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
the one is by you cited deliuer his opinion in the person of his Disciple to be directly for the infallible authority of Councels So as heer is a double corruption the one the citing words for his opinion which are not so the other the concealing those which are his and directly to the contrary Clemangis his workes are forbidden That worke of Cusanus which you (c) Concord Cathol cite he afterward retracted Panormitanus in the place (d) In cap. Significasti extra de Electione cited by you may seeme to speake of Councells disagreeing from the Pope and though he say that if the Councell erred it did not follow that the whole Church should erre because the faith might remaine in others yet that doth not conuince that he held a Generall Councell together with the Pope might erre For Canus hath the very same Obiection and Answere and yet as we shall see anon he holds it to be a matter of faith that General Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot erre Neuertheles if Panormitanus did hold that Generall Councells with the Pope might erre he can only be excused because he did not affirme it with pertinacity Petrus de Aliaco hath indeed (e) Quaest in Vesper art 3. the words which you cite but they are not spoken by him as his opinion but as the opinion of some others so he hath also the cleane contrary proposition viz. that a generall Councell cannot erre nor euen the Remane Church which you might as well haue alledged for his opinion as the other but the truth is that neither are alledged by him as his owne doctrine but as the opinion of others as I said which he expreslly sayth that he doth forbeare to discusse for the present contenting himselfe onely with these three Conclusions which expresse his owne opinion First that alwayes there is some Church which is ruled by the law of Christ which according to his former explication is as much as to say that there is alwayes some Church which cannot erre The second that it is not conuinced out of Scripture that any particular Church is in such manner conformed to the rule of Christs law The third is that it is conuinced out of Scripture that alwayes there is some vniuersall Church which neuer swarues from the rule of Christ Neither will it aduantage you that he teacheth that any particular Church may erre For as I haue often told you the Roman Church in the sense which I haue heertofore declared is all one with the Vniuersall Church and so his doctrine that the Vniuersall Church cannot erre directly proues that the Romane cannot erre And when he teacheth that the Vniuersall Church cannot erre he doth not distinguish betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall as you do You cite out of Canus these words I confesse (f) Canus loc lib. 5. c. 5. §. At contrà that euery Cenerall Councell doth represent the whole Church But when you vrge that the Church cannot erre it is true in that sense in which faithfull people vnderstand it which is that the whole Church together that is all faythfull people do not erre But this doth not hinder but that the greater part of the Church may erre I should scarcely haue belieued it to be possible for any man aliue who pretends to haue credit common fame to peruert the sense of this Author as you do vnles I did see with mine owne eyes both what you write and indeed what Canus affirmes For in the Chapter next precedent (g) Cap. 4. §. Tertia CoÌ„â—lusio to that which you cite he hauing affirmed that a Generall Councell confirmed by the Pope makes a thing certayne and belonging to fayth in respect of vs áddeth that this Conclusion is so certayne that the coÌ„trary is hereticall which he proues by diuers good conuincing reasons and among the rest that if such a Councell could erre there were no way certaine to decide Controuersies of fayth And in the place which you cite afterward he impugnes their opinion who affirme that a Generall CouÌ„cell is infallible before it be confirmed by the Pope which they endeauoured to proue because the CouÌ„cel represents the whole Church and therfore can erre no more then the vniuersall Church it selfe To which Argument he answeres in the words which I set downe and which you alledge to proue that Canus held a Generall Councell might erre namely But when you vrge that the Church caÌ„not erre it is true in that sense in which faythfull people vnderstand it which is that the whole Church together that is all faythfull people do not erre and therefore it is euident that you bring them directly agaynst his words and meaning bring the Obiection for his answere And besides what we haue already related out of him within fiue lines after the words cited by you he sayth The Councell would be infallible if it were confirmed by the Pope I leaue it to your owne consideration what iudgement euen you would frame of any other beside your selfe if he should cite Authours in this manner 22. You haue no reason to be so much offended that we equall diuine vnwritten Traditions with the written word of God For we haue so reuerend an opinion of Gods word as that whersoeuer we find it our fayth belieues it to be most infallible nor can we belieue that pen inke and paper can add any certainty to the Truth thereof Without cause also you accuse the Romane Church of supine negligence because she hath not as yet giuen a Catalogue of vnwritten