of Commemoration for the dead Nothing of the Churches Visibility or Inuisibility Fallibility or Infallibility nor of other points controuerted betwixt Protestants themselues and betweene Ptotestants and Catholiques which to D. Potter seeme so haynous corruptions that they cannot without damnation ioyne with vs in profession therof There is no mention of the Cessation of the Old Law which yet is a very maine point of faith And many other might be also added 15. But what need we labour to specify particulars There are as many importaÌ„t points of faith not expressed in the Creed as since the worlds beginning now for all future times there haue been are and may be innumerable grosse damnable Heresies whose contrary truths are not contained in the Creed For euery fundamental Error must haue a contrary fundamentall truth because of two contradictory propositions in the same degree the one is false the other must be true As for example if it be a damnable error to deny the Bl. Trinity or the God-head of our Sauiour the beliefe of them must be a truth necessary to saluation or rather if we will speake properly the Error is damnable because the opposite Truth is necessary as death is frightfull because life is sweet and according to Philosophy the Priuation is measured by the Forme to which it is repugnant If therfore the Creed containe in particuler all fundamentall points of fayth it must explicitely or by cleere consequence coÌ„prehend all truths opposite to innumerable Heresies of all Ages past present and to come which no man in his wits will affirme it to doe 16. And heer I cannot omit to signify how you (s) pag. 255. applaude the saying of D. Vsher That in those Propositions which without all controuersy are vniuersally receiued in the whole Christian world so much Truth is contained as being ioyned with holy Obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to euerlasting saluation Neither haue we cause to doubt but that as many as walke according to this Rule neither ouerthrowing that which they haue builded by superinducing any damnable heresies therupon nor otherwise viâ—iating their holy fayth with a lewd and wicked conâ—ersation peace shall be vpon them and vpon the Israel of God Now D. Potter knowes that the Mistery of the B. Trinity is not vniuersally receiued in the whole Christian world as appeares in very many Heretiques in Polony Hungary and Transiluania and therfore according to this Rule of D. Vsher approued by D. Potter the deniall of the B. Trinity shall not exclude saluation 17. Let me note by the way that you might easily haue espied a foule contradiction in the said words of D. Vsher by you recited and so much applauded For he supposeth that a man agrees with other Churches in beliefe which ioyned with holy Obedience may bring him to euerlasting saluation and yet that he may superinduce damnable heresies For how can he superinduce damnable heresies who is supposed to belieue all Truths necessary to saluation Can there be any damnable heresy vnlesse it contradict some necessary truth which cannot happen in one who is supposed to belieue all necessary Truths Besides if one belieuing all fundamentall Articles in the Creed may superinduce damnable heresies it followeth that the fundameÌ„tall truths contrary to those damnable heresies are not contained in the Creed 18. According to this Modell of D. Potters foundation consisting in the agreement of scarcely one point of fayth what a strange Church would he make of men concurring in some one of few Articles of beliefe who yet for the rest should be holding conceyts plainly contradictory so patching vp a Religion of meÌ„ who agree only in the Article that Christ is our Sauiour but for the rest are like to the parts of a Chimaera hauing the head of a man the necke of a horse the shoulders of an Oxe the foote of a Lion c. I wrong them not heerein For in good Philosophy there is greater repugnancy betweene assent and dissent affirmation and negation est est non non especially when all these contrradictories pretend to relye vpon one and the selfe same Motiue the ininfallible Truth of Almighty God then betweene the integrall parts as head necke c. of a maÌ„ horse lion c. And thus ProtestaÌ„ts are farre more bold to disagree euen in matters of fayth then Catholique Deuines in questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church And while thus they stand only vpon fundamentall Articles they do by their owne confession destroy the Church which is the house of God For the foundation alone of a house is not a house nor can they in such an imaginary Church any more expect Saluation then the foundation alone of a house is fit to affoard a man habitation 19. Moreouer it is most euident that Protestants by this Chaos rather then Church doe giue vnauoydable occasion of desperation to poore soules Let some one who is desirous