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
fayth Or that the Church of Rome as it signifies that particuler Church or diocesse is not all one with the vniuersall Church Or that the Pope as a priuate Doctour may erre With many other such points as will easily appeare in their proper places It wil also be necessary for him not to put certaine Doctrines vpon vs from which he knowes we disclaime as much as himselfe 10. I must in like manner intreate him not to recite my reasons discourses by halfes but to set theÌ„ down faythfully entirely for as much as in very deed concernes the whole substance of the thing in questioÌ„ because the want somtime of one word may chance to make voyd or lessen the force of the whole argumeÌ„t And I am the more solicitous about giuing this particuler caueat because I find how ill he hath complied with the promise which he made in his Preface to the Reader not to omit without answere any one thing of moment in all the discourse of Charity Mistaken Neither will this course be a cause that his Reioynder grow too large but it will be occasion of breuity to him and free me also from the paines of setting downe all the words which he omits and himself of demonstrating that what he omitted was not materiall Nay I will assure him that if he keep himselfe to the point of euery difficulty and not weary the Reader and ouercharge his margent with vnnecessary quotations of Authors in Greeke and Latin and sometime also in Italian and French togeather with prouerbs sentences of Poets and such grammaticall stuffe nor affect to cite a multitude of our Catholique Schoole deuines to no purpose at all his Booke will not exceed a competent size nor will any man in reason be offended with that length which is regulated by necessity Agayne before he come to set downe his answere or propose his Arguments let him consider very wel what may be replied and whether his owne obiections may not be retorted against himselfe as the Reader will perceiue to haue hapned often to his disaduantage in my Reply against him But especially I expect and Truth it selfe exacts at his hand that he speake cleerly and distinctly and not seeke to walke in darknes so to delude and deceiue his Reader now saying and then denying and alwayes speaking with such ambiguity as that his greatest care may seeme to consist in a certaine art to find a shift as his occasions might chance eyther now or heereafter to require and as he might fall out to be vrged by diuernty of seuerall arguments And to the end it may appeare that I deale plainely as I would haue him also do I desire that he declare himselfe concerning these points 11. First whether our Sauiour Christ haue not alwayes had and be not euer to haue a visible true Church on earth whether the contrary doctrine be not a damnable Heresy 12. Secondly what visible Church there was before Luther disagreeing from the Roman Church and agreeing with the pretended Church of Protestants 13. Thirdly Since he will be forced to grant that there caÌ„ be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as agreed with her when Luther first appeared whether it do not follow that she hath not erred fundamentally because euery such errour destroies the nature and being of the Church and so our Sauiour Christ should haue had no visible Church on earth 14. Fourthly if the Roman Church did not fall into any fundamentall errour let him tell vs how it can be damnable to liue in her Communion or to maintaine errours which are knowne confessed not to be fundamentall or damnable 15. Fiftly if her Errours were not damnable nor did exclude saluation how can they be excused from Schisme who forsooke her Communion vpon pretence of errours which were not damnable 16. Sixtly if D. Potter haue a mind to say that her Errours are damnable or fundamentall let him do vs so much charity as to tell vs in particuler what those fundamentall errours be But he must still remember and my selfe must be excused for repeating it that if he say the Roman Church eâ—â—ed fundamentally he will not be able to shew that Christ our Lord had any visible Church on earth when Luther appeared let him tel vs how Protestants had or can haue any Church which was vniuersall and extended herselfe to all ages if once he grant that the Roman Church ceased to be the true Church of Christ and consequenly how they can hope for Saluation if they deny it to vs. 17. Seauenthly whether any one Errour maintayned against any one Truth though neuer so small in it selfe yet sufficiently propounded as testified or reuealed by almighty God do not destroy the Nature and Vnity of Faith or at least is not a grieuous offence excluding Saluation 18. Eightly if this be so how can Lutherans Caluinists Zuinglians and all the rest of disagreeing ProtestaÌ„ts hope for saluation since it is manifest that some of them must needs erre against some such truth as is testified by almighty God either fundamentall or at least not fundamentall 19. Ninthly we constantly vrge and require to haue a particuler Catalogue of such