forget that Charity Mistaken among other instances alledges this to proue that all points of fayth are not contained in the Creed to which you giue no answere at all but only tell vs what your owne opinion is And that it may appeare how you comply with your promise not to omit without Answere any one thing of moment heare what Charity Mistaken sayth to this purpose in these words S. Peter sayth that S. Paul in his Epistles had written certaine things which were hard to be vnderstood and which the vnlearned and vnstable did peruert to their owne destructions S. Austen declares vpon this place that the places misvnderstood concerned the doctrine of Iustification which some misconceiued to be by fayth alone And of purpose to countermine that error he sayth that S. Iames wrote his Epistle and proued therin that good works were absolutely necessary to the act of Iustification Heereupon we may obserue two things the one that an error in this point alone is by the iudgment of S. Peter to worke their destruction who imbrace it and the other that the Apostles Creed which speakes no one word therof is no good rule to let vs know all the fundamentall points of fayth Did not all this discourse deserue some answere from one who professes to omit nothing 7. But now you come to a new busines and say If the (f) Pag. 239. Romane Church be not guilty of Manicheisme why is single life called Chastity and commended as an eminent degree of sanctimony As if forsooth Marriage must be ill because a single lyfe is better Why doe you not lay the same aspersion vpon our Sauiour Christ who proposed Chastity as one of the Euangelicall Councells vpon S. Paul who sayth that (h) 1. Cor. 7. he who doth not marry melius facit doth better vpon the Ancient Fathers who so highly extoll a single life You cannot be ignorant but that among diuers degrees of Chastity Catholique Deuines do also place Coniugall Chastity which they hold to be good and meritorious though yet inferiour to the other 8. You goe on and aske why Marriage is sayd to be incompatible with (i) Innocent Papa dist 82. can Proposuisti holines or with (k) Idem Gods fauour nay counted a (l) Bell. de Clericis cap. 19. §. I am verò pollution worse then (m) Coster Enchirid c. de Caelib whoredome With better reason we may say why doe you peruert and corrupt Authours agaynst your owne conscience Innocentius whome you cite sayth only It is not lawfull that they should be admitted to sacred functions that is holy Orders who liue with their wiues because it is written Be holy because I am holy sayth our Lord. Is this to say absolutely that Marriage is incompatible with holines because it is incompatible with that holines which by the Churches Ordination is required in Priests S. Paul sayth that an vnmaried woman (n) I. Cor. 7. and a Virgin thinkes of things belonging to God that she may be holy in body and soule Will you hence inferre that the Apostle affirmes Marriage to be incompatible with holines because it is incompatible with that peculiar holines which Virginity is apt to breed Those words Be holy because I am holy are taken out of Leuit. chap. 11. vers 44. where the Iewes are forbidden to touch certaine beasts and yet I hope you will not accuse God of Manicheisme as if the eating of such beasts were incompatible with holines The other words alledged by Innocentius Those who are in flesh cannot please God are vnderstood as I said of that particular holines and pleasing of God which is required in those that take holy Orders To proue that Bellarmine accounts Marriage a pollution you alleage out of him these words (o) De Clericis cap. 19. §. Iamverò Not only the Marriage of Priests which is sacriledge not marriage but euē the Marriage of holy persons is not exercised without a certaine pollution turpitude But why doe you take pleasure in alledging Authours against their owne meaning Bellarmine to proue how cōgruous conueniēt it is that Priests should lead a single lyfe after many Authorities of Scriptures Councels Fathers proues it also by reason it selfe in regard that Marriage is a great impediment to Ecclesiasticall functions and beginning with the action of sacrificing he sayth Matrimony as Saint Hierome saith lib. 1. in Iouinian hinders the office of sacrificing because there is required most great purity and sanctity therein as S. Chrysostome in his sixt Booke of Priesthood doth declare and it cannot be denyed but that in the act of Marriage there is mingled a certaine impurity and pollution not which is sinne but which arose from sinne For though Caluin exclayme against Pope Siricius who is so ancient that he sate an 385. because he called the Marriage of Priests Pollution yet that not only the Marriage of Priests which is not marriage but sacriledge but also the Martrimony of holy persons is not exercised without a certayne pollution and turpitude appeares by the rebellion of nature and the shamefastnes of men in that act who alwayes seeke to be hidden as S. Augustine hath obserued lib. 14. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 17. Thus Bellarmine and indeed S. Augustine in the next Chap. expresly speakes de pudore Concubitus non solum vulgari sed etiam coniugali And now what but malice can reprehend any one tittle in this doctrine of Bellarmine or rather in the doctrine of the Fathers by him cited which containes against you Sacrifice single life of Priests Moreouer you falsify both Innocētius and Bellarmine who speake not of Marriage in it selfe of which you make them speake in your Text but of the act thereof and therfore Innocentius sayth Qui exercent cum vxore carnale consortium And Bellarmine sayth Non exercetur sine pollutione quadam c. Which is not euen so much as to say the act it selfe is pollution but only Non exercetur sine pollutione c. and this also not absolutely but with a limitation non sine pollutione quadam c. For Matrimony of it selfe may stand with most perfect Chastity yea with Virginity as appeareth in the most Immaculate Mother of God And at this day a married man may be made Priest if his wife consent and other Conditions prescribed in the holy Canons be obserued And wheras you say It seemes by S. Augustine they the Manichees did not forbid meates or marriage as absolutely impure or to all only their choyce Elect ones must obstaine the other vulgar their Auditors were lefte at their liberty This obiection taken out of Peter Martyr is answered by Bellarmine in the Chapter next to that which you cited that S. Augustine lib. 30. contra Faustum cap. 6. writes that the Manichees did absolutly forbid Marriage because though they did permit it to their Auditors yet it was only for that they could not do otherwise
the soule depends And now because he shall not taxe me with being like those men in the Gospell whom our blessed Lord and Sauiour charged with laying heauy burdens vpon other mens shoulders who yet would not touch them with their finger I oblige my selfe to answere vpon any demaund of his both to all these Questions if he find that I haue not done it already and to any other concerning matter of faith that he shall aske And I will tell him very plainly what is Catholique doctrine and what is not that is what is defined or what is not defined and rests but in discussion among Deuines 22. And it will be heere expected that he performe these things as a man who professeth learning should doe not flying from questions which concerne things as they are considered in their owne nature to accidentall or rare circumstances of ignorance incapacity want of meanes to be instructed erroneous cōscience and the like which being very various and different cannot be well comprehended vnder any generall Rule But in deliuering generall doctrines we must consider things as they be ex naturarei or per se loquendo as Deuines speake that is according to their natures if all circumstances concurre proportionable thereunto As for example some may for a time haue inuincible ignorance euen of some fundamentall article of fayth through want of capacity instruction or the like and so not offend eyther in such ignorance or errour and yet we must absolutely say that errour in any one fundamentall point is damnable because so it is if we consider things in themselues abstracting from accidentall circumstances in particuler persons as contrarily if some man iudge some act of vertue or some indifferent action to be a sinne in him it is a sinne indeed by reason of his erroneous conscience and yet we ought not to say absolutely that vertuous or indifferent actions are sinnes and in all sciences we must distinguish the generall Rules from their particuler Exceptions And therefore when for example he answers to our demand whether he hold that Catholiques may be saued or whether their pretended errours be fundamentall and damnable he is not to change the state of the question and haue recourse to Ignorance and the like but to answere concerning the errours being considered what they are apt to be in themselues and as they are neyther increased nor diminished by accidentall circumstances 23. And the like I say of all the other points to which I once againe desire an answere without any of these or the like ambiguous termes in some sort in some sease in some degree which may be explicated afterward as strictly or largely as may best serue his turne but let him tell vs roundly and particulerly in what sort in what sense in what degree he vnderstands those the like obscure mincing phrases If he proceed solidly after this manner and not by way of meere words more like a Preacher to a vulgar Auditour then like a learned man with a pen in his hand thy patience shall be the lesse abused and truth will also receiue more right And since we haue already layed the grounds of the question much may be sayd heereafter in few words if as I sayd he keep close to the reall point of euery difficulty without wandring into impertinent disputes multiplying vulgar and threed-bare obiections and arguments or labouring to proue what no mā denies or making a vaine ostentation by citing a number of Schoolemen which euery Puny brought vp in Schooles is able to doe and if he cite his Authours with such sincerity as no time need be spent in opening his corruptions and finally if he set himselfe a worke with this consideration that we are to giue a most strict accompt to a most iust and vnpartiall Iudge of euery period line and word that passeth vnder our pen. For if at the later day we shall be arraigned for euery idle word which is spoken so much more will that be done for euery idle word which is written as the deliberation wherwith it passeth makes a man guilty of more malice and as the importance of the matter which is treated of in bookes concerning true fayth and religion without which no Soule can be saued makes a mans Errours more materiall then they would be if question were but of toyes A TABLE OF THE Chapters and Contents of this ensuing First Part of Reply CHAP. I. THE true state of the Question VVith a Summary of the Reasons for vvhich amongst men of different Religions one side only can be saued CHAP. II. VVhat is that meanes vvherby the reuealed truths of God are conueyed to our Vnderstanding and vvhich must determine Controuersies in Fayth and Religion CHAP. III. That the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall is neither pertinent nor true in our present Controuersy And that the Catholique visible Church cannot erre in eyther kind of the sayd points CHAP. IIII. To say that the Creed containes all points necessarily to be belieued is neyther pertinent to the Question in hand nor in it selfe true CHAP. V. That Luther Caluin their associates and all vvho began or continue the separation from the externall Communion of the Roman Church are guilty of the proper and formall sinne of Schisme CHAP. VI. That Luther and therest of Protestants haue added Heresy to Schisme CHAP. VII In regard of the Precept of Charity tovvards ones selfe Protestants are in state of Sinne as long as they remaine separated from the Roman Church THE FIRST PART The State of the Question vvith a Summary of the reasons for vvhich amongst men of different Religions one side onely can be saued CHAP. I. NEVER is Malice more indiscreet then when it chargeth others with imputation of that to which it selfe becoms more liable euen by that very act of accusing others For though guiltines be the effect of some errour yet vsually it begets a kind of Moderation so far forth as not to let men cast such aspersions vpon others as must apparantly reflect vpon themselues Thus cannot the Poet endure Quis tulerit Gracchum c. that Gracchus who was a factious and vnquiet man should be inueighing against Sedition and the Roman Oratour rebukes Philosophers who to wax glorious superscribed their Names vpon those very Bookes which they entitled Of the contempt of glory What then shall we say of D. Potter who in the Title and Text of his whole Booke doth so tragically charge Want of Charity on all such Romanists as dare affirme that Protestancy destroyeth Saluation while he himselfe is in act of pronouncing the like heauy doome against Roman Catholiques For not satisfied with much vnciuil language in affirming the Roman Church many (a) Pag. 11. wayes to haue played the Harlot and in that regard deserued a bill of diuorce from Christ and detestation of Christians in stiling her that proud (b) Ibid. and curst Dame of Rome which takes vpon her to reuell in