to saue his soule repaire to D. Potter who maintaynes these grounds to know vpon whome he may rely in a matter of so great consequence I suppose the Doctours answere will be Vpon the truly Catholique Church She cannot erre danably What vnderstand you by the Catholike Church Cannot generall Councells which are the Church representatiue erre Yes they may weakely or (t) pag. 167. willfully misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture and so erre damnably To whome then shall I goe for my particuler instructioÌ„ I cannot confer with the vnited body of the whole Church about my particuler difficulties as your selfe affirmes that the Catholique Church cannot be told (u) pag. 27. of priuate iniuries Must I then consult with euery particular person of the Catholique Church So it seemes by what you write in these wordes The whole (w) pag. 150.151 militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly erre eyther in the whole fayth or any necessary Article of it You say M. Doctour I cannot for my instruction acquaint the vniuersall Church with my particuler scruples You say the Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawfull generall Councel may erre damnably It remaynes then that for my necessary instruction I must repaire to euery particuler member of the vniuersall Church spread ouer the face of the earth yet you teach that the promises (x) pag. 151. which our Lord hath made vnto his Church for his assistance are intended not to any particuler persons or Churches but only to the Church Catholike with which as I sayd it is impossible for me to confer Alas O most vncomfortable Ghostly Father you driue me to desperation How shall I confer with euery Christian soule man and woman by sea and by land close prisoner or at liberty c. Yet vpon supposall of this miraculous Pilgrimage for Fayth before I haue the fayth of Miracles how shall I proceed at our meeting Or how shall I know the man on whome I may securely relye Procure will you
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
learned man doth dissent from them Are not I pray you these and the like Traditions vpon which your Hierarchy depends of some consequence and worth your labour to put them in a Catalogue Or doe you not hold the Traditions of the Apostles to be infallible true 23. It is but a Calumny to affirme that (l) pag. 163. we receiue the definitions of the Church with no lesse deuotion then the holy Scriptures For you cite (m) pag. 169. that very place of Bellarmine where he (n) De Cont. l. 2. cap. 12. setteth downe at large fiue singular Prerogatiues of the holy Scriptures aboue the definitions of the Church in which respect your fault is lesse excusable It is your owne doctrine that the Church is infallible in all fundamentals and yet you will not euen in respect of such points equall her Authority with that of holy Scripture 24. At length you come to teach that Generall Councels may erre euen damnably and yet you also teach that their authority is immediately (o) Pag. 162 deriued from Christ and that their decrees (p) Ibid. binde all persons to externall Obedience But will you haue men in matters of fayth externally belieue themselues dissemble against their conscience And thinke that they do so by authority from Christ The truth is that you might as well say the Church is inuisible as to say that her infallibility consists not in Generall Councels but in this that euery member of the Church cannot erre damnably For towards the effect of instructing men in doubts concerning fayth all comes to one effect And with what colour of truth doe you say pag. 164.165 that you giue Generall Councells much more respect then do most of our Aduersaries since Catholiques belieue thē to be infallible which you deny 25. But you would gladly proue that Councels are fallible because they are discoursiue in their deliberations and (r) Pag. 167. vse the weights moments of reason for the drawing out of Conclusions from their Principles wherin it is confessed they may mistake 26. It is true we grant that the Church coynes no new Reuelations but only declares such to vs as haue been already deliuered in the written or vnwritten word of God to finde which out she vseth meanes by searching out true Records of Antiquity by discussing the writings of Fathers by consulting the holy Scriptures Traditions c. because it is the will of God that she vse such meanes But the thing vpon which she finally relyes in her Definitions ex parte Obiecti is the Reuelation or attestation of God which is the Formall and last Motine of fayth and exparte Subiecti in behalfe of herselfe she relies vpon the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost directing her not to propound any falshood insteed of a reuealed truth Thus we read in the first Councell Act. 15. Cùm magna disquisitio sieret After great search examination of the Case