points as he calls fundamentall A catalogue I say in particuler and not only some generall definition or description wherein Protestants may perhaps agree though we see that they differ when they come to assigne what points in particuler be fundamentall and yet vpon such a particuler Catalogue much depends as for example in particuler whether or no a maÌ„ do not erre in some point fundamentall or necessary to saluation and whether or no Lutherans Caluinists and the rest do disagree in fundamentals which if they do the same Heauen cannot receiue them all 20. Tenthly and lastly I desire that in answering to these points he would let vs know distinctly what is the doctrine of the Protâ—stant English Church concerning them and what he vtters only as his owne priuate opinion 21. These are the questions which for the present I find it fit and necessary for me to aske of D. Potter or any other who will defend his cause or impugne ours And it will be in vaine to speake vainely and to tell me that a Foole may aske more questions in an houre then a wiseman can answere in a yeare with such idle Prouerbs as that For I aske but such questions as for which he giues occasion in his Booke and where he declares not himselfe but after so ambiguous and confused a manner as that Truth it selfe can scarce tell how to conuince him so but that with ignorant and ill-iudging men he will seeme to haue somewhat left to say for himselfe though Papists as he calls them and Puritans should presse him contrary wayes at the same tyme and these questions concerne things also of high importance as wherevpon the knowledge of Gods Church true Religion and consequently Saluation of
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
corruptions in doctrine I still speake vpon the vntrue supposition of our Aduersaries could not affoard any sufficieÌ„t cause or colourable necessity to depart from that visible Church which was extant when Luther rose I demonstrate out of D. Potters own confession that the Catholique Church neither hath nor can erre in points fundamentall as we shewed out of his owne expresse words which he also of set purpose deliuereth in diuers other places and all they are obliged to maintaine the same who teach that Christ had alwayes a visible Church vpon earth because any one fundamentall error ouerthrowes the being of a true Church Now as Schoolemen speake it is implicatio in terminis a contradiction so plaine that one word destroyeth the other as if one should say a liuing dead man to affirme that the Church doth not erre in points necessary to saluation or damnably yet that it is damnable to remaine in her Communion because she teacheth errors which are confessed not to be damnable For if the error be not damnable nor against any fundamentall Article of Fayth the beliefe therof cannot be damnable But D. Potter teacheth that the Catholique Church cannot and that the Roman Church hath not erred against any fundamentall Article of Fayth Therfore it cannot be damnable to remaine in her Communion and so the pretended corruptions in her doctrine could not induce any obligation to depart from her Communion nor could excuse them from Schisme who vpon preteÌ„ce of necessity in point of conscience forsooke her And D. Potter will neuer be able to salue a manifest contradiction in these his words To depart from the Church (a) Pag. 75. of Rome in some Doctrine and practises there might be necessary cause though she wanted nothing necessary to saluation For if notwithstanding these doctrines and practises she wanted nothing necessary to saluation how could it be necessary to saluation to forsake her And therfore we must still coÌ„ clude that to forsake her was properly an act of Schisme 20. From the selfe same ground of the infallibility of the Church in all fundamentall points I argue after this manner The visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnation vpon pretence that it is damnable to remaine in her Communion by reason of corruption in doctrine as long as for the truth of her Fayth and beliefe she performeth the duty which she oweth to God and her Neighbour As long as she performeth what our Sauiour exacts at her hands as long as she doth as much as lies in her power to do But euen according to D Potters Assertions the Church performeth all these things as long as she erreth not in points fundamentall although she were supposed to erre in other points not fundamentall Therefore the Communion of the Visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnatioÌ„ vpon pretence that it is damnable to remaine in her Communion by reason of corruption in doctrine The Maior or first Proposition of it selfe is euident The Minor or second Proposition doth necessarily fellow out of D. Potters owne doctrine aboue rehearsed That the promises of our Lord made to his Church for his assistance are to be (b) Pag. 151. extended only to points of Fayth or fundamentall Let me note heer by the way that by his Or he seemes to exclude from Fayth all points which are not fundamentall so we may