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
concerning fayth is a grieuous sinne it cleerely followes that when two or more hold different doctrines concerning fayth and Religion there can be but one part saued For declaring of which truth if Catholiques be charged with Want of Charity and Modesty and be accused of rashnes ambition and fury as D. Potter is very free in this kind I desire euery one to ponder the words of S. Chrysostome who teacheth that euery least errour ouerthrowes all fayth and whosoeuer is guilty therof is in the Church like one who in the Common-wealth forgeth false Coyne Let them heare sayth this holy Father what S. Paul sayth Namely that they who brought in some small errour (z) Galat. â— 7. had ouerthrowne the Ghospell For to shew how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole he sayd that the Ghospell was subueried For as he who clips a litle of the stamp from the Kings money makes the whole piece of no value so whosoeuer takes away the least particle of sound fayth is wholy corrupted alwayes going from that beginning to worse thinges Where then are they who condemne vs as contentious persons because we cannot agree with Heretiques and doe often say that there is no difference betwixt vs and them but that our disagreement proceeds froÌ„ Ambition to dominiere And thus hauing shewed that Protestants want true Fayth it remayneth that according to my first designe I examine whether they do not also want Charity as it respects a mans selfe CHAP. VII In regard of the Precept of Charity tovvards ones selfe Protestants are in state of Sinne as long as they remaine separated from the Roman Church THAT due Order is to be obserued in the Theologicall Vertue of Charity whereby we are directed to preferre some Obiects before others is a truth taught by all Deuines and declared in these words of holy Scripture He hath ordered (a) Cant. 2. â— Charity in me The reason whereof is because the infinite Goodnes of God which is the formall Obiect or Motiue of Charity for which all other things are loued is differently participated by different Obiects and therefore the loue we beare to them for Gods sake must accordingly be vnequall In the vertue of Fayth the case is farre otherwise because all the Obiects or points which we belieue do equally participate the diuine Testimony or Reuelation for which we belieue a like all things propounded for such For it is as impossible for God to speake an vntruth in a small as in a great matter And this is the ground for which we haue so often affirmed that any least errour against Fayth is iniurious to God and destructiue of Saluation 2. This order in Charity may be considered Towards God Our owne soule The soule of our Neyghbour Our owne life or Goods and the life or goods of our Neighbour God is to be beloued aboue all things both obiectiue as the Deuines speake that is we must wish or desire to God a Good more great perfect and noble then to any or all other things namely all that indeed He is a Nature Infinite Independent Immense c. and also appretiatiuè that is we must sooner loose what good soeuer then leaue and abandon Him In the other Obiects of Charity of which I spake this Order is to be kept We may but are not bound to preferre the life and goods of our Neyghbour before our owne we are bound to prefer the soule of our Neyghbour before our owne temporall goods or life if he happen to be in extreme spirituall necessity and that we by our assistance can succour him according to the saying of S. Iohn In this we haue knowne (b) 1. Ioan. 3. v. 16. the Charity of God because he hath yielded his life for vs and we ought to yield our life for our Brethren And S. Augustine likewise sayth A Christian will not doubt (c) De meudac cap. 6. to loose his owne temporall life for the eternall life of his Neighbour Lastly we are to prefer the spirituall good of our owne soule before both the spirituall and temporall good of our Neighbour because as Charity doth of its owne Nature chiefly encline the person in whom it resides to loue God and to be vnited with him so of it selfe it enclines him to procure those things wherby the said Vnion with God is effected rather to himselfe then to others And from heÌ„ce it followes that in things necessary to saluation no man ought in any case or in any respect whatsoeuer to prefer the spirituall good either of any particular person or of the whole world before his owne soule according to those words of our Blessed Sauiour What doth it (d) Matt. 6. auaile a man if he gaine the whole world and sustaine the domage of his owne soule And therfore to come to our present purpose it is directly against the Order of Charity or against Charity as it hath a reference to our selues which Deuines call Charitas propria to aduenture either the omitting of any meanes necessary to saluation or the committing of any thing repugnant to it for whatsoeuer respect consequently if by liuing out of the Roman Church we put our selues in hazard either to want some thing necessarily required to saluation or else to performe some act against it we commit a most grieuous sinne against the vertue of Charity as it respects our selues and so cannot hope for saluation without repentance 3. Now of things necessary to saluation there are two sorrs according to the doctrine of all Diuines Some things say they are necessary to saluation necessitate praecepti necessary only because they are commaunded For If thou wilt (e) Matt. â—â— 17. enter into life keep the Commandements In which kind of things as probable ignorance of the Law or of the Commandement doth excuse the party from all faulty breach therof so likewise doth it not exclude saluation in case of ignorance Some other things are said to be necessary to saluation necessitate medij finis or salutis because they are Meanes appointed by God to attaine our End of eternall saluation in so strict a manner that it were presumption to hope for Saluation without them And as the former meanes are said to be necessary because they are commaunded so the later are commonly said to be commaunded because they are necessary that is Although there were no other speciall precept concerning them yet supposing they be once appointed as meanes absolutely necessary to saluation there cannot but rise an obligation of procuring to haue them in vertue of that vniuersall precept of Charity which obligeth euery man to procure the saluation of his owne soule In this sort diuine infallible Fayth is necessary to saluation as likewise repentance of euery deadly sinne and in the doctrine of Catholiques Baptisme in re that is in act to Children and for those who are come to the vse of reason in voto or harty desyre when they
argument of the Donatists which you say is all one with Ours but refer vs to S. Augustin there to read it as if euery one caried with him a Library or were able to examine the places in S. Augustine and yet you might be sure your Reader would be greedy to see some solid answere to an Argument so often vrged by vs and which indeed vnles you can confute it ought alone to moue euery one who hath care of his soule to take the safest way by incorporating himselfe in our Church But we may easily imagine the true reason of your silence For the answere which S. Augustine giues to the Donatists is directly against your selfe and the same which I haue giuen Namely that Catholiques (o) Ad lit Petil. lib. 2. cap. 108. approue the Baptisme of Donatists but abhor their heresy of Rebaptization And that as gold is good which is the similitude vsed by (p) Contrae Cresc lib. 1. cap. 21. S. Augustin yet not to be sought in company of theeues so though Baptisme be good yet it must not be sought for in the Conuenticle of Donatists But you free vs from damnable heresy and yield vs saluation which I hope is to be imbraced in whatsoeuer Company it is found or rather that Company is to be imbraced before all other in which all sides agree that saluation may be found We therfore must infer that it is safest for you to seeke saluation among vs. You had good reason to conceale S. Augustins answere to the Donatists 10. You frame another argument in our behalfe make vs speake thus If Protestants belieue the (q) pag. 79. Religion of Catholiques to be a safe way to Heauen why do they not follow it Which wise argument of your owne you answere at large and confirme your answere by this instance The Iesuits and Dominicans hold different Opinions touching Predetermination and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Yet so that the Iesuits hold the Dominicans way safe that is his errour not damnable and the Dominicans hold the same of the Iesuits Yet neither of them with good Consequence can presse the other to belieue his opinion because by his owne Confession it is no damnable error 11. But what Catholique maketh such a wise demaund as you put into our mouths If our Religion be a safe way to heauen that is not dānable why do you not follow it As if euery thing that is good must be of necessity imbraced by euery body But what thinke you of the Argument framed thus Our Religion is safe euen by your Confession therfore you ought to grant that all may imbrace it And yet further thus Among different Religions and contrary wayes to heauen one only can be safe But Ours by your owne Confession is safe wheras we hold that in yours there is no hope of saluation Therfore you may and ought to imbrace ours This is our Argument And if the Dominicans and Iesuits did say one to another as we say to you then one of them might with good consequence presse the other to belieue his opinion You haue still the hard fortune to be beaten with your owne weapon 12. It remaineth then that both in regard of Fayth and Charity Protestants are obliged to vnite themselues with the Church of Rome And I may add also in regard of the Theologicall Vertue of Hope without which none can hope to be saued and which you want either by excesse of Confidence or defect by Despaire not vnlike to your Fayth which I shewed to be either deficient in Certainty or excessiue in Euidence as likewise according to the rigid Caluinists it is either so strong that once had it can neuer be lost or so more then weake and so much nothing that it can neuer be gotten For the true Theologicall Hope of Christians is a Hope which keepes a meane betweene Presumption and Desperation which moues vs to worke our saluation with feare and trembling which conducts vs to make sure our saluation by good workes as holy Scripture aduiseth But contrarily Protestants do either exclude Hope by Despaire with the Doctrine that our Sauiour died not for all and that such want grace sufficient to saluation or else by vaine Presumption groūded vpon a fantasticall persuasion that they are Predestinate which Fayth must exclude all feare and trembling Neither can they make their Calling certaine by good workes who do certainly belieue that before any good workes they are iustified and iustified euen by Fayth alone and by that Faith wherby they certainly belieue that they are iustifyed Which points some Protestants do expresly affirme to be the soule of the Church the principall Origen of saluatiō Of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest as already I haue noted Chap. 3. n. 19. And if some Protestants do now relent from the rigour of the aforesaid doctrine we must affirme that at least some of them want the Theologicall Vertue of Hope yea that none of them can haue true Hope while they hope to be saued in the Communion of those who defend such doctrines as doe directly ouerthrow all true Christian Hope And for as much as concernes Fayth we must also infer that they want Vnity therin and consequently haue none at all by their disagreement about the soule of the Church the principall Origen of saluation of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest And if you want true Fayth you must by consequence want Hope or if you hold that this point is not to be so indiuisible on either side but that it hath latitude sufficient to imbrace all parties without preiudice to their saluation notwithstanding that your Brethren hold it to be the soule of the Church c. I must repeate what I haue said heertofore that euen by this Example it is cleere you cannot agree what points be fundamentall And so to whatsoeuer answere you fly I presse you in the same manner and say that you haue no Certainty whether you agree in fundamentall points or Vnity and substance of Fayth which cannot stand with difference in fundamentall And so vpon the whole matter I leaue it to be considered whether Want of Charity can be iustly charged on vs because we affirme that they cannot without repentance be saued who want of all other the most necessary meanes to saluation which are the three Theologicall Vertues FAITH HOPE and CHARITY 13. And now I end this first Part hauing as I conceiue complyed with my first designe in that measure which Tyme Commodity scarcity of Bookes and my owne small Abilities could affoard which was to shew that Amongst men of different Religions one side onely can be saued For since there must be some infallible Meanes to decide all Controuersies concerning Religion and to propound truth reuealed by Almighty God and this Meanes can be no other but the Visible Church of Christ which at the tyme of Luthers appearance was only the Church of
