. of the Machabees is receiued by the Church not vnprofitably if it be read and heard soberly which latter words are vnderstood only against desperate inferences of the Donatists who vpon the example of Razias in the History of the Machabees did kill and precipitate themselues as
Potters Answere though yet so as that euen in this first Part I omit not to answere such passages of his as I find directly in my way and naturally belong to the points wherof I treat in the second Part I answere D. Potters Treatise Section by Section as they lie in order I heer therefore intreate the Reader that if hartily he desire satisfaction in this so important question he do not content himselfe with that which I say to Doctour Potter in my second Part but that he take the First before him eyther all or at least so much as may serue most to his purpose of being satisfied in those doubts which presse him most For which purpose I haue caused a Table of the Chapters of the first Part together with their Titles Arguments to be prefixed before my Reply 7. This was then a chiefe reason why I could not be very short But yet there wanted not also diuers other causes of the same effect For there are so seuerall kinds of Protestants through the difference of Tenets which they hold as that if a man conuince but one kind of them the rest will conceiue themselues to be as truly vnsatisfyed and euen vnspoken to as if nothing had been said therein at all As for example some hold a necessity of a perpetuall visible Church and some hold no such necessity Some of them hold it necessary to be able to proue it distinct from ours others that their businesse is dispatched when they haue proued ours to haue beene alwayes visible for then they will conceiue that theirs hath been so and the like may be truly said of very many other particulers Besides it is D. Potters fashion wherein as he is very far from being the first so I pray God he proue the last of that humour to touch in a word many triuiall old obiectioÌ„s which if they be not all answered it will and must serue the turne to make the more ignorant sort of men belieue and brag as if some maine vnanswerable matter had been subtily purposely omitted and euery body knowes that some obiection may be very plausibly made in few words the cleere and solid answere whereof will require more leaues of paper then one And in particuler D. Potter doth couch his corruption of Authors within the compasse of so few lines and with so great confuseones and fraude that it requires much time paines and paper to open them so distinctly as that they may appeare to euery mans eye It was also necessary to shew what D. Potter omits in Charity Mistaken and the importance of what is omitted and sometimes to set downe the very words themselues that are omitted all which could not but add to the quantity of my Reply And as for the quality thereof I desire thee good Reader to belieue that whereas nothing is more necessary theÌ„ Bookes for answering of Bookes yet I was so ill furnished in this kind that I was forced to omit the examination of diuers Authors cited by D. Potter meerely vpon necessity though I did very well perceaue by most apparant circumstances that I must probably haue been sure inough to find them plainely misalleadged and much wronged and for the few which are examined there hath not wanted some difficulties to do it For the times are not for all men alike and D. Potter hath much aduantage therein But Truth is Truth and will euer be able to iustify it selfe in the midst of all difficulties which may occurre As for me when I alledge Protestant Writers as well domesticall as forraine I willingly and thankefully acknowledge my selfe obliged for diuers of them to the Author of the Booke entituled The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church who calls himselfe Iohn Brereley whose care exactnes and fidelity is so extraordinary great as that he doth not only cite the Bookes but the Editions also with the place and time of their printing yea and often the very page and line where the words are to be had And if you happen not to find what he cites yet suspend your iudgment till you haue read the corrections placed at the end of his booke though it be also true that after all diligence and faithfulnes on his behalfe it was not in his power to amend all the faults of the print in which prints we haue difficulty inough for many euident reasons which must needs occur to any prudent man 8. And for asmuch as concernes the manner of my Reply I haue procured to do it without all bitternes or gall of inuectiue words both for as much as may import either Protestants in generall or D. Potters person in particuler vnles for example he will call it bitternesse for me to terme a grosse impertinency a sleight or a corruption by those very names without which I do not know how to expresse the things and yet wherein I can truly affirme that I haue studied how to deliuer them in the most moderate way to the end I might giue as little offence as possibly I could without betraying the Cause And if any vnfit phrase may peraduenture haue escaped my pen as I hope none hath it was beside and against my intention though I must needs professe that D. Potter giues so many and so iust occasions of being round with him as that perhaps some will iudge me to haue been rather remisse then moderate But since in the very Title of my Reply I professe to maintaine Charity I conceiue that the excesse will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men if it fall to be in mildnes then if it had appeared in too much zeale And if D. Potter haue a mind to charge me with ignorance or any thing of that nature I can and will ease him of that labour by acknowledging in my selfe as many more personall defects then he can heape vpon me Truth only and sincerity I so much valew and professe as that he shall neuer be able to proue the contrary in any one least passage or particle against me 9. Rules to be obserued if D. Potter intend a Reâ—oynders In the third last place I haue thought fit to expresse my selfe thus If D. Potter or any other resolue to answere my Reply I desire that he will obserue some things which may tend to his owne reputation the sauing of my vnnecessary paines and especially to the greater aduantage of truth I wish then that he would be carefull to consider wherein the point of euery difficulty consists and not impertinently to shoote at Rouers and affectedly mistake one thing for another As for example to what purpose for as much as coÌ„cernes the question betweene D. Potter and Charity Mistaken doth he so often and seriously labour to proue that fayth is not resolued into the Authority of the Church as into the formall Obiect and Motiue thereof Or that all points of Fayth are contained in Scripture Or that the Church cannot make new Articles of