deny innumerable Texts of Scripture That It is (c) pag. 155. comfort inough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers c. but she may not hope to triumph ouer all sinne and error till she be in heauen For it is euident that the Church for as much as concernes the truth of her doctrines and beliefe owes no more duty to God and her Neighbour neither doth our Sauiour exact more at her hands nor is it in her power to do more then God doth assist her to doe which assistaÌ„ce is promised only for points fundamentall and consequently as long as she teacheth no fundamentall error her CoÌ„munion cannot without damnation be forsakeÌ„ And we may fitly apply against D. Potter a Concionatory declamation which he makes against vs where he sayth (d) pag. 221. May the Church of after Ages make the narrow way to heauen narrowier then our Sauiour left it c since he himselfe obligeth men vnder paine of damnation to forsake the Church by reason of errours against which our Sauiour thought it needles to promise his assistance and for which he neither denieth his grace in this life or glory in the next Will D. Potter oblige the Church to do more then she may euen hope for or to performe on earth that which is proper to heauen alone 21. And as from your owne doctrine concerning the infallibility of the Church in fundamentall points we haue proued that it was a grieuous sinne to forsake her so doe we take a strong argument from the fallibility of any who dare pretend to reforme the Church which any man in his wits will belieue to be indued with at last as much infallibility as priuate men can challenge and D. Potter expressely affirmeth that Christs promises of his assistance are not intended (e) Pag. 1â—1 to any particuler persons or Churches and therefore to leaue the Church by reason of errours was at the best hand but to flit from one erring company to another without any new hope of triumphing ouer errours and without necessity or vtility to forsake that Communion of which S. Augustine sayth There is (f) Ep. conâ— Parmen lth 2. çap. 11. no iust necessity to diuide Vnity Which will appeare to be much more euident if we coÌ„sider that though the Church had maintained some false doctrines yet to leaue her Communion to remedy the old were but to add a new increase of errors arising from the innumerable disagreements of Sectaries which must needs bring with it a mighty masse of falshoods because the truth is but one indiuisible And this reason is yet stronger if we still remember that euen according to D. Potter the visible Church hath a blessing not to erre in points fundamentall in which any priuate Reformer may faile and therfore they could not pretend any necessity to forsake that Church out of whose Communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more and euen into damnable errors Remember I pray you what your selfe affirmes Pag. 69. where speaking of our Church and yours you say All the difference is from the weeds which remaine there and beere are taken away Yet neither heere perfectly nor euery where alike Behold a faire coÌ„fession of corruptioÌ„s still remayning in your Church which you can only excuse by saying they are not fundameÌ„tal as like wise those in the Roman Church are confessed to be not fundamentall What man of iudgment wil be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupt One 22. I still proceed to impugne you expresly vpon your grounds
doe not separate themselues from the Society of the infected persons how do they free themselues depart from the common disease Do they at the same tyme remaine in the company and yet depart from those infected creatures We must then say that they separate themselues from the persons though it be by occasion of the disease Or if you say they free their owne persons frō the common disease yet so that they remaine still in the Company infected subiect to the Superiours and Gouernours thereof eating drinking keeping publique Assemblies with them you cannot but know that Luther and your Reformers the first pretended free persons from the supposed common infectiō of the Roman Church did not so for they endeauoured to force the Society whereof they were parts to be healed and reformed as they were and if it refused they did when they had forces driue them away euen their Superiours both spirituall and temporall as is notorious Or if they had not power to expell that supposed infected Community or Church of that place they departed from them corporally whome mentally they had forsaken before So that you cannot deny but Luther forsooke the external Cōmunion and Company of the Catholique Church for which as your selfe (z) Pag. 75. confesse There neyther was nor can be any iust cause no more then to depart from Christ himselfe We do therfore inferre that Luther and the rest who forsooke that visible Church which they found vpon earth were truly and properly Schismatiques 35. Moreouer it is euident that there was a diuision betweene Luther and that Church which was Visible when he arose but that Church cannot be