happines in body soule when they shall once haue attained it after the generall Resurrection which were a Request sauouring of Infidelity as if the Saints could be depriued of Beatitude once enioyed Now as for Azor he proues in the place cited by you that the Grecians do not altogether take away some kind of Purging fire but only seeme to deny a certaine determinate punishment of corporall fire Because sayth he they do truly offer Sacrifice and Prayers to God for the dead surely not for the Blessed nor for those which be damned in Hell which were plainely absurd and impious it must therfore be for them who are deceased with fayth and Piety but haue not fully satisfied for the temporall punishment due to their sinnes Is this to condemne the doctrine of Antiquity as absurd and impious Did Antiquity offer Sacrifice and Prayers for the damned Ghosts or for the Saints to satisfy for the paine due to their sinnes as Azor meanes speakes and therfore doth truly say it were absurd and impious Is not this to corrupt Authors 24. Wherfore vpon the whole matter we must conclude that Aërius was condemned by the Church and was reckoned among Heretiques and particularly by S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine for the selfe same Error which you maintaine To which Maior Proposition if we adde this Minor which Charity Mistaken expressely notes (m) Pag. 27. and you conceale But S. Augustine sayth Whosoeuer should hold any one of the Heresies by him recounted wherof this of Aërius is one were not a Christian Catholique The Conclusion will follow of it selfe 25. Would to God your selfe and all Protestants did seriously consider what accompt will be exacted at the last day of those who by their erroneous doctrine and opposition to the visible Church of Christ depriue the soules of faythfull people deceased of the many Prayers Sacrifices and other good deeds which in all rigour of Iustice are due to them by Title of founding Colledges Chanonryes Chantries Hospitals c. Lesse cruelty had it been to rob them of their Temporall goods or to bereaue them of their corporall liues then to haue abandoned them to the Torment of a fier which although as S. Augustine sayth (n) In Psal 37. is sleighted by worldly men yet indeed is more grieuous then whatsoeuer can be endured in this world Consider I say whether this manifest Iniustice though it did not proceed as it doth from hereticall perswasion were not alone sufficient to exclude saluation And so much of this point concerning Prayer for the dead 26. The words of S. Thomas whom you cite pag. 40. to strengthen your distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall do directly ouerthrow that sense and purpose for which you make vse of them For as much sayth he as belongs to the prime (o) 2.2 q. 2. art 5. in corpor Obiects of Beliefe which are the Articles of Fayth a man bound explicitely to belieue them as he is bound to haue Fayth But as for other Obiects of fayth a man is not bound to belieue them explicitely but only implicitely or in readines of mind for as much as he is ready to belieue whatsoeuer the holy Scripture containes But he is bound to belieue them explicitely only when it appeares to him that it is contained in the doctrine of fayth Now our Question is not about nescience or ignorance of some points of fayth but of disagreeing concerning them one denying what another affirmes in which case according to the aforesaid doctrine of S. Thomas there is neither explicite nor implicite Beliefe of such points but positiue direct error in them and therfore such disagreement cannot stand with Vnity of fayth It is strange Diuinity to confound as you do points secundary or not fundamentall with probable points For how many millions of Truths are there contained in Scripture which are not of their owne nature prime Articles Will you therfore infer that they are but probable Primary and secundary respect the matter which we belieue Probable and certaine are deriued from the formall reason or motiue for which we belieue Let two disagree in some points euen fundamentall yet not sufficiently propounded as reuealed Truths they still retaine the same fayth and contrarily put case that two agree in all fundamentall points if they disagree in any secundary point sufficiently applied to their vnderstanding as a reuealed truth then the one must be an Heretique and differ from the other in the very nature and substance of fayth For as in a Musicall Consort say you a discord (p) pag. 40. now and then so it be in the Descant and depart not from the ground sweetens the Harmony so say I retorting your own sweet similitude because euery least error opposing a reuealed Truth is not in the Descant but departs from the ground of fayth which is the attestation of God it doth not sweeten the Harmony but destroyes the substance of Fayth And heerafter it shal be shewed that you wrong Stapleton no lesse (q) Infra chap. 5. num 17. then you do S. Thomas 27. That Variety of Opinions or Rites in parts of the Church doth rather commend then preiudice the Vnity of the whole you pretend to proue out of (s) Epist. 75. apud Cypr. Farmilianus in an Epistle to S. Cyprian which doctrine though it be true in some sense yet according to your application it is pernicious as if it were sufficient to Vnity of Fayth that men agree in certaine fundamentall points though they vary in other matters concerning fayth And you should haue obserued that Firmilianus who wrote that Epistle in fauour of S. Cyprians error about Rebaptization speakes in that place of the Custome of keeping Easter which point after it was once defined remained no more indifferent but grew to be a necessary Obiect of Beliefe in so much that the Heretiques called Quartadecimani were for that point condemned and anathematized by the Vniuersall Church in the Councels of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus Wherby it is euident that though some point be not in it selfe fundamentall yet if it be once defined by the Church the Errour degenerates into Heresy Your Charity is alwayes Mistaken aduantaging your Aduersary by your owne Arguments 28. I said already that to be separate from the Church for Heresy or Schisme destroies Saluation because persons lyable to those crimes are in the Church neither in re nor in voto neither in fact nor in effectuall desire as Cathecumens are and as Excommunicate persons may be if repenting their former Obstinacy they cannot by reason of some extrinsecall impediment obtaine Absolution from the Censure 29. You extend your Charity so far to Infidels as to forget fidelity in relating what Catholique Deuines teach concerning them not telling whether they require some supernaturall fayth at lest for some Obiect and quoting Authors with so great affected confusion that a man would thinke them to maintaine the opinion which they
Victor had excommunicated and so they came to be ranked among Heretiques vnder the name of Quartadecimam You may know what opinion S. Irenaeus had of Popes by these words Euery Church ought to haue recourse (h) Aduers Haeres lib. 3. cap. 3. to Rome by reason of her more powerfull Principality And euen in this your instance Eusebius doth only say that Irenaeus did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he should not cut off all the Churches of God which held this ancient Tradition Which exhortation doth necessarily imply that Pope Victor had Power to do it as I said already And now I pray you reflect vpon your precipitation in saying of Vactor and Stephen Their Censures (i) Pag. 50. were much sleighted and their Pride and Schisme in troubling the peace of the Church much condemned For they did nothing which was not approued by the vniuersall Church of God and the Doctrines which they condemned were no lesse then hereticall And therfore to answere also to what you obiect pag. 52. If the British and Scotish Bishops did adhere to the Churches of Asta in their Celebration of Easter after the matter was knowne to be defined by the Church their example can only be approued by such as your selfe nor can it either impeach the Authority or darken the proceeding of the Pope You cite Baronius (l) Aun 604. in the Margent who directly against you relates out of Bede that when our Apostle S. Augustine could neither by Arguments nor by Miracles wrought in their presence bow their stifnes he prophefied that they should perish by the English as afterwards it hapned But you are a fit Champion for such men and they no lesse fit examples to be alleaged against the Authority of the Roman Church 33. Your other example that S. Augustine and diuers other Bishops of Africa and their Successours for one hundred yeares together were senered from the Roman Communion is manifestly vntrue in S. Augustine and some other chiefe Bishops For when king Thrasimundus had banished into Sardinia almost all the Bishops to wit two hundred and twenty Pope Symmachus maintained them at his owne charges as persons belonging to his Communion To the Epistle of Boniface the second to Eulalius Bishop of Alexandria and the Epistle of Eulalius to the same Boniface recited by you out of which it is gathered that after the sixt Councell of Carthage for the space of one hundred yeares the Bishops of Carthage were separated from the Communion of the Roman Church that in the end they were reconciled to her Eulalius submitting himselfe to the Apostolique Sea and anathematizing his Predecessors Bellarmine (m) de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 25. answereth that these Epistles may iustly be suspected to be Apochryphall for diuers reasons which he alleageth and it seemeth also by your owne words that you do doubt of them For you say If their owne Records (n) Pag. 50 be true Yet if they be authenticall their meaning cannot be that all the Predecessors of Eulalius were for so long space diuided from the Roman Church the contrary being most manifest not only in S. Augustine who kept most strict amity with Zozimus Innocentius and Celestinus Popes but also in S. Fulgentius and others but it must be vnderstood only of some Bishops of Carthage and in particular of Eulalius himselfe till he being informed of the truth submitted himselfe to the Roman Church And you ought rather to haue alleaged his submission and condemnation of his Predecessors to proue the Popes Authority ouer the African Church then to obiect against it the example of some of his Predecessors of himselfe who afterward repented and condemned his owne fact You do well only to mention the Protensions and forgeries of the sea of Rome in the matter of Appeales For you may know that Bellarmine (o) Vbisup doth so fully answere that point as nothing can be more effectuall to proue the Popes Supremacy in Africa then the right of Appeales from Africa to Rome in causes of greater moment 34. Your last instance about three Chapters of the Councell of Chalcedon condemned by the fifth Generall Councell the Bishop of Rome at length consenting for which diuers Bishops of Italy and also the Bishops of Ireland did ioyntly depart from the Church of Rome is like to your former Obiections For Baronius whome you cite in your Margent hath these words as coÌ„trary to your purpose as may be Hence was it that the (q) Ann. 553. num 14. apud Spond Bishops of Venice the adicyning Regions did gathâ—â— together a Councell at Aquileia agaynst the Fifth Synode and the diuisions at length went as farre as â—reland for all these relying on the Decree of Vigilius Pope persuaded themselues that they might doe it Is this to depart from the Pope or the Roman Church to oppose that which he is thought to oppose formally because he is thought to oppose it Now as for the thing it selfe when Vigilius had afterward condeÌ„ned the three Chapters which at the first he refused to doe and had confirmed the fifth Councell which had coÌ„demned them whosoeuer opposed that Condemnation were accounted Schismatiques by the whole Catholique Church which plainly shewes the Popes Authority and therefore whatsoeuer Bishops had opposed Vigilius their example could proue no more then the faction of rebellious persons can preiudice the right of a lawfull King And in fine all this Controuersy did nothing concerne any matter of faith but only in fact and not doctrine but persons as may be seen at large in Baronius Neither was it betwixt Catholiques and Heretiques but among Catholiques themselues The rest of your Section needs no answere at all Only whereas you say Whosoeuer willfully opposeth (r) Pag. 57 any Catholique Verity maintayned by the Catholique Visible Church as doe Heretiques or peruersly diuides himselfe from the Catholique Communion as doe Schismatiques the Condition of both them is damnable What vnderstand you by Catholique verities of the Catholique Church Are not all Verityes mayntayned by the Catholique Church Catholique Verities or how do you now distinguish Heresy and Schisme from the Catholique Communion You tells vs pag. 76. that it is the property of Schisme to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Saluation the Church from which it separats and is it not an Heresy to cut off from the Body of Christ hope of Saluation the Catholike Church How then can one according to your principles be a Schismatique from the Catholique Church not be iointly an Heretique CHAP. III. THE Protestants (a) Pag. 59. neuer intended to erect a new Church but to purge the Old The Reformation did not change the substaÌ„ce of Religion but only cleansed it from corrupt and impure Qualities Therfore say we the visible Church extaÌ„t before those your cleansing dayes had still hath the substance of Religion and so according to your owne ground we are safe if