by citing Scriptures relating Miracles and the blessing of God declared by the good successe and conuersion of so many Gentiles the final determination did not rely vpon these industries but Visum est Spiritui sancto nobis It hath seemed to the Holy Ghost and vs Which words expresse both the formall Motiue and chiefe efficient Cause of fayth as also the free and voluntary concurring of the Apostles assisted by the Holy Ghost And yet I hope you will not out of these diligences discourses of the Apostles inferre that this Councell was fallible Or that there was no more certainty in the Conclusion then in the Arguments themselues of which some abstracting from the assistance of the holy Ghost and the Authority of the Apostles were but as the Deuines speake Arguments of Credibility and dispositions to fayth as Miracles c. Or will you perhaps with your first Patriarch Luther reprehend euen this Councell of the Apostles and say with him That Iames whose (s) In Assert art 29. opinion the whole Councell followed changed the verdict of peter whose iudgment that the Gentiles should not be constrained to obserue the Iewish Ceremonics was most true cōsequently the opinion of Iames and the Councell could not be true You grant as I must often put you in mind that the Church is infallible in fundamentall points must she therfore vse no industry to attaine to the knowledge of such points And Protestants who hold Scripture to be the only Rule of fayth vse meanes of conferring Text consulting the Originals Prayer c. for attayning the true meaning of Scripture and yet you will not grant that your fayth is fallible because you will say it doth not rely vpon those said fallible meanes but finally as you apprehend it rests in the word of God And if any Catholique Author equall the definitions of the Church with the holy Scripture his meaning is that both the one and the other are so infallible that they cannot deliuer any vntruth For in other respects we grāt many singular Prerogatiues to the holy Scripture more then to the definitions of Councels as may partly beseen in (t) De Conc. lib. 2. cap. 12. Bellarmine 27. Your obiection that the great Councell (u) Pag. 170. of Chalcedon corrected the Second of Ephesus and that S. Augustine sayth Prouinciall Councels (w) De Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 2. cap. 3. may be corrected by Plenary and Plenary Councels the former by the latter hath beene answered a hundred times and I doubt not but that you haue read Bellarmine who (x) De Couc lib. 1. cap. 6. shewes that the second Councell of Ephesus proceeded vnlawfully wherin S. Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople was murthered by the faction of Dioscorus and the Popes Legates were driuen away and finally the Eutichian Heresy was confirmed for which causes that Councell was annulled by Pope Leo. You haue pickt out a pretty example to proue that lawfull Councels confirmed by the Pope may erre To the words of S. Augustine Bellarmine answers that (y) De Consul lib. 2. c. 7. §. Respondeo Primò either they are vnderstood of vnlawfull Councels such as was the second of Ephesus or els they are to be vnderstood of Questions concerning matter of fact as whether Caecilianus had deliuered vp the Bible or finally that latter Councels may be said to correct the former because some decrees which concerne manners may by change of circumstāces proue inconuenient although in the beginning they were very holy and fit Which interpretation is gathered out of S. Augustine himselfe who sayth That Councels may be corrected when Experience doth manifest something which before did not appeare Now experience hath no place in vniuersall doctrines but in particular facts or lawes which respect particular circumstāces of time and place c. Your second Citation in your Margent out of S. Augustine (a) Lib. 3. cōt Maxim whose words you did not recite Bellarmine answeres in the place which I haue cited
of Charity and be resolued to take scandall where none is giuen we must comfort our selues with that graue and true saying of S. Gregory If scandall (l) S. Greg. Hom. 7. in Ezes be taken from declaring a truth it is better to permit scandall then forsake the truth But the solid grounds of our Assertion and the sincerity of intention in vttering what we thinke yield vs confidence that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of Pope Gelasius to Anastasius the Emperour Farre be it from the Roman Emperour that he should hold it for a wrong to haue truth declared to him Let vs therefore begin with that point which is the first that can be controuerted betwixt Protestats vs for as much as concernes the present Question is contained in the Argument of the next ensuing Chapter CHAP. II. VVhat is that meanes vvherby the reuealed Truthes of God are conueyed to our Vnderstanding and vvhich must determine