Traditions as well as of all the Bookes of Scripture For you might also condemne the Ancient Church which did not for diuers ages deliuer any Catalogue of Canonicall Bookes which yet afterward she did as occasion required And as the Councell of Trent by reason of your heresies whereby you denyed diuers Canonicall Bookes of Scripture set downe a perfect Canon of Scripture so as iust necessary occasioÌ„ may require the holy Ghost by which she is directed will not fayle to assist her in making a Catalogue of vnwritten Traditions I cannot find but that your moderne Brethren will gladly admit of some Apostolicall Traditions agaynst the Puritans and why then doe you not make a Catalogue of them as you haue done of the Bookes of Scripture Your famous Archbishop of Canterbury sayth For so much as the Originall (i) M. Witgift in his his defence c. pag. 351 beginning of these names Metropolitan Archbishop c. such is their Antiquity cannot be found so farre as I haue read it is to he supposed they haue their Originall from the Apostles themselues for as I remember S. Augustine hath this Rule in his 118. Epistle And in proofe of this Rule of S. Augustine he adds It is of credit (k) Vbi sugra pag. 352. with the Writers of our tyme namely with M. Zwinglius M. Caluin M. Gualter and surely I thinke no
his Sermon of the Vnity of the Catholique fayth grants Saluation to the Aethiopians who yet with Christian Baptisme ioyne CircuÌ„cision D. Potter (q) Pag. 113.114 cites the doctrine of some whome he termeth men of great learning and iudgement that all who professe to loue and honour IESVS-CHRIST are in the visible Christian Church and by Catholiques to be reputed Brethren One of these men of great learning and iudgment is Thomas Morton by D. Potter cited in his Margent whose loue honour to Iesus-Christ you may perceyue by his saying that the Churches of Arians who denyed our Sauiour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God because they doe hold the foundation of the Ghospell Morton in his Treatise of the King dome of Israel pag. 94. which is Fayth in Iesus-Christ the Sonne of God and Sauiour of the world And which is more it seemeth by these charitable men that for being a member of the Church it is not necessary to belieue one only God For D. Potter (r) pag. 121. among the arguments to proue Hookers Mortons opinion brings this The people of the ten Tribes after their defection notwithstanding their grosse corruptions and Idolatry remained still a true Church We may also as it seemeth by these mens reasoning deny the Resurrection and yet be meÌ„bers of the true Church For a learned man sayth D. Potter (s) pag. 122. in behalfe of Hookers and Mortons opinion was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church though he did professedly doubt of the last ResurrectioÌ„ of our bodies Deere Sautour What tymes doe we behold If one may be a member of the true Church and yet deny the Trinity of Persons the God head of our Sauiour the necessity of Baptisme if we may vse Circumcision and with the worship of God ioyne Idolatry wherin doe we differ from Turks and Iewes or rather are we not worse then eyther of them If they who deny our Sauiours diuinity might be accounted the Church of God how will they deny that fauour to those ancient Heretiques who denyed our Sauiours true humanity and so the totall deny all of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church S. Huary (t) CommeÌ„t in Matt. c. 16. maketh it of equall necessity for Saluation that we belieue our Sauiour to be true God and true Man saying This manner of Confession we are to hold that we remember him to be the Sonne of God and the Sonne of Man because the one without the other can giue no hope of Saluation And yet D. Potter sayth of the aforesayd doctrine of Hooker and Morton The (u) pag. 123. Reader may be pleased to approue or reiect it as he shall find cause And in another place (w) pag. 253. he sheweth so much good liking of this doctrine that he explicateth and proueth the Churches perpetuall Visibility by it And in the second Edition of his booke he is carefull to declare and illustrate it more at large then he had done before howsoeuer this sufficiently sheweth that they haue no certainty what points be fundamentall As for the Arians in particuler the Authour whome D. Potter cites for a moderate Catholike but is indeed a plaine Heretique or rather Atheist Lucian-like resting at all Religion placeth Arianisme among fundamentall errors But (x) A moderate examination c. ç. 1. paulo post initiuâ—â— contrarily an English Protestant Deuine masked vnder the name of Irenaeus Philalethes in a little Booke in Latin entituled Dissertatio de pace concordiae Ecclesiae endeauoureth to proue that euen the deniall of the blessed Trinity may stand with saluation Diuers Protestants haue taught that the Roman Church erreth in fundamentall points But D. Potter and others teach the contrary which could not happen if they could agree what be fundamentall points You brand the Donatists with the note of an Error in the matter (y) pag. 126 and nature of it properly hereticall because they taught that the Church remained only with them in the part of Donatus And yet many Protestants are so far from holding that Doctrine to be a fundamentall error that themselues goe further and say that for diuers ages before Luther there was no true visible