fayth Or that the Church of Rome as it signifies that particuler Church or diocesse is not all one with the vniuersall Church Or that the Pope as a priuate Doctour may erre With many other such points as will easily appeare in their proper places It wil also be necessary for him not to put certaine Doctrines vpon vs from which he knowes we disclaime as much as himselfe 10. I must in like manner intreate him not to recite my reasons discourses by halfes but to set theÌ„ down faythfully entirely for as much as in very deed concernes the whole substance of the thing in questioÌ„ because the want somtime of one word may chance to make voyd or lessen the force of the whole argumeÌ„t And I am the more solicitous about giuing this particuler caueat because I find how ill he hath complied with the promise which he made in his Preface to the Reader not to omit without answere any one thing of moment in all the discourse of Charity Mistaken Neither will this course be a cause that his Reioynder grow too large but it will be occasion of breuity to him and free me also from the paines of setting downe all the words which he omits and himself of demonstrating that what he omitted was not materiall Nay I will assure him that if he keep himselfe to the point of euery difficulty and not weary the Reader and ouercharge his margent with vnnecessary quotations of Authors in Greeke and Latin and sometime also in Italian and French togeather with prouerbs sentences of Poets and such grammaticall stuffe nor affect to cite a multitude of our Catholique Schoole deuines to no purpose at all his Booke will not exceed a competent size nor will any man in reason be offended with that length which is regulated by necessity Agayne before he come to set downe his answere or propose his Arguments let him consider very wel what may be replied and whether his owne obiections may not be retorted against himselfe as the Reader will perceiue to haue hapned often to his disaduantage in my Reply against him But especially I expect and Truth it selfe exacts at his hand that he speake cleerly and distinctly and not seeke to walke in darknes so to delude and deceiue his Reader now saying and then denying and alwayes speaking with such ambiguity as that his greatest care may seeme to consist in a certaine art to find a shift as his occasions might chance eyther now or heereafter to require and as he might fall out to be vrged by diuernty of seuerall arguments And to the end it may appeare that I deale plainely as I would haue him also do I desire that he declare himselfe concerning these points 11. First whether our Sauiour Christ haue not alwayes had and be not euer to haue a visible true Church on earth whether the contrary doctrine be not a damnable Heresy 12. Secondly what visible Church there was before Luther disagreeing from the Roman Church and agreeing with the pretended Church of Protestants 13. Thirdly Since he will be forced to grant that there caÌ„ be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as agreed with her when Luther first appeared whether it do not follow that she hath not erred fundamentally because euery such errour destroies the nature and being of the Church and so our Sauiour Christ should haue had no visible Church on earth 14. Fourthly if the Roman Church did not fall into any fundamentall errour let him tell vs how it can be damnable to liue in her Communion or to maintaine errours which are knowne confessed not to be fundamentall or damnable 15. Fiftly if her Errours were not damnable nor did exclude saluation how can they be excused from Schisme who forsooke her Communion vpon pretence of errours which were not damnable 16. Sixtly if D. Potter haue a mind to say that her Errours are damnable or fundamentall let him do vs so much charity as to tell vs in particuler what those fundamentall errours be But he must still remember and my selfe must be excused for repeating it that if he say the Roman Church eâ—â—ed fundamentally he will not be able to shew that Christ our Lord had any visible Church on earth when Luther appeared let him tel vs how Protestants had or can haue any Church which was vniuersall and extended herselfe to all ages if once he grant that the Roman Church ceased to be the true Church of Christ and consequenly how they can hope for Saluation if they deny it to vs. 17. Seauenthly whether any one Errour maintayned against any one Truth though neuer so small in it selfe yet sufficiently propounded as testified or reuealed by almighty God do not destroy the Nature and Vnity of Faith or at least is not a grieuous offence excluding Saluation 18. Eightly if this be so how can Lutherans Caluinists Zuinglians and all the rest of disagreeing ProtestaÌ„ts hope for saluation since it is manifest that some of them must needs erre against some such truth as is testified by almighty God either fundamentall or at least not fundamentall 19. Ninthly we constantly vrge and require to haue a particuler Catalogue of such points as he calls fundamentall A catalogue I say in particuler and not only some generall definition or description wherein Protestants may perhaps agree though we see that they differ when they come to assigne what points in particuler be fundamentall and yet vpon such a particuler Catalogue much depends as for example in particuler whether or no a maÌ„ do not erre in some point fundamentall or necessary to saluation and whether or no Lutherans Caluinists and the rest do disagree in fundamentals which if they do the same Heauen cannot receiue them all 20. Tenthly and lastly I desire that in answering to these points he would let vs know distinctly what is the doctrine of the Protâ—stant English Church concerning them and what he vtters only as his owne priuate opinion 21. These are the questions which for the present I find it fit and necessary for me to aske of D. Potter or any other who will defend his cause or impugne ours And it will be in vaine to speake vainely and to tell me that a Foole may aske more questions in an houre then a wiseman can answere in a yeare with such idle Prouerbs as that For I aske but such questions as for which he giues occasion in his Booke and where he declares not himselfe but after so ambiguous and confused a manner as that Truth it selfe can scarce tell how to conuince him so but that with ignorant and ill-iudging men he will seeme to haue somewhat left to say for himselfe though Papists as he calls them and Puritans should presse him contrary wayes at the same tyme and these questions concerne things also of high importance as wherevpon the knowledge of Gods Church true Religion and consequently Saluation of
This is my Body This is my bloud translates This signifies my Body This signifies my bloud And heere let Protestants consider duely of these points Saluation cannot be hoped for without true faith Faith according to them relies vpon Scripture alone Scripture must be deliuered to most of them by the Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certaine then a most certaine possibility to erre and no greater euidence of Truth then that it is euident some of them imbrace falshood by reason of their contrary translations What then remaineth but that truth faith saluation all must in them rely vpon a fallible and vncertaine ground How many poore soules are lamentably seduced while from preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of Texts of diuine Scripture but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therfore if they will be assured of true Scriptures fly to the alwayes visible Catholique Church against which the gates of hell can neuer so far preuaile as that she shall be permitted to deceiue the Christian world with false Scriptures And Luther himselfe by vnfortunate experience was at length forced to confesse thus much saying If the (s) lib cont Zwingl de verit corp Christi in Euchar. world last longer it will be againe necessary to receiue the Decrees of Councels to haue recourse to them by reason of diuers interpretations of Scripture which now raigne On the contrary side the Translation approued by the Roman Church is commended euen by our Aduersaries and D. Couell in particuler sayth that it was vsed in the Church one thousand (t) In his answere vnto M. John Burges pag. 94. three hundred yeares agoe and doubteth not to prefer (u) Ibid. that Translation before others In so much that whereas the English translations be many and among themselues disagreeing he concludeth that of all those the approued translation authorized by the Church of England is that which commeth nearest to the vulgar and is commonly called the Bishops Bible So that the truth of that translation which we vse must be the rule to iudge of the goodnesse of their Bibles and therefore they are obliged to maintaine our Translation if it were but for their owne sake 17. But doth indeed the source of their manifold vncertainties stop heer No! The chiefest difficulty remaines concerning the true meaning of Scripture for attayning whereof if Protestants had any certainty they could not disagree so hugely as they do Hence M. Hooker saith We are (w) In his Preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiasticall Policy Sect. 6. 26. right sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience haue all taught the world to seeke for the ending of contentions by submitting it selfe vnto some iudiciall and definitiue sentence whereunto neither part that contendeth may vnder any pretence refuse to stand D. Fields words are remarkable to this purpose Seeing saith he the controuersies (x) In his Treatise of the Church In his Epistle dedicatory to the L. Archbishop of Religion in our times are growne in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure fewer strength of vnder standing to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societyes in the world is that blessed Company of holy Ones that houâ—â—â—ould of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the liuing God which is the Pillar and ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her iudgment 18. And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture ought to be receiued from the Church it is also proued by what we haue already demonstrated that she it is who must declare what Bookes be true Scripture wherein if she be assisted by the Holy Ghost why should we not belieue her to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them Let Protestants therfore eyther bring some proofe out of Scripture that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost in discerning true Scripture and not in deliuering the true sense thereof Or els giue vs leaue to apply against them the argument which S. Augustine opposed to the Manicheans in these words I would not (y) Cont. ep Fund cap. 5. belieue the Gospel vnles the authority of the Church did moue me Them therfore whom I obeyed saying Belieue the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me Do not belieue Manichaeus Luther Caluin c. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say Belieue the Catholiques They warne me not to giue any credit to you If therefore I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say Do not belieue the Catholiques thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus because by the preaching of Catholiques I belieued the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them Catholiques commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommending Manichaeus Dost thou thinke me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should belieue what thou wilts not belieue what thou wilts not And do not ProtestaÌ„ts perfectly resemble these men to whom S. Augustine spake when they will haue men to belieue the Roman Church deliuering Scripture but not to belieue her condemning Luther and the rest Against whom when they first opposed themselues to the Roman Church S. Augustine may seeme to haue spoken no lesse prophetically then doctrinally when he said Why should I not most (z) lib. de vtil cre cap. 14. diligenily inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose authority I was moued to belieue that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he said whom I would not haue thought to haue been or to be if the beliefe thereof had been recommended by thee to me This therefore I belieued by fame strengthned with celebrity consent Antiquity But euery one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deseruing authority What madnes is this Belieue them Catholiques that wrought to belieue Christ but learne of vs what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ then that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I belieued him If therefore we receiue the knowledge of Christ and Scriptures from the Church from her also must we take his doctrine and the interpretation thereof 19. But besides all this the Scriptures cannot be Iudge of Controuersies who ought to be such as that to him not only the learned or Veterans but also the vnlearned and Nouices may haue recourse for these being capable of saluation and endued with faith of the same nature with that of the learned there must