or conuiction of things not euident and therefore no wonder if Scripture doe not manifest it selfe by it selfe alone but must require some other meanes for applying it to our vnderstanding Neuer theles their owne similitudes and instances make against themselues For suppose a man had neuer read or heard of Sunne Moone Fire Candle c. and should be brought to behold a light yet in such sort as that the Agent or Cause Efficient from which it proceeded were kept hidden from him could such an one by only beholding the light certainly know whether it were produduced by the Sunne or Moone c Or if one heare a voyce and had neuer known the speaker could he know from whome in particuler that voyce proceeded They who looke vpon Scripture may well see that some one wrote it but that it was written by diuine inspiration how shall they know Nay they cannot so much as know who wrote it vnles they first know the writer and what hand he writes as likewise I cānot know whose voice it is which I heare vnles I first both know the person who speakes with what voice he vseth to speake and yet euen all this supposed I may perhaps be deceyued For there may be voyces so like and Hand so counterfaited that men may be deceyued by them as birds were by the grapes of that skillfull Painter Now since Protestants affirme knowledge concerning God as our supernaturall end must be taken from Scripture they cannot in Scripture alone discerne that it is his voyce or writing because they cannot know from whome a writing or voyce proceeds vnle first they know the person who speaketh or writeth Nay I say more By Scripture alone they cannot so much as know that any person doth in it or by it speake any thing at all because one may write without intent to signify or affirme any thing but only to set downe or as it were paint such characters syllables and words as men are wont to set copies not caring what the signification of the words imports or as one transcribes a writinge which himselfe vnderstands not or when one writes what another dictates and in other such cases wherein it is cleere that the writer speakes or signifies nothing in such his writing therefore by it we cannot heare or vnderstand his voyce With what certainty then can any man affirme that by Scripture it self they can see that the writers did intēd to signify any thing at all that they were Apostles or other Canonical Authours that they wrote their owne sense and not what was dictated by some other man and finally especially that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost 12. But let vs be liberall and for the present suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporall light by it selfe alone able to determine moue our vnderstanding to assent yet the similitude proues against thēselues For light is not visible except to such as haue eyes which are not made by the light but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause And therefore to hold the similitude Scripture can be cleere only to those who are endewed with the eye of fayth or as D. Potter aboue cited sayth to all that haue (a) Pag. 141. eyes to discerne the shining beames thereof that is to the belieuer as immediatly after he speaketh Fayth then must not originally proceed from Scripture but is to be presupposed before we can see the light thereof and consequently there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Fayth which can be no other then the Church 13. Others affirme that they know Canonicall Scriptures to be such by the Title of the Bookes But how shall we know such Inscriptions or Titles to be infallibly true From this their Answere our argument is strengthned because diuers Apocryphall writings haue appeared vnder the Titles and Names of sacred Authours as the Ghospell of Thomas mentioned by S (b) Cont. Adimantum c. 17. Augustine the Ghospell of Peter which the Nazaraei did vse as (c) l. 2. haeretic fab Theodoret witnesseth with which Scraphion a Catholique Bishop was for sometyme deceiued as may be read in (d) lib. 6. cap. 10. Eusebius who also speaketh of the Apocalyps of (e) lib. 6. cap. 11. Peter The like may be sayd of the Ghospells of Barnabas Bartholomew and other such writings specifyed by Pope (f) Dist. Can. Sancta Romana Gelasius Protestants reiect likewise some part of Esther and Daniel which beare the same Titles with the rest of those Bookes as also both wee and they hould for Apochryphall the third and fourth Bookes which go vnder the name of Esdras and yet both of vs receiue his first and second booke Wherefore Titles are not sufficient assurances what bookes be Canonicall which (h) In his defence art 4. Pag. 31. D. Couell acknowledgeth in these words It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we doe well to thinke it is the word of God the first outward motion leading men so to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church which teacheth vs to receiue Marks Ghospell who was not an Apostle and to refuse the Ghospell of Thomas who was an Apostle and to retaine Lukes Ghospell who saw not Christ and to reiect the Ghospell of Nicodemus who saw him 14. Another Answere or rather Obiection they are wont to bring That the Scripture being a principle needs no proofe among Christians So D. (i) Pag 234 Potter But this neither a plaine begging of the question or manifestly vntrue and is directly against their owne octrine and practise If they meane that Scripture is one of those principles which being the first and the most knowne in all Sciences cannot be demonstrated by other Principles they suppose that which is in question whether there be not some principle for example the Church wherby we may come to the knowledge of Scripture If they intend that Scripture is a Principle but not the first and most knowne in Christianity then Scripture may be proued For principles that are not the first nor knowne of themselues may ought to be proued before we can yield assent either to them or to other verities depending on them It is repugnant to their owne doctrine and practise in as much as they are wont to affirme that one part of Scripture may be knowne to be Canonicall and may be interpreted by another And since euery scripture is a principle sufficient vpon which to ground diuine faith they must grant that one Principle may and sometime must be proued by another Yea this their Answere vpon due ponderation falls out to proue what we affirme For since all Principles cannot be proued we must that our labour may not be endles come at length to rest in some principle which may not require any other proofe Such is Tradition which inuolues an euidence of fact and
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
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
is persuaded that his owne opinions be true and that he hath vsed such meanes as are wont to be prescribed for vnderstanding the Scripture as Prayer Conferring of diuers Texts c. and yet their disagreements shew that some of them are deceiued And therefore it is cleer that they haue no one certaine ground whereon to relye for vnderstanding of Scripture And seeing they hold all the Articles of Fayth euen concerning fundamentall points vpon the selfe same ground of Scripture interpreted not by the Churches Authority but according to some other Rules which as experience of their contradictions teach do sometymes fayle it is cleere that the ground of their fayth is infallible in no point at all And albeit sometyme it chance to hit on the truth yet it is likewise apt to leade them to errour As all Arch-heretiques belieuing some truths and withall diuers errours vpon the same ground and motiue haue indeed no true diuine infallible fayth but only a fallible humane opinion and persuasion For if the ground vpon which they rely were certaine it could neuer produce any errour 28. Another cause of Vncertainty in the fayth of Protestants must rise from their distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall For since they acknowledge that euery errour in fundamentall points destroieth the substance of fayth and yet cannot determine what points be fundamentall it followeth that they must remaine vncertayne whether or no they be not in some fundamentall errrour so want the substance of fayth without which there can be no hope of Saluation 24. And that he who erreth against any one reuealed truth as certainly some Protestants must doe because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true doth loose all Diuine fayth is a very true doctrine deliuered by Catholique Deuines with so generall a consent that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious The Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas proposeth this Question Whether (o) 2.2 q. 3. ar 3. in â—orp he who denyeth one Article of fayth may retayne fayth of other Articles and resolueth that he caÌ„not which he proueth Argumenta sed contra because As deadly sinne is opposite to Charity so to deny one Article of fayth is opposite to fayth But Charity doth not remaine with any one deadly sinne therefore faith doth not remaine after the denyall of