Church at all It is then too too apparent that you haue no agreement in specifying what be fundamentall points neither haue you any meanes to determine what they be for if you haue any such meanes why do you not agree You tell vs the Creed containes all points fundamentall which although it were true yet you see it serues not to bring you to a particuler knowledge and agreement in such points And no wonder For besides what I haue said already in the beginning of this Chapter am to deliuer more at large in the next after so much labour and paperspent to proue that the Creed coÌ„taynes all fundamentall points you conclude It remaines (a) pag. 241. very probable that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundament all truths wherof consists the Vnity of fayth and of the Catholique Church Very probable Then according to all good Logick the contrary may remaine very probable and so all remaine as full of vncertainty as before The whole Rule say you the fol Iudge of your faith must be Scripture Scripture doth indeed deliuer diuine Truths but feldome doth qualify them or declare whether they be or be not absolutly necessary to saluation You fall (b) pag. 215 heauy vpon Charity Mistaken because he demands a particuler Catalogue of fundamental points which yet you are obliged in conscience to doe if you be able For without such a Catalogue no man can be assured whether or no he haue fayth sufficient to Saluation And therefore take it not in ill part if we agayne and agayne demand such a Catalogue And that you may see we proceed fairely I will performe on our behalfe what we request of you do heer deliuer a Catalogue wherein are comprized all points by vs taught to be necessary to Saluation in these wordes We are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue whatsoeuer the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth as renealed by Almighty God If any be of another mind all Catholiques denounce him to be no Catholique But inough of this And I go forward with the Infallibility of the Church in all points 20. For euen out of your owne doctrine that the Church cannot erre in points necessary to saluation any wise man will infer that it behooues all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her in any one point 1. Because they are assured that although her doctrine proued not to be true in some point yet euen according to D. Potter the error cannot be fundamentall nor destructiue of fayth and saluation neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the vniuersall Church Secondly since she is vnder paine
You say that it is comfort inough for the Church that the Lord in merey will secure her from all capitall dangers but she may not hope to triumph ouer all sinne and errour till she be in heauen Now if it be comfort inough to be secured from all capital daÌ„gers which can arise only from errour in fundamentall points why were not your first Reformers content with Inough but would needs dismeÌ„ber the Church out of a pernicious greedines of more then Inough For this Inough which according to you is attained by not erring in points not fundameÌ„tal was enioyed before Luthers reformation vnlesse you will now against your selfe affirme that loÌ„g before Luther there was no Church free from errour in fundamental points Moreouer if as you say no Church may hope to triumph ouer all errour till she be in heauâ—n You must eyther grant that errours not fundamentall cannot yield sufficieÌ„t cause to forsake the Church or els you must affirme that all Communities may ought to be forsaken so there wil be no end of Schismes or rather indeed there can be no such thinge as Schisme because according to you all Communities are subiect to errours not fundamentall for which if they may be lawfully forsaken it followeth cleerely that it is not Schisme to forsake them Lastly since it is not lawfull to leaue the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners because such miseries cannot be auoided in this world of temptation and since according to your Assertion no Church may hope to triumph oner all sinne and errour You must grant that as she ought not to be left by reason of sinne so neyther by reason of errours not fundamental because both sinne errour are according to you impossible to be auoided til she be in heaueÌ„ 23. Furthermore I aske whether it be the Quantity or Number or Quality and Greatnes of doctrinall errours that may yield sufficient cause to relinquish the Churches Communion I proue that neyther Not the Quality which is supposed to be beneath the degree of points fundamentall or necessary to saluation Not the Quantity or Number For the foundation is strong inough to support all such vnnecessary additions as you terme them And if they once weighed so heauy as to ouerthrow the foundation they should grow to fundamentall errors into which your selfe teach the Church cannot fall Hay and stubble say you and such (g) pag. 153. vnprofitable stuff laid on the roofe destroies not the howse whilest the maine pillars are standing on the foundation And tell vs I pray you the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated I know you cannot do it and therfore being vncertaine whether or no you haue cause to leaue the Church you are certainely obliged not to forsake her Our blessed Sauiour hath declared his will that we forgiue a priuate offender seauenty