gained by holy Scripture which ought to be far from our tongues and thoughts it being manifest that for decision of Controuersies infallibility setled in a liuing Iudge is incomparably more vsefull and fit then if it were conceiued as inherent in some inanimate writing Is there such repugnance betwixt Infallibility in the Church and Existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Must the Church wax dry by giuing to her Children the milke of sacred Writ No No. Her Infallibility was and is deriued from an inexhausted fountaine If Protestants will haue the Scripture alone for their Iudge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof Infallibility went out of the Church D. Potter may remember what himselfe teacheth That the Church is stil endewed with infallibility in points fundamentall and consequently that infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the truth the sanctity yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to Saluation I would therfore glaâ—ly know out of what Text he imagineth that the Church by the comming of Scripture was depriued of infallibility in some points not in others He affirmeth that the Iewish Synagogue retained infallibility in her selfe notwithstanding the writing of the Old Testament and will he so vnworthily and vniustly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibility by reason of the New Testament Especially of we consider that in the Old Testament Lawes Ceremonies Rites Punishments iudgments Sacraments Sacrifices c. were more particulerly and minutely deliuered to the Iewes then in the New Testament is done our Sauiour leauing the determination or declaration of particulers to his Spouse the Church which therefore stands in need of Infallibility more then the Iewish Synagogue D. Potter (i) Pag. 24. against this argument drawne from the power and infallibility of the Synagogue obiects that we might as well infer that Christians must haue one soueraigne Prince ouer all because the Iewes had one chiefe Iudge But the disparity is very cleare The Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ not so their ciuill gouernmeÌ„t of Christian Common-wealths or kingdomes The Church succeeded to the Synagogue but not Christian Princes to Iewish Magistrates And the Church is compared to a howse or (k) Heb. 13. family to an (l) Cant. 2. Army to a (m) 1. Cor. 10. Ephes 4. body to a (n) Matt. 12 kingdome c. all which require one Maister one Generall one head one Magistrate one spirituall King as our blessed Sauiour with fiet Vnum ouile (o) Ioan. c. 10. ioyned Vnus Pastor One sheepefold one Pastour But all distinct kingdomes or Common-wealths are not one Army Family c. And finally it is necessary to saluation that all haue recourse to one Church but for temporall weale there is no need that all submit or depend vpon one temporall Prince kingdome or Common-wealth and therefore our Samour hath left to his whole Church as being One one Law one Scripture the same Sacraments c. Whereas kingdomes haue their seuerall Lawes disterent gouernments diuersity of Powers Magistracy c. And so this obiection returneth vpon D. Potter For as in the One Community of the Iewes there was one Power and Iudge to end debates and resolue difficulties so in the Church of Christ which is One there must be some one Authority to decide all Controuersies in Religion 24. This discourse is excellently proued by ancient S. Irenaeus (p) lib. 3. c. 4 in these words What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they deliuered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many Nations yield assent who belieue in Christ hauing saluation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or Inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receiue the truth from God's Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich Storehowse all things belonging to truth For what if there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question 25 Besides all this the doctrine of Protestants is destructiue of it selfe For either they haue certaine and infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting Scripture or they haue not If not then the Scripture to them cannot be a sufficient grouÌ„d for infallible faith nor a meete Iudge of Controuersies If they haue certaine infallible meanes and so cannot erre in their interpretations of Scriptures then they are able with infallibility to heare examine and determine all controuersies of faith and so they may be and are Iudges of Controuersies although they vse the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their owne doctrine they constitute an other Iudge of Controuersies besides Scripture alone 26. Lastly I aske D. Potter whether this Assertion Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controuersies in faith be a fundamentall point of faith or no He must be well aduised before he say that it is a fundamentall point For he will haue against him as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone it is impossible to know what Bookes be Scripture which yet to Protestants is the most necessary and chiefe point of all other D. Couell expressely saith Doubtles (q) In his defence of M. Hokers bookes art 4. p. 31. it is a tolerable opinion in the Church of Rome if they goe no further as some of them do not he should haue said as none of them doe to affirme that the Scriptures are holy and diuine in themselues but so esteemed by vs for the authority of the Church He will likewise oppose himselfe to those his Brethren who grant that Controuersies cannot be ended without some externall liuing authority as we noted before Besides how can it be in vs a fundamentall errour to say the Scripture alone is not Iudge of Controuersies seing notwithstanding this our beliefe we vse for interpreting of Scripture all the meanes which they prescribe as Prayer Conferring of places Consulting the Originals c. and to these add the Instruction and Authority of God's Church which euen by his Confession cannot erre damnably and may affoard vs more help then can be expected from the industry learning or wit of any priuate person finally D Potter grants that the Church of Rome doth not maintaine any fundamentall error against faith and consequently he cannot affirme that our doctrine in this present Controuersy is damnable If he answere that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only Iudge of Controuersies is not a fundamentall point of faith then as he teacheth that the vniuersall Church may erre in points not fundamentall so I hope he will not deny but particuler Churches and priuate men are much more obnoxious to error in such
heard that what the Church teacheth is truly said to be taught by Scripture and consequently to deny this particuler point deliuered by the Church is to oppose Scripture it selfe Yet if he will needs hold that this point is not fundamentall we must conclude out of S. Augustine as we did concerning the baptizing of Children that the infallibility of the Church reacheth to points not fundamentall The same Father in another place concerning this very question of the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretiques sayth The (a) De Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this but this Custome ought to be belieued to be originally taken from their tradition as there are many things that the vniuersall Church obserueth which are therfore with good reason belieued to haue beene commanded by the Apostles although they be not written No lesse cleere is S. Chrysostome for the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church For treating these words 2. Thess 2. Stand and hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether by speach or by our Epistle saith Hence it is (b) Hom. 4. manifest that they deliuered not all things by letter but many things also without writing these also are worthy of beliefe Let vs therfore account the tradition of the Church to be worthy of beliefe It is a Tradition Seeke no more Which words are so plaine against Protestants that Whitaker is as plaine with S. Chrysostome saying I answere (c) De Sacra Script pag. 678. that this is an inconsiderate speach and vnworthy so great a Father But let vs conclude with S. Augustine that the Church cannot approue any error against fayth or good manners The Church sayth he being (d) Ep. 119. placed betwixt much chasse cockle doth tollerate many things but yet she doth not approue nor dissemble nor do those things which are against fayth or good life 17. And as I haue proued that Protestants according to their grounds cannot yield infallible assent to the Church in any one point so by the same reason I proue that they cannot rely vpon Scripture it selfe in any one point of sayth Not in points of lesser moment or not fundamentall because in such points the Catholique Church according to D. Potter and much more any Protestant may erre thinke it is contained in Scripture when it is not Not in points fundamentall because they must first know what points be fundamentall before they can be assured that they cannot erre in vnderstanding the Scripture and consequently independantly of Scripture they must foreknow all fundamentall points of fayth and therfore they do not indeed rely vpon Scripture either for fundamentall or not fundamentall points 18. Besides I mainely vrge D. Potter and other Protestants that they tell vs of certaine points which they call fundamentall and we cannot wrest from them a list in particuler of such points without which no man can tell whether or no he erre in points fundamentall and be capable of saluation And which is most lamentable insteed of giuing vs such a Catalogue they fall to wrangle among themselues about the making of it 19. Caluin holds the (e) Instit. l. 4. çap. 2. Popes Primacy Inuocation of Saints Freewill and such like to be fundamentall errors ouerthrowing the Gospell Others are not of his mind as Melancthon who sayth in (f) Cent. Ep. Theolog. cp 74. the opinion of himselfe and other his Brethren That the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is of vse or profit to this end that Consent of Doctrine may be retained An agreement therfore may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Primacy if other Articles could be agreed vpon If the Popes Primacy be a meanes that consent of Doctrine may be retained first submit to it and other articles wil be easily agreed vpon Luther also sayth of the Popes Primacy it may be borne (g) In Assertionibus art 36. withâ—â— And why then O Luther did you not beare with it And how can you and your followers be excused from damnable Schisme who chose rather to deuide Gods Church then to beare with that which you confesse may be borne withall But let vs go forward That the doctrine of free-will Prayer for the dead worshipping of Images Worship and Inuocation of Saints Reall presence Transubstantiation Receauing vnder one kind Satisfaction and Merit of workes and the Masse be not fundamentall Errours is taught respectiuè by diuers Protestants carefully alledged in the Protestants (h) Tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 14. after F. Apology c. as namely by Perkins Cartwright Frith Fulke Henry Spark Goade Luther Reynolds Whitaker Tindall Francis Fohnson with others Contrary to these is the Confession of the Christian fayth so called by ProtestaÌ„ts which I mentioned (i) Cap. 1. n. 4. heertofore wherin we are damned vnto vnquencheable fire for the doctrine of Masse Prayer to Saints and for the dead Freewill Presence at Idol-seruice Mans merit with such like IustificatioÌ„ by saith alone is by some Protestants affirmed to be the soule of the (k) Chark in the Tower disputation the 4. dayes conference Church The only principall origen of (l) Fox Act. Monn pag. 402. Saluation of all other points of (m) The Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 253. dectrine the chiefest and weightiâ—st Which yet as we haue seen is coÌ„trary to other Protestants who teach that merit of good workes is not a fundamentall Errour yea diuers Protestants defend merit of good works as may be seene in (n) Tract 3. Sect. 7. vnder nt n. 15. Brereley One would thinke that the Kings Supremacy for which some blessed men lost their liues was once among Protestants held for a Capitall point but now D. Andrewes late of Winchester in his booke agaynst Bellarmine tells vs that it is sufficient to reckon it among true doctrines And Wotton denies that Protestants (o) In his answere to a Popish pamphlet p. 68. Hold the Kings Supremacy to be an essentiall point of fayth O freedome of the new Ghospell Hold with Catholiques the Pope or with Protestants the King or with Puritanes neyther Pope nor King to be Head of the Church all is one you may be saued Some as Castalio (p) Vid. Gul. Reginald Caln Turcism lib. 2. çap. 6. and the whole Sect of the Academicall Protestants hold that doctrines about the Supper Baptisme the state and office of Christ how he is one with his Father the Trinity Predestination and diuers other such questions are not necessary to SaluatioÌ„ And that you may obserue how vngrounded and partiall their Assertions be Perkins teacheth that the Reall presence of our Sauiours Body in the SacrameÌ„t as it is belieued by Catholiques is a fundamentall errour and yet affirmeth the Consubstantiation of Lutherans not to be such notwithstaÌ„ding that diuers chiefe Lutherans to their Consubstantiation ioyne the prodigious Heresy of Vbiquitation D. Vshher in