any one Article of fayth Whereof he giues this further reason Because sayth he the nature of euery habit doth depend vpon the formall Motiue Obiect therof which Motiue being taken away the nature of the habit cannot remayne But the formall Obiect of faith is the supreme truth as it is manifested in Scriptures and in the doctrine of the Church which proceeds froÌ„ the same supreme verity Whosoeuer therefore doth not rely vpon the doctrine of the Church which proceeds from the supreme Verity manifested in Scriptures as vpon an infallible Rule he hath not the habit of fayth but belieues those things which belong to fayth by some other meanes then by fayth as if one â—hould remember some Conclusion and not know the reason of that demonstration it is cleere that he hath not certaine knowledge but only Opinion Now it is manifest that he who relies on the doctrine of the Church as vpon an infallible Rule will yield his assent to all that the Church teacheth For if among those things which she teacheth he hold what he will and doth not hold what he will not he doth not rely vpon the doctrine of the Church as vpon an infallible Rule but only vpon his owne will And so it is cleere that an Heretique who with pertinacity denieth one Article of fayth is not ready to follow the doctrine of the Church in all things And therfore it is manifest that whosoeuer is an Heretique in any one Article of fayth concerning other Articles hath not fayth but a kind of Opinion or his owne will Thus far S. Thomas And afterward A man doth belieue (q) Ad 2. all the Articles of fayth for one and the selfe same reason to wit for the Prime Verity proposed to vs in the Scripture vnderstood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church and therfore whosoeuer fals from this reason or motiue is totally depriued of fayth From this true doctrine we are to infer that to retaine or want the substance of fayth doth not consist in the matter or multitude of the Articles but in the opposition against Gods diuine Testimony which is inuolued in euery least error against Fayth And since some Protestants must needs erre and that they haue no certaine Rule to know why rather one then another it manifestly followes that none of them haue any Certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point Moreouer D. Potter being forced to confesse that the Roman Church wants not the substance of fayth it followes that she doth not erre in any one point against fayth because as we haue seen out of S. Thomas euery such error destroyes the substance of fayth Now if the Roman Church did not erre in any one point of fayth it is manifest that Protestants erre in all those points wherin they are contrary to her And this may suffice to proue that the fayth of Protestants wants Infallibility 30. And now for the second Condition of fayth I say If Protestants haue Certainty They want the second Condition of Fayth Obscurity they want Obscurity and so haue not that fayth which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or not necessitating our Vnderstanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the fayth of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Bookes are Canonicall Scripture And the sense and meaning of these Canonicall Scriptures is cleere and euident at least in all points necessary to Saluation Now these Principles being once supposed it cleerly followeth that what Protestants belieue as necessary to Saluation is euidently knowne by them to be true by this argument It is certayne and euident that whatsoeuer is contayned in the word of God is true But it is certaine and euident that these Bookes in particular are the word of God Therefore it is certaine and euident that whatsoeuer is contayned in these Bookes is true Which Conclusion I take for a Maior in a second Argument and say thus It is certaine and euident that whatsouer is contayned in these Bookes is true but it is certayne and euident that such particular Articles for example the Trinity Incarnation Originall sinne c. are coÌ„tained in these Bookes Therfore it is certaine and euident that these particular Obiects are true Neyther will it auaile you to say that the sayd Principles are not euident by naturall discourse but only to the eye of reason cleered by grace as you speake For supernaturall euidence no lesse yea rather more drawes and excludes obscurity then naturall euidence doth neyther can the party so enlightned be sayd voluntarily to captiuate his vnderstanding to that
Spirits be remoued And Let vs (x) cap. 3. not heare These things I say These things thou saist but let vs heare These things our Lord sayth And What are our words (y) cap. 2. wherin we must not seeke her c. All that we obiect one against another of the giuing vp of the holy Bookes of the Sacrificing to Idols and of the persecution are our words these words you fraudulently conceale although you cite other in the selfe same Chapter because they plainly shew what S. Augustin vnderstands by Humane Testimonies they answere all your Obiections And The Question betweene vs (z) cap. 2. is where the Body of Christ that is the Church is What then are we to do Shall we seeke her in our words or in the words of our Lord Iesus-Chris̄t her head Surely we ought rather to seeke her in his words who is Truth and best knowes his owne Body And Let this Head (a) cap. 4. of which we agree shew vs his Body of which we disagree that our dissentions may by his words be ended Which words plainely declare the reason why he appealed to Scriptures because both parts agreed about them but disagreed concerning the Church And That we are in the (b) cap. 19. True Church of Christ and that this Church is vniuersally spread ouer the earth we proue not by OVR Doctours or Councels or Miracles but by the diuine Scriptures The Scriptures are the only this word only put by you in a different letter as if it were S. Augustines is your owne addition Document and foundation of our cause These are the places by you alleaged so vnfaithfully And will you in good earnest infer from them that we must reiect all Councels neuer so lawfull all Doctors neuer so Orthodox all Miracles neuer so authenticall euen those which were wrought in the Primitiue Church particularly in S. Augustines time which he himselfe published (c) De ciuit Det lib. 22. çap. 8. approued and admired And aboue all will you infer that after we haue found out the true Church by Markes set downe in Scripture her voyce for other particular points of doctrine is not to be heard but to be esteemed a meere humane testimony of Notaries c. as S. Augustine vnderstood humane Testimony when he writ against the Donatists Or will you infer that we must learne from Scripture all that which we are obliged to belieue This you pretend but with such successe as you are wont that is to plead for your Aduersary against your selfe Which is manifestly proued by the other Question of Rebaptization controuerted with the Donatists for which they were properly and formally Heretiques and yet S. Augustine confesseth that for this point of beliefe he could not produce Scripture as appeares by his words which I cited in the first (d) Chap. ◠num 16. Part and desire the Reader to saue me the labour of repeating them heere and then he will easily see that there is great difference betwixt the generall question of the Church and Questions concerning particular Doctrines deliuered by the Church in which this holy Father sayth not we must haue recourse to Scripture alone but that we ought to belieue the Church which is recommended to vs by Scripture And this he teacheth in that very booke De vnitate Ecclesiae out of which you brought the aforesaid places to proue that all Controuersies must be decided by Scripture With what modesty then do you say The Mistaker was ill aduised to send vs to this (e) pag. 33. Treatise which both in the generall ayme and in the quality of the Arguments and proofes is so contrary to his pretensions 7. You leaue (f) pag. 33. a passage taken out of S. Augustine to Charity Mistaken to ruminate vpon Whosoeuer (g) S. Aug. de vnit Eççles çap. 4. will belieue aright in Christ the Head but yet doth so dissent from his Body the Church that their Communion is not with the whole whersoeuer diffused but with themselues seuerall in some part it is manifest that such are not in the Catholique Church Well suppose all were done as you desire what other thing could be concluded then this But when Luther appeared Protestantisme was not with the whole whersoeuer diffused but with himselfe alone What will follow from hence you haue so much Logicke that you cannot Mistake Wherefore at this day and for euer we must say of the Catholique Church as Saint Augustine sayd Euery one of those he speakes of Heretiques is not (g) De Vnit Eççles ç. 3. to be found where she is to be found but she who is ouer All is to be found in the selfe same places where the others are 8. You made an ill choyce of S. Epiphanius to proue by his example that the Fathers were wont to confute Heresies by the only Euidence of Scripture For he not only approues Traditions as necessary but also proues them out of Scripture We ought sayth he to vse also (h) Haeres 61. Tradition for all things cannot be taken from the holy Scripture the holy Apostles therfore deliuered some things in writing and some things by Tradition as the holy Apostle sayth As I deliuered to you And in another place So I teach and so I deliuered in the Churches And the same Father as we shall see anon doth most cleerly approue Traditiōs yea and confutes Aērius by Tradition alone without any Scripture It is then no wonder if you corrupt S. Epiphanius to make men belieue that he speakes of Heresies in generall whereas his words concerne some few in particular as the Samosatenians Arians c. His wordes as you translate them are these The Diuine (k) Haeres 65. Goodnes hath forewarned vs agaynst Heresies by his Truth for God foreseeing the Madnes Impiety Fraude of the Samosatenians Arians Manichees and other Heretiques hath secured vs by his diuine Word against all their subtilities But the true Translation of S. Epiphanius is this Therfore the holy Scripture doth make vs secure of euery word That is hath secured vs how we are to speake or what words to vse against the deceipts of the Samosatenians Arians and of other Heresies concerning the blessed Trinity as it is cleere by these words immediatly following which you thought fittest to conceale For he doth not say the Father is the Only-begotten For how can he be the Only begotten who is not Begotten But he calls the Sonne the only begotten that the Sonne may not be thought to be the Father c. Where you see he speakes of Words or manner of speaking and concerning particular Heresies which yet is made more cleere by the words immediatly precedent to the sentence by you cited which words you also thought good to leaue out For he first proues out of Scripture that the Word is begotten of the Father but that the Father is not Begotten and therfore the Only-Begotten is the Sonne And then
in one of the learned Tongues for weighty reasons which haue been learnedly set downe by our Catholique Writers And if nothing must be read but what the People yea learned men vnderstand you must giue ouer reading in publique euen in English diuers Psalmes of Dauid the Prophets the Apocalyps and other parts of Scriptures the sense and meaning wherof the people vnderstand no more then if they were read in Hebrew Nay to vnderstand the words and not the sense is not free from danger because they may by thē conceaue some errour as we daily see by the exāple of Sectaries in that vngracious creature who lately out of Scripture as he thought murthered his Mother and Brother for being cause of his Idolatry in kneeling at the Communion Happy had it beene both for him and a thousand more if the sacred Scriptures in English were not so common among them but were read with due circumspection and not without approbation of such as can iudge better of them then themselues And in very truth it seemes strange not only not safe but euen shamefull that for example the Bookes of Leuiticus and the Canticles besids many passages in other Bookes should he promiscuously made subiect to the vulgar eyes of sensual and vnmortifyed people who morally will be sure to make no other vse thereof then to hurt themselues together with the abusing prophaning so holy a thing as euery word of holy Scripture is in it selfe 9. Now to come to your other particulars we acknowledge and professe all Merits to be the gift of God and therfore they cannot withdraw vs from relying on him You cite Bellarmine saying It is safest not to trust (m) Pag. 73. to a mans owne Merits but wholy and solely to cast himselfe on the mercy of Iesus-Christ But doth Bellarmine say that it is safest to relye on Gods Mercy alone and to deny all Merits as Protestants do This indeed were to your purpose But let vs heare Bellarmine rightly cited It is sayth he most safe to place (n) De Justificat lib. 5. c. 7. § Sittertia propositio al our trust in the sole mercy Benignity of God Heere you stay But Bellarmine goes on and sayth I explicate my sayd Proposition for it is not to be so vnderstood as if a man with all his forces ought not to attend to good workes Or that we ought not to confide in them as if they were not true Iustice or could not vndergo the Iudgment of God for no wonder if Gods owne gifts as all our merits are may endure his examination but we only say that it is more safe as it were to forget our former Merits and to looke onely vpon the mercy of God Both because no man can without a reuelation certaynely know that he hath true merits or that he is to perseuere in them to the end And also because in this place of Temptation nothing is more easy then to conceyue Pride by the consideration of our good workes I leaue it therefore to any mans cōsideration what sincerity you haue vsed in alledging Bellarmine 10 In the last place you affirme that our doctrines are confessed (o) Pag. 13. Nouelties and you go about to proue it by a few instances all which being either nothing to the purpose or plainely mistaken or manifestly vntrue do excellently proue against your selfe how ancient our Religion is Your instance about the Popes infallibility is not to the purpose of prouing that the Roman Church teacheth any Nouelty For Bellarmine out of whom you cite a few Authours who teach that the Popes Decrees without a Councell are not infallible sayth That that Doctrine (p) De Rom. Pont. l. 4. ç. 1. is yet tolerated by the Church though he affirme it to be erroneous and the next degree to Heresy The same Answere serues for your other example concerning the Popes Authority aboue that of a Generall Councell of which Bellarmine sayth They are not properly Heretiques who hold the contrary but (q) De Concil l. 2. cap. 17. Denique Lateranense they cannot be excused from great temerity And you are not ignorāt but that euen those who defend these doctrines do vnanimously consent against you that the Pope is Head of the Church But I pray you what Consequence is it Some Authors deny or doubt of the Popes Infallibility or his Authority ouer a Generall Councell Ergo these doctrines are Nouelties May not priuate men be mikaken euen in doctrines which of themselues are most ancient as is knowne by experience in many Truths which both you and we maintaine For how many Bookes of Scripture were once doubted of by some which now your selues receiue as Canonicall Are you therfore Nouelists You ouerlash then when you say Aboue a thousand (r) Pag. 72. Edit 1. yeares after Christ the Popes iudgment was not esteemed infallible nor his authority aboue that of a generall Councell and especially when you cite Bellarmine to make good your sayings And your affirming out of Bellarmine de Indulg l. 2. c. 17. that Eugenius the 3. who began his Papacy 1145. was (s) Pag. 72. Edit 1. the first that granted Indulgences