seauen times that is without limitation of quantity of time or quality of trespasses and why then dare you alledge his commaund that you must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not fundamentall What excuse can you faigne to your selues who for points not necessary to saluation haue been occasions causes and authors of so many mischiefes as could not but vnaucydably accompany so huge a breach in kingdomes in Common wealths in priuate persons in publique Magistrates in body in soule in goods in lise in Church in the state by Schismes by rebellions by war by famine by plague by bloudshed by all sorts of imaginable calamities vpon the whole face of the Earth wherin as in a map of Desolation the heauines of your crime appeares vnder which the world doth pant 24. To say for your excuse that you left not the Church but her errors doth not extenuate but aggrauate your sinne For by this deuise you sow seeds of endles Schismes put into the mouth of all Separatists a ready answere how to auoide the note of Schisme from your Protestant Church of England or from any other Church whatsoeuer They will I say answere as you do prompt that your Church may be forsaken if she fall into errors though they be not fundamentall And further that no Church must hope to be free from such errors which two grounds being once laid it will not be hard to infer the consequence that she may be forsaken 25. From some other words of D. Potter I like wise proue that for Errors not fundamentall the Church ought not to be forsaken There neither was sayth he nor can be (h) Pag. 5. any iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe To depart from a particular Church namely from the Church of Rome in some doctrines and practises there might be iust and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to saluation Marke his doctrine that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ and yet he teacheth that the Church of Christ may erre in points not fundamentall Therfore say I we cannot forsake the Roman Church for points not fundamental for then we might also forsake the Church of Christ which your selfe deny and I pray you consider whether you do not plainely contradict your selfe while in the words aboue recited you say there can be no iust cause to forsake the Catholique Church and yet that there may be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome since you grant that the Church of Christ may erre in points not fundamentall that the Roman Church hath erred only in such points as by and by we shall see more in particular And thus much be said to disproue their chiefest Answere that they left not the Church but her Corruptions 26. Another euasion D. Potter bringeth to auoid the imputation of Schisme and it is because they still acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Member of the body of Christ and not cut off from the hope of saluation And this sayth he cleares vs from (i) pag. 76. the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut of from the Body of Christ and the hope of saluation the Church from which it separates 27. This is an Answere which perhaps you may get some one to approue if first you can put him out of his wits For what prodigious doctrines are these Those Protestants who belieue that the Church erred in points necessary to saluation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schisme But others who belieued that she had no damnable errors did very well yea were obliged to forsake her and which is more miraculous or rather monstrous they did well to forsake her formally and precisely because they iudged that she retained all meanes necessary to saluation I say because they so iudged For the very reason for which he acquitteth himselfe and condemneth those others as Schismatiques is because he holdeth that the Church which both of them forsooke is
proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others but left them to their liberty Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding Did they censure no man much lesse any Church S. Cyprian belieued his owne Opinion to be true but belieued not that it was necessary and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others You belieue the points wherin Luther differs from vs not to be fundamentall or necessary and why do you not thence infer the like THEREFORE he should not haue proceeded to censure others In a word since their disagreement from vs concerned only points which were not fundamentall they should haue belieued that they might haue been deceaued as well as the whole visible Church which you say may erre in such points and therefore their doctrines being not certainely true and certainely not necessary they could not giue sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church 42. In other places you write so much as may serue vs to proue that Luther and his followers ought to haue deposed and rectified their consciences As for example when you say When the Church (m) pag. 103. hath declared her selfe in any matter of opinion or of Rites her declaration obliges all her children to peace and externall obedience Nor is it fit or lawfull for any priuate man to oppose his iudgement to the publique as Luther and his fellowes did He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with euidence or great probability of Scripture or reason and very modestly