corruptions in doctrine I still speake vpon the vntrue supposition of our Aduersaries could not affoard any sufficieÌ„t cause or colourable necessity to depart from that visible Church which was extant when Luther rose I demonstrate out of D. Potters own confession that the Catholique Church neither hath nor can erre in points fundamentall as we shewed out of his owne expresse words which he also of set purpose deliuereth in diuers other places and all they are obliged to maintaine the same who teach that Christ had alwayes a visible Church vpon earth because any one fundamentall error ouerthrowes the being of a true Church Now as Schoolemen speake it is implicatio in terminis a contradiction so plaine that one word destroyeth the other as if one should say a liuing dead man to affirme that the Church doth not erre in points necessary to saluation or damnably yet that it is damnable to remaine in her Communion because she teacheth errors which are confessed not to be damnable For if the error be not damnable nor against any fundamentall Article of Fayth the beliefe therof cannot be damnable But D. Potter teacheth that the Catholique Church cannot and that the Roman Church hath not erred against any fundamentall Article of Fayth Therfore it cannot be damnable to remaine in her Communion and so the pretended corruptions in her doctrine could not induce any obligation to depart from her Communion nor could excuse them from Schisme who vpon preteÌ„ce of necessity in point of conscience forsooke her And D. Potter will neuer be able to salue a manifest contradiction in these his words To depart from the Church (a) Pag. 75. of Rome in some Doctrine and practises there might be necessary cause though she wanted nothing necessary to saluation For if notwithstanding these doctrines and practises she wanted nothing necessary to saluation how could it be necessary to saluation to forsake her And therfore we must still coÌ„ clude that to forsake her was properly an act of Schisme 20. From the selfe same ground of the infallibility of the Church in all fundamentall points I argue after this manner The visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnation vpon pretence that it is damnable to remaine in her Communion by reason of corruption in doctrine as long as for the truth of her Fayth and beliefe she performeth the duty which she oweth to God and her Neighbour As long as she performeth what our Sauiour exacts at her hands as long as she doth as much as lies in her power to do But euen according to D Potters Assertions the Church performeth all these things as long as she erreth not in points fundamentall although she were supposed to erre in other points not fundamentall Therefore the Communion of the Visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnatioÌ„ vpon pretence that it is damnable to remaine in her Communion by reason of corruption in doctrine The Maior or first Proposition of it selfe is euident The Minor or second Proposition doth necessarily fellow out of D. Potters owne doctrine aboue rehearsed That the promises of our Lord made to his Church for his assistance are to be (b) Pag. 151. extended only to points of Fayth or fundamentall Let me note heer by the way that by his Or he seemes to exclude from Fayth all points which are not fundamentall so we may deny innumerable Texts of Scripture That It is (c) pag. 155. comfort inough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers c. but she may not hope to triumph ouer all sinne and error till she be in heauen For it is euident that the Church for as much as concernes the truth of her doctrines and beliefe owes no more duty to God and her Neighbour neither doth our Sauiour exact more at her hands nor is it in her power to do more then God doth assist her to doe which assistaÌ„ce is promised only for points fundamentall and consequently as long as she teacheth no fundamentall error her CoÌ„munion cannot without damnation be forsakeÌ„ And we may fitly apply against D. Potter a Concionatory declamation which he makes against vs where he sayth (d) pag. 221. May the Church of after Ages make the narrow way to heauen narrowier then our Sauiour left it c since he himselfe obligeth men vnder paine of damnation to forsake the Church by reason of errours against which our Sauiour thought it needles to promise his assistance and for which he neither denieth his grace in this life or glory in the next Will D. Potter oblige the Church to do more then she may euen hope for or to performe on earth that which is proper to heauen alone 21. And as from your owne doctrine concerning the infallibility of the Church in fundamentall points we haue proued that it was a grieuous sinne to forsake her so doe we take a strong argument from the fallibility of any who dare pretend to reforme the Church which any man in his wits will belieue to be indued with at last as much infallibility as priuate men can challenge and D. Potter expressely affirmeth that Christs promises of his assistance are not intended (e) Pag. 1â—1 to any particuler persons or Churches and therefore to leaue the Church by reason of errours was at the best hand but to flit from one erring company to another without any new hope of triumphing ouer errours and without necessity or vtility to forsake that Communion of which S. Augustine sayth There is (f) Ep. conâ— Parmen lth 2. çap. 11. no iust necessity to diuide Vnity Which will appeare to be much more euident if we coÌ„sider that though the Church had maintained some false doctrines yet to leaue her Communion to remedy the old were but to add a new increase of errors arising from the innumerable disagreements of Sectaries which must needs bring with it a mighty masse of falshoods because the truth is but one indiuisible And this reason is yet stronger if we still remember that euen according to D. Potter the visible Church hath a blessing not to erre in points fundamentall in which any priuate Reformer may faile and therfore they could not pretend any necessity to forsake that Church out of whose Communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more and euen into damnable errors Remember I pray you what your selfe affirmes Pag. 69. where speaking of our Church and yours you say All the difference is from the weeds which remaine there and beere are taken away Yet neither heere perfectly nor euery where alike Behold a faire coÌ„fession of corruptioÌ„s still remayning in your Church which you can only excuse by saying they are not fundameÌ„tal as like wise those in the Roman Church are confessed to be not fundamentall What man of iudgment wil be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupt One 22. I still proceed to impugne you expresly vpon your grounds
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
light but rather his vnderstanding is by a necessity made captiue and forced not to disbelieued what is presented by so cleere a light And therefore your imaginary fayth is not the true fayth defined by the Apostle but an inuention of your owne 31. That the fayth of Protestants wanteth the third Condition which was Prudence Their faith wants Prudence is deduced from all that hitherto hath beene sayd What wisdome was it to forsake a Church cōfessedly very ancient and besids which there could be demonstrated no other visible Church of Christ vpon earth A Church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Saluatiō endued with Succession of Bishops with Visibility and Vniuersality of Tyme and Place A Church which if it be not the true Church her enemies cannot pretend to haue any Church Ordination Scriptures Succession c. and are forced for their owne sake to maintaine her perpetuall Existence and Being To leaue I say such a Church frame a Community without eyther Vnity or meanes to procure it a Church which at Luthers first reuolt had no larger extent then where his body was A Church without Vniuersality of place or Tyme A Church which can pretend no Visibility or Being except only in that former Church which it opposeth A Church void of Succession of Persons or Doctrine What wisdome was it to follow such men as Luther in an opposition against the visible Church of Christ begun vpon meere passion What wisdome is it to receiue from Vs a Church Ordination Scriptures Personall Succession and not Succession of Doctrine Is not this to verify the name of Heresy which signifieth Election or Choyce Wherby they cannot auoid that note of Imprudency or as S. Augustine cals it Foolishnes set downe by him against the Manichees and by me recited before I would not sayth he belieue (r) Cont. ep Fund ç. 5. the Gospell vnles the Authority of the Church did moue me Those therfore whom I obeyed saying Belieue the Gospell why should I not obey the same men saying to me Do not belieue Manichaeus Luther Caluin c. Chuse what thou pleasest If thou say Belieue the Catholiques they warne me not to belieue thee Wherfore if I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say Do not belieue the Catholiques thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the fayth of Manichaeus because by the Preaching of Catholiques I belieued the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them Catholiques commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommending Manichaeus dost thou thinke me so very FOOLISH that without any reason at all I should belieue what thou wilt and not belieue what thou wilt not Nay this holy Father is not content to call it Foolishnes but meere Madnes in these words Why should I not most diligently enquire (s) Lib. de vtil Cred. ç. 14. what Christ commaunded of those before all others by whose Authority I was moued to belieue that Christ commaunded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he said whom I would not haue thought to haue been or to be if the Beliefe therof had been recommended by thee to me This therfore I belieued by fame strengthned with Celebrity Consent Antiquity But euery one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing which deserues Authority What MADNES is this Belieue them Catholiques that we ought to belieue Christ but learne of vs what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ then I should learne any thing concerning him from any other then those by whom I belieued him Lastly I aske what wisdome it could be to leaue all visible Churches and consequently the true Catholique Church of Christ which you confesse cannot erre in points necessary to saluation and the Roman Church which you grant doth not erre in fundamentalls and follow priuate men who may erre euen in points necessary to saluation Especially if we add that when Luther rose there was no visible true Catholique Church besides that of Rome and them who agreed with her in which sense she was is the only true Church of Christ and not capable of any Error in fayth Nay euen Luther who first opposed the Roman Church yet comming to dispute against other Heretiques he is forced to giue the Lye both to his owne words and deeds in saying We freely confesse (t) In epist cont Anab. ad duos Paerochos to 2 Germ. Witt. fol. 229. 230. that in the Papacy there are many good things worthy the name of Christian which haue come from them to vs. Namely we confesse that in the Papacy there is true Scripture true Baptisme the true Sacrament of the Aultar the true keyes for remission of sinnes the true Office of Preaching true Catechisme as our Lords Prayer Ten Commandements Articles of fayth c. And afterward I auouch that vnder the Papacy there is true Christianity yea the Kernel and Marrow of Christianity and many pious and great Saints And againe he affirmeth that the Church of Rome hath the true Spirit Gospells Fayth Baptisme Sacraments the Keyes the Office of Preaching Prayer Holy Scripture and whatsoeuer Christianity ought to haue And a litle before I heare and see that they bring in Anabaptisme onely to this end that they may spight the Pope as men that will receiue nothing from Antichrist no otherwise then the Sacramentaries doe who therefore belieue only Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament meerely in hatred against the Bishop of Rome and they thinke that by this meanes they shall ouercome the Papacy Verily these men rely vpon a weake ground for by this meanes they must deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For we haue all these things from the Pope otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture O Truth more forcible as S. Augustine sayes to wring out (x) Contra Donat. post collat cap. 24. Confession then is any racke or torment And so we may truly say with Moyses Inimici nostri sunt Iudices Our very Enemies giue (y) Deut. c. 32. 31. sentence for vs. 32. Lastly since your fayth wanteth Certainty and Prudence it is easy to inferre that it wants the fourth Condition Supernaturality Their faith wants Supernaturality For being but an Humane persuasion or Opinion it is not in nature or Essence Supernaturall And being imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from diuine Motion and Grace and therefore it is neyther supernaturall in it selfe or in the Cause from which it procedeth 33. Since therefore we haue proued that whosoeuer erres agaynst any one point of faith looseth all diuine fayth euen concerning those other Articles wherein he doth not erre and that although he could still retayne true fayth for some points yet any one errour in whatsoeuer other matter
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