Controuersies in Faith and Religion OF our estimation respect and reuerence to holy Scripture euen Protestants themselues do in fact giue testimony while they possesse it from vs take it vpon the integrity of our custody No cause imaginable could auert our wil froÌ„ giuing the functioÌ„ of supreme sole Iudge to holy Writ if both the thing were not impossible in it selfe if both reason experieÌ„ce did not conuince our vnderstanding that by this assertion Contentions are increased and not ended We acknowledge holy Scripture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule We only deny that it excludes either diuine Tradition though it be vnwritten or an externall Iudge to keep to propose to interpret it in a true Orthodoxe and Catholique sense Euery single Booke euery Chapter yea euery period of holy Scripture is infallibly true wants no due perfection But must we therfore infer that all other Bookes of Scripture are to be excluded least by addition of them we may seeme to derogate from the perfection of the former When the first Bookes of the old New Testament were written they did not exclude vnwritten Traditions nor the Authority of the Church to decide Controuersies who hath then so altered their nature filled them with such iealousies as that now they cannot agree for feare of mutuall â—isparagemeÌ„t What greater wrong is it for the written Word to be compartner now with the vnwritten then for the vnwritten which was once alone to be afterward ioyned with the written Who euer heard that to commend the fidelity of a Keeper were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody Or that to extoll the integrity and knowledge and to auouch the necessity of a Iudge in suits of law were to deny perfection in the law Are there not in Common wealths besides the lawes written vnwritten customes Iudges appointed to declare both the one the other as seuerall occasions may require 2. That the Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in Controuersies of faith we gather very cleerly From the quality of a writing in generall From the nature of holy Writ in particuler which must be belieued as true and infallible From the Editions Translations of it From the difficulty to vnderstand it without hazard of Errour From the inconueniences that must follow vpon the ascribing of sole Iudicature to it finally from the Confessions of our Aduersaries And on the other side all these difficulties ceasing and all other qualities requisite to a Iudge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord we must conclude that â—he it is to whom in doubts concerning Faith and religion all Christians ought to haue recourse 3. The name notion nature and properties of a Iudge cannot in common reason agree to any meere writing which be it otherwise in its kind neuer so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility yet it must euer be as all writings are deafe dumb and inanimate By a Iudge all wise men vnderstand a Person endâ—ed with life and reason able to heare to examine to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties in such sort as that ech one may know whether the sentence be in fauour of his cause or against his pretence and he must be appliable and able to do all this as the diuersity of Controuersies persons occasions and circumstances may require There is a great plaine distinction betwixt a Iudge and a Rule For as in a kingdome the Iudge hath his Rule to follow which are the receiued Lawes and customes so are not they fit or able to declare or be Iudges to themselues but that office must belong to a liuing Iudge The holy Scripture may be and is a Rule but cannot be a Iudge because it being alwayes the same cannot declare it selfe any one time or vpon any one occasion more particularly then vpon any other and let it be read ouer an hundred times it wil be still the same and no more fit alone to terminate controuersies in faith then the Law would be to end suites if it were giuen ouer to the phansy glosse of euery single man 4. This difference betwixt a Iudge and a Rule D. Potter perceiued when more then once hauing stiled the Scripture a Iudge by way of correcting that terme he adds or rather a Rule because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a Iudge FroÌ„ hence also it was that though Protestants in their beginning affirmed Scripture alone to be the Iudge of Controuersies yet vpon a more aduised reflection they changed the phrase and sayd that not Scripture but the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture is Iudge in Controuersies A difference without a disparity The Holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to vs then the Scripture in which he speakes as a maÌ„ speaking only Latin can be no better vnderstood then the tongue wherein he speaketh And therefore to say a Iudge is necessary for deciding controuersies about the