is a huge vntruth and falsification of Bellarmine who in that very place directly expresly purposely proues that other Popes before Eugenius granted Indulgences names them in particular Wheras you say that the Councels of Constance and Basil decreed the Councell to be aboue the Pope you might haue seene the Answere in Bellarmine in the same Booke which you (t) De Concil l 2. ç. 19. cite that these two Councels at that time were not lawfull Councels or sufficient to define any matters of Fayth 11. You say Many of them meaning Catholique Doctours yield also that Papall Indulgences are things vnknowne to all Antiquity And to proue this you alledge Bellarmine (u) De Indulg l. 2. ç. 27. who cites Durand S. Antoninus and Roffensis Neither do these three which you by I know not what figure call many say as you do that Indulgences are things vnknowne to all Antiquity but only for the first fiue hundred yeares as Bellarmine sayth in the place by you cited therfore you take to your selfe a strange priuiledge to multiply persons and enlarge tymes and yet these Authors do not deny Indulgences And as Bellarmine answeres We ought not to say that Indulgences are not indeed Ancient because two or three Catholiques haue not read of them in Ancient Authors And you may with greater shew deny diuers Bookes of Scripture which more then three Writers did not only say they were not receiued by Antiquity but did expresly reiect them As for the thing it selfe Bellarmine sheweth that Indulgences are no lesse ancient then the (y) Vbi supra ç. 3. beginning of the Church of Christ that your owne Protestants confesse that it is hard to know when they began which is a signe of Antiquity not of Nouelty
But we can tell you when and who first began to oppose Indulgences namely the Waldenses who appeared about the yeare 1170. And therfore the marke of Nouelty Heresy must fall not vpon the defenders but the impugners of IndulgeÌ„ces 12. You say out of Bellarmine that Leo the Third was the first that euer Canonized any Saint as before pag. 72. you alleaged out of him that the worship of Saints was brought into the Church rather by Custome then by any Precept and in your Margent you cite him in Latin saying Saints began to be (z) De Saitctorum beat lib. 1. cap. 8. § vâ—â— worshipped in the vniuersall Church rather by Custome then by Precept But Bellarmine doth not there treate in generall of worship of Saints but only handling the Question Cuius sit c. To whom doth it belong to Canonize Saints and prouing that it belongs to the Pope to Canonize them for the whole Church and not for some particular Diocesse alone in answere to an Obiection that there are many worshipped for Saints who were not Canonized by the Pope he hath these words I answere that the Ancient Saints began to be worshipped in the Vniuersall Church not so much by any Law as by Custome Where you breake off But Bellarmine goeth forward and sayth But as other Customes haue the force of a Law by the tacite Consent of the Prince without which they are of no force c. So the Worship of any Saint generally introduced by the Custome of the Churches hath force from the tacite or expresse Approbation of the Pope First then you conceale the Question of which Bellarmine treated Secondly you leaue out Veteres Ancient Saints and say only Saints and yet Ancient sheweth he spoke not of all Saints but of some who were not expresly Canonized or Commaunded to be held for Saintes wheras diuers others haue been Canonized by direct commaund to belieue that they are happy Thirdly in your Translation you leaue out Vniuersall only put Church wheras Bellarmine § Primo modo expresly teacheth That in ancient time euery Bishop might Canonize Saints for his particular Diocesse and de facto they did command some Feasts to be kept as Bellarmine proues which shewes that the worship of Saints was held both to be lawfull and was to some particular persons coÌ„manded Fourthly you leaue out Bellarmines words That the Worship of some Saint generally introduced by the custome of the Churches growes to haue the force of a Law or Precept by the tacite or expresse Approbation of the Pope which is contrary to that which you cited out of Bellarmine The worship and Inuocation of Saints was brought into the Church rather by Custome then any Precpt And now to come to your former Obiection out of Bellarmine what is it to your purpose if he affirme that Leo the third was the first that euer Canonized any Saint Doth he affirme that Leo was the first that taught Worship and Inuocation of Saints Or that such worship was not practised by Custome yea by Precept before his Time as we haue seeme out of his words it was Bellarmine speakes only of such forme and solemnity of Canonization as afterwards was vsed Which makes nothing for your purpose to proue that our doctrine of Worship or Inuocation of Saints is a Nouelty If one should affirme that the soleÌ„nity of Crowning Kings was not vsed in all places or tymes alike should he therfore deny the Antiquity of Kings or that Obedience is due to them You may see not onely the errour but the danger also of such discourse 13. When one reades in your Booke these words in a different letter Not any one ancient Writer (b) Pag. 78. reckons precisely seauen Sacraments the first Authour that mentions that number is Peter Lombard and the first Councell that of Florence and in your Margent the names of Valentia and Bellarmine Who would not thinke that in the opinion of these Authors no ancient Writer before Lombard belieued that there were seauen Sacraments neither more nor fewer Which is most vntrue and against their formall words expresse intentioÌ„s For thus saith Valentia in the very same place which you (c) Tom. 4. disp 3. q. 6. p. 2. § Tertie probatur cite The same Assertion that there are seauen Sacraments is proued by the Authority of Fathers For although the more ancient Writers do not number seauen Sacraments all together in one place yet it may be easily shewed especially by the testimony of S. Augustine that they did acknowledge euery one of these Ceremonies to be a Sacrament Thus Valentia in generall and then he proues euery one of the seauen Sacraments out of particular places of S. Augustine S. Cyprian S. Ambrose Innocentius the first Chrysostome Bode and Dionysius Areopagita Now tell me whether Valentia say Not any one Ancient Writer reckons precisely seauen Sacraments Doth he not proue out of S. Augustine euery one of the seauen Sacraments in particular as you could not but see in the very place cited by you Is it all one to say Not any one Ancient Writer reckons precisely seauen Sacraments as you corrupt these Authors and to say The Ancient Writers do not number seauen Sacraments all togeather in one place Neither is your falsifying of Bellarmine lesse remarkable who hauing said that the number of seauen Sacraments is proued out of Scriptures and ancient Fathers premiseth this Obseruation That Our Aduersaries ought not to require of vs that (d) Bellarm. de Sacram. lib. 2. ç. 25. we shew in Scriptures and Fathers the NAME of seauen Sacraments For neither can they shew the Name of two or three or fower for the Scriptures and Fathers did not write a Catechisme as now we do by reason of the multitude of Heresies but only deliuered the things themselues in diuers places Neither is this proper to Sacraments but common to many other things For the Scripture reckons the miracles of our Sauiour but neuer reckons how many there be It deliuers the Articles of Fayth but neuer sayth how many they be The Apostles afterward published the Creed of twelue Articles for some particular causes In like manner they cannot know out of Scripture how many Canonicall Brokes there be But Councels afterward set downe the Canon and the particular number which they had learned by Tradition And afterward he notes That it is sufficient if we can shew out of Fathers and Scriptures that the Definition of a Sacrament doth agree neither to more nor fewer Rites then seauen By which words it is cleere that when Bellarmine sayth Lombard was the first that named the number of seauen SacrameÌ„ts he only meaneth as he explicates himselfe of the name of Seauen as Protestants will not find in all Antiquity the name of two SacrameÌ„ts So that from the words of Valentia and Bellarmine as they are indeed nothing can be gathered except your very vnconscionable Dealing 14. What you cite out of Bellarmine