you can possibly be saued But we haue no such dependance vpon you Nay the same Confession which acquits vs condemnes your selues For while you confesse a Reformatiō of the Old Church and neyther doe nor can specify any Visible Church which in your opinion needed no Reformation you must affirme that the Church which you intended to reforme was indeed the Visible Catholique Church if so then you cannot deny but that you departed from the Catholique Church are guilty of Schisme yea and of Heresy For if the Catholique Church was infected with erroneous doctrine which needed Reformation it followes that the errours were Vniuersall and that the Reformation conming after those errours must want Vniuersality of Place and Tyme and therefore be branded with the marke of Heresy For in true Diuinity a new and no Church are all one Moreouer the very Nature Essence of the Church requiring true fayth it is impossible to alter any lest point of fayth without changing the substance of the Church and Religion and therfore to reforme the Church in matters of faith is as if you should reforme a man by depriuing him of a reasonable Soule whereby he is a man And a Reformed Catholique are termes no lesse repugnant then a reasonable vnreasonable creature or a destroied existing thing Wherfore to say the Reformation did not change the substance of Religion but only cleansed it from corrupt and impure qualities are meer wordes to deceaue simple soules And it is a lamentable case that you can neuer be brought from such ridiculous similitudes as heere you bring of Naaman who was stil the same man before and after he was cured of his leprosy Of a field ouergrowne with weeds thistles c. and your Brethren are full of twenty such childish pretended illustrations whereas euery body knowes that leprosy is accidental to a man and weeds to a field but Fayth is essentiall to the Church and that Affirmation or Negation of any one reuealed Truth whatsoeuer are differences no lesse essentiall in fayth then reasonable and vnreasonable in liuing Creatures And Fayth it selfe being an accident and quality consisting in Affirmation or Negation to cleanse it from the corrupt and impure quality of affirming or denying is to cleanse it from its own Nature and Essence which is not to reforme but to destroy it Lastly from this your forced Confession not to erect a new Church but to purge the Old we must inferre that the Roman Church which you sought to purge was the Old Church and the Catholike Church of Christ For if you found any other Old visible Catholike Church which needed no Reformation then you neyther intended to erect a new Church nor to purge the Old 2. You say the things which Protestants (b) Pag. 61. belieue on their part and wherin they iudge the life and substance of Religion to be comprized are most if not all of them so euidently and indisputably true that their Aduersaries themselues do auow and receiue them as well as they If this be true and that the said Verities make vp the fayth of Protestants as you speake then what needed you a Reformation to teach men the fayth of Protestants which they belieued before Protestants appeared Or how can you be excused from Schisme who diuided your selues from that visible Church which belieued those verities which make vp your fayth You say If all other Christians could be coutent (c) pag. 61.62 to keepe within these generall bounds the wofull Schismes and ruptures of Christendome might be more easily healed O words most powerfull to condemne your selues who were not content to keep within those generall bounds which you confesse we belieued but would attempt new Reformations although with so wofull Schismes and Ruptures of Christendome as you hold worthy to be lamented with teares of bloud If our errors were not fundamentall your Reformation could not be necessary to saluation as when the wound or disease is knowne not to be deadly the cure cannot be necessary to the conseruation of life 3. The Reformation which zealous Catholiques did desire and with whose words you vainely load your Margent were not in fayth but manners For which if it be lawfull to forsake a Church no Church shall remaine vnforsaken But of this I haue spoken in the First Part. Luther was iustly cut of by Excommunication as a pernicious member which yet was not done till the Pope had vsed all meanes to reclaime him Prouincial or Nationall Synods may seeke to reforme abuses in manners and endeauour that the fayth already established be conserued but if they go about to reforme the Catholique Church in any one point they deserue the name of Conuenticles and not of Councels 4. What meane you when you say that you left the (e) pag. 67. Church of Rome in nothing she holds of Christ or of Apostolique Tradition Do you admit Traditions Are they fallible or infallible For if they be infallible then may they be part of the Rule of fayth If fallible they are not Apostolique 5. You goe then about to proue that our doctrines are First doubtfull and perplexed opinions 2. Doctrines vnnecessary and forraine to the fayth and 3. Nouelties vnknowne to Antiquity 6. You pretend they are doubtfull and say The Roman Doctours doe not fully and absolutly agree in any one point among themselues but only in such points wherin they agree with vs. If a manifest vntruth be a good proofe your Argument conuinceth If you thinke that disagreement in matters not defined by the Church argues difference in matters of fayth you shew small reading in our Deuines who euen in all those Articles wherein you agree with vs haue many different and contrary Opinions concerning points not defined as about some speculatiue questions concerning the Deity the Blessed Trinity Incarnation yea there are more disputes about those high Mysteries wherin you agree with vs then in others wherin we disagree and yet you grant that such disputes do not argue those maine points to be doubtfull And so you must answere your owne instance by which you might as well proue that Philosophers do not agree whether there be such things as Time Motion Quantity Heauens Elements c. because in many particulars concerning those things they cannot agree 7. In the second place you affirme our doctrines to be vnnecessary and superfluous because a very small measure of explicite knowledge is of absolute necessity But this is very cleerly nothing at all to the purpose For our Question is not what euery one is obliged explicitely to belieue but whether euery one be not obliged not to disbelieue or deny any one point sufficiently propounded by the Church as a diuine Truth Neither do we treate of ignorance of some points but of plaine opposition and contradiction both between you and vs and also among your selues You cite Bellarmine saying The Apostles neuer vsed (g) De verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. to preach openly
we grant that it is not alwayes easy to determine in particuler occasions whether this or that doctrine be such Because it may be doubtfull whether it be against any Scripture or diuine Tradition or Definition of the Church and much more whether the person be an Heretique which requireth certaine conditions as Capacity Pertinacy sufficient Proposition c. which are not alwayes so easily explicated and discerned and for these respects S. Augustine in the place cited (b) Pag. 102. by you had good reason to say That it is hard to know what makes an Heretique But it is strange that you should hold it to be so hard a matter to giue a generall definition of Heresy or Heretique since in this very Section you dispatch it quickly saying He is iustly (c) Pag. 98. esteemed an Heretique who yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded Or as you say else where It is fundamentall (d) Pag. 250. to a Christians Fayth and necessary for his saluation that he belieue all reuealed Truths of God wherof he may be conuinced that they are from God Nay if you will speake with coherence to your owne grounds it is easy for you to define in all particular cases what is damnable Heresy for you I say who measure all Heresy by opposition to Scripture and further affirme that Scripture is cleere in all fundamentall points For by this meanes it will be easy for you to discerne what error opposeth those fundamental Truths which are cleerly contained in Scripture 4. In your discourse concerning the Controuersy between Pope Stephen and S. Cyprian you shew a great deale of passion against the Roman Church which you impugne out of an Epistle of Firmilianus who at that time was a party against the Pope and who in particuler did afterward recant togeather with the other Bishops who once ioyned with S. Cyprian as we haue already shewed out of S. Hierome may be also seen in an Epistle of Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Eusch hist. l. 6. c. 7. wherin Firmilianus in particular is named therfore you are inexcusable who say they persisted in their opinion wheras the proceeding of S. Stephen was necessary to preuent a pernicious error of rebaptizing of such as had been baptized by Heretiques which afterward was condemned by the whole Church And as for S. Cyprians mild proceeding which you so much commend out of your ill will to S. Stephen because he was Pope S. Augustine saith The things which (e) De Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 25. Cyprian in anger hath spread against Stephen I will not suffer to passe vnder my pen. Wherfore you could not haue picked out an example more in fauour of Popes then this And you must giue vs leaue not to credit what you say That both Stephen and Cyprian erred in some sense For Stephen only affirmed that Baptisme was not inualide precisely because it is giuen by Heretiques as S. Cyprian affirmed it to be but yet if the Heretiques erred either in the Matter or Forme of Baptisme Stephen neuer affirmed such Baptisme to be valid which had been more then he granted euen to the Baptisme of Catholiques 5. Your Argument to proue that (f) Pag. 112. concerning our greater safety we dispute against you as the Donatists did against Catholiques I haue answered (g) Cap. 7. num 7. in the First Part. You would make men belieue that we are like the Donatists who washed Church wall and vestments of Catholiques broke their Chalices scraped their Altars c. But I pray you consider whether Chalices Vestments Palls or Corporals and Altars do expresse the Protestant Church of England Scotland Geneua Holland c. or the Church of Rome 6. You spend diuers pages in propounding Arguments for the opinion of M. Hooker and M. Morton That whersoeuer a company of men (h) Pag. 113. doe iointly professe the substance of Christian Religion which is fayth in Iesus Christ the Sonne of God and Sauiour of the world with submission to his doctrine in mynd and will there is a Church wherein Saluation may be had notwithstanding any corruption in ludgment or practise yea although it be of that nature that it seeme to fight with the very foundation and so haynous as that in respect thereof the people stayned with this corruption are worthy to be abhorred of all men and vnworthy to be called the Church of God But because these and such monstruous Assertions proceed from other errours which I haue already both cleerly and at large confuted to wit the Fallibility of the Church the Distinction of points fundamental and not fundamentall c. I referre you to those places and heere onely obserue into what precipices they fall who deny the vniuersall Infallibility of the Church And it is strange that you your selfe did not see the manifest contradictions inuolued in this wicked doctrine For how can it be a Church wherein Saluation may be had and yet be vnworthy to be called the Church of God How can that man haue fayth in Iesus Christ with submission to his doctrine in mind and will who is supposed to ioyne with his beliefe in Iesus Christ other errors sufficiently propounded to be repugnant against Gods word or Reuelation Can submission in mind or will or obseruation of his Commandments stand with actuall voluntary error against his word Is it not a prime Commandment to belieue Gods word Do not your selfe affirme that it is Infidelity to deny whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture How then can a Church be said to haue meanes for saluation and life wherin is wanting Fayth the first ground of saluation The Fathers sometimes called the Donatists Brethren by reason of their true Baptisme not for their possibility to be saued according as S. Augustine said to them The Sacraments of Christ (i) Epist 48. do not make thee an Heretique but thy wicked disagreement And Optatus sayth You cannot (k) Lib. 4◠but be our brethren whom the same Mother the Church hath begotten in the same bowels of Sacraments whom God our Father hath in the same manner receiued as adopted Children namely on his behalfe and for as much as concernes the vertue of Baptisme The Conclusion of your discourse may well beseeme the doctrine for which you bring it A learned man (l) Pag. 122. anciently was made a Bishop of the Catholique Church although he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our bodies You might haue added that he would not belieue that the world should euer haue an end and further absolutely refused to be baptized And that he would not as the History recoūteth liue a single life as other Priests but that he would liue with a wife For Synesius who is the man you meane publiquely protested all these things and you are wise inough to take only what might seeme to serue your turne as this concerning the single liues of Priests did not because it sheweth that in those