sayed to haue deuided her selfe from him before whose tyme she was in comparison of whome she was a Whole and he but a part therefore we must say that he deuided himselfe went out of her which is to be a Schismatique or Heretique or both By this argument Optatus Meliuitanus proueth that not Caecilianus but Parmenianus was a Schismatique saying For Caecilianus went (a) Lib. 1. cont Parm. not out of Maiorinus thy Grandfather but Maiorinus from Caecilianus neyther did Caecilianus depart from the Chayre of Peter or Cyprian but Maiorinus in whose Chaire thou sittest which had no beginning before Maiorinus Since it manifestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manuer it is cleere that you are heyres both of the deliuerers vp of the holy Bible to be burned and also of Schismatiques The whole argument of this holy Father makes directly both against Luther and all those who continue the diuision which he begun and proues That going out conuinceth those who go out to be Scismatiques but not those from whome they depart That to forsake the Chaire of Peter is Schisme yea that it is Schisme to erect a Chaire which had no origen or as it were predecessour before it selfe That to continue in a diuision begun by others is to be Heires of Schismatiques and lastly that to depart from the Communion of a particuler Church as that of S. Cyprian was is sufficient to make a man incurre the guilt of Schisme and consequently that although Protestants who deny the Pope to be supreme Head of the Church do thinke by that Heresy to cleere Luther frō Schisme in disobeying the Pope Yet that will not serue to free him from Schisme as it importeth a diuision from the obedience or Communion of the particular Bishop Diocesse Church Countrey where he liued 36. But it is not the heresy of Protestants or any other Sectaries that can depriue S. Peter and his Successours of the authority which Christ our Lord conferred vpon them ouer his whole militant Church which is a point confessed by learned Protestants to be of great Antiquity and for which the iudgement of diuers most ancient holy Fathers is reproued by them as may be seen at large in Brereley (b) Tract 1. Sect. 3. subd 10. exactly citing the places of such chiefe Protestants And we must say with S. Cyprian Heresies (c) Epist. 55. haue sprung and Schismes been bred from no other cause then for that the Priest of God is not obeyed nor one Priest and Iudge is cōsidered to be for the time in the Church of God Which words do plainely condemne Luther whether he will vnderstand them as spoken of the Vniuersall or of euery particular Church For he withdrew himselfe both from the obedience of the Pope and of all particular Bishops and Churches And no lesse cleere is the sayd Optatus Meliuitanus saying Thou caust not deny (d) Lib 2. cont Parm. but that thou knowest that in the Citty of Rome there was first an Episcopall Chaire placed for Peter wherin Peter the head of all the Apost es sat wherof also he was called Cephas in which one Chaire Vnity was to be kept by all least the other Apostles might attribute to themselues ech one his particular Chaire and that he should be a Schismatique and sinner who against that one single Chaire should erect another Many other Authorities of Fathers might be alledged to this purpose which I omit my intention being not to handle particular controuersies 37. Now the arguments which hitherto I haue brought proue that Luther and his followers were Schismatiques without examining for as much as belonges to this point whether or no the Church can erre in any one thing great or small because it is vniuersally true that there can be no iust cause to forsake the Communion of the Visible Church of Christ according to S. Augustine saying It is not possible (e) Ep. 48. that any may haue iust cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world and call themselues the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselues from the Communion of all Nations vpon iust cause But since indeed the Church cannot erre in any one point of doctrine nor can approue any corruption in manners they cannot with any colour auoid the iust imputation of eminent Schisme according to the verdict of the same holy Father in these words The most manifest (f) De Bapt. Lib. 5. ç. 1. sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there was no cause of separation 38. Lastly I proue that Protestants cannot auoid the note of Schisme at least by reason of their mutuall separation from one another For most certaine it is that there is very great difference for the outward face of a Church and profession of a different fayth between the Lutherans the rigid Caluinists and the Protestants of England So that if Luther were in the right those other Protestants who inuented Doctrines far different from his and diuided themselues from him must be reputed Schismatiques the like argument may proportionably be applied to their further diuisions and subdiuisions Which reason I yet vrge more strongly out of D Potter (g) pag. 20. who affirmes that to him to such as are conuicted in conscience of the