as about the Canon of Scripture c. as also between Protestants and Puritans c. And I could put you in mind of your Brethren who teach that for diuers Ages the visible Church perished and yet S. Augustine teacheth that there is nothing more euident in Scripture then the Vniuersality of the Church as also who deny that Bishops are by diuine Institution who oppose your whole Hierarchy as Antichristian who differ from you in the forme of Ordination of Ministers all which are fundamental points But I will refer the Reader to the most exact Brereley who (z) Tract 3. Sect. 7. vnder ◠reckons no fewer then seauenty seauen differences amōg you punctually citing the Bookes and pages where you may find them And yet for the present I will set downe some words of Doctor Willet testifying your differences From this fountaine sayth he haue sprung (a) In his meditation vpō the 122. Psa pag. 91. forth these and such like whirle-points and bubbles of new doctrine as for example that the Scriptures are not meanes concerning God of all that profitably we know That they are not alone complete to euerlasting felicity That the word of God cannot possibly assure vs what is the word of God That there are works of Supererogation That the Church of Rome as it now standeth is the family of Christ That Idolaters and wicked Heretiques are members of the visible Church let D. Potter heere remember what himselfe sayth of the Roman Church and what he relateth about the opinion of M. Hooker and M. Morton that among Heretiques there may be a true Church That there is in Ordination giuen a indeleble Character That they haue power to make Christs body That Sacraments are necessary in their place and no lesse required then beliefe it selfe That the soules of Infants dying without Baptisme are damned c. Do you thinke that the necessity of Baptisme and other Sacraments the sufficiency of sole Scripture which your English Clergy professeth at their Ordination and those other points are but small matters But besides these and many more there are two other maine generall transcendent differences among you The one whether you do not differ in maine points which though you deny yet others affirme The other what be maine or fundamentall points Vpon which two differences i◠will necessarily follow that you cannot know whether you haue the same substance of fayth and hope of saluation or no. But though your differences were all reduced to one and that how small soeuer that one were sufficient to exclude Vnity of faith among you as I haue often said and proued I haue no mind to spend time in telling you how vn-scholler-like you say Two brothers (b) Pag. 87. in their choller may renounce ech other and disclaime their amity yet that heat cannot dissolue their inward and essentiall relation For when a mans Brother dyes doth he loose any essentiall relation I alwayes thought that essentiall relations were inseparable from the essence to which they belong and the essence from them and a man who still remaynes a man may yet cease to be a Brother It is therfore no essentiall relation 24. I grant that Differences in Ceremonies or discipline do not alwayes infer diuersity of fayth yet when one part condemnes the Rites and discipline of the other as Antichristian or repugnant to Gods word as it hapneth among Protestants then differences in Ceremontes redound to a diuersity in fayth 25. Luther tempered by (c) Pag. 93. mild Melancthon that honour of Germany did much relent and remit of his rigour agaynst Zwinglius and began to approue the good Counsels of peace If inconstancy concerning matters of Fayth be Mildnes Melancton was I grant extremely mild in which respect he was noted euen by Protestāts was disliked by Luther How much Luther relented of his rigour agaynst Zwinglius let himselfe declare in these words which you could not but read in Charity-Mistaken I hauing now one of my feet (d) Pag. 53. in the graue will carry this testimony and glory to the Tribunall of God That I will with all my heart condemne and eschew Carolostadius Zwinglius Oecolampadius and their disciples nor will I haue familiarity with any of them eyther by letter writing words nor deeds accordingly as the Lord hath commanded If in Polonia the followers of Luther and Caluin haue long liued together in concord as you would haue vs belieue the thing being really not true they must thanke the good Catholique King vnder whome they liue who is able and apt to punish when there is great excesse But if they had the raynes in their owne hand what greater concord could be hoped for amongst them in that Kingdome then is found in other places where they haue more power In Polonia there are many Arians and Trinitarians who liue in outward concord with the rest But will you acknowledge them for Brethren to Lutherans Caluinists and your selfe The answere will be hardly made if you sticke to your owne grounds and I may well passe on to the rest CHAP. IIII. YOVR very beginning promiseth small sincerity in that which followes For you make Charity-Mistaken say that Protestants be Heretiques at the lest if not Infidels wheras he only sayth substantially proueth that whosoeuer doth disbelieue any one Article of fayth doth not assent to all the rest by diuine infallible fayth but by an humane perswasion which is a point of great consideration and of which it seemes you are very loath to speake 2. You take much paines to proue what we do not deny For it maketh nothing to the purpose whether or no the Proposition of the Church belong to the formall Obiect of fayth as heertofore I haue told you Nor do we deny Scripture to containe all mattes of fayth if it be rightly vnderstood because Scripture among other Verities doth also recommend vnto vs the Church diuine Traditions though they be vnwritten And you egregiously falsify (a) Pag. 99. Edit 1. Bellarmine as if he excluded the Authority of the Church wheras in the place by you cited de verb. Dei lib. 1. c. 2. he only speakes against the priuate spirit and euen there proues out of S. Augustine that God will haue vs learne of other men We likewise teach that tho Church doth not make any new Articles of fayth but only propounds and declares to vs the old Only I would haue you heere consider that whether or no Scripture be the sole Rule of fayth or whether fayth be resolued into diuine Reuelation alone or els partly into the Proposition of the Church all is one for the maine Question whether persons of diuers Religions can be saued For this remaineth vndoubted that it cannot be but damnable to oppose any truth sufficiently declared to be contained in Scripture or reuealed by God 3. No lesse impertinent is your other discourse concerning the difficulty to know what is Heresy For