meaning of Scripture is as much as to say he is necessary to decide what the Holy Ghost speakes in Scripture And it were a conceyt equally foolish and pernicious if one should seeke to take away all Iudges in the kingdome vpon this nicity that albeit Lawes caÌ„not be Iudges yet the Law-maker speaking in the Law may performe that Office as if the Law-maker speaking in the Law were with more perspicuity vnderstood then the Law wherby he speaketh 5. But though some writing were granted to haue a priuiledge to declare it selfe vpon supposition that it were maintayned in being and preserued entire from corruptions yet it is manifest that no writing can conserue it selfe nor can complayne or denounce the falsifier of it and therefore it stands in need of some watchfull and not erring eye to guard it by meanes of whose assured vigilancy we may vndoubtedly receiue it sincere and pure 6. And suppose it could defend it selfe from corruption how could it assure vs that it selfe were Canonicall
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
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
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
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
1. epist 3. Ibid. ep 6. and others And I pray you if one vtter some Heresy in presence of his brother doth he not in a very high degree offend his Brother and consequently is he not comprehended in those words of our Sauiour If thy Brother offend thee c. Now if the Church were fallible how could we be obliged vnder payne of being reckoned Pagans and Publicans to obey her Decrees and Declarations concerning matters of fayth which is a Vertue that necessarily inuolues infallibility But when did you euer heare any Catholique say what you impose vpon Charity Mistaken that absolute obedience is due vnto the Church no appeale being allowed no not (r) pag. 28. to Scriptures though expounded in a Catholike sense and consonantly to the iudgment of the most ancient and famous members of the Church With what face can you vtter such stuffe You know we belieue that the Church cannot oppose Scripture 5. As for those corruptions of the Text of S. Cyprian in his Booke de vnitate Ecclesiae which you charge Pamelius to haue committed in fauour of S. Peters Primacy it is but an old obiection borrowed of others and purposely answered by Pamelius in his notes vpon that Booke where for his iustification he cites diuers ancient Copies and one more then nine hundred yeares old And as for the phrase maine point it selfe that Christ built the Church vpon Peter it is expressely affirmed by S. Cyprian in many other places which I quote in the (s) De exhort Mart. c. 11. ep 55.69.73 which last is cited by S. Augustin de Bapt. lib. 3. c. 17. as he cites the like wordes out of epist 71. ad Quint. Margent whereby it manifestly appeareth what S. Cyprian belieued about the Authority of Saint Peter and how much his Booke de Vnitate Ecclesiae maketh for the Roman Church neyther can you in all S. Cyprians workes or in this place in particular shew any thing to the contrary as you are pleased to (t) Pag. 30. affirme To proue that our vnworthy fashion is to alter raze many records and Monuments of Antiquity you cite a moderne English Writer Sixtus Senensis But both of them are alledged after your fashion for the first speakes onely of Bookes writen in fauour of the Popes Power in temporall things wherein neuertheles we can in no wise allow of his saying nor is he in this point a competent witnes and the second directly falsifyed For you say he highly commends (u) Epist dedie ad Pium 5. Pope Pius the fifth for the care which he had to extinguish all dangerous Bookes and to purge the writings of all Catholique Authours especially of the Ancient Fathers from the silth and poyson of Heresy there you end the sentence But Sixtus Senensis hath faecibus haereticorum aetatis nostrae from the dregs of the Heretiques of our tymes vnderstanding nothing else but that the sayd holy Pope cause the false Annotations Glosses Marginall notes c. of Erasmus and moderne Heretiques to be blotted or taken out of the Bookes of the holy Fathers Is not this playne falsification And so much lesse excusable because it could not be done but wittingly and willingly for that in the Margent you cite the Latin when you come to those wordes especially of the ancient Fathers you breake off with an c. leauing out that which did directly ouerthrow the purpose for which you alledged those wordes For want of better matter you tell vs of an Edition of Isidorus Pelusiotes his Greeke Epistles approued because they contayned nothing contrary to the Catholique Roman Religion wherein what great harme is there If the Approbator had left out Roman would you haue made this obiection To vs Catholique and Roman are all one as heertofore I explicated But it seemes say you that they had