still contayning himselfe within the dutifull respect which he oweth but if he will factiously aduāce his own conceyts his owne conceyts and yet grounded vpō euidence of Scripture despise the Church so farre as to cut of her Communion he may be iustly branded and condemned for a Schismatique yea and an Heretique also in some degree in foro exteriori though his opinion were true and much more if it be false Could any man euen for a Fee haue spoken more home to condemne your Predecessors of Schisme or Heresy Could they haue stronger Motiues to oppose the doctrine of the Church and leaue her Communion then euidence of Scripture And yet according to your owne words they should haue answered and rectifyed their conscience by your doctrine that though their opinion were true and grounded vpon euidence of Scripture or reason yet it was not lawfull for any priuate man to oppose his iudgment to the publique which obligeth all Christians to peace and externall obedience and if they cast of the communion of the Church for maintayning their owne Conceits they may be branded for Schismatiques and Heretiques in some degree and in foro exteriori that is all other Christians ought so to esteeme of them and why then are we accounted vncharitable for iudging so of you and they also are obliged to behaue themselues in the face of all Christian Churches as if indeed they were not Reformers but Schismatiques and Heretiques or as Pagans and Publicans I thanke you for your ingenuous confession in recompence wherof I will do a deed of Charity by putting you in mind into what labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of fayth and yet that it is not lawfull for any man to oppose his iudgment or leaue her Communion though he haue euidence of Scripture against her Will you haue such a man dissemble against his conscience or externally deny a truth knowne to be contained in holy Scripture How much more coherently do Catholiques proceed who belieue the vniuersall infallibility of the Church and from thence are assured that there can be no euidence of Scripture or reason against her definitions nor any iust cause to forsake her Cōmunion M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man yields as much as we haue alledged out of you The will of God is sayth he to haue (n) In his Preface to his bookes of Ecclesiastical policy Sect. 6. pag. 28. them do whatsoeuer the sentence of iudiciall and finall docision shall determine yea though it seeme in their priuate opinion to swarue vtterly from that which is right Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was which he transgressing must of necessity be guilty of Schisme And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the vniuersall infallibility of the Church or else driue men into the perplexities and labyrinths of distembling against their conscience wherof now I spake Not vnlike to this is your doctrine deliuered elsewhere Before the Nicene Councell say you many (o) pag. 131. good Catholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists that the Baptisme of Heretiques was ineffectuall and with the Nouatians that the Church ought not to absolue some grieuous sinners These errors therfore if they had gone no further were not in themselues Hereticall especially in the proper and most heauy or bitter sense of that word neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration Her intention was to silence all disputes and to settle peace and Vnity in her gouernment to which all wise and peaceable men submitted whatsoeuer their opinion was And those factious people for their vnreasonable and vncharitable opposition were very iustly branded for Schismatiques For vs the Mistaker will neuer proue that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church c. and therfore he doth vniustly charge vs either with Schisme or Heresy These words manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her declarations Doctrines and Commaunds imposed vpon them for silencing all disputes and setling peace and Vnity in the gouernment and therfore they still remayning obstinately disobedient are iustly charged with Schisme and Heresy And it is to be obserued that you grant the Donatists to haue been very iustly branded for Schismatiques although their opposition against the Church did concerne as you hold a point not fundamentall to the Fayth and which according to S. Augustine cannot be proued out of Scripture alone and therfore either doth euidently conuince that the Church is vniuersally infallible euen in points not fundamentall or else that it is Schisme to oppose her declarations in those very things wherin she may erre and consequently that Luther and his fellowes were Schismatiques by opposing the visible Church for points not fundamentall though it were vntruly supposed that she erred in such points But by the way how come you on the suddaine to hold the determination of a Generall Councell of Nice to be the declaration of the Catholique Church seeing you teach That Generall Councels may erre euen fundamentally And do you now say with vs that to oppose the declaration of the Church is sufficient that one may be branded with Heresy which is a point so often impugned by you 43. It is therfore most euident that no pretended scruple of conscience could excuse Luther which he might and
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