infallibility because it being euident that she is the selfe same Church which was founded by our Sauiour Christ and continued from the Apostles to this Age by a neuer interrupted succession of Pastours and faythfull people it followes that she is the Church of Christ which being once granted it is further inferred that all are obliged to haue recourse to her and to rest in her iudgement for all other particular points which cōcerne faith or Religion which we could not be obligd to doe if we were persuaded that she were subiect to errour Which yet is more euident if we add that there can be no Rule giuen in what points we should belieue her and in what not and therefore we are obliged to belieue her in all Moreouer since the true Church must be Iudge of Controuersies in fayth as we haue proued it cleerly followes that she must be infallible in all points Which vmuersall infallibility being supposed out of the generall ground of Gods prouidence which is not defectiue in things necessary we may afterward belieue the same infallibility euen by the Church herselfe when she testifies that particular point of her owne infallibility As the Scripture cannot giue Testimony to it selfe till first it be belieued to be Gods word yet this being once presupposed it may afterward giue Testimony to it selfe as S. Paul affirmeth that All Scripture is diuinely (u) 2. Tim. 3.16 inspired c. Secondly I answere that the Church hath many wayes declared her owne infallibility which she professeth euen in the Apostles Creed I belieue the holy Catholique Church For she could not be holy if she were subiect to error in matters of fayth which is the first foundation of all sanctity she could not be Catholique or Vniuersal for all Ages if at any time she could erre and be Author that the whole world should erre in points reuealed by God she could not be One or Apostolicall as she professeth in another Creed if she were diuided in points of fayth or could swarue from the Doctrine of the Apostles she could not be alwayes existent and visible because euery error in fayth destroies all Fayth the Church So that while the Church and euery faythfull person belieues professes the Sanctity Vniuersality Vnity and Perpetuall Visibility of the Church she and they belieue proclaime her infallibility in all matters of fayth which she doth also auouch by accursing all such as belieue not her definitions and while in all occasions of emergent Controuersies she gathers Councels to determine them without examining whether they concerne points fundamentall or not fundamentall while in all such holy Assemblies she sayth with the first Councell It hath (w) Act. 15. seemed to the holy Ghost and vs while she proposeth diuers points to be belieued which are not contained in Scripture as that those who are baptized by Heretiques cannot without sacriledge be rebaptized that Baptisme of Infants is lawfull that Easter is to be kept at a certaine time against the Heretiques called Quartadecimani that the Blessed Virgin the most Immaculate Mother of God was eternally a most pure Virgin that such particular Matter and Forme is necessary for the validity of Sacraments that such particular Bookes Chapters and lines are the word of God with diuers such other points of all which we may say that which S. Augustine said about Rebaptization of Heretiques The obscurity of this Question (x) Lib. 1. cont Donat cap. 7. before the schisme of Donatus did so mooue mon of great note and Fathers and Bishops endued with great Charity to debate and doubt without breach of peace that for a long time in seuerall Regions there were diuers and doubtfull decrees till that which was truly belieued was vndoubtedly established by a full Councell of the whole world And yet the point declared in that Councell was neither fundamentall in your sense nor contained in Scripture And to the same effect are the words of S. Ambrose who speaking of the Heretiques condemned in the Councell of Nice sayth that They were not condemned by humane (y) Lib. 1. defid ad Gratian cap. 5. industry but by the authority of those Fathers as likewise the last Generall Councell of Trent defines That it belongs to the Church (z) 1. Sess 4. to iudge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture which must needs suppose her infallibility And lastly the thirst that euery one who desires to saue his soule feeles in his soule to find out the true Church and the quiet which euery one conceiues he shall enioy if once he find her shewes that the very sense and feeling of all Christians is that the Church is infallible For otherwise what great comfort could any wiseman conceiue to be incorporated in a Church which is conceiued to be subiect to error in matters of fayth 21. For want of better arguments you also alledge (a) pag. 161. some Authors within the Roman Church of great learning as you say who haue declared their opinion that any particular Churchs and by consequence the Roman any Councels though Generall may erre But though that which you affirme were true it would fall short of prouing that the Catholique Church is not infallible in all points For besides particular Churches or Generall Councels there is the common Consent of all Catholiques knowne by perpetuall sacred Tradition and there is likewise the continued Succession of Bishops and Pastors in which if one should place an vniuersall infallibility it were sufficient to ouerthrow your assertion of the fallibility of the Church And euen your selfe teach that the Church is infallible in all fundamentals and yet you affirme that any particular or Generall Councell may erre euen to Heresy or Fundamentall and Damnable errours And therfore you must grant that according to your Principles it is one thing to say Generall Councels may erre and another that the Catholique Church may erre But yet for the thing it selfe it is a matter of fayth that true Generall Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot erre And if any hold the contrary he cannot be excused except by ignorance or inaduertence And as for the Romane Authors which you cite Occham is no competent witnes both because that worke of his dialogues which you cite is condemned and because he himselfe was a knowne enemy and rebellious against the sea Apostolique Besides the words which you cite out of him against the Authority of Councels are not his opinion but alledged for arguments sake for so he professeth expresly in the very preface of that worke and often repeats it that he doth not intend to deliuer any opinion of his owne Thirdly wheras he alledgeth reasons for and against Councels he alledgeth but fine against them and seauen for them Lastly before he comes to dispute against Councels he doth in two seuerall (b) Dialog lib. 5.1 part cap. 25. c. 28. places in the very beginning of those Chapters of which
is cleere by his other ensuing words in the same place We ought not then to approue by our consent all things which we reade in the Scriptures to haue been done by men euen adorned with praises by the testimony of God himselfe but to mingle our consideration with discretion bringing discretion with vs not grounded vpon our owne Authority but vpon the Authority of the holy and diuine Scriptures which permit not vs to praise or imitate all the actions euen of those of whom the Scripture giues good and glorious Testimony if they haue done any thing that hath not been well done or that agreeth not with the consent of the present time In which words we see S. Augustine calls the Bookes of the Machabees Scriptures euen as afterward he cals Canonicall Bookes in generall Diuine and holy Scriptures and that the Sobriety of Circumspection which he aduiseth to be obserued in reading them is not how far they be true or false but whether the example of Razias recounted by them is to be imitated more or lesse What you alledge out of S. Gregory (o) Moral lib. 19. ç. 17. is easily answered For he doth not call the Machabees not Canonicall as if he would exclude them from the number of true and diuine Scriptures but because they were not in the Canon of the Iewes or in that which he had at hand when he wrote his first draught of his Commentaries vpon Iob For he was at that time the Popes Nuncius or Legate at Constantinople and the Greeke Rapsody of African Canons had vntruly put out of the Canon the two Bookes of the Machabees though they were receiued in Africa as Canonicall by the decree of the African Councell And therfore you were ill aduised vnder colour of commending Pope Gregory but indeed the more to impugne vs by his authority to write Greg M. or Magnus the Great wheras he was not Pope but only Deacon when he first wrote those Commentaries vpon Iob. 19. You cite S. Hierome praefat in lib. Salom. The Church reades the