not passed but vpon that Condition This is but a poore Consequence in Logicke For one effect may be produced by some cause yet in such manner as that the effect would follow though that cause were taken away accordingly you grant that the aforesayd clause of Approbation is left out in another Edition Neyther can you be ignorant that Catholiques do print and reprint the writings of ancient Authours although they contayne Heresies as the workes of Tertullian Origen c And therfore you are lesse excusable both for making this Obiection in generall and also for falsifying Sixtus Senensis in particular 6. The places alledged by you out of S. Augustin against the Donatists come far short of prouing that (u) pag. 32. Scripture alone is the Iudge or rather as you correct your selfe Rule of Cōtrouersies your bringing thē to that purpose is directly against S. Augustins words meaning as will appeare by what now I am about to say Two Questions were debated between the Catholiques Donatists the one concerning the Church whether or no she were confined to that corner of the world where the faction of Donatus did reside The other whether such as were baptized by Heretiques ought to be rebaptized We grant that S. Augustine in the former Question pressed the Donatists with manifest Scripture to proue the exeternall apparant Notes or Markes of the Church as Visibility Perpetuity Amplitude Vniuersality c. And no wonder that he appealed to Scripture For that very Questiō being whether the Catholiques or Donatists were the true Church to suppose the Catholiques to be the true Church and vpon that supposition to alledge their Authority against the Donatists had been but to beg the Question as if there were Controuersy whether some particular Booke were Canonical Scripture or no it were an idle thing to alledge that very writing in question to proue it selfe Canonicall and on the other side both the Catholikes and Donatists did acknowledge belieue the same Scriptures which as S. Augustine is wont to say speake more cleerely of the Church then of Christ himselfe and therfore he had good reason to try that Question concerning the Church by cleer not doubtfull Testimonies of holy Writ wheras the Donatists had recourse eyther to obscure Texts as that of the Canticles Shew me where thou feedest where thou liest in the mid day to proue that the Church was cōfined to Africa or els to humane Testimonies as Acts of Notaries or Scriueners to proue that the Catholiques had been Traditores that is had giuē vp the holy Bible to be burned Or that they had sacrificed to Idols Or had been cause of persecution against Christians and that either for these crimes or for communicating with such as had committed them the Church had perished from among Catholiques Or els they produced their owne bare affirmation or mock-Miracles false Councels of THEIR OWNE All which proofes being very partiall insufficient and impertinent S. Augustin had reason to say Let these fictions (w) De vnïe Eccles cap. 19. of lying men or fantasticall wonders of deceiptfull
you proue by the Authority of Nilus a Schismatique an Heretique and a professed enemy of the Church of Rome and of Protestants also vnles they haue a mind to belieue that the holy Ghost proceeds not from the Sonne And how can Nilus affirme as he doth that the Pope refuseth to haue the groundes of that dissension fayrely heard and discussed in a generall Councell For vnder Vrbanus the second a Councell was held at Barium in Apulia where the Graecian Bishops being present were conuicted of errour in denying God the holy Ghost to proceed from God the Sonne S. Anselme (l) Anselm lib. de protes Spirit sanct our Primate of Canterbury being the chiefe disputant in the behalfe of the Latins Whereupon the Graecian Emperour that then ruled Alexius Comnenus became Catholicke and caused the Graecian Bishops to hold Communion with the Roman Church so long as he liued Baronîus tom 12. An. 1118. as Baronius sheweth And greater cause I haue to wonder that you would now reuiue this Cauill of Nilus For to say nothing of the Councell of Lyons in France vnder Gregory the tenth Baron ad an 1274. where the Patriarke of Constantinople was present and other Hierarchs of Greece to the number of 40. besides innumerable Bishops and Prelates of the Latins being more then a thousand in all some Kings being there in person and all by their Embassadors namely Michael Paleologus and Andronicus his Sonne Emperours of the East in whose name their Embassadours recanted abiured all errors against the Roman Church namely that about the Holy Ghost to pretermit I say this instance who doth not know that in the generall Councell at Florence the matter was debated vnder Eugenius the fourth where the Graecians with their Emperour and their Patriarch and the Legates of three other Patriarches and the Armenians and the Deputyes of