God not only by submitting our Will to his Will and Commaunds but by subiecting also our Vnderstanding to his Wisdome Words captiuating as the Apostle speakes the same Vnderstanding (b) 2. Cor. 10 â— to the Obedience of Fayth Which occasion had been wanting if Almighty God had made cleere to vs the truths which now are certainely but not euidently presented to our minds For where Truth doth manifestly open it selfe not obedience but necessity coÌ„maunds our assent For this reason Deuines teach that the Obiects of Fayth being not euident to humane reason it is in mans power not only to abstaine from belieuing by sufpending our Iudgement or exercising no act one way or other but also to disbelieue that is to belieue the contrary of that which Fayth proposeth as the examples of innumerable Arch-heretiques can beare witnes This obscurity of fayth we learne from holy Scripture according to those words of the Apostle Fayth is the (c) Heb. 11. substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing And We see by a glasse (d) 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. in a darke manner but then face to face And accordingly S. Peter sayth Which you do well attending vnto as to (e) 2 Pet. 1. v. 19. a Candle shining in a darke place 3. Fayth being then obscure wherby it differeth from naturall Sciences and yet being most certaine and infallible wherin it surpasseth humane Opinion it must rely vpon some motiue and ground which may be able to giue it certainty and yet not release it from obscurity For if this motiue ground or formall Obiect of Fayth were any thing euidently presented to our vnderstanding and if also we did euidently know that it had a necessary connection with the Articles which we belieue our assent to such Articles could not be obscure but euident which as we said is against the nature of our Fayth If likewise the motiue or ground of our fayth were obscurely propounded to vs but were not in it selfe infallible it would leaue our assent in obscurity but could not endue it with certainty We must therfore for the ground of our Fayth find out a motiue obscure to vs but most certaine in it selfe that the act of fayth may remaine both obscure and certaine Such a motiue as this can be no other but the diuine Authority of almighty God reuealing or speaking those truths which our fayth belieues For it is manifest that God's infallible testimony may transfuse Certainty to our fayth and yet not draw it out of Obscurity because no humane discourse or demonstration can euince that God reuealeth any supernaturall Truth since God had been no lesse perfect then he is although he had neuer reuealed any of those obiects which we now belieue 4. Neuertheles because Almighty God out of his infinite wisdome and sweetnes doth concur with his Creatures in such sort as may befit the temper and exigence of their natures and because Man is a Creature endured with reason God doth not exact of his Will or Vnderstanding any other then as the Apostle sayth rationabile (f) Kom 12. 1. Obsequium an Obedience sweetned with good reason which could not so appeare if our Vnderstanding were summoued to belieue with certainty things no way represented as infallible and certaine And therfore Almighty God obliging vs vnder paine of eternal damnation to belieue with greatest certainty diuers verities not knowne by the light of naturall reason cannot faile to furnish our Vnderstanding with such inducements motiues and arguments as may sufficiently persuade any mind which is not partiall or passionate that the obiects which we belieue proceed from an Authority so Wise that it cannot be deceiued and so Good that it cannot deceiue according to the words of Dauid Thy Testimonies are made (g) Psal 92. credible exceedingly These inducements are by Deuines called argumenta credibilitatis arguments of credibility which though they cannot make vs euidently see what we belieue yet they cuidently conuince that in true wisdome and prudence the obiects of fayth deserue credit and ought to be accepted as things reuealed by God For without such reasons inducements our iudgment of fayth could not be conceiued prudent holy Scripture telling vs that he who soone (h) Eccles 19 belieues is light of hart By these arguments and inducements our Vnderstanding is both satisfied with euidence of credibility and the obiects of fayth retaine their obscurity because it is a different thing to be euidently credible and euidently true as those who were present at the Miracles wrought by our blessed Sauiour his Apostles did not euidently see their doctrine to be true for then it had not beene Fayth but Science and all had been necessitated to belieue which we see fell out otherwise but they were euidently conuinced that the things confirmed by such Miracles were most credible and worthy to be imbraced as truths reuealed by God 5. These euident Arguments of Credibility are in great aboundance found in the Visible Church of Christ perpetualy existing on earth For that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines we haue from our next Predecessors and these from theirs vpward till we come to the Apostles our Blessed Sauiour which gradiation is known by euidence of sense by reading bookes or hearing what one man deliuers to another And it is euident that there was neither cause nor possibility that men so distant in place so different in temper so repugnant in priuate ends did or could agree to tell one and the selfe same thing if it had been but a fiction inuented by themselues as ancient Tertullian well sayth How is it likely that so many (i) Prescript â—ap 28. so great Churches should erre in one fayth Among many euents there is not one issue the error of the Churches must needs haue varied But that which amongmany is found to be One is not mistaken but delieuered Dare then any body say that they erred who deliuered it With this neuer interrupted existence of the Church are ioyned the many and great miracles wrought by men of that Congregation or Church the sanctity of the persons the renowned victories ouer so many persecutions both of all sorts of men and of the infernall spirits and lastly the perpetuall existence of so holy a Church being brought vp to the Apostles themselues she comes to partake of the same assurance of truth which They by so many powerfull wayes did communicate to their Doctrine and to the Church of their times together with the diuine Certainty which they receiued from our Blessed Sauiour himselfe reuealing to Mankind what he heard from his Father and so we conclude with Tertullian We receiue it from the Churches the Churches (k) Praesc c. 21. 37. from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from his Father And if we once interrupt this line of succession most certainly made knowne by
the vniuersall Church where you breake off But Innocentius his words are these The Vniuersall Church is said to be that which consists of all Churches which of the Greeke word is called Catholique and according to this acception of the Word the Roman Church is not the Vniuersall Church but part of the Vniuersall Church Yet the first and chiefe part as the head in the body because in her fulnes of power doth exist but only a part of fulnes is deriued to others And that One Church which containes vnder it selfe all Churches is said to be the Vniuersall Church And according to this signification of the Word only the Roman Church is called the Vniuersall Church because she alone is preferred before the rest by priuiledge of singuler dignity As God is called the vniuersall Lord not because he is diuided into species c. but because all things are contained vnder his Dominion For there is One generall Church of which Truth it selfe said to Peter Thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke c. And the many particular Churches of which the Apostle sayth Instantia mea c. One doth consist of all as the generall of particulars One hath the preeminence before all because seing there is one Body of the Church of which the Apostle sayth We are all one Body in Christ she excels the rest as the Head excels the other members of the body Thus far Innocentius who as you see teacheth that the Roman Church is the Head of all others That although the Roman Church in one sense be a particular Church yet in another sense it both is and ought to be called the Vniuersall Church and finally that your Obiectiō about the repugnance betwixt the terme Vniuersall and particular is friuolous as he explicates very well by the example of Almighty God who is said to be an Vniuersall Cause and yet had neyther genus nor species and besids whom there are other particular Causes Is this to affirme as you say that the Roman Church is a topycall or particular Church in and vnder the Vniuersall Or that she is onely Topicall or particular as you would make the Reader belieue 9. Your preaching rather then prouing the Charity of your Church Administration of Sacraments c. must rely vpon a voluntary begging of the Question that your Religion is true otherwise the good deeds you mention are not expressions of Charity but professions of Heresy The learned Cardinall Hosius saying Whosoeuer belieues (f) Hosiu in Confess Petricon çap. 14. the Article of the Catholique Church belieues all things necessary to Saluation sayes no more then you will say that whosoeuer belieues the whole Canon of Scripture belieues all things necessary to Saluation And you cannot but speake against your owne conscience when you say of the Roman Church pag. 16. She tells them it is Creed inough for them to belieue onely in the Catholike Church For your selfe pag. 198. affirme that the best aduised of Catholique Deuines yield there are some points necessary to be knowne of all sorts necessitate medi◠in which points implicite fayth doth not suffice you cite some of our Authors to this purpose Chap. 71. 