Bookes of Iudith Tobias and the Machabees but she doth not receiue them among Canonicall writings But S. Hieromes words are these As the Church reades Tobias Iudith and the Machabees but receiues them not among the Canonicall Bookes so may she read Wisedome and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people but not for the confirmation of Ecclesiasticall doctrines Thus S. Hierome And you had reason to cite his words by halues For he afterward retracted what he said of the Bookes of Iudith and Tobias with which the Machabees are yet ioyned in the words cited by you saying in his Preface vpon the History of Iudith The Booke of Iudith is read by the Hebrewes among the Hagiographs whose authority is esteemed lesse sufficient to decide Controuersies but for as much as the Councell of Nice hath reckoned it among the holy Scriptures I haue obeyed your request Where you see that S. Hierome affirmes that the most ancient and graue Councell of Nice receiued the Booke of Iudith in that sense in which the Iewes did not receiue it consequently as a Booke esteemed sufficient to decide Controuersies which the Iewes denied And in another place the same Father sayth Ruth Hester and Iudith haue beene (q) Ep. 140. so glorious as they haue giuen their names into the sacred Volumes Where you see that S. Hierome placeth Iudith with Ruth and Hester the former wherof you admit for Canonicall and part of the latter In his Preface vpon the Booke of Tobias he sayth The Hebrewes (r) Ep. 100. cut off the Booke of Tobias from the Catalogue of the diuine Scriptures And againe The iealousy of the Iewes doth accuse vs that against their Canon we translate the Booke of Tobias into Latin but I iudge it better to displease the iudgment of the Pharisees and to obey the Commandment of the Bishops And elsewhere he placeth (t) In Jsa c. 23. the Machabees among Canonicall Bookes saying The Scripture reports that Alexander king of the Macedonians came out of the land of Cethim And wonder not if S. Hierome spake not alwayes in the same manner of the Canon of the Old Testament since vpon experience examination and knowledge of the sense of the Church he might alter his Opinion as once he said of the Epistle to the Hebrewes that it (u) Ad Panlinum was put out of the number by the greatest part of men and yet elsewhere he receiues it (w) Ep. ad Dardanum as the Epistle of S. Paul And if you will haue a generall explication of S. Hierome concerning his reiecting of Bookes not admitted by the Hebrewes heare it in his owne words Wheras I haue reported (x) Ad◠Russ Apolog 2. what the Hebrewes vsed to obiect against the History of Susanna and the Hymne of the three Children and the Story of the Dragon Bell which are in the Hebrew I haue not declared what I thought but what the Iewes were wont to say against vs. And he cals Ruffinus a foolish Sycophant for charging him with the opinion of the Hebrewes about these parts of Daniel And S. Hierome explayning himselfe in this manner is acknowledged by (y) Answer to Burges pag. 87. Couell and (z) Conference before his Maiesty Bankeroft How then will you excuse your Church which in her sixt Article sayth in generall of all the Bookes which you esteeme Apochryphall among which are the History of Susanna the Hymne of the three Children and that of the Dragon The other Bookes as Hierome sayth the Church doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine How can she I say be excused since S. Hierome euen according to the Confession of your owne Brethren doth explaine himselfe that he vttered only what the Iewes were wont to say against vs and cals Ruffinus a foolish Sycophant for saying the contrary So as insteed of S. Hierome and the Church of God you put on the person of Ruffinus against S. Hierome and of the Synagogue against the Church of Christ our Lord so your whole Canon of the old Testament relies vpon the Authority of the Iewes And finally D. Potter while he grants that Catholiques and Protestants disagree about the very Canon of Scripture forgets to answere what Charity-Mistaken pag. 43. 46. doth thence inferre to wit that they cannot be accounted of one and the same Religion Fayth and Church 20. The Chymericall Church of your (b) Pag. 234. Maister D. Vsher consisting of men agreeing only in fundamentall points is indeed a Chymera or non Ens. For it is impossible that there can be a visible Church which professing fundamentall points doth not in other points eyther agree with vs or you or els disagrees from vs both For eyther they must hold for example the Reall Presence Transubstantiati Prayer for the dead and to Saints Worship of Images Supremacy
diuine Authority Ibid. lin 20. any heresy corrige an heresy Pag. 246. lin 18. must impudent corrige most impudent Pag. 248. lin 1. euen corrige euer Ibid. lin 28. began corrige begun Pag. 251. lin 25. Our of corrige Out of Pag. 252. lin 27. writ corrige write Pag. 257. lin 8. Church because corrige Church yet because Pag. 259. lin 23. Greeke Turke corrige Great Turke Pag. 263. lin 17. the parenthesis should end after the word baptisme Ibid. lin 19. repeated so corrige repeated and so Pag. 264. lin 8. certifitate corrige certificate Pag. 271. lin 23. Argumenta corrige Argumente Pag. 272. lin 11. â—hould corrige should Pag. 274. lin 26. drawes corrige drownes Ibid. lin 31. disbelieued corrige disbelieue Pag. 276. lin 4. or as corrige or as Pag. 279. lin 7. or corrige nor Pag. 293. lin 12. reitering corrige reiterating In the title of pag. 294. by errour is put 264. Pag. 298. lin 25. fundamentall corrige fundamentalls Pag. 299. lin 10. truth corrige truthes In the Second Part. PAg. 2. in the tittle Part. 1. Corrige Part. 2. Pag. 9. lin 6. do with truth you corrige do with truth you Pag. 12. lin 22. the many corrige there are many Pag. 14. lin 3. Chap. corrige Pag Pag. 19. lin 27. Priest corrige Priests Pag. 23. lin 1. 2. second directly corrige second is directly Pag. 28. lin 19. deleatur will Ibid. lin 20. doth corrige doe Pag. 33. lin 26. spirit as he was who corrige spirit as he was who Pag. 37. lin 8. your Text your corrige your Text you Pag. 45. lin 24. geuerall corrige generall Pag. 50. lin 5. man bound corrige man is bound Pag. 61. lin 5. in fact corrige of fact Pag. 78. lin 28. seeme corrige seene Pag. 86. lin 29. ingenious corrige ingenuous Pag. 88. lin 14. Meanes corrige Newnesse Pag. 94. lin 19. martes corrige matters Pag. 97. lin 18. it is giuen deleatur it is Ibid lin 29. Church wall corrige Church walls Pag. 103. lin 5. the Generall deleatur the Ibid. lin 13. you Booke corrige your Booke Pag. 141. lin 7. vnwarry corrige vnwary Ibid. lin 17. after vs corrige after vs. And blot out all the words following Neither are the Authors c. vnto the next and 3. Paragraph as put in by errour Pag. 105. lin 26. Doth not corrige Do not Ibid. lin 28. and for corrige and that for Pag. 109. lin 3. translated corrige translate Ibid. lin 30. if you corrige if still you Pag. 111. lin 14. selfe corrige it selfe Pag. 127. lin 20. deleatur may Pag. 131. lin 8. he had corrige I had Pag. 143. lin 16. belieue corrige belie Pag. 145. lin 13. 14. these words only James changed the verdict of Peter should be put in a different letter as the direct affirmation of Luther Pag. 162. lin 2. meaning corrige meanes Ibid. lin 5. fallibility corrige infallibility Pag. 168. lin 19. D. Morton corrige M. Morton Pag. 169. lin 3. medij corrige medij Pag. 171. lin 4. fundamentall and that corrige fundamentall and not fundamentall and that Pag. 177. lin 16. Councells corrige Counsells Pag. 186. lin 28. Mames corrige Manes Pag. 191. lin 23. D. Morton corrige M. Morton Pag. 197. lin 20. are in corrige are not in Ibid. lin 25. S. Hierome corrige S. Hieromes In the Margent 1. Part. Pag. 12. Reioynders corrige Reioynder Pag. 61. sect 6. 26. corrige sect 6. pag. 26. Pag. 157. lib. cont Parmen corrige lib. 1. cont Parmen In the Margent 2. Part. Pag. 13. Petricon corrige Petricor Pag. 92. c pag. 93. corrige c pag. 92. FINIS