the Ethiopians were present and a perfect concord was then made from which the Greekes departing afterward were subdued and made slaues to the Turke And that they might see the cause of their destruction to be pertinacity in their Errour about the Holy Ghost vpon the very feast of Pentecost as Bellarmine proueth the Citty of Constantinople was taken their Emperour killed Lib. 2. de Christo cap. 30. and their Empyre extinguished And it is well knowne that the true cause of their dissension whereupon a separation at last ensued was the Controuersy between Ignatius lawfull Patriarch of Constantinople whom the Pope still kept in his Communion and Photius an ambitious Intruder into the Patriarchate by strength of the Imperiall Power Which Schisme hath enlarged it selfe by addition of the heresy about the procession of the holy Ghost For want of better matter you bring heere that old Obiection about the Councels of Constance and Basil defining that the Councell is aboue the Pope The Answere whereof you may read in Bellarmine that (m) De Câ— lib. 2. c. â—â— the Popes who were deposed were in time of Schisme when it was not knowne who was the true Pope in which case the Church hath power to prouide herselfe of an vndoubted Pastour To say nothing that two of those Popes voluntarily renounced their pretence As for the decree of the Councell of Constance that all ought to obey a Generall Councell he answeres that either it is meant for time of Schisme or if it be vniuersall that the Councell could not make any such definition of fayth because it was neuer confirmed by the Pope for as much as concernes that point And the Councell of Basill was in that particular expresly repealed by diuers Popes and the whole Church receiued Eugenius as true Pope who yet was deposed by that Councell To disproue the Popes infallibility you cite Victoria saying Giue me (n) Relect. 4. de Potest Papae Conc. prop. 12. ad fin Clements Linus Siluesters and I will leaue all to their pleasure But to speake no worse of latter Popes they are much inferiour to those ancient Ones But you alleage this Author according to your wonted manner that is very vnfaithfully For he in that place speakes only of Dispensations in Lawes the facility and frequency wherof Victoria dislikes in these latter times Which being wholy matter of Fact doth nothing preiudice the Popes Infallibility for points of Fayth 30. To proue that there is nothing but vncertainty in prouing the Popes infallibility (o) Pag. 176. you alledge some place out of Bellarmine but with so great confusion and fraude that they serue only to proue the certainty of your ill dealing Bellarmine distinguishes two Questions The one whether S. Peter had any Successor in being head of the Church and this he sayth is most certayne and De iure diuino or by diuine institution The other whether it be de iure diuino or of diuine institution that S. Peters Successour must be the particular Bishop of Rome and this he sayth is not so certayne though it be true because if S. Peter had placed his Sea in some other Citty or els had chosen no particular Citty at all yet his Successour had been iure diuino Head of the Church howbeyt in that case he had not beene the particular Bishop of Rome Neuertheles because S. Peter did in fact choose Rome it is vpon that supposall a matter of fayth that the Bishop of Rome S. Peters Successour is all one As for example by the Law of God all lawfull Superiours are to be obeyed and therefore though it be not of diuine institutioÌ„ that this or that man should be superiour yet supposing that in fact he be Superiour the general diuine Law pitches fastens vpoÌ„ him obligeth vs to obey him in particular This being presupposed let vs now heare what you alledge out of (q) De Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 4. §. Restant Bellarmine S. Peter sate many yeares Bisshop of Rome there he died You chaÌ„ge the very QuestioÌ„ Bellarmines words in the Title of the Chapter are Petrum Romae vsque admortem Episcopum fuisse That S. Peter was Bishop of Rome till his death And he explaines his meaning to be That S. Peter was Bishop of Rome and that he kept that Bishoprick till his death which is a different thing from what you say That S. Peter sate many yeares Bishop of Rome and there he died For he might haue been many yeares Bishop of Rome and also died at Rome and yet not died Bishop of Rome as one may be Bishop of London for some yeares and dy at London yet not dye Bishop of London Now Bellarmine sayth that S. Peter died Bishop of Rome which indeed was the maine point and proues that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters successour wheras to dye at Rome is accidentall to his being Bishop of Rome and in fact diuers Bishops of Rome died in France and els where But let vs goe on You say that the first reason by which Bellarmine proues that S.