241. and referre vs to a great many more What conscionable dealing is this I will not stand to note that Hosius euen as he is cited by you in Latin doth not say that we belieue in the Church as you make him speake in your text but that we belieue the Church But inough of this 10. In your First Edition I find these wordes Neuer did (g) Pag. 13. any Church affoard more plentifully the meanes of grace nor more abound with all helps and aduantages of Piety then this of ours But in your second Edition you say No Church of this Age doth affoard c. Whereby you acknowledge that at first you did ouerlash so do you now But it comes to you by kind Beza makes bold to say When I compare euen the tymes which were next to the Apostles (h) In epist. Theol. epist. 1. pag. 5. with ours I am wont to say and in my opinion not without cause that they had more conscience and lesse knowledge and contrarily we haue more knowledge and lesse conscience And M. Whitgift your once Archbishop of Canterbury sayth The doctrine taught and professed (i) In his defēce of the answer c. pag. 472. 473. by our Bishops at this day is more perfect and sounder then commonly was in any Age after the Apostles c. How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greeke Church and Latins also for the most part spotted with doctrines of Free will of Merits of Inuocation of Saints and such like Surely you are not able to reckon in any Age since the Apostles times any Company of Bishops that taught and held so sound and perfect doctrine in all points as the Bishops of England do at this day And will not the Puritanes say that they are more pure then Protestants and Anabaptists accompt themselues more vnspotted then Puritanes c In the meane time your own Archbishop grants that Almost all the Bishops learned Writers of the Greeke Church and Latins also were for the most part spotted with doctrines which now you call Popish Superstitions 11. The rest of this Section contaynes nothing but rayling and vntruths continually vttered by euery Minister and often answered by our Writers In Catholique Countreys there may be good reason for not mentioning the needles praises of condemned Heretiques lest the estimation of their morall parts which they abuse against Gods Church breed a liking and add authority to their pestiferous errors If D. Stapleton or any other speaking of Heretiques in generall compare them to Magicians c. as Tertullian also doth what is that to you vnles you be resolued to proclaime your selfe an Heretique Such sayings are not directed to their Persons which we loue but fall vpon their sinne which considered in it selfe cannot I hope be ouerwronged by ill language S. Policarpe called an Heretique the first begotten of the Diuell S. Paul giues them the name of (k) Philip. 3.2 Dogs S. Iohn * Ep. 2.7 termes them Antichrists as your Ministers are wont to call the Pope Charity Mistaken compares you not with Iewes or Turkes for impossibility to be saued Euery deadly sinne excludes saluation yet some are more grieuous and further from pardon then others 12. I hope the Mistaker (l) Pag. 19. would not wish vs conuerted from our Creed No But we wish you conuerted from Erroneous Interpretations therof to the Catholique Church which we professe in our Creed In the meane time these are learned arguments which may serue both sides Protestants belieue the Creed Ergo they need not be couuerted Catholiques belieue the Creed Ergo they need not be conuerted You tell vs of a Censure of the Creed written by some Catholique And in your first Edition you put Censura
it is said That water and in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost are essentiall parts of Baptisme and this you haue gained by your obiections And finally if your doctrine be true that intention in the Minister is not necessary the Pope cannot according to your doctrine want Baptisme for want of due intention in the Minister You proceed 32. No Papist (x) pag. 180. in Europe excepting only those few that stand by and heare his Holynes when he giues out his Oracles can be infallibly sure what it is which he hath defined A goodly Obiection As if there were no meanes to know what one sayth vnles he heare him speake For ought I know you neither haue seene the Pope nor Rome will you therfore thinke you are not sure that there is a Pope and Rome Haue you all this while spoken against a thing in the aire while you impugned the Pope Can no body know what the Apostles spake or wrote except them who were present at their preaching or writing Or can no body be sure that the Bible is truly printed vnles he himselfe correct the Print I grant that you who deny the certainty of Traditions haue cause to belieue nothing beside what you see or heare But we acknowledge Traditions and so must you vnles you will question both the preaching and writing of the Apostles And beside hearing or seeing there are other meaning as History Letters true Relations of many and the like And thus we haue answered all your obiections against the fallibility of the Church Councels and Pope without descending to particular Controuersies which are disputed off among Catholiques without breach of fayth or Vnity But heere I must put you in mind that