credit of Turkes or Infidels And therefore not the Assertion of Bellarmine but the contrary to it is a plaine principle of Atheisme Doe not you proue the necessity of a perpetuall visible true Church because other wise men should want that ordinary meanes which God hath appointed for our instruction Direction Saluation Now if we might haue Scriptures and true Fayth from a false Church your more zealous Brethren who deny a perpetuall visible true Church might easily answere all your Arguments and tell you that a true Church is not necessery for fayth and Saluation And besides is it not in effect all one to say for as much as concernes our instruction Christ hath no visible Church to say that we cānot know which is the true visible Church of Christ All the infallibility which we ascribe to the Church is acknowledged to proceed from the assistance of God how can he be said not to belieue a God who belieues the Church because she is assisted by God Remēber that euen now I told you that according to your owne affirmation the Church is the ordinary meanes wherby Diuine Truth is conueyed to the vnderstāding and yet you thinke your selfe free from Atheisme The Apostles of themselues were but mortal frayle subiect to errour and yet I hope you will not thinke it a Principle of Atheisme to say that all our fayth depends on them 12. You taxe vs for teaching that much of the Matter or Obiect of fayth is not contayned in Scripture any way But I haue already more then once sayd that we belieue nothing but what is contained in Scripture in some sort eyther in it selfe or from some Principle from which it may be certaynely deduced or in those places of Scripture which recōmend the Church vnwritten Traditions to vs as if one should in his last Testament expresse diuers particulars and should in the same Testament referre the rest to some third person whome be had fully instructed concerning his further will meaning whatsoeuer things were performed according to the direction of that third person might truly be sayd to be contayned in the Testament although they might also be saye not to be cōtained therin because they are not mētioned in particular And according to this explication Canus and Stapleton whome you cite and other Catholikes are to be vnderstood when they teach that we belieue diuers things not comprehended in Scripture 13. But you aske with what ingenuity (y) Pag. 146. or conscience doe they pretend Scripture in ech Controuersy agaynst vs since by their owne Confession many of their Assertions are meere vnwritten Traditions leaning only on the Authority of their Church I answere that some points of faith are expresly contained in Scripture yet not so enforcingly as they might not be colourably eluded if we tooke away the declaration of the Church Some others are not contained in Scripture any other way then in the generall principles of the Churches authority and diuine Traditions as for example that such Bookes in particular are Canonicall writings Some others ar◠comprehended in Scripture only probably Others are contained so cleerly that they may seeme sufficiently euident to a man not peruerse and according to these diuersities we do more or lesse alledge Scripture If one were disposed to vse such Arguments as you bring I might aske on the other side to what purpose do you alledge Councels Fathers Reasons if out of Scripture alone you can conuince all errors against your doctrine May not diuerse arguments be rightly alledged to proue the selfe same Conclusion 14. Once againe you returne to the sufficiency of only Scripture that is you returne to speake nothing which concernes the Question in hand which you proue out of Bellarmine though heerin say you as not seldome (z) 〈◊〉 14. contradicting both himseife and his fellowes How consonant the writings of Bellarmine are both to themselues and to the common doctrine of other Catholique Authors this may serue for a sufficient proofe that all his Aduersaries could neuer shew yet in all his works any one contradiction but such as themselues had first forged and then obiected And although in this generall cause I do not willingly meddle with personall things yet that you may learne heerafter to speake with more circumspection but chiefly for the merit of a person so eminent in learning and dignity and yet more eminent in sanctity I will not forbeare to assure the world and you that when some yeares since a perion of high authority in the world had made himselfe beneue that he had discouered many contradictions in Bellarmine D. Dunne in a conference that he had with a person of Honour Worth from whom I receiued it though I hold it not fit heer to giue his name declared that there was no ground for this but that all his works were so consonant and coherent to one another as if he had been able to write them all in one houres space And if you D. Potter be of another opinion you shall do well to produce some instāce to the contrary which may shew a reall contradiction betweene some passage and some other of his works wherin it is odds that you will be answered and he be defended Let vs see also for the present what you bring to make good your asseueration The Cardinall say you grants (a) Bellarm. deverb Dei interpret cap. 10. ad arg 1◠that a Proposition is not de fide vnles it be concluded in this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer God (b) pag. 145. reuealed in the Scripture is true but this or that God hath reuealed in Scripture ergo it is true If matters of fayth must be reuealed in Scripture as this reason supposes then the Proposall of the Church cannot make any vnwritten Verity to become matter of fayth yet to salue the soueraigne power of his Church he makes all the strength and truth in this Syllogisme to depend on the Testimony of the Church and by consequence the truth of the Conclusion which euer resembles the weaker premisse So as if this be true there is no truth in the Scriptures or in our Religion without the attestation of the Church But now how many corruptions sleights and vntruths are couched in these lines Let vs examine them a little Bellarmine hauing taught and proued at large that the interpretation of holy Scripture belongs not to priuate persons but to the Church of God which in respect of vs is to iudge of Scripture and of all other Controuersies in Religion and hauing made this Obiection against himselfe If our fayth depend (c) Vbi supra vpon the Iudgment of the Church then it depends vpon the word of men and therfore doth rely vpon a most weake foundation he giues this answere The word of the Church that is of the Councell or Pope when he teacheth as out of his Chaire is not meerly the word of man that is a word subiect to error
as about the Canon of Scripture c. as also between Protestants and Puritans c. And I could put you in mind of your Brethren who teach that for diuers Ages the visible Church perished and yet S. Augustine teacheth that there is nothing more euident in Scripture then the Vniuersality of the Church as also who deny that Bishops are by diuine Institution who oppose your whole Hierarchy as Antichristian who differ from you in the forme of Ordination of Ministers all which are fundamental points But I will refer the Reader to the most exact Brereley who (z) Tract 3. Sect. 7. vnder ◠reckons no fewer then seauenty seauen differences amōg you punctually citing the Bookes and pages where you may find them And yet for the present I will set downe some words of Doctor Willet testifying your differences From this fountaine sayth he haue sprung (a) In his meditation vpō the 122. Psa pag. 91. forth these and such like whirle-points and bubbles of new doctrine as for example that the Scriptures are not meanes concerning God of all that profitably we know That they are not alone complete to euerlasting felicity That the word of God cannot possibly assure vs what is the word of God That there are works of Supererogation That the Church of Rome as it now standeth is the family of Christ That Idolaters and wicked Heretiques are members of the visible Church let D. Potter heere remember what himselfe sayth of the Roman Church and what he relateth about the opinion of M. Hooker and M. Morton that among Heretiques there may be a true Church That there is in Ordination giuen a indeleble Character That they haue power to make Christs body That Sacraments are necessary in their place and no lesse required then beliefe it selfe That the soules of Infants dying without Baptisme are damned c. Do you thinke that the necessity of Baptisme and other Sacraments the sufficiency of sole Scripture which your English Clergy professeth at their Ordination and those other points are but small matters But besides these and many more there are two other maine generall transcendent differences among you The one whether you do not differ in maine points which though you deny yet others affirme The other what be maine or fundamentall points Vpon which two differences i◠will necessarily follow that you cannot know whether you haue the same substance of fayth and hope of saluation or no. But though your differences were all reduced to one and that how small soeuer that one were sufficient to exclude Vnity of faith among you as I haue often said and proued I haue no mind to spend time in telling you how vn-scholler-like you say Two brothers (b) Pag. 87. in their choller may renounce ech other and disclaime their amity yet that heat cannot dissolue their inward and essentiall relation For when a mans Brother dyes doth he loose any essentiall relation I alwayes thought that essentiall relations were inseparable from the essence to which they belong and the essence from them and a man who still remaynes a man may yet cease to be a Brother It is therfore no essentiall relation 24. I grant that Differences in Ceremonies or discipline do not alwayes infer diuersity of fayth yet when one part condemnes the Rites and discipline of the other as Antichristian or repugnant to Gods word as it hapneth among Protestants then differences in Ceremontes redound to a diuersity in fayth 25. Luther tempered by (c) Pag. 93. mild Melancthon that honour of Germany did much relent and remit of his rigour agaynst Zwinglius and began to approue the good Counsels of peace If inconstancy concerning matters of Fayth be Mildnes Melancton was I grant extremely mild in which respect he was noted euen by Protestāts was disliked by Luther How much Luther relented of his rigour agaynst Zwinglius let himselfe declare in these words which you could not but read in Charity-Mistaken I hauing now one of my feet (d) Pag. 53. in the graue will carry this testimony and glory to the Tribunall of God That I will with all my heart condemne and eschew Carolostadius Zwinglius Oecolampadius and their disciples nor will I haue familiarity with any of them eyther by letter writing words nor deeds accordingly as the Lord hath commanded If in Polonia the followers of Luther and Caluin haue long liued together in concord as you would haue vs belieue the thing being really not true they must thanke the good Catholique King vnder whome they liue who is able and apt to punish when there is great excesse But if they had the raynes in their owne hand what greater concord could be hoped for amongst them in that Kingdome then is found in other places where they haue more power In Polonia there are many Arians and Trinitarians who liue in outward concord with the rest But will you acknowledge them for Brethren to Lutherans Caluinists and your selfe The answere will be hardly made if you sticke to your owne grounds and I may well passe on to the rest CHAP. IIII. YOVR very beginning promiseth small sincerity in that which followes For you make Charity-Mistaken say that Protestants be Heretiques at the lest if not Infidels wheras he only sayth substantially proueth that whosoeuer doth disbelieue any one Article of fayth doth not assent to all the rest by diuine infallible fayth but by an humane perswasion which is a point of great consideration and of which it seemes you are very loath to speake 2. You take much paines to proue what we do not deny For it maketh nothing to the purpose whether or no the Proposition of the Church belong to the formall Obiect of fayth as heertofore I haue told you Nor do we deny Scripture to containe all mattes of fayth if it be rightly vnderstood because Scripture among other Verities doth also recommend vnto vs the Church diuine Traditions though they be vnwritten And you egregiously falsify (a) Pag. 99. Edit 1. Bellarmine as if he excluded the Authority of the Church wheras in the place by you cited de verb. Dei lib. 1. c. 2. he only speakes against the priuate spirit and euen there proues out of S. Augustine that God will haue vs learne of other men We likewise teach that tho Church doth not make any new Articles of fayth but only propounds and declares to vs the old Only I would haue you heere consider that whether or no Scripture be the sole Rule of fayth or whether fayth be resolued into diuine Reuelation alone or els partly into the Proposition of the Church all is one for the maine Question whether persons of diuers Religions can be saued For this remaineth vndoubted that it cannot be but damnable to oppose any truth sufficiently declared to be contained in Scripture or reuealed by God 3. No lesse impertinent is your other discourse concerning the difficulty to know what is Heresy For