you haue left out many things in the sixt Chapter of Charity Mistaken against your promise notwithstanding that to answere it alone you haue imployed your third fourth and fifth Section You haue omitted pag. 44 what it is that maketh men to be of the same Religiō pag. 46. diuers differences betwixt you vs as about the Canon of Scripture fiue Sacraments necessity of Baptisme and reall presence vnwritten Traditions Primacy of S. Peter Iudge of Controuersies Prayer to Saints and for the soules in Purgatory and so that we are on both sides resolued to persist in these differēces c. Why did you not say one word to all these particulars Why did you not answere to his example of the Quartadecimani who were ranked for Heretiques although their error was not Fundamentall in your acception as also to his example of rebaptizing Heretiques for which the Donatists were accounted Heretiques although the errour be not of it selfe fundamentall The same I say of his Example drawne from the Nouatian Heretiques And of his reason that if disobedience to the Church were not the rule wherby heresies schismes must be knowne it were impossible to conclude what were an Heresy or Schisme As also to his Assertion proued out of S. Thomas that error against any one reuealed truth destroyeth all fayth c. But necessity hath no law you were forced to dissemble what you knew not how to answere CHAP. VI. THIS Section is chiefly emploied in relating some debates betweene Catholiques and is soone answered by distinguishing betweene a potentiall and actuall Vnity that is we deny not but that Controuersies may arise amongst Catholique Doctours as well for matters concerning practise as speculation But still we haue a Iudge to whose known determinations we hold our selues obliged to submit our vnderstanding and will whereas your debates must of necessity be endles because you acknowledge no subiectiō to any visible liuing Iudge whome you hold to be infallible in his determinations All the instances which you alledge agaynst vs proue this and no more For some of them concerne points not expresly defined by the Church Others touch vpon matters of fact and as it were suites of Law in the Catholique Clergy of England wherein you ought rather to be edifyed then to obiect thē as any way preiudicial to the Vnity of faith because Pope Clement the 8. in his tyme and our holy Father Vrban the VIII could and did by their decrees end those Controuersies forbid writing Bookes on all sides 2. I wonder you will like some of the country Ministers tell vs that we haue enlarged the Creed of Christians one moyty And to proue it you cite the Bull of Pius Quintus which is properly no Creed but a Profession of our faith And if this be to enlarge the Creed your Church in her 39. Articles hath enlarged the twelue Articles of the Apostles Creed more then one moyty thrice told For the Church makes no new Articles of fayth as you must likewise say in defence of your Church-Articles Was the Creed of Nice or of S. Athanasius c. new Creeds because they explicate old truths by a new word of Homousion or Consubstantiall It is pretty that you bring Pappus and Flaccus flat Heretiques to proue our many Contradictions Your comparing the Decrees of the Sacred Councell of Trent which you say that both the Dominicans and Iesuites pretend to fauour their contrary opinions to the Deuill in the old oracles is by your leaue wicked which you might vpon the same pretense as blasphemously apply to the holy Scriptures which all Heretiques though neuer so contrary in themselues do alledge as fauouring them Which is a sufficient Argument to shew against Protestants that no writing though neuer so perfect can be a sufficient Iudge to decide Controuersies And you were ill aduised to make this obiection against the Councell of Trent since in his Maiesties Declaration before the 39. Articles printed 1631. it is said We take comfort in this that euen in those curious points in which the present differences lye men of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them And it is worthy the obseruation that the difference betwixt the Dominicans and Iesuits who as you say do both pretend to haue the Councell of Trent on their sides is concerning a Question which you conceiue to be the same with that which is disputed among Protestants and in which Protestants of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them Your demand why the Pope determines not that Controuersy betwixt the Dominicans and Iesuits might as well be made against the whole Ancient Church which did not determine all Controuersies at once nor on a sudden but after long and mature deliberation sooner or latter as occasion did require In the meane time the Pope hath commanded that neither part censure the other and his Command is most religiously obserued by them with a readines to submit their Iudgment when the holy Ghost shall inspire him to decree it one way or other And who assured you that the point wherin these learned